RESIDENT MAGISTRATES'S COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1538, 12 May 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES'S COURT

ASHBURTON— To-day. (Before H. 0. S. IBaddeley, Esq., R.M,) Obstructing the Police Thomas Piuck was charged with having obstructed Oonatab’e Bourk, at Bakaia, in the execu tion of his duty.—From the evidence given by Constable Bourk it appeared that the accused hau taken a prominent part in a fracas that occurred at Rakaia on Friday last. The accused and two other men —who were before the Court on Saturday last—had locked witness in a room at the South Pakaia Hotel. -—The accused said he recollected nothing of the occurrence ; he h?d always made a practice of assisting the police in the execution of theirduty,—The Bench commented upon the serious character of the offence and fined the accused 60s and costs, with the alternative of 14 days' imprisonment, Trumblev Friedlander. —tin the information of ithe prosecutor the defendant was charged with having assaulted the former, at Ashburton, on April 27. Mr Branson for the complainant, and Mr Purnell for the defendant. Part of the evidence for the prosecution, that of the Bailiff of the Court, was taken on May 5. The following additional evidence was now taken Matthew Trumble, the complainant, said he recollected April 27 On that day he went to Messrs Friedlander Brothers’ grain store, accompanied by the j Bailiff of the Court, to destrain upon some grain Witness met defendant then; the latter rushed from the store and caught witness by the throat; pushed him back, threw him on the ground, broke his collar and hat and Dumped his head on the ground. Witness gave defendant no provocation for the assault. Witness had since had great difficulty in swallowing. - To Mr Purnell: Witness was not altogether deaf. He bad not heard perfectly well for years Witness was quite sober at the time of the assault ; subsequently he had a drink with the bailiff. [At this stage the witness addressing Mr Purnell said “T insist upon your coming nearer to me before I answer your questions.” Mr Purnell declined to assume a closer relation'with the accused, and the Bench was compelled to severly caution the witness, who at this stage and throughont the case behaved in a very excited manner.] Witness had not been before the Court for drunkenness for about eight years. He might be about fifty years of age; he did not • recollect giving his age to the police when arrested for drunkenness. Witness had seen the defendant on the Saturday previous to the assault. [Witness subsequently corrected himself, and said he had seen Mr Hugo Friedlander, not the defendant on the day mentioned. He had not seen the defendant until the time of the assault.] H. Friedlander had given a guarantee to pay the rent in case the owner of the grain should fail to do so. Witness had told H. Friedlander his (witness’s] banker had declined to accept the guarantee as money, and H. Friedlander hao altered the wording of the guarantee. H« did not then withdraw the bailiff from the grain upon which he had destrain. He left the matter in the hands of the bailif and his lawyer. The defendant had asked witness, previous to the assault, who he was and what he wanted. Witness had replied that he was the person who had ordered the distraint upon the grain This concluded the evidence for the prosecution, and Mr Purnell called the following evidence for the defence :—David Thomas said his attention had been called to the disturbance described by the last witness. The prosecutor, defendant and the bailiff all appeared very warm. The Oailiff had left the team and grain to obtain assistance to remove the property, but when the defendant attempted to take charge of the property the bailiff prevented him doing so. -R. Friedlander, the defendant, said he had seen the prosecutor some days previous to the alleged assault. He had gone to the grain store on several occasions, and enquired for Ryan’s grain. On the morning of the alleged assault Ryan had delivered two loads of oats to the store. Witness had one load unloaded, and was proceeding to unload the other when the bailiff and the prosecutor presented themselves and demanded payment of Ryan’s rent. Witness had good humouredly said, “ Oh, I am not going to pay this," and recommended them to apply at the firm’s office for the rent. Witness did not then know who the prosecutor was Witness was very busy at the time, but not excited. The bailiff said he was going to seize the grain for rent, Witness replied, “ You can’t do that. Why don’t you go to the place and seize. We have a Hen on this.” The j

bailirr repeated that lie was going to seiza it, but having blown a whistle walked away, and the prosecutor went to the horses’ heads. Witness asked who he was, and the prosecutor replied, “I am not going to tell you ; you will find out soon enough.” Witness recommended hinj if he had to do with the matter to leave the business in the bands of the bailiff Witness had gone to the horses’ and the prosecutor had raised a whip to him. Witness essayed to move the horses and the prosecutor lifted the whip to strike. Witness took him and put him on his back, the prosecutor, trying in the meanwhile to strike. Witness did not bump the prosecutor’s head nor do him any unnecessary violence. Witness had asked the prosecutor three times who he was. On being rele ised the prosecutor said: “ I’ll reduce jour rank. I’ll take the stripes from you.—To Mr Branson ; Witness had heard the bailiff’s evidence. The statement 'diat he had bumped the prosecutor was not correct. Witness had not seen the damage to prosecutor’s clothing. The bailiff and the prosecutor were very uiuqli excited ; witness was not excited. Witness had seen the distress

warrant ; ha recommended the ftailiff to take it to the firm’s office. The prosecutor was in the act of striking witness when he put him (the prosecutor) down. Witness did not see the bailiff at the time of the alleged assault. The whole disturbance did not occupy two minutes.—John Thomas, storeman to A. Roberts, said he recollected the day of the alleged assault. 'He had pen the defendant take the bridles of a team of horses by the head. The prosecutor had also attempted to take charge of the horses, but was prevented doing so by defendant. The defendant then pui the pros cutor down, t’ho defendant appeared a little excited, I and the prosecutor very much so. Th a j prosecutor had taken the defendant by thg ’

coat collar and shaken a whip In his face. The defendant then put the prosecutor on to the ground. Witness saw the whole of the occurrence but did not notice the defendant bump the prosecutor’s head on the ground. It was not a violent assault. William Jones, a storeman to Friedlander Bros, recollected the day of the alleged assault. He corroborated the evidence of the previous witness.—To Mr Branson ; The defendant did not bump prosecutor’s head.—George Sellings, G. I Cox, and Thomas Williams corroborated [ the evidence of the other witnesses for the defence. Hugo Friedlander said the prosecutor had represented to him that he owed money to T. Bullock and requested witness to give him (prosecutor) a letter to Bullock stating that the rent would be paid. Witness acceded to the request, and subsequently, on the application of prosecutor, gave a guarantee undertaking to pay the rent. The prosecutor appeared quite satisfied with the guarantee, and it was understood that he should not distrain for rent. He stated that unless the guarantee was given he would at once distrain. Witns-s had seen the prosecutor and Mr Branson about half an hour after the alleged assault. The prosecutor was very excited but bore no indications of having been assaulted. At the same interview Mr Branson said he had seen no guarantee. [Mr Branson here stated that the witness misrepresented him: what he had stated was, that there was no consideration for the guarantee. The witness repeated the exact words employed by Mr Branson at the interview.] Mhe prosecutor had at first said he had no guarantee, but upon being pressed by Mr Branson, produced, it from hia p cket. Mr Branson crossexamined the witness to show that a verbal agreement existing between the parties bore upon the.guarantee. It was ad. mitted by the prosecution that the guarantee was good.—Counsel having addressed the Bench, the defendant was fined 40s and costs with the alternative of seven days’ imprisonment. After the luncheon adjournment Mr Purnell, on behalf, of the defendant, applied that the amount of the fine might be sufficiently increased to allow of an appeal.—The Magistrate said he was not disposed to encourage litigation. He was sorry that the defendant was placed in such an unfortunate position, particularly as he bore an exceptional character for courtesy and generosity. He (the Magistrate) did not think for a moment that the publicity given to the case would affect the defendant’s reputation in his private or public capacity. —Mr Branson opposed the increase of the fine, and the Magistrate determined not to accede to the application. Breach of ihe Licensing Act.—Wm. Power was charged with supplying intoxicating liquor to one James Patterson during prohibited hours.—Mr Crisp appeared for the defendant.—James Patterson said he had gone to the Royal Hotel at noon on Sunday last. He was supplied with a glass of whisky there. Witness paid for the drink. Subsequently he was arrested for drunkenness. He first took drink in a private house, and then went to the Royal Hotel. He had no drink after leaving the hotel until he was arrested. He could not say at what time he went to the hotel nor how many drinks he had there.—To Mr Crisp ; Witness did not come to town very often. He went to the Royal Hotel to see the defendant in reference to some threshing. The defendant and Toppin knew witness was engaged with a threshing machine and lived out of town.— John McNeil, in the employ of Gould and Cameron, said he had accompanied the last witness to the Royal Hotel on Sunday. They had two drinks, which were paid for, together. The last witness appeared to have had something to drink before he went to the hotel.—William Power, the defendant, said that he had reason to believe that the witness Patterson had on the day mentioned in the information travelled from Elgin to arrange about some threshing. Witness did not hesitate to supply him with liquor, thinking he was a bond fide traveller.—William Toppin, barman at the Royal Hotel, said the witness Patterson had given him to understand that he had travelled from Elgin on Sunday.—The charge was dismissed, the Magistrate remarking that it was without the slightest foundation.— On the suggestion of the Magistrate an information was laid against James Pat terson for having falsely represented himself as a traveller. Larceny as a Bailee.— J. H. Roberts was charged with the larceny of two cheques amounting in value to LlO 5s 9d, —Robert Patton said that on March 31 he had given the accused two cheques amounting to Lll 5s 9d to cash. Witness had not received the proceeds of the cheques nor seen the accused. On April 7th witness received a telegram from the accused stating that the money was at the Bank of New Zealand, Rakaia. Witness enquired, but the money was not at the Bank.—Oa the application of Sergeant Felton, the accused was remanded to Tuesday, May 19. Threatening Language. John Murphy was charged with using threatening language towards hia wife.—Grace Murphy, the complainant, said that last Friday the accused had gone home and behaved in a very violent manner. Witness was compelled to leave the house wi'h her children. The accused attempted to kick her and used very abusive language towards her. Iu answer to the Bench, Sergeant Felton said there was a prohibition order against the accused.—John Murphy, son of the accused, said his father had had a row with ] the complainant on Friday night last, and had used threatening language towards witness as well as to his mother. Rows of a similar kind had occurred during the past few months.—The evidence of Emily i Lowe, Patrick Murphy and Sergeant Felton having been taken, an order was made for the accused to find two sureties of L 25 each and himself in LSO, to keep the peace 'or twelve months.