RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3535, 6 November 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Dat,

(Before Captain Preece, R.M.) DRUNKENNESS.

John Ryan, charged with having been drunk and incapable at Taradale on Saturday night, surrendered to bis bail, and was fined 5s and costs, or in default 43 houra' imprisonment. The fine was paid.

ALLEGED ASSAULT. John Scouller was charged with having, on tbe 27th ultimo, assaulted and beaten John Tyson Lloyd.

Mr Lascelles appeared for the defendant, and pleaded not guilty. The plaintiff failed to appear, and the case was dismissed, counsel's fee of £1 Iβ being allowed, and costs 2s.

ASSATJTING A NATIVE,

Alfred James was charged with having, on tbe 31st ultimo at Paki Paki, assaulted and beaten Tangiora Tauhinu.

Informant, being sworn, said the defendant came to Paki Paki on the 3lst October, when she asked him to give her payment for her pigs. Defendant made use of bad language. Witness thencaught hold of his horse's bridle, when defendant pushed her aside. Witness still held the bridle, and he struck her on the chest. Hirike then came to assist witness, and told defendant not to strike her. Defendant then struck Hirike with a stick.

By Mr Lascelles: Witness seized the defendant's horse on account of his withholding payment of her pigs. She sold the pigs this year, probably about March. Defendant had oose offered 15s each for the pigs, but witness refused to take it, as the pigs were taken away without leave. W'tness never made any arrangement to sell the pigs to defendant. She had placed the matter in the hands of Mr White, solicitor, who died before any action was taken. The harness belonging to defendant's horse was taken into a house by witness, who had kept it ever since. Defendant gave it into her charge. When witness was holding the horses's bridle defendant told her to let it go, or he would strike her.

Three other native women were examined, and gave corroborative evidence.

Mr Lascelles addressed the Court. The assault, if such it could be called, was provoked by the plaintiff's conduct. In point of fact, however, it was no assault; no blow was struck, it was simply a shove to cause the woman to get out of the way when she was detaining the defendant, who wished to get about his business.

Alfred James, the defendant, was examined on oath, and said he bought some pigs from the plaintiff, who bargained, with him at 15s a head. Subsequently she refused to take less than £1 each for the pigs. On the 31st ultimo witness went to Paki Paki, and was in the act of buying another pig from a native man when the plaintiff attempted to take away his cart, &c, which was on the road. The plaintiff took away his bridle, and placed it in ber house, and he had to get another at Mr Maroney'* to drive home. He did not strike the plaintiff at all, but merely pushed her away.

ANOTHER CASE. The same defendant was further charged with having, on the 31st ultimo, at Paki Paki, assaulted and beaten Pikikiua Maungamanga. Mr Lascelles appeared for the defendant ia this case also, and pleaded not guilty. Informant, being sworn, said that when she interfered between defendant and the infqrmant in the previous case the defendant struck her several times with a manuka stick (produced.) My Mr Lascelles : Tangiora was present at the time and came to witness' assistance, after which she returned to the defendant's trap. Witness showed the defendant the bruises on her back, and took the horse out of his trap. Defendant himself took the harness off, and Tangiora took it into her house. Witness was crying at that time. Two native witnesses and Constable Lawless were examined. The latter witness described the marks he had seen on the plaintiff's back, and to which his attention had been directed on the evening of the 31st October. By Mr Lascelles: The marks seemed to be quite fresh. Mr Lascelles said the defendant had no evidence except his own, as he happened to be alone on the occasion. He asked the Court to take into consideration whether there was any probability of the evidence being reliable. The defendant was then sworn, and '' said the plaintiff came to his trap and commenced taking down the " tail board" to let his pigs loose. He lifted up a piece of stick to protect his property, and might have struck the defendant with it once, but certainly not more than once. He threatened to knock anyone down who meddled with his property. His Worship said it seemed that in the first case the defendant had had some provocation, and the Court would take that fact into consideration. At the same time there was no legitimate excuse for the defendant taking the law into his own hands, and a nominal penalty of 10s, and costs 10s, would be inflicted; in default of payment defendant to be imprisonment for 48 hours. In the second case the assault was of a much more serious character, and the defendant would have to pay a fine of £3, and costs 10s, with expenses and costs of witnesees £l ss, or be imprisoned for 14 da3 T s with hard labor. His Worship added that, whatever was the provocation given, the defendant had no right to take a stick and severely beat a woman as he had done. The Court then rose.