MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 3507, 19 October 1899, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temtjka Tuesday, October 17,1899. [Before G. A. Wray, Esq., S.M., and B. RichardaoD, jnr., Esq., J.P.] MAINTENANCE; Teka Kati Eeihana, better known as " Scotty," was charged with failing to comply with a maintenance order made on 24th August, 1897. Mr Raymond appeared for relatives of the child (whose mother is dead) and Mr Aspinall for the accused. Hare Kahu gave evidence as to the ability of accused to pay the amount named in the order, 4s a week. He was in receipt of more than this from land. Mrs Moses also gave evidence. Mr Aspinall submitted that the order could not be enforced, as no order for the custody of the child had been made. The original maintenance order was made in favour of the child's mother, since dead. The defendant wished to have the charge of the child, but the mother in law, Mrs Moses, objected. The defendant stated that he went over to see the child with Mr Aspinall. Ihaia Rehu acted as interpreter. Witness did not see the child, and Mrs Moses, his mother-in-law, said she wanted to have nothing to do with bim at all. She left him with the impression that she wa3 willing to take the child and not bother about the four shillings. Witness went away fo Little River to work. Was engaged to be married, and his prospective wife was willing to take char e of the child. Had no control over lands to which he was entitled.

By Mr Raymond : The child's mother got an order for maintenance. Had paid for about a fortnight. Did not know how much money he was entitled to receive from his laud at Arowheuua, Waipopo, Kapunatiki, etc. He received whatever there was to come from Kiti. Had earned a, little as a laboring man. Was able to support the child, but could not pay 4s a week. Could keep a wife because the Maori got cheap living by fishing. Witnessed fenced the questions repeatedly put as to the means at his immediate disposal, out in reply to His Worship admitted having 2s 9d in hand.

Edward W";taka, chief at the Arowh'.nua Pa, said be was trustee for the accused. Scotty's title to his land was not clear yet. The total ot w >at he receives is less than &2. Mrs Waaka, or Mrs Leonard, would look after the child. Seott-y was kind to the child while he lived with Charlotte (the mother). The reason the order was made was that Scotty and she had rows. The ifirl to whom Saotty is engaged is a respectable girl, educated at Te Ante coli«go. The child would bo in good hands. Scotty was fond of the child, and is a sober, industrious man.

By Mr .Raymond : Supposed the reason he only had 2s 9d was that he must have had tucker to pay for. Ihaiali Kehu, a resident at Arowhenua, recollected Scotty and Mr Aspinall visiting the pah in 1897. Witness' recollection did not appear to be very clear, but he stated that Mrs Moses, who had th-j child, would not let the child go. She would keep the child, and would not bother about the 4s a week.

Mr Raymond submitted that the natural guardian of an illegitimate child, the mother being dead, wonld be the grandmother. The father was from a legal standpoint a stranger. He contended that Mrs Moses was therefore the proper person to look after the child ; certainly a more suitable person than the fiancee of the father. Whether Mrs Moses had said she did not want the 4s a week had nothing to do with his legal position. He did not wish to press unduly on the man, but only asked that the accused be made to pay arrears and a reasonable sum for maintenance.

Mr Aspinall quoted from the Act to show that the putative father of a child being willing was entitled to its custody. His Worship said that the father appeared to b 6 of a roving disposition, and from the evidence had not been in the past a person to whom the custody of a child would have been entrusted. Under the circumstances he did not feel inclined to make an order for enforcing payment, as he was not satisfied as to his ability. He was prepared to make an or !er that the child be left with Mrs Moses. If at any future time the court was satisfied as to accused ability to pay he should expeot some contribution to be made. Another case—Williams v. Williams.

This was an application for a variation of an order by suspension for twelve months.

Mr Raymond appeared for the applicant, and Mr Aspinall opposed the application on behalf of Mrs Williams.

The chief grounds of the application were that the applicant is unable, owing to increasing blindness, to follow his regular occupation, and affidavits to this effect were put in. Mr Raymond submitted, too, that circumstances had changed, and the wife and family were not in such distressed circumstances.

Mr Aspinall submitted that the applicant ought to be present for cross-examin-ation, and su-.'gested that he be brought back from Wellington. His Worship pointed out that the correctness of his statement could be verified by reference to the Wellington police, and the case was adjourned for a month to enable a report to be received from the police as to the correctness of the applicant's statements. PROHIBITION ORDER. A prohibition order was granted against a country resident, to apply to the Geraldine and Pareora Licensing Districts for 12 months, ALLE63SD THREATENING LANGUAGE. A young man, engaged as a ploughing contractor, was charged with using threatening language towards Constable Gillespie with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, and also with furiously riding in a public place. Mr Raymond for accused, who pleaded not guilty. James Andrews, constable stationed at Temuka, stated that he was on street duty on Saturday night and saw accused sometimes riding and sometimes leading a horse. Occasionally he brought it on the footpath. He brought the horse upon the footpath at Mr Hancox's shop, and when spoken to said he was going home when he got a pair of boots. He then got on his horse and made an insulting remark. Later as he was riding away he made' use of some further expressions arid used threatening language,. Constable Gillespie said he would see him on Monday. When accused'rode away l;e did so at the rate of about 2Q miles arj hqur:. By Constable Giilespie: There were people about who could hear the language used.

By Mr Kaymond : His attention was directed to, accused through his taking his horse on the faqcpath. He T?as a llttlo under the influence of liquor. Constable Gillespie gave corroborative evidence. By MrEaymond: Attributed the accused's conduct to being under the influence of liquor. Mr Raymond said that when instructed his client had no recollection of having used the language complained of. He only recollected having his horse on the footpath. He would now withdraw the plea of " not guilty " and ask that the eharge ; ba dealt with as lightly as pbssible;' His Worship cautioned the accused and fined him 20s 6n each charge, aud ; cos'ts, l LUNACY. A young man who has been of weak intellect since childhood and whose propensities, it was stated, might lead him into mischief, was, on the application of the police and on medical certificate, committed to Sunnyside Asylum.