POLICE COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8888, 5 February 1889, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

THIS S3 ATX.

Tuesday, February 6.— Before C. E. Rawson, Esq., R.M.

Dbunk. — Berkeley Buubury pleaded guilty to being drank on Monday, this being his third offei.ee within 1 six months. —Mr Pardy said he believed that defendant had a billet at Awakino to which he woild go that day, and he, therefore, would ask His Worship to inflict a fine only. — Mr Newman said that defendant was going to work for him, and he would see that the fine was paid as soon as defendant had earned it. fie pointed oat that when defendant got a little liquor in he was all right on his legs, but very noisy with his tongue. — His Worship pointed out to defendant that be had rendered himself liable to imprisonment, but under the circumstances he wonld fino him 10s. with costs 2«, and give him three weeks to pay U in. — Defendant : Much obliged, your Worship. Protection Order. — Elizabeth Butler applied for a protection order and a maintenance order against her husband, Edward Butler, who did not appear. — After detuiling the case, Mr Pardy called Elizabeth Butler, who deposed that her husband waß a plumber, ia regular employment as long as he kept sober and attended to it. They had 13 children, three of whom were able to work. The eldest, a daughter 19 years of age, was a dressmaker ; the next, a daughter, was 17, and was employed at the Boot Factory at 7s 6d per week ; the third was a daughter, aged 16, who also worked at the Boot Factory, and got 5s per week. The remainder of the children range in age from 14 aownwards. Her husband sometimes gave her £1, 12s, or 5s per week, and last week he only, gave her Is. She had to support him and the children out of this. She depended on her eldest daughter for support. She had to pay 8s per week rent, and her husband had threatened to sell her furniture. She therefore aßked the Court for an order to protect her furniture, and also for aa order compelling her husband to support the children who could not work for themselves. Her husband could earn £3 per weak when in regular employment. She would be satisfied with an order for £1 per week and the protection order, thus leaving her husband with sufficient money to board himself. — His Worship granted the protection order as aßked for (with custody of children), aud olao made an order by whicb defendant had to pay £1 per week, starting from that day week. The protection order was made to date back to February 5, 1886, in order to protest the furniture from defendant, who, the wife said,, had threatened to sell it. The Court roue.