AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 2, Issue 202, 25 June 1878, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, June 21. (Before Justin Aylmer, Esq., R.M.^ CATTLE TRESPASS. H. H. Fenton for an offence of this nature was fined 10s and costs. ASSAULT/ . J. McNeil v. L. Perham.—The plaintiff deposed that he was.at the Head of the Bay on the 13th inst., and, on entering a room in the hotel, where Mr Bridge was settling up accounts after the auction sale, the defendant accosted him in a sneering manner, and asked him if he was going to buy a certain section of land. He, the plaintiff, replied that he did not want anything to do with the land or the defendant. Upon this the defendant struck him a treacherous blow in the face. By the defendant—l tried to borrow some money from you at one time in order to purchase.land. I was .sober at the time when the assault took place. Had had a glass or two. I never had any down on you. H. Dicken deposed that he saw Perham strike McNeil in the face. McNeil in reply to some question of Perham's, said he was a deceitful man. Perham then struck him. ' By defendant—That was all I heard McNeil say. C. W. Bridge gave evidence to the blow having been struck. He had happened to look up from the table where he was sitting, just at the moment when Perham struck McNeil. By defendant—Did not see McNeil shake his fist in your face. Did not hear bad language used on either side before the blow was given. A. I. McGregor said he happened to be going along the passage of the hotel, and witnessed a row going on between the plaintiff and defendant. Heard bad language used. By defendant —Did not hear McNeil call you a mean scamp. Saw you shove McNeil with your elbow and tell him to clear out* Did not see him shake his fist in your face. J. Everett deposed to being in the room at the time of the row. Heard plaintiff use bad language to defendant, and saw him shake his fist in his face. Did not see defendant strike McNeil. Sergeant Ramsay drew the attention of the Bench to the assault being committed in a publichouse. The Bench fined the defendant 40s and costs 10s with one witness' expenses 17s. Civil; Case. R. Bayley v. C. Duduit.—This was a judgment summons for £12 19s 9d. Order made for payment of 5s a week. F. Hahn v. H. Hewer.—Claim £16. Judgment by default for amount claimed with costs. G. Armstrong v. F. Hahn.—Claim £6. The defendant pleaded not indebted for that amount. The plaintiff deposed to having let the defendant a room for four months at £6. He had told him the rent when the verbal agreement was made. The defendant stated that he had rented the room for the four months. Before his taking possession, the place was in a delapidated state, and he had asked plaintiff to get it repaired, who said -that if he liked to make improvements he could do so, and he would allow him £5 off the rent. The place was in such a state as not to be private. He, the defendant, employed a Carpenter and had the necessary alteraiionsirnade. The plaintiff hiniself had pointed out the place where a door was to be cut through to the back premises. When settling up, he charged the full rent, and would allow nothing for improvements, as he said that was only provided he took the place for a twelve month. By tlie; plaintiff—l remember the time I cut the door through. You did not forbid my doing it, but on tlie contrary, pointed out the place where it was to be cut. I never called and asked you what rent you wanted for the back room. The plaintiff deposed that he let the defendant only one room, hot tho kitchen. A week or ten days afterwards he called and asked the amount of the rent for the back rooms. There,, were two separate agreements. If he' took them, £5 was to be allowed off the rent for necessary improvements. On the strength of this he cut a door through to the back of the house. When this was known he asked defendant if he intended to take the back rooms, he said no, and was then refused a thoroughfare to a portion of the house which he did not occupy. The allowance of £5 off the rent was with the understanding that the rooms were to be taken for twelve months, that is, both parts of the house. The improvements as he calls them were not done before he l took the place, which he got at a lower rent than former tenants. F. Arming deposed to remembering Hahn living next him. Did not recollect the plaintiff coming down to forbid the door being cut. The plaintiff said if the defendant did not rent the back portion of the house, he would have to go round, the same as witness had to do before renting the rooms at the back of his shop. The house certainly wanted something doing to it. The Bench reserved judgment until the 25th inst.

A. K. Harlbck v. B. DeMalmanche.— This was a claim for -£13 12s, for tuition, and clothing supplied to defendant's son, when under plaintiff's charge. The defendant admitted the tuition, but denied that, he had ever given any authority to the plaintiff to purchase clothing for his son. He always dealt at.one store, and had actually ordered clothing there for the boy, which he had believed his son had had, and was wearing. Was not-aware that the clothes were purchased elsewhere. The Bench gave judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed with costs.

The Court then adjourned,