RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VI, Issue 691, 9 May 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M. Wife Desertion. A. Guy was charged with the desertion of his wife and three children (all of whom are of tender years), without leaving them adequate means of support. The plaintiff, who appeared with an infant m arms, related to the Court the circumstances, and stated that her husband had now been absent for nearly six months, and that during that time she had only received £2 from him, the last payment having been made after the receipt of the summons. She had occasionally got work to provide for herself and family, for which she was indebted to Mrs. Poswillon, as also for food for the little onfis. Her husband was a carpenter, and was now at Tauranga. His Worship ordered that the defendant pay 20s. per week m monthly instalments, from this date, for her support, or m default imprisonment ; and that a copy of the order be served upon him, at Tauranga,, by the Clerk of the Court. Civil Case. Buchanan v. Auckland Steam Shipping Company. — Claim £14 155., for uon-delivery of three hogsheads of beer,

Mr. W. Brassey, for the plaintiff, saidthe case wa3 very simple. Three hogsheads of beer had been shipped per A.S.S. Co.'s Pretty Jane, for plaintiff, by Ehrenfried, Bros., of Auckland, that it was brought down and not since delivered, and that owing to the neglect of the agents m not safely storing it, and giving reasonable notice to plaintiff of its arrival, it lay on the wharf, and was broached by persons who were subsequently convicted of larceny by that Court. Mr. Buchanan deposed to ordering the beer, and receiving an account for same, amounting to £14 15s. He did not get delivery of the beer, and was not informed that it had arrived by the agents until after it had been broached, for which certain men were charged with larceny. -Wharfage and freight had been demanded of him, which he refused to pay, as the beer had not been delivered. He was m town the day it arrived (Saturday), but heard nothing about it. Mr. E. ff. Ward, for the defendants, resisted the claim, and contended that it was through the plaintiff's neglect that the beer had not been removed. After some further evidence, His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs, on the grounds that the goods were not safely stored, and that plaintiff had not sufficient notice of their arrival.