CROMWELL R.M.'s COURT.

Cromwell Argus, Volume I, Issue 19, 23 March 1870, Page 5

CROMWELL R.M.'s COURT.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 1870. (Before Vincent Fyke, Esq., R.M.)

ASSAULT AT BANNOCKBURN. Oustavus Roudall waa charged with assaulting John Anderson at Bannockburn, on the Bth iust., by striking him with an iron bar. John Anderson, sworn, gave evidence as fob lows I remember Tuesday, the Bth iuat. I waa at Mrs Smith’s house, at Bannockburn, on the morning of that day. Kendall was there about five o’clock. Ho assaultod mo. He came into the house with an iron bar, and struck me over the arm with it. He gave mo several blows with it. There were several other men there at the time. I came and reported the matter to the police. By defendant: I did not break in the door of Mrs Smith’s house. 1 was there all night, and had no occasion to do so. There was fighting going on between myself and Mrs Smith. 1 knocked her down on the floor. I had occasion to do so. I don’t recollect having hold of her by the hair. By the Bench : Mrs Smith hit me in the face twice with a bottle, and I knocked her down. Kendall came in. She sang out to Kendall to go for a revolver, I was drinking in the house all night. I swear that defendant struck me with an iron bar. (ieorge Robertson, sworn, deposed: I am a miner, living at Doctor’s Flat. Know Mary Smith. _ Was at her house at the time the assault complained of was committed. Anderson was ill-using Mrs Smith, and Kendall came in and struck him with something. I do not know whether it was an iron bar or not. 1 did not take particular notice of it. The blood waa flowing from the woman’s eye. caused by a kick from Anderson. < His Worship said he did not think it necessary to go on auv further with the ease. The complainant had plainly been brutally ill-using the woman, and Kendall would have boon uo°mau if he had not gone in and assisted her. Anderson v. Smith.—Charge of assault. This case was withdrawn by complainant. SLY QROQ SELLING. Mary Smith was charged with selling spiritu-

ous liquors in her house at Bannock bum on the 7th inst, without being duly licensed in that behalf. Sergeant Cassells stated that he had two witnesses in attendance to give evidence in the ease hut that the principal witness was in the Duustan Hospital, having met with an accident since the day on which the offence was committed. His Worship decided to hear the witnesses who were in attendance, and would adjourn the case for the production of the other if it was found necessary to do so. John Anderson, sworn, deposed : I know the defendant, Mary Smith. I called at her place on the night of the 7th inst., at about 11 o’clock, and stayed there till about five o’clock next morning. Rendall, George Robertson, and others were there, I had some brandy to drink. I did dpt pay for it, I saw some of the others give t|e defendant money. Robertson gave her money. I saw John Pride there. He sold a hdfcse to Mrs Smith. ' 1 saw him give her some "Inver. He shouted for me. # v By Mr Brough : I will not swear that the money which Robertson gave Mrs Smith was for drink. There might have been some other transaction between them. . George Robertson gave similar evidence, but had nothing to drink during the time hj) was i* s sl}o,Jipuse but a n>bbler of cloves, and did not see any money paid for drinks. He had nothing but a five-pound note, which Mrs Smith could not change. Mr Brough did not think there was any oasa made out against the defendant whatever. There was no proof that any spirituous liquors had been sold, or that any money had changed hands.

Although Anderson said he had drank spirits, therevwas no evidence to show that such was the case. The Ordinance said that spirituous liquors should be held to mean liquors containing at least 26 per cent, of alcohol. He contended that there was not the slightest evidence to show that such liquor had been drunk in the defendant’s house, and he asked for a dismissal of the case. The Magistrate remarked that he would convict in these cases bn the slightest possible evidence which would warrant him in doing so. In the?meantime the case would be adjourned for the production of the other witness mentioned by Sergeant Cassels. m Police w. Innes.—Defendant was charged by Sergeant Cassels with driving a horse over Cromwell bridge at other than a walking pace. •He did not deny the charge, but pleaded that dtysdiQrse had been frightens I at a quantity of ‘iWmoOT piled at the end of the bridge, and he had not attempted to stop him, as it would have been* extremely dangerous to do so. The MagistfSwAuamissod the case and expressed himself

in strong terms at the carelessness displayed in stacking timber at such a dangerous spot. CIVIL CASES. M'Nulty v. Leslie.—Claim of £5 7s. value of saddle and bridle lent to defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed. Parkinson v. Hamilton.—Claim of £25 14s, balance of account for sinking a shaft. It appeared that Hamilton and several others had. agreed with plaintiff and his mate to sink a shaft for £4l, and that the balance still remained unpaid. Defendant said that he had alreadypaid more than his share upon the original contract, and also produced a receipt from Costello for a sum of £B, which plaintiff had not credited the company with. Judgment was given for £l7 14s. Halliday v. Hunter.—Claim for amount of dishonoured acceptance. Judgment by default. Mercer v.. Streeter. —Claim of £7 16s for board. Verdict for plaintiff, with costs. Bailey v. Smith.—Settled out of Court. Morris v. Pierce.—Action to recover the sum of £l7 8s 6J, alleged by plaintiff to have been wrongfully obtained bv'defendant on an 10 U’ given to Messrs Pierce and Washer by him in 1835. Diametrically opposite evidence was given by the parties, and'thecasa was a Ijournod 1 for the attendance of defendant's former partner, 1 and the production of the books of the firm. Mr Brough appeared for the plaintiff.