ELTHAM.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 September 1920, Page 6

ELTHAM.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. '.(From Our Own Correspondent.) Sept. 22. Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., presided over the fortnightly sitting of the Magistrate's Court to-day." BY-LAW CASES. J John McLead, of Kaponga, charged with being drunk in charge of a horse and cart at Kaponga on September fith >vas fined 40s and costs 7s. Dennis King* charged with allowing Btock (including two mules) to wander on the Eawhitiroa Road on August 31, was fined 40s and costs 12s. CIVIL CASES. Judgment for the plaintiff wag given by default in each of the following eases: ; C. E. Betta (Mr. Gibson) v. M. Loveridge, £3 7s Od (costs £1 7s 6d); J. J. Davison (Mr. Gibson) v. M. Loveridge, £3 4s lOd (costs £1 7s 6d); J. Arnold (Mr. Gibson) v. J. Marriner, £8 0s Od (costs £1 lis 6d); same v. M. Loveridge, £3 14s 6d (costs £1 7s Cd); 6- Lissaman (Mr. Gibson) v. J. McCandlish, £2 12s 3d (costs £1 4s 6d). MAINTENANCE CASE. Dennis Brew was charged with failing to obey an order requiring him to pay £2 a- ( week towards the maintenance of his wife, the arreas amounting to £lB. Mr. T. B. Cruro,p apepared for the complainant. Defendant declared that he did not know the order was in existence as his wife had promised to withdraw it. He maintained that he had left his wife with plenty of money, but that she had given false testimony in the Court. He was proceeding to make further statements about his wife when Mr. Crump objected, remarking that Brew could not make such statements unless he applied for a variation of the order. The Magistrate ordered defendant to give evidence on oath. Defendant on oath, stated that he had been working oh a contract in the Omona district, and had earned £SO in three weeks. He had not been in town since he had taken the contract, until the previous Wednesday. Mr. Crump suggested that Brew had been in town on another occasion. Defendant replied that Mr. Crump did not know anything about the matter. The Magistrate warned Brew not to become impertinent or he would be liable to be convicted for contempt of court. Defendant, continuing his evidence, paid he had refused to pay his wife anything until tho man whohad broken up his home got out of the house. The man was not his son-in-law, but his son-in-law's father. Mr. Crump protested against such statements by defendant. The Magistrate made an order requiring the defendant ot pay the £lB arrears of maintenance within 48 hours, in default one month's imprisonment. Mr. Crump said he had been informed that Brew was not obeying the terms of the separation order, and was annoying his wife. Defendant said he had stone to the house to get some of his; clothes. The Magistrate warned defendant that if he continued to molest his wife he would be liable to imprisonment. Defendant: Then all my home and all my work for it goes for nothing? The Magistrate: I cannot help that. Vou must obey the terms of the separation order or you will be fined or imprisoned. A DISPUTED CLAIM. Edward Antony Laurent .(Mr. T. B. Crump) claimed from Joseph Kerr (Mr. A. Stewart) the sum of £2OO damages, in respect to a loss alleged to have been caused through the failure of five of the plaintiff's cows to come into profit owing to the impaired efficiency of his bull, which had been running on defendant's farm, and for loss of produce occasioned by the cows not coming into profit. After hearing the evidence of a numbed of witnesses the case was adjourned until next sitting day.