SM. COURT.

Patea Mail, Volume X, Issue 121, 20 October 1897, Page 2

SM. COURT.

Tuesday, 19th October. (Before W. H. Nortbcroft, Esq., S.M.) Mabony & Co. v Edward Gerard, claim £24 los 9d. Mr G. D. Hamertou for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs £2 19s Od. G. D. Hamertou v W. Kauika £7 7s Od Judgment for defendant. Mrs Miriam Coheu v Edward Ross and Elizabeth Ross; claim £l9 8s lOd, Mi G. D. Hamertou, with him Mr Barton, for plaintiff. Mr H. E. P. Adams for defendant. Mrs Cohen, sworn, said she was a storekeeper at Waverley and knew Mrs Ross, who had been dealing at her shop for some time. Mr Ross never came to bei shop. Her daughter kept her books ano entered the name as Mr Ross in the books. She had always been paid by Mrs Ross. Mrs Ross told her that she ban separate property of her own. One of Mrs Ross’s daughters worked as a dressmaker for her, the girl’s wages were credited to the account just before :bc case. She bad been to Ross’s bouse to ask for the money, but bad been told nothing could be done in the meantime. Cross-examined by Mr Adams—-Mrs Ross, I believe, is a married woman living with her husband. To Mr Barton: I can’t either read or write consequently I never read the bills that were sent out; I trusted Mrs Ross because she was the “ man of business ’ and Mrs Ross always paid the accountand never Mr Ross.

Mrs Ross was next sworn, and occupied the court for over three hours, the mam features of her evidence being that sh had been living in Waverleyfor 22 years. Her husband had earned sufficient tokeej his family in a position equal to his own. She had worked herself, apart from her husband’s work, for the special purpose of being enabled to give her children advantages which her husband’s position alone could not give. Since 1886 she had kept cows and sold the milk and produce, and she considered herself entitled to spend that money in any way she liked. The house was hers as the land was bought with money which belonged to her before she was married. She also bought other land and sold it, realising £4O odd. She had raised a mortgage on her house to enlarge , it, as it was not sufficiently large for the family, and the money realised was intended to pay off that mortgage. _ She had made money by her cows having sold milk, butter, calves etc., aud being eritirely her own money she considered herself justified in applying such moneys for her childrens’ advancement, as she deemed right. Her husband’s earnings she considered quite enough to keep his family in his position, but she worked in orde' o secure the few advantages for tie children and did not feel called upon t nay accounts for the ordinary necessaries of life. Mr H. E. Adams addressed the court on the legal questions at issue, aftm which Mr Barton addressed the bench at considerable length, and at the conclusion of the address the bench said before Mrs Ross’ could be made liable separately from her husband’s estate, it must b shewn that the credit was given to her. Whereasjin the present case the defendant had lived in Waverley for twenty-two years, had bills covering many years always made out to Mr Ross, which he thought was almost of itself sufficient to shew that the credit was given to Mr Rcss. To succeed, he considered it would be necessary to shew that credit® was 5 given to|Mrs Ross. in com t | were all made out to Mr Ross, and it was also proved ihat at one time when plaintiff asked defendant for payment she was referred to Mr Ross by Mrs Ross and went to him, thus shewing that she expected aud was expected to get payment from Mr Ross. In his opinion unless it was shewn that credit was given to the wife, they could not obtain judgment. Plaintiff would, therefore, be nonsuited with costs. ! Application was then made for a nonsuit in the case against the defendant, Mr Ross. The Magistrate saw some technical difficulty in that, as the husband had con fessed judgment. Eventually the question was adjourned until next Court day. Police v. James Mercer, claim for maintenance of children in industrial school. This case had been adjourned from April to enable the defendant to produce a statement shewing his receipts and expenditure for that time. This was put in and Constable Carr iufoiniei the court that in the interval defendant had lost his wife. After asking a question or (two the Magistrate [cancelled the order. Court then adjourned,