AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 3, Issue 303, 13 June 1879, Page 2

AKAROA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, June 3. (Before 11. H. Fenton and W. B. Toswill, Esqs., J.'sP.) CATTLE TRESPASS. A. Phillips was fined 5s and costs for this offence. ILLEGALLY ON PREMISES. A charge of this nature, preferred by J. D. Ganvood against W. Johnson, was withdrawn by consent of the Bench. LUNACY. P. M'Gibbon, on the evidence of Drs Watkins and Guthrie, was ordered to be sent to Sunnyside as a lunatic. Civil Cases. CURREGH V. VANGIONI. Claim, £41 13a 7sd. Mr Joyce appeared for defendant. Mr Joyce contended that, as the amount in dispute exceeded £20, the case could no; be heard in the absence of the Eesident Magistrate, even by consent of both parties. After some discussion, the case was adjourned till Thursday, the 12th inst. ANNING V. BROWN. Claim, 18s 6£d. Judgment for amount claimed and costs. RODRIGUES V. LUCIEN LIBEAU. Claim, £1, for money lent. Defendant pleaded payment. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. (Mr Fenton here left the Bench, and his Worship the Mayor took his seat.) ASSAULT. Luke Perham was charged with violently assaulting one Elizabeth Ferrana, a married woman residing at the Head of the Bay. Mr Joyce appeared for the defendant. The story told by complainant, her husband, and a witness named Murphy was to the effect that on the 24th May, after looking at the sports at the Head of the Bay, they went into the Somerset Hotel, and had some liquors. After the second or third " round " had been brought into the room an altercation arose with defendant, who forcibly seized one of the glasses, and on being remonstrated with, knocked Murphy down, and was proceeding to kick him, when Ferrans interfered and endeavored to protect Murphy. Defendant then turned on Ferrans, and complainant interfered to endeavor to prevent his assaulting her husband, when he knocked her down and kicked her. In cross-examination complainant admitted having taken two glasses and a half of porter, and aleo that she had taken three young children with her into the public-house. Both she and the other witnesses, however, strongly denied having been intoxicated at the time. Mr F. W. Williams was called, but his evidence was not material. He stated that he had seen that a disturbance was going on, and had run in to pick up a child and place it in safety. He knew nothing of the alleged assault. Defendant deposed that he had not in any way interfered with complainant or her witnesses. Hβ had gone into the room to see another man on business, and while there had been assaulted by Murphy. He had endeavox-ed to defend himself, whereupon Ferrana and the rest mobbed him, and he remembered no more till he was being brought to by having water poured over his faco. He distinctly denied having , struck complainant. Michael Higgins was called as a witness for the defence. He deposed that complainant was not sober ; her husband was rather more so. Defendant was ''hearty," neither drunk nor sober. He corroborated defendant's account of the affair. He ad-

mitted having been locked up for drunkenness the same evening. . Constable Smart deposed that the last witness was the most troublesome man on the ground. He was wantihg to fight everybody, and the police would have arrested him sooner, if they had a lock-up to put him in. At the time the disturbance took place Higgins was certainly too drunk to know anything of the matter. Mr Joyce considered the case a most disgraceful one. The conduct of the complainant had been disgraceful in the extreme. He called attention to sundry discrepancies in the evidence, and submitted that the police should be instructed to lay informations and have all the parties bound over to keep the peace, which would meet all requirements, and act as a cantion to them all. The Bench intimated that they would retire to 'consider their judgment. BREACH OF PUBLIC-HOUSE ORDINANCE. The same defendant was then charged with creating a disturbance in a licensed house. Mr Joyce, for defendant, contended that the information was bad. The charge was laid under section 35 of the Canterbury Ordinance. The offence provided for in that section was being guilty of riotous conduct and " refusing to leave." This latter was not alleged in the information, which was consequently bad. The Bench adjourned the Court for half an hour, to enable them to come to a decision in each case. On the Court resuming, defendant was fined £10 and costs in the first case. In the second the Bench sustained Mr Joyce's objection, and dismissed the case. The Court then adjourned.