Magistrate’s Court.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XVIII, Issue 1773, 18 December 1885, Page 2

Magistrate’s Court.

«— - - GP.EITOWN—WEDNESDAY

(Before H. A. Stratford, K M.)

Maria Huston, a poor deformed little won., i -i charged Jamm Uaxtou, hot husband, with failing to support. This case was adjournt-i from last sitting of lire Court through tbu nou.iipt'c-arance of plaintiff when the eai* • was called on. Mr Gray, in this case, appean d for the complainant, and Mr Sandilainhi fin the defence.

The complainant, on being examined by M t Gray, deposed that she had been married about two and a half years He had frequently left hot for a week at a time without proper provision, either in food or money. She was frequently compelled to depend on her neighbours for food. She (plaintiff) left defendant on the 27th September lust. He told her she could go, and subsequently she went to reside with her brother, John Ureal head, at Carterton. She had also been ill used by her husband, and ho bad threatened to put a knife into her. Cross examined by Mr Saudilandfl : She signed the paper produced of which Mr Gray had a copy, to tile effect that for obvious reasons she agreed with him to hve apart. She would not have signed such a paper but for fear of injury from her husband. She had no other reason tor signing the agreement apart from fright. She still consider the defendant was bound to suppsrther. She left him owing toeontinued ill usage ; her age was 38. Because her father had died and left her nothing in his will, defendant had threatened to put au axe through her. Mrs Maria Jackson gave corroborative evidence, and informed the Court that plaintiff hai told her that she and her husband had agreed to separate, and had signed a document to that effect; witness blamed the plaintiff for signing such a paper. Constable Eccleton gave evidence regarding the complaint and service of the summons, and corroborated the evidence as to the reports of defendant's neglect, ill usage, <ftc, ; he had beard from a man named Pole that a document such as as produced in Court was in existence.

The Bench consideaed that there was sufficient evidence of neglect, itc., and as imprisoning might only tend to harden defendant’s heart still further ; he would nut be sent to gaol, but would requite to pay into Court every calendar month the sum of £3 for and on behalf of his wife.

CIVIL CASES. Adam Armstrong v H. F. Logan, a gar* dener, and A. H. Mills. Claim LG. Mr Gray for defendants. Adjourned till Jauuary 6.

H. W. Kempton v Martin Te Ore. Claim L 5 18s. In this case judgment was given by default on No 4. Defendant applied for a re-hearing on the assumption that the local constable had informed him that no Court would he held in Greytown on Nov 4, which on being placed in the witness box he swore was the cause of his absence.

Constable Eccleton swore that the defendant had never spoken to him on the day in question. Application for re-hearing refused. Judgment to take effect accordingly. ” RAZORS IN THE AIR.”

Mr Stratford, R M., underwent a remarkaby uncomfortable sitting in the Greytown Court on Wednesday. On taking his ceat the worthy R.M. was much annoyed by a refractory window blind that would persist in hanging crooked, notwithstanding the effort* of the bailiff to alter it. The next unpleasant circumstance was the production of a telegram by Mr Gray, the local solicitor, who desired to confess judgment thereby at counsel for defendant. This offending document the Court would not recognise for a moment "as evidence, and on Mr Gray expostulating by saying that the Magistrate’s ruling was contrary to the usual practice, a* telegrams were generally admitted in Courts, was peremptorly informed that a telegram was not sufficient and an adjournment of the case must ensue Mr Sandilands, another solicitor, then essayed to come to the rescue, as a amiews atria, and supported Mr Gray’s argument, saying he had never heard any objections by the Bench in this matter before, where counsel on his own responsibility, produced a telegram consenting to judg. mont,—when he was politely informed by the Bench that he could not be allowed to make any remarks, not being concerned in the case before the Court. Number four difficulty was with a plaintiff in a case where a re-hearing was applied for—the plaintiff, under the impression that the re hearing was to be held there and then, consenting but when informed'that the case would bo adjourned till next sittmgof the Court, withdraw, iughia consent, thus causing the Bench much vexation and extra trouble. But the great climax to all the misery was when the Clerk in answer to the BencU announced that the next sitting of the Court would be on the 3oth December. This was the straw that fractured the camel’s back, the Magistrate, in a most deprecatory manner exclaiming, “ Well, Mr Freeth, if you wish me to sit dm lug the holidays I am qul:e wiliiug to do so, but I understood you this morning to say that you had arranged otherwise ' Afier this outburst, flic KM. wound up ly saying, " I cannot tuink what makes ev.>'thing so croeked to day, 1 fancy it mint be something in (be air,”