AKAROA AND RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume V, Issue 498, 22 April 1881, Page 2

AKAROA AND RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday.. April 19, 1881. BicFouii Justin Ayi.meu, Esq., P».M. ASSAULT. X Leprou, on the information of West Ohainhcriain, was charged with assaulting and beating Jane Lepron, his daughter. Leprou pleaded not guilty. Mr Henning appeared for the complaimnt, and called Jane Leprou, who stated she was in the employment of Mr West Chamberlain. Remembered the 13th of this month, when the defendant called at the hotel and asked her for some money. When she told him she had none he then said he must have a sewing machine. He then struck her and kicked her, from which she was still suffering. Her father got all her earnings, and she had partly paid for the sewing machine herself. Her father had paid 28s of a balance. The defendant cross-examined this witness, but elicited nothing important. He contended that as she was his child and a minor he was entitled to chastise her if she was impertinent. Annie Eliza Williams, examined by Mr [Terming, stated she was a fellow-servant of previous witness at Chamberlain's' Hotel, and gave corroborative evidence asto what took place on the clay in question. Leprou was very violent. He pushed his daughter down and kicked her. Witness defended herself with a broom handle, She was afraid of Leprou. The defendant complained of his children being away at service- for two years, and he got no money for them ; he had even to lind them in clothe?. He had seven oilier children, and (hey were generally difficult to manage. He had to be away all day to get a living for the rest 01 the children, and it was too bad he had

to pay bills for the girls, who were supposed to be getting their own living. He claimed the right to chastise his children when he thought fit. Mr Henning said the whole case was a disgraceful one, and Mr Chamberlain had j only been actuated by a sense of public duty in bringing it forward His Worship remarked that every time Leprou had been before the Court—and that was pretty often—it was always for striking a woman. It was disgraceful, and he must mark his sense of. the offence by sentencing him to 14 days 1 imprisonment with hard labour. CIVIL CASK. ..Johnson v^Grange.—This case had been adjoiurij&l fi;6m the'previous Court day for die Consideration of the Bench. His Worship now gave judgment for the defendant with costs, " as he did not consider the defendant responsible under the circumstances." Okain's Bay Road Board v. William. Thac'ker, a elaiin foftFe sum of £5 12s Gd for rates. The'defendant pleaded not indebted. The Clerk of the Board Stated that the money had been paid since the Summons was taken out on the 6th, and the cheque had been lying in the Post Office, Okain's Bay, at the time. He got the cheque on the 13th. It was only now a question of costs. The witness stated that he was in Okain's on the sth inst., but did not call at the Post Office. In reply to a question by defendant as to the reason he did not take the money when tendered to him in Akaroa, he stated that his house in Le Bon's was the proper place to pay rates. Tho witness proceeded in the box to make a speech on the duties of members of road boards being the first to pay their rates, and the defendant being a leading member of the Okain's Board. The Bench at' this stage summarily cut short what promised to be a very nice oration. . : The defendant stated that the money was tendered in Akaroa some time ago, but the Clerk had the sense to know that he was not in a fit state to take it. It was afterwards posted to him in Okain's Bay on April Ist. Mr J. E. Thacker gave evidence that he posted the cheque himself at Ware's Post Office, Okain's, on Ist April. He had a much larger claim against the Board, which they were quite willing to settle, but the Clerk was a superior power, and he objected — hence these proceedings. The money had previously been tendered, but the Clerk was not exactly " perpendicular," and he refused to take it. The witness stated that he could trace the journeys of the cheque, which were peculiar. The Clerk stated in his evidence that he put it into the bank, but now stated he had it in his pocket. On the Bench asking for its production, the Clerk objected, as it was not in evidence. On the Bench insisting, the Clerk then discovered it was at Tom Old ridge's. The Bench said the Clerk told too many stosies about the affair. Judgment would be for the defendant. The Court then adjourned.