RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 664, 16 June 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

ASHBURTON. -To-day.

Before Joseph Berwick, Esq., R.M., and Dr Trevor, J.P.)

Assaulting a Female. —Fred. Howar was charged, on remand, with assault. The defendant failed to appear. Ilia Worship said that the best course would be for a warrant to be issued for his arrest. Bueaches ov Boiiougii By-Laws.—F. Betts, J. Ward, G. Martin,F. McFarlane, J. Doyle, J. McConnell, Win. Miles, and Wm Bennett, were eacii fined in sums varying from 5s to 20s, for allowing cattle to wander at large.—G. Webley, for leaving his cab unattended, was fined 20s —Samuel Lucas, for allowing his chimney to catch fire, was fined 10a.—L. Price, for carrying moat in an uncovered state through the town, was fined 10s. Assault.— Edwin Thomas was charged by Edward Oughton with assaulting him. —Mr Purnell appeared for the defence. — Constable Hicks deposed that he remembered the 9th of Juno. In consequence of a complaint made to him he proceeded to the house of Mr Oughton at 3 o’clock on the morning of that day. Found Oughton in a bad state, with his eyes “ bunged up,” and thereupon sent for a doctor.—Fanny Oughton said she was the wife of Mr Oughton, and lived in Wakanui road west. Her husband returned home about half-past ten on the morning of the 9th inst. He was suffering from injuries to the eye and back ofthohead. Reported the matter to the police.—Edward Oughton, who appeared with a bandaged head, said that ho was looking after the billiard-room at the Somerset Hotel on the night of the 9th. Saw defendant there, and said “ Good evening, Mr Thomas.” He replied, “Oh, good evening, be d d : you are the man who refused me a drink at Quill’s Hotel ” Complainant replied that when he was behind the bar be was obliged to do as he was told. Thomas thereupon struck him and knocked him down, inflicting the injuries from which ho was then suffering. Tliis happened at twelvs o’clock at night. Thomas was in liquor at the time.—Cross-examined by Mr Purnell: The complainant said that Thomas had called upon him on the day following the assault, and first offered him L 3 and then L 5, offering at the same time to pay the doctor’s bill. This offer was refused, and subsequently Thomas sent complainant L 5. Returned this as soon as he saw Thomas, and would have returned it sooner had he known where Thomas resided. Had Thomas offered what complainant considered “reasonable compensation” he might have accepted it. There was no ill-feeling between himself and the defendant, who was the worse for liquor at the time of the assault.—Sergeant Felton was about to call evidence as to Thomas’s character, and to show that he had been in trouble before on similar charges, when Mr Purnell objected, on the ground of irregularity. Such evidence was not admissible. The defence would be that the complainant had brought his punishment upon himself, having used very improper language to Thomas in the first instance, by saying ho could “ bring a man half his size who could punch his b head off.” Then, again, the parties had agreed to square the matter for the L 5, and it was therefore already settled, and beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. Had it not been for the interference of the police the affair would not have been heard of.— Edwin Thomas gave evidence to the effect that the assault with which he was charged had been provoked by the offensive language and bearing of the complainant, to whom he had subsequently offered L 3 to settle the matter. Complainant had agreed to square it “ for another L2,” and had accepted the cheque for the L 5 then and there.—The Bench were satisfied that a brutal assault had betn c immitted by a big man on a very small man, and the police had acted perfectly right in making the matter public. Defendant would be fined L 5, pay all the expenses, and also the Court costs—the sum amounting in all to Ll2 14a. Habitual Drunkenness, —Win. Smith, against whom a charge of habitual drunkenness is pending, and on whose account an application to the Bench to restrain publicans from serving him with liquor, is to be made by the police, was called, but failed to appear. Case adjourned for a week.

CIVIL CASES. Wilding v. Zouch and Sargent. Claim, L 3 ss. Mr Wilding appeared on his own behalf, Mr Branson appeared for the defendants.—

Mr Wilding said the account against the defendants had been repeatedly sent in, but had not been paid, each defendant alleging that the other was liable.—Crossexamined by Mr Branson, Mr Wilding said he had been at one time in partnership with Dr Foster, who had become insolvent. Was perfectly certain that nothing was said by Dr Foster to tho effect that if there was “ no case there would be no charge.” Dr Foster might have made such an offer, but it was “ wildly improbable ” —lsaac Sargent deposed to seeing Dr Foster on his case, and he had distinctly said “ no ease, no pay.” Mr Zouch had also seen Dr Foster on the matter.—Mr Branson contended that tho claim was a partnership account, and one partner could not claim without the consent of the other.— William Hall Zouch said he was asked by Mr Sargent with Mr Ivoss to put a certain matter in the hands of Messrs Foster and Wilding in order that they might take an action against a local solicitor. Mr Ivess sent for witness, and stated that he thought there were good grounds for proceeding with tho action. Witness saw Dr Foster, and after consultation, he agreed to give all papers and documents in his possession to Foster and Wilding to proceed with the case, on the distinct understanding that witness was not to bo hold responsible for one penny of costs incurred, nor was witness, on tho other hand, to get any share of the proceeds of such action if successful. Witness never promised to pay the amount claimed to Mr Wilding, but undertook to see Mr Sargent on tho matter. Had returned tho accounts to Mr Wilding, stating ihat they would not be paid by him (witness), as ho never admitted tho liability.—Mr Branson addressed the Bench, and submitted that tho charges were most exorbitant, even supposing the liability was acknowleged. Hi’s client (Mr Zouch) was in no way responsible, and if any claim could be made, it must be made against tho other defendant. —Mr Wilding said that as both defendants appeared they acknowleged their joint liability.—Mr Zouch said that Mr Wilding had informed him that , he

preferred making him pay the account in- I stead of Mr Sargent, and therefore no summons had been served on Mr Sargeant.—The Bench nonsuited the plain- 1 tiff, with costs. Watkins v. Argyle.—Lß 18s 9d. —Mr "Branson for plaintiff ; Mr Wilding for defendant. Judgment for defendant, Court costs only allowed 1 Patrick Toomey v. J. Maynard.— Claim L2 ICs, for work done at la an hour. Mr Branson for plaintiff; Mr Purnell for defendant. The defence was that the work done was done in satisfaction of a claim of the defendant Maynard’s for half the cost of erecting a dividing fence between his section and the section occupied by the plaintiff. Plaintiff had agreed to work out his share of the cost of the fence, but subsequently repudiated the arrangement and took the present action. Judgment for defendant, without costs. The Court then rose.