CROMWELL R.M.’s COURT.

Cromwell Argus, Volume I, Issue 25, 4 May 1870, Page 5

CROMWELL R.M.’s COURT.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27. (Before Vincent Pyke, Esq., R.M., and 0. W. Goudyer, Esq., J.P.) RESISTING THE POLICE WHILE IN THE EXECUTION OF THEIR DUTY. Charles Binge, —• Douglas, and W. Lament (011 remand), were charged by Sergeant Oassels with resisting the police while in the execution of their duty at Logantown, on Sunday, the 30th March. Lamout did not appear, and" Binge and Douglas denied the charge. From the evidence of defendants’ witnesses it was clear that there had not been any interference with the police, who had apparently ordered a number of men off the street at Logantown on the evening in question, while, as it appeared from the evidence, they were quietly conversing. The Bench dismissed the charges, remarking that the police had been exercising undue authority, and were exceeding their duty in the course pursued. ASSAULT AT BANNOCKBURN. William Howell and Charles Lawrence ware indicted on a charge of having committed a violent ami unlawful assault upon the person of John Halliday, at Smith’s Gully, Bannockburn, on the 15th April, with intent, &c. Mr Brough appeared for both defendants, who pleaded not guilty, and applied for their discharge, upon the ground that they had been arrested without a warrant. This objection to the legality of the arrest of defendants was, however, over-ruled by the Bench, as the assault took place on Good Friday, when it Was shown a warrant could not have been obtained without considerable delay, and as it was certified by Mr Halliday’s medical atte idant that his life was in danger at the time. Another preliminary objection was raised as to the informal nature of the information, as Mr Halliday’s life was not now in danger, and the offence committed was therefore not an indictable one. This objection was sustained, and the case before the Court was dismissed ; but defendants were then arraigned on the fresh charge <>f 7 unlawfully assaulting John • ialliday at Smith’s Gully, Bannockburn, on the 25th of April.” The defendants pleaded not guilty. Mr Brough applied to have the cases tried separately, as otherwise they would be deprived of each other’s evidence in the case. The request was granted, and the case of Howell was first taken. A large amount of evidence was taken in both cases, but as a good deal of it was of very little importance, we merely give, the medical testimony, and the evidence of prosecutor and defendants. John Halliday, sworn, deposed : I am a hotelkeeper at Bannockburn. On the afternoon of the 15th inst. I was in my slaughter-yard. I saw Howell and Lavrence working in their garden. There were six or eight of my small pigs opposite the garden, and Howell jumped out and deliberately killed one of the pigs with a sluicefork he had in his hand. 1 walked up, picked up the pig, and demanded payment for it from Howell.' He soil, “I’ll pav you,” and made a rush at me with the sluice-fork. I caught his eye, and when bo aimed a blow at me I dropped. He missed the I<l w, and the fork Hew out of his hands. A struggle ensued, and eventually, being the stronger party, I placed his head between my legs, and h-. Id him there. VV hen so fixed, he made an att< mpt to catch me with his teeth. He bit a piece out of my trousers, and I then threw him back. The struggle continued again for some time, when Lawrence came up with a shovel in his hand. —[The witness here proceeded to give evidence as to the assault committed by Lawrence, when he was requested by the Bench to confine himself to the charge against Howell.] Howell kicked and bit me after Lawrence arrived. A man named Robert Scott then came up. I was driven into Cromwell by a man in my employ, and Dr Corse dressed my head. I gave information to the police. 1 have been under medical treatment ever since the assault. Robert Scott, a miner, living at Bannockburn, was then examine I, but nothing of importance was elicited from his evidence. He deposed to arriving on the sce ie when Halliday and Howell were struggling, and that he and Lawrence, who was standing by, separated them. Charles Law.ence, miner, living at Smith’s Gully, was then examine 1, and gave evidence as follows : Remember the 15th of April. Was at work in the garden. Saw Halliday coming towards the garden. He was about 40 yards away. Howell went out to him. I did not see a sluicefork in Howell’s hand. They began fighting. To the best of my belief, Halliday struck the first blow. I could not swear to it, however. I went out and tried to part them. Halliday had Howell down, and was trying to choke him. I sang out “ Let go !” but he would not. I managed to part them, but they got up and fought again. lam a mate of Howell’s. We have suffered damage through Halliday’s pigs. They have caused injury to our race. 1 went to Hallidav, and asked him to keep) his pigs secure. He gave an insulting reply. Henry Behrens also deposed to having witnesse I the struggle, but no fresh evidence was given by him. There were no other witnesses called, and Mr Brough applied for the discharge of the accused, as there was no evidence to shew that any damage had bean caused by Howell. The Bench decided to hear the case against Lawrence before giving their decision, and it was then proceeded with. John Halliday, sworn, said : When Lawrence came up, he said “ I shall not see my mate beat.’” He had a shovel in bis hand. I was in a stooping attitude at the time, holding Howell down. Lawrence raised the shovel over his head, and struck me on the centre of the head with it. I bled a great deal. I came into Cromwell, and Dr Corse dressed ray head. I have been under his treatment ever since. I stayed in Cromwell for three days under his care. The witness was cross-examined at some length by Mr Brough, and in answer to one question said that he might have lost three-quarters of a gallon of blood. He was certain that he had lost half a gallon. Sergeant Cassola deposed to haying received information of the assault, and to the arrest of the accused at Bannockburn. Dr Corse, being sworn, said ; I am a duly qualified medical practitioner, residing in Cromwell. 1 remember being called from the Gorge on the loth inst. to attenil Mr Halliday. His head and the cloths in which it was enveloped were saturated with blood. On strict examination I found an oblique lacerated wound, 2Jin. in length, on the surface of the skull, an abrasion at tho base of the skull, and an abrasion on right temple, which was also much swollen. TIIO features were very much discolored. I shaved his heal, and dressed the wound. I gave him some medicine, and saw him to rest. The wound was a lacerated one, and I should think it was by a blow from a shovel. The abrasions might have been caused by a fall or a blow.

By Mr Dalgfeish : Thera was a. very slight fracture of the skull. I examined the patient

next morning, and found two bruises over the riba, which might have been caused by a kick" [ considered the patient’s life in danger when Sergeant (Jasaels first spoke to me, b/ Mr Brough : On the following morning I found that there was no depression of the parietal hone, and I then considered his life out of danger. I passed a probe through the fracture in the skull. The fracture was a very slight one. I remember Dr Thomson coming up. The patient was ignorant of his coming. There were two persons who came with him. I objected to allow those two persons to go in to ace the patient. I introduced Dr Thomson to the patient, who declined to allow Dr Thomson to see his head, as lie said ho was getting free from pain, and did not want to be disturbed. I left it entirely to Mr Haliiday whether he would allow Or Thomson to examine him or not. I should think he had lost three pints or two quarts of blood. It is a difficult question to answer. _ This concluded the evidence for the prosecution. Mr Brough addressed the Court at considerable length for the accused, and called Howell, who gave evidence to the effect that Lawrence endeavoured to separate Haliiday and himself when struggling; and that the shovel was from ten to twenty feet away from where they were. Robert Scott, sworn, and examined : Lawrence had no shovel in his hand. There was a shovel there, but it was some distance* away. Both Haliiday and Howell were bleeding profusely. Haliiday was not senseless. Lawrence picked up the shovel and went away with it. This concluded the evidence The Bench, in giving judgment, said that so far as the charge against Howell was concerned, it had been a free fight between the parties, and dismissed the case ; but in respect to the charge against Lawrence they considered that a blow with the shovel had been struck. It was a most cowardly thing to do, and they fined the defendant £lO and costs of Court, or two months’ imprisonment. SLY GROG SELLING. Jane Wilson was charged with the above offence. A number of witnesses were examined, but as they swore they had all drunk peppermint, a conviction could not be obtained by the pal ice. CIVIL CASES. Mitchinson ami Harrison v. Jesse Geer.—This was au action brought by complainants against defendant to obtain possession of a building at Ligantown, which he had unlawfully converted t > his own use, or in default thereof to recover from him the sum of £SO. Mr Brough appeared for complainants. From the evidence it appeared that plaintiffs had purchased from James Stevenson, a baker recently in business at Logantown, the building in question ; and that the same building had subsequently been purchased by defendant for £l2. A witness for plaintiffs swore that he had distinctly told defendant to have nothing to do with Stevenson’s building, as he had sold it to the plaintiffs Judgment for plaintiffs—defendant to give up possession of building, or pay £3O. Sraitham v. Carl Nelson. —Claim for board and lodging. Judgment by default. Colclough v. Horrigan. —This was a most egal affair, having reference to certain goods id to have been feloniously removed from aiatiff’s premises. The case was adjourned or the compulsory attendance of the constable who executed the search warrant. Counellau v. Mayor and Corporation of Crouawe’l.—Claim of £43, water supplied to the town of Cromwell. Mr Bailey appeared for pi lint ffs. There being special circumstances in the case ( dr Bailey having previously appeared for plaintiffs in a former case in connection with the s ime subject) Mr Brough did not object to his acting. Mr Badger had been instructed to appear on behalf of the Corporation, but as Mr Brough objected to both agents appearing to the exclusion of himself, Mr Badger retired. Case adjourned to allow of the Corporation securing legal assistance.