RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 640, 19 May 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ASHBURTON— To-day. (Before his Worship the Mayor and Mr R. Alcorn, J. P.) Bow-bow ! —William Duncan was pummoned by Edward Watkins, for .allowing his dog to rush at Kim. Mr Branson appeared for defendant. Complainant said that he had been engaged to do some painting, etc., for defendant, and on ;one occasion of his visiting the latter’s house the dog rushed at him and frightened him. Cross-examined; by Mr complainant said the roasdp he had not laid the information before was that ho had been away from town -.doing some work for Mr E. G. Wright. • Had fiuishe4 his contract for painting with the. defendant before this. There was soma illfeeling between himself and the defendant. Was frightened of the dog when he rushed ■at witness. No one; saw the ; dog’s, attack. The complainant called a witness to prove the savage nature of the dog and that it had rushed at her, but Mr Branson objected to the evidence 5 being received, as it dir( not affect the case in hand. He could, if necessary/ bring witnesses to prove that the dog was; a most harmless, inoffensive animal, and that a little child was in the habit of playing with it. He submitted that the summons, was merely the ohtcoma of the ill-' feeling between the parties and nothing else.—The Bench dismissed the case, Court costs being only allowed.

Alleged Assault ox a Wife. —Peter Jack was charged with assaulting Jane Jack, hia wife, and also with using obscene language in the public street. Mr Branson appeared for the defendant.—G. Oates said he was a storeman in the employ of Messrs Orr and Co. He was in hia house the oilier night, when he heard the cries of a woman for assistance, and on going out saw the defendant striking his wife. He also called the woman names not fit to bo applied to a dog, and of the most disgraceful character, and kicked her. [Mr Branson : Don’t make a speech, Mr Catos.] The witness went on to describe the language used,"'and said the defendant called his wife a pro* stitute, and used very filthy language indeed. Cross-examined by Mr Branson, the witness said that he had not gone to the police to give information about the case; the police had come to him. —Two other witnesses gave evidence as to the assault. —Mr -Branson submitted that a husband was perfectly testified in administering correction to f lie wife when she refused to do as she wss .

told. He believed the still ih " force empowering a ’hrisbafidMso whip his better half, if bo, did' spr'WtJhf no - • thicker than his (daughter.) iLs Worship the Mayor : does not empower a husband to, kick his wife, Mr Branson." - Mr Bvifoson said 1 ‘that Mr Oates .was the. had deposed to tlje- kicking others said, that the woman. Had been simply “struck, 1 ' and he submitted that Mr dates, which Was opijclipa "in that gentle- . - man’s well-known* flowery langdage, niusfc be received with caution; He -conld call evidence to show the assault had been justified.*-—Peter Jack .deposed that his wife ; ■ was ' half drunk when : ■ he went oat to her, and she knocked,him down twice and,used very bad language at the same time. • He was compelled at last to act "as he had done.— Robert Pender .stated that he was residing near the parties and witnessed'thb scene between them. It was a regular ‘'rough and tumble ” affair, in which the lady had ‘the best of it.—Mr Branaoti: And I sappose you heard some poetical language, Mr Pender I — The witness said he.had — Mr Branson said his client was'a respectable man who had never been Ip trouble before, and he had been goaded on;by his wife to strike her. The Bench said they were satisfied that the husband had received great provocation for what he had done, but no provocation,- could be sufficient in inducing a man tp.atrike a woman, much less to kick her. Defendant would he sentenced to fourteen days’ hard labor. Anothbk Case. —Robert Pender was then charged -with assaulting his wife, Margaret-Pender. ’After hearing the. i evidence, the Bench inflicted; a fin’e of 20s . nn the defendant, with the, alternative of ; three days’imprisonment. Foeious Riding.— David Alexander I was charged with this offence, and also I with drunkenness, and the charges being I fully proved was fined 605,0 n the two 5 charges, . , t . • v t Bekach or thb Bohough Bv-iaws.— t J. Hepburnj' for allowing three head > of cattle to be at large, was fined 3s, and ' j 2s costs. M. Digby, 1 for 'allowing three . t horses to wander, was fined 'ss/'and Zs 3, posts. George "Webley, , charged with % leaving a cab unattended, in East street, b was dismissed. 3 Leaving a Hoese Ttfep-to a" Fence all Night.—M. Wilson .Was charged with . cruelty to a horse by leaving, it tied to a e- fence all flight, waafiiied 10a. e The Court then rose.