MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1494, 28 February 1887, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON— MONDAY.

(Before MrH.C. S. Baddeley, R.M.)

DRUNKENNESS.

Two first offenders were eaoh fined 6a and oosts with the alternative of 24 hours imprisonment.

THE MOUNT SOMERS CASE.

Fox v Patton and Murray. — In thi ß case, m which the complainant charged the

defendants, two boys attending the Mourn

Somers school with assaulting his son, also a school boy m attendance at the Mount Somera Sohool. The case had been before the Court on two former occasions but after being partly heard had baon adjoined In order to seoure the attendance of young Fox, who was alleged to have been assaulted, but who was at the times of hearing m the hospital undergoing medical treatment. — Mr Wilding appeared for the complainant, and Mr Purnell and Mr Caygill for the defendants.— The boy, John Fox, was now present aad his evidence was taken to tho following effect: — Ho said that he was 12 years of age. On July 16 last he was m attendance at the Mount Somers School, and during the dinner hour be was participating m a game of " tip-cat". A dispute arose because young Patton refused to go out when he Bhould have done fio. Witness tried to put him up, but as he would not go witness went away and got a stick. Patton picked up another and broke witness's stick. Witness then ran away pursued by Patton. He was caught by Patton and throwa to the ground. A number of other boys then came and jumped on witness's legs and body. Witness was pulled about m a variety of ways before the boyß went away. A subsequent sod file took place, which was cub short by the appearance of the schoolmaster. Patton and witness were eaoh punished by the schoolmaster m the afternoon. The witness's evidence was m great part similar to that given by a boy named Hix, when the case came before the Court some six weeks ago. The witness went on to describe the symptoms felt by h'm since the occurrence. He was still m the hcßpilal and under the care of the doctor. The witness said that the defendant Patton hurt most of all the boys because be executed a sort of dance on witness's stomach with his kaees. Ou the oco&sion of tie second attack on witness, only the two defendants took cart. When the schoolmaster punished witness and Pa'tm for fighting La told the latter that ho had "djne enough to smash a boy's ribs. — The witness wqb cross-examined at considerable length by Mr Purnoll. — This concluded the evidence for the complainant. — Mr Purnell applied that the information against young Murray might bs dismissed, because there waß no evidence lo implicate him m the essault. The Magistrate end there was evidence to the effect that Murray held Fox's hand while Patton assaulted him. Certainly the evidenco against Patfoi was much stronger, and if Mr Wilding desired to withdraw the information against any of tho parties the present was the time t 1 ) do co— Mr Wilding ea'd the defendants had been joint actors m the afEuir, and he could not well withdraw the charge against ono of them. — Mr Purnell then opened the case for tho defence, which ho indicated would bo m the direction of showing that the boy Fox had alwnyßb3en a weak and delicate boy. He might have received some trifling injury, sine) aggravated by neglect, m the schoolboy quarrel, which it was sought by tho other s'de to magnify into an assault. It would also bo shown that the little quarrel m question was commenced by young Fox, who, according to the defence, waa a very ''bad lot." — Mr Caygill then addressed the Court on behalf of the boy Patten He pointed out that the doctor could give no decisive evidence as to how the ii.j jriei, from which Fox suffaied, wero incurred ; wh'ther frcm an assault or an uccidoct.

—Mr Oaygill further submitted tint the information was not legal. Section 183 of The Justices of the Peace Act prescribed that an information for ommoa asßault must be laid within threo months after the taking plica of the alleged offence. In this case tho Alleged a3»ault

took place on July 16 and the information was not laid till December 10. — Mr Wilding argued that the assault wan not a common one; that it wsp one for aamniary oonviotion. — The Magistrate ruled that the information waa clear'y one for common assault, and it was accordingly thrown ont, Mr Wilding intimating hia intention cf again bringing the charge as an indictable offence: ALLEGED OBSOENB LANGUAGE. Samuel Thompson, licensee of the Alford Foreat Hotel, was charged with having used obacena language m a public place on February 16— Mf Orisp appeared for defendant — It appeared from the evidence of Mr 0 H, Smith that he was getting up a petition, having forgitsjobject the closing of the hotel, The defendant on the day mentioned >n the (information accosted the witness, and after conversation as to the witness's acticn, is was alleged made use of very improper language. The witness said that h's reason for moving m the direction of closing the hotel was brcauee cf Ha being ve>y badly conducted. — T. Morgan eald that on Febraary 16, the last witness claimed his attention. He saw Smith and Thorn pBon Btatding on the load, holding a conversation. His impression' *aa that it was not a friendly one, but he waa 100 far away to distinguish word*. — The defendant was put m the box, and twore positively that he had not made use of the language imputed to him, nor of improper language of any description, The defendant also swore that the conversation with Smith took place on the gravel plot m front of the hotel, and net on the road, aDd the witnesses for the prosecution were not m a position to refute the statement. —The Magistrate said that the charge hid not been proved, either as to tho using of the language, or as to its being used m a public plaoe, or audible to anyone par jog by. Information dismissed.

ALLEGED BREACHES JOF LICENSING ACT.

Samuel Thompson, licensee of the Alford Forest Hotel, was oharged- (1) with a breach of Section 146 of the Licensing Act, 1884, by permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises, (2 and 3) with breaches of Section 155 of the Incensing Act, 1384, by selling liquor during the time his licensed premises were directed to be closed. — The following evidence was led by the police: — Ohrlalopher Grieve, bushman at Alford Forest, said £hat on Sunday, January 30, about three jn the afternoon, m company with another man, he wett tojtho defendant's hotel, and both had a glass of beer. Mr Thompson joined them. Witness subsequently got the worse for I'quor and vrent to sleep on the sofa. This was about 10 or 11 o'clock, and witness slept till about 4 o'clock the next morning, Witness thought he had about six glasses of EDgllßh beer, quite sufficient to make Mm drunk. The witness etated that he did not pay for any of the liquor hinißelf, — Archibald McOorrnlck, redding on Alford Station, about eight miles from the hotel, was at the hotel on j Sunday, January 30 He saw the last witness and 2 man named Genberg and Church wood there, ?aw the men have a few drir.ka, but none cf them were drunk whenwitneealefr, about ten o'olock. Witness paid for the (wo drinks taken while ho was there. None of the other men shouted. Everyone was orderly and quiet. l ' ' [Left pitting.]