MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13861, 26 March 1907, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, March 23. \Bcforo Mr 11. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) Judgment was givon, by default, in the lolWmg undcfonded cases:— Dunedin Engineering and Steel Company (Ltd.) v. Osmond Butler, Greymouth), claim £16 10s -Id, audi costs (£1 9s); John Hutchison v. WilliamWarren, claim £1 is, balanco duo for goods supplied, mid ■ costs (7s); Duncan and MacGrogor v. Daniel Miller, claim £.15 2s Gd. amount duo for hire of two draught horses #11(1 harness, with oosta (£4 13s); M'Dougall and Co. v, Sarah A. Organ (Inverenrgill), cluim £.! 39s Bd, amount due on a dishonoured promissory nolo ami interest thereon, with costs IDs); Milford Sound Greenstone Company (Ltd.) v. Leonard Williams (or Hinata Wircmu), cluim £G 14s 9d, for goods supplied, with costs (£1 Hs 6d); Dawson and Co. (Ltd.) v. Frederick Marshall, claim £4 9s Cd, for isoods supplied, with costs (10s); T. E. Shiol and Co. v. Arthur and Francis Stanley (Invercargill), •claim £33 5s 2d, for goods sold and delivered, with costs (£1 ICs); Ahlfield Bros, and Co. v. Dajtiel Jones and Co. (Westporf), claim £10 lis Cd, goods sold and delivered, with coals (it 10a Gd); Otngo Farmers' Co-operative Association of New Zealand (Ltd.) v. John Overend Hewton, for costs (10s); Christopher M'Grath v. William Albert ltoad (Wangamii), claim £U 103 Gd, part of balance of purchase price o[ dwellinghouso and interest, with costs (£2 Us); Maurice Joel v. Arthur Dnnn (Grcymouth), claim £5 18s, goods sold nnd delivered, with costs (£1 3s Gd); A. Tapper and Co. v. Arnold Woodnieyer (Alexandra), claim £18 15s 2d, goods sold and delivered, with costs (XI 10s Cd);'Ahlfold 13ros. and Co. v. Sydney Beatlv (Timani), claim £G 19s, goods sold and delivered, with costs (£1 3s Gd). Summary Separation.— Elizabeth Jau o Powell applied for a summary separation front her husband, Kobcrt Powell, on the grounds of wilful noglect io provide reasonable maintenance, and persistent cruelty.—Mr Emslio for complainant.—Aftor hearing ovidonco an order was granted as prayed for the paymont ot 25s por week, the wife to have custody of (hi children. Cosls were allowed amounting to £2 lis. 'Maintenance Arrears.—Agnes Elizabeth King v. Georgo Alfred King.—Claim JH6, maintenance and on a deed of separation.— Mr Solomon, for plaintiff, said ho was extremely sorry for the defendant linving to ippear in court, but unfortunately the posiiion had been thrust upon them. Defendant had not. been living with his wife for liouw time, complainant having commenced a suit for a judicial separation, m connection with ' which there iiad, it would be remembered, been a disturbance in 0110 of tho streets some tinio back, but in order to uvoid tho necessity of the parties appearing in court, thereby giving publicity to their differences, ajid also to give Mr King an opportunity of retrieving himself, two members of tho legal profession hud waited upon defendant, and ultimately they were enabled tc arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, by which defendant entered into a deed of separation in the ordinary way. The terms in part wcro tliat tho parties were to live apart, and King was to pay his wife i'lois a year by monthly instalments. Tho deed was executed in duo course, but neither t)ie first or tho recoml monthly instalments had been paid. Jfr King had been ivritten to and interviewed without avail. Ho simply refused to discuss tho matter. It was an unpleasant stale of affairs, but one that could not be allowed to go on. Defendant must cither pay or show Hut he has some defence to ofter.—The Magistrate: Mr King admits that he has no defence.—Defendant said it was not because 110 was unable (0 pay tho money that ho was in court, but simply to protest against the agreement, which "was iv most unfair one. lie must admit tho d.'ed uecimse he signed it.—Evidence was then tendered by D. 1). Maodouald and A. K. Ga«coignc. solicitors.—Defendant said what he objected to was the' methods that hud been adopted to _ K et him to sign the deed.—Mr Solomon. Yon liavo no right to say that.— Tho Magistrate: I have 'no option but to make eii order for the amount.—Costs amountii)g to I',) 4s wcro allowed. Deftnidful Case.—Antonio Poro v Gcor«o Taiaroa (Otakcu).—Cluim for £12, for materials furnished and work and labour dono at dolcudaut's ■ request in digging a drain 50 chains long or thereabouts, according io agreement between the parties.—After hearing leilglliy evidence the case was adjourned until- April N in order to allow. Mr Irwin to call further evidence.