RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Cromwell Argus, Volume III, Issue 139, 9 July 1872, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, July 4. (Before E. 11. Car aw, Esq., R. M.) BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALKS V. JOHN MARSH. This was an action to recover £47 55., the amount of a cheque which had been dishonoured. Mr F. J. Wilson appeared for the Bank. The defendant pleaded not indebted, stating that he admitted having signed the cheque, but denied his liability to pay the amount claimed. Anthony Christophers, agent at Clyde for the Bank of New South Wales, examined by Mr Wilson : —I gave Charles Clark, the payee, £47 ss. for the cheque. The cheque was presented in due course at the Cromwell Agency, and was returned dishonoured. (Loss-examined by defendant:—l sent notices of dishonour both to you and Mr Clark, and asked both of you to pay the amount. Saw’ you on the 25th of May, and you told me to try and get the money from Clark. On the 7th of June 1 saw Claik at Alexandra, and he promised to remit the money from Dunedin. John Marsh, the defendant, made on oath the following statement :On the 19th of May Mr Lawrence was in want of a horse, and he a«d I together bought one from Charles Clark. I gave the cheque as a matter of accommodation to Lawrence. Lawrence took the horse home and found it was useless to him, and he afterwards came in to Cromwell and told me so. At the time of sale, Lawrence was unable to pay for the horse, but said he would be in a position to pay the money on the following day. Clark said he would accept my cheque, and would take it with him to Dunedin ; and by the time ho reached Dunedin, Lawrence would be in funds. 1 served notice on Mr Freshaw to stop payment j of the cheque, as it had been given for a horse i which had not turned out according to warranty, j His Worship stated that Mr Marsh had offered 1 no valid defence, and he had no alternative but ' to g've judgment for the amount claimed, to- ! gether with 255. costs of Court, 235. witness's j expenses, and 425. solicitor's fee. I THE HOKSE-WIIIPPINH CASE: TALKOVS V. MARSH. | The plaintiff claimed £SO damages for assault and battery committed upon him by defendant on the evening of *2lst June. Mr F. J. Wilson appeared on behalf of Mr Tall toys ; and Mr Marsh had the assistance of Mr Ailanby. i’be defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of ■ assault and battery, but submitted that he had ‘ revived gross provocation. j 11 appeared from the evidence of defendant’s j witnesses that on the date above-mentioned the j complainant was informed that a meeting of ! shareholders in the Elizabeth Company (of which 1 he was a director) was to be held at the defend ■ dant s house, the BriJge Hotel. On hearing this, ihe complainant said, “ What’s the use of holdj ’tig the meeting down in the lowest house in the j town?”—or, “ It’s the lowest house in the town : 1 consider it next to Mrs Box’s or, “How I the devil can’t you find a more respectable house | than that? It is one of the lowest houses you | can hud in town.” 3he complainant attended [ the meeting in the capacity of chairman, but left : abruptly 1 efore the business was concluded ; j whereupon Messrs Towan and Graves, who were ! present, and who felt annoyed at cogilpiain'int’s j sudden departure, began “chaffing the defen- | dant about bis bouse being “the lowest in the town.” The defendant at first treated the mat- | ter liehtly, but. on being told what the plaintiff l had said, ho asked, “ Does he mean to insinuate that 1 keep bad characteis in the house? ’ The defendant being sworn, made the following statement : —I was so annoyed at the statement made by complainant regarding my house that t went to his shop and struck him with a whip. He retaliated by striking me with a hammer-headed whip. \Ve closed, and I being, the stronger, complainant went to the floor. I ; threw him down to take the hammer-headed j whip from him. The matter affects mein many ; ways. I have been for the last seven years an- ! noyed by people calling my house the lowest j one in town, and I could tolerate it no longer. I 1 assaulted Talboys for no other reason hut to I have the matter investigated. Cross-examined : —I went and got the whip | from hitlers, saying it was for a customer, and if it didn’t suit 1 would return it. 1 didn’t wish iit thrown on my hands. Tiie “customer” was | L’albovs. 'I here has been previous unpleasanti ness b ■tween Talboys and me. | W. lalbovs. the complain ant, made the following replication : —My explanation to Marsh j was that 1 said, “ Why do you want to take the nr cting so tar away—to the lowest house in the town.' \ou might just as well take it up to : Mrs Box’s ; it was equally inconvenient for i me- I never made use of the expression, “ How | the devil can’t you find a more respectable house than Marsh’s.” Mr Ailanby briefly addressed the Bench, contending that the slanderous assertions made by ’ the plaintiff more than justified the trifling cas- ' tigation he had received at the defendant’s 1 hands. Mr Wilson submitted that a most unwarrautI Able assault bad been committed by the defen- • dant; and said that although the damages • j sought to be recovered were of course to a great I extent fictitious, they should yet be fixed at such 1 ! <T sum as to prevent other persons from following la similar course to that pursued by the dtfem . dant. . i The Resident Magistrate gave judgment as ' ! follows:- . j “ 'Flic assault and battery has been admitted, . j Ttid defendant has pleaded gross provocation. The provocation which the defendant has set up I is that plaintiff had called his house ‘ a low ’ house.’ Three independent witnesses for the j defendant have sworn without hesitation that in r i conversation with plaintiff, he (the plaintiff) used > j language which they understood to convoy that s imputation. The substance of these conversa--31 tions was convoyed to defendant; and I must i j say that to attack a man's character by imputing . I that the house kept by him. his wife and family’, j is a low house, is a very gross provocation indeed. II Ihe defendant was not, however, justified in tailing the law into his own hands ; and had ' plaintiff proved actual damage, I think he would \ have been entitled to sufficient amends to cover *! No loss or damage has been proved, and I think ■ | a very small sum as damages will be sufficient to 1 1 meet the case. Verdict for ls», with costs of [ Court, 405,”