RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3488, 11 September 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Dat. (Before Captain Preeee, R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. i James Hugh and William Lonnigan, charged as above, failed to answer to their names, and their recognisances, £1 each, were estreated. " AN HABITUAL DRUNKABD." Charlotte Butwell, charged with being an habitual drunkard, she having been, convicted three times during the past, year, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment with hard labor. His Worship said he hoped this would be a warning to the prisoner, and that she would " turn over a new leaf " when I she came out of gaol. Prisoner: Thank, your Worship; I am much obliged. ASSAULT. Daniel St. John was charged, on the information of Denis McCarthy, with having, on the 7th instant, in Dickensstreet, unlawfully aseaultel and beaten the informant. Mr Lascelles appeared for the complainant, and Mr Lee for the defendant. Mr Lee said his client would plead guilty to having committed the assault, but wished evidence to be taken, in order that he might show that considerableprovocation had been given. ; Mr Lascelles said he was instructed that the provocation referred to was alleged to have been given on the evening prior to tha assault, and could not therefore be pleaded in extenuation. The defendant had his remedy at law as well as the complainant, and should not have "nursed his wrath to keep it warm" until he met the object of it subsequently. Evidence was then taken, which went to show that, on the date in question, the. defendant alighted from his trap in Dic-~ kens-etreet, and having seized the com* plainant by the throat chastised him with a horse whip, finally throwing him down on the footpath. The defendant, having been sworn, said the boy McCarthy had " cheeked ".. him for mentioning some annoyance that he (M'Carthy) and others had caused by tinkettling and throwing stones the previous evening outside a bouse where a wedding party were assembled, and.had, invited witness in an insolent manner to get down from his cab, as •' he wae asgood a man then as he had. been last night." His Worship said the fact of an offence having been committed by the complainant on the previous evening was no justification for the assault that had been, committed. The defendant should have bad recourse to legal action against the" boy, and not have whipped him! If lade were at any time brought before the Court for stone throwing or other breach of the Police Act an example would be made of them, but in tbe present case the defendant would be fined £2 and costs, with expenses of two witnesses, and counsel's fee ; in all £4.

The Court then rose,