"MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Colonist, Volume L, Issue 12235, 6 May 1908, Page 2

"MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

NKL.SON-TUEUDAY. MAY 5. (Before Mr H. Eyre Kenny, S\M. ) DRUNKEKtfES^ANU WINDOWBREAKING. John JMcLeod, who was fined -on Friday last for riding a bicycle on a footpath, was charged with jtiaVing been, found drunfe.ott the .previous evejaing; with breaking a 'pane of glass at the Wakatu Hotel; and with stealing a bottle of wine from the same place. . Accused pleaded guilty to the first two charges and the oria of theft was withdrawn. . . ,>r On the charge of .drunkenness ac T cusad was fined 3a io, default ?4 hours ,impf Ssdnrfen ii with hard, labors |or. ■ breaking the window, he was fined 10s and ordered to pay 20s cost of pane of glass, 'in default 7 days imprisonment with hard labor. B,e.fore he was flued ftqeusdd f^aid he would take a prohibition order out against himself, but later when asked by the Magistrate if he wished to oonsent to an order toeing lilade aeeused said b§ w6uld "try hinji self H as he objOcted ta Having his nanie ported, in tb© Kotefsi The Magistrate again said that prohibition orders applied to the -whole of New Zealand and any prohibited person going mto a hotel or on to hotel premises for any purpose was liable to be fined. ALLEGSD tf AiLtfKfi %Q OLEAR NOXIOUS WEEDS. The case of William Bird, of! Spring Grove, charged on the information of the Inspector of Noxious Weeds with having failed td comply, w lth a notice to clear noxious weeds from the road fronting his idndj wljieh was j pattly heard at Brigfttwatej.', and adjourned to Kelson tor judgment, was taken. Mr Fellappeared for the Department, and Mr Hayes for defendant.

Mr Fell asked that the charge be withdrawn, as a clerical error had been made in the notice and the Department did not wish the Case dismissed on a technical point where a principle was involved; The Magistrate said .it would* be hardly fair to defendant- to allow this to be done as he already been put to expense, and such a course would enable the Department to take fresh, proceedings against defendant. He bad decided to dismiss the infor mation on the grounds that the notice was defective..

Judgment was also given in the case against the same defendant, charged with being the occupier of certain land at Spring. Grove, which he failed to clear, at the proper season of the year, of blackberry, gorse, and sweetbriar. Mr Fell appeared for the Department and 'Mr Hayes for the defendant. The Magistrate said that theN Department had proved that the proper deason for clearing blackberry was front) November to March, for sweetbriar from December to March, and that gorse could be cleared at any time of the year; So far as I '"black berry and 3w6e"tbriar W6ro Concerned, the information laid on 3rd March 'was therefore premature. The defendant, had proved that there was a small patch of gorse near the middle of the foad .fronting defend' ant's pi'upet'fcy, and the defendant was liable to clear" this, and his opposite neighbor the other half, but it would be^adsurd to caii upon defendant to clear thi3 g'orsei as it was intermingled with, blackberry and. sweet briar; which he could not then be compelled to qle'ar : . The in : formation would be dismissed, without prejudice. CIVIL CASES. Judgment for plaintiff was given in the cases William Lock (Mr Maginnity) v. Archibald Blincoe, claim for £5 16s 3d, costs 8s 6d. ; Thomas Vercoe (Mr Maginnity) v. Henry Bishop, claim for £1 ss, costs ss. . I A MATRIMONIAL CASE. The hearing of the case Lake v. Lake, a wife's petition , for a separation from her husband, on the grounds of persistent cruelty, was resumed yesterday afternoon. Mr Hayes appeared for petitioner and Mr Jfpjginnity for defendant. The defence to the petition was taken. William Edward Lake, the defendant, deposed tbat he was a gas and water titter for the City Council, and bad been in , their employ for nearly 3ix years. His average I . weekly earnings were' about £2 3s or £2 4s. lie bad lost no time during the last sis months from any cause other than public holidays. Ever since he bad been married (bout I' 2 years) he had handed his wages to his wife — that wad up till the last pay, which he used to pay some debts. The pay before last his wife took five sovereigns out of his pocket. A boarder sent him £4, and he gave his wife three pounds and kept one. Once within the last six months he laid bands on his wife, but he did. not strike her. About the 10th April, he had words with his wife, and she struck him on the temple when opposite the bedroom door. He caught her by the throat, and pushed her on to the bed. That was the first, and last time that be had laid hands on his wife. About three weeks before the last incident, one morning, at the breakfast table, his wife threw a cup of tea over him. His wife said "You've got a. grand mouth on you," and he replied "you've got a beauty." This was the cause of the cup of tea being thrown over him. About two days after his wife asked him to get a tin kettle repaired, but he replied it was not worth it. Then his wife started playing up and using bad language. It was not exactly swearing — she said "Go on you— cur. " Ha., did not call her any bad names before these words were used. That was the incident in the kitchen relatfld by Stanbridge. Witness called Stanbndge out and told him to take her away, or else he would hit her. He denied striking her, although ho may have had his hands up they were not near her. He could not explain the cause of the domestic disturbances. His wife had. a "beautiful" temper — "beautifully bad." He had been invohed in trouble with his neighbors on account of bis wife, nod be had got his wife to apologise through the papers for something she bad said about Mrs Floyd. His own conduct during the past six months had been very good. He was not- a Good Templar, but every time he had trouble at_home he had a-drinK or two. He denied ever mentioning the Invercargili tragedy to his wife. A day or two afterwards she said he had used the words, but he denied it, and said he would make her prove it. Up till within the last fortnight his wife and himself had occupied the same bedroom. There were eight lodgers in the house, but it was not necessary tor her to keep them. He had always kept his wife and child, and was willing to do so. (A testimonial as to character of. defendant from Mr AtchesonSunitli, City Engineer, was put in. The latter stated that defendant had, sinoe he had. been in Nelson, only

lost time on public, hojidaya.) ,00 told the boarders a forth ignt ago that he wished them to leave. He remembered saying words to his wife when they had the row in the bedroom. It was over when Stanbridge came in. He admitted getting an axe to prize open his wife's bedroom door. He had tried to open it before getting the axe. He wanted to say '< good-night" to her. During the present year; he had not gonjß home drUnk more Man' thrive tinaeit; He would sweaf tbathS ne*ei J pulleoi his wife dbwnstairs By t^o naif tiy her head. ,T;he irijitden^-jreif errea fo. occurred .{before t Oytf^t'niasi biit-p^e did not! know at fabafc hour of tße night it took place. Had only had one friendly chat witb i frjs wife during t,he last three months, although they bad been occupying- the same roomi It was a bard thing to say whose fault it was, .. ■

By Ml 4 Hayes: £fe wds nqt'f@ddy to live with his wife— not tiii.ttiiqgd were 9traigbt©nc"d up". Whether h8 was ready. to support his wife separately depended upon her. . When things were going smoothly at home he went for weeks innd weeks with.-, out taking j a.. v , dr-irik; Cfettlrif? H' bottle o| whisky meant troubifewith hia wife— getting a bottle of beer .sometimes meant the same. He had spent some of his Wages on drink during the last fortnight. In March last be got the liquor mentioned in Hoiinsell'a bill (produced). He was seat there' for it; He raighS haV4 got drink eladwh.Srej but he paici^f it. It jfeolifvery little lid uor> to irialft? h i nl d f ii ok. iJ e j waa not ndrun k when he toid the boarders lo clear out.| Re-examined by Mr Maginnity: His wife paid the tradesmen's accounts), and his wages went to his /Sometimes his wife gate him a shilling to spend on Saturday night. He would not live with bis wife as.long as" She kept hoarders, but he tf?a^ prepared to Gome ,ta term's Witii her if she would giv3 theiii tip 1 , .•• ■ '■ >!''••■ Aurenia Constance Sloau, married woman, deposed that she had known Mr and Mrs Lake for toe past three years. She could not give any evidence of the conduct of the parties during the past six months. Dominus Catherine Osbora, stated that^he had ktiown Mr and Mrs Lake for quite twelve months. Sb 3 lived with them until 21st December last. For two months prior to that Mr Lake's general conduct in his own house was that of a gentleman. She nevet saw anything wrong botweea defendant and his wife, noi? had ehe\ Sqen him treating hei? cruelly; Mrs Lake was not a good tempered woman — sometimes she was all right. £By Mr Hayes : Between now and December she had never seen Lake under the influence of liquor. Kate Floyd, married woman; stated that she had known Mr attd^Mrs Lake for rive years, only asijieighboura. During the past six months She had seen Mi Lake the worse of liqurtr two or three times"; Witness was hot surprised at this, because she knew his wife's bad temper— rather. They left h,er neighborhood about three months' ago. She never saw any cruel conduct by Lake towards his wife. About Christmas time Mr Lake came from his house; to her back door with a wound over* hi 3 eye. She heard Mrs Lake call her tiusband a b— — on New -Year's evening. She had hoard Mrs Lake use bad language on other occasions. -■■ • •■■- -. * ■- •• ■■■■'

By Mr Hayes: Mr and Mrs Lake went to town together atfer the Ne* Year incident. She didn't know what started the dispute. She was not on friendly terms with M'-s Lake, but she was with Mr Lako. He neve* gave her anything of Mrs Lake's— not even jam. There was trouble about something Lake had given her daughter, Charles William Floyd, husband df the previous witness, stated that three months ago .Mrs Lake ran away from her husband. She alao left a small child on the street, and his daughter took it in, and' looked after it. Uake\ brought eggs on two occasions for the chud. Subsequently Lake brought in some jam, and left it there. The jam was a rewafcd for their kindness 1 to the child; H8 believed Lake gaVe gome old tabl| linen to his daughter, bnt some of it was returned; The child was. with theni about a, fortnight, till the mother returned; Mr Lake alad gav| his daughter a wringer and l>t ii mincing machine — they we,re return^ cd. Mrs Lake made no arrangement for the care of the child when ghe went away. He bad seen Lake " merry " on two occasions prior to the Lakes leaving the neighbourhood. Mrs Lake was a woman with a bad temper. . . . .. i, , By Mr Hayes! WHen Mrs Lake went away she aid not leave her sister in the house. He was not quit© sure about it. Lake also brougbt.a bam into them— that was the only thins tbat was not returned. The other things were returned after Mrs ifcake came back; . | Counsel then addressed the Court. The Magistrate said be had very little doubt as the^order, but it would be more satisfactory to both parties if he read the evidence before giving judgment. He hoped to give judgment early next week; The Court rose at R. 30 p.m;