RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT (EXTENDED JURISDICTION).

Dunstan Times, Issue 212, 19 May 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT (EXTENDED JURISDICTION).

(Before Wilson Grey, R.M.) Bailey v. Ryan. Claim for £IOO, damages sustained through an assault committed by the defendant upon plaintiff. The plaintiff conducted his own case, Mr. C. E. Haughton appeared "for the defence.

William Lamont Bailey, sworn, deposed: Shortly before midnight on the 7th of April last he was in the Port Phillip i Hotel. Defendant and several others en- ] tered the house. They were all standing at the bar. The defendant aproached him in a menacing savage manner, making at the same time some remarks about his (plaintiff's) return from Alexandra. He remonstrated with defendant for having j insulted him that morning, while accom- j jmnying a young lady on horseback, telling : him he deserved punishment for what he | had done. Defendant approached him! saying, "What, with that?" Plaintiff then threw to the ground a whip which he had in his hand, and sat down on a form. He had scarcely done so when defendant struck him on the face, causing his nose to bleed. Told defendant he would make him repent the act. Defendant's language was most obscene and filthy. Defendant then dragged him outside the house, and in. flicted another blow on his face, which knocked him down. The landlord of the house came and carried him bleeding into the hotel. He (plaintiff) subsequently went home, and finding himself ill, procured medical assistance. He was desired by his medical attendant to discon* tinue his usual business. He suffered loss thereby. The scar on his brow was permanent, and his nose was disp'aced. The sum claimed was for losses sustained and medical attendance.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haugliton: "Was not quite sober, but knew what he was about. Defendant addressed him first. Did not recollect having called defendant upbrobious names. Did not shake a whip at him. Once boarded at defendant's house, but did not refuse to leave when asked to do so. Would swear that defendant struck him while at the bai\

By the Bench: It was before leaving the town, on my way to Alexandra, on the morning of the assault, and while in company of a young lady, that some one called after me.

Emily Henderson, barmaid at the Port Phillip Hotel, sworn, deposed: Bemembereo the 7th of April last Saw plaintiff about 12 o'clock on that night in the bar of the hotel. The defendant, a Mr. Jones, and some others were there. They first went into the large room, but afterwards came into the bar. Heard some remarks respecting plaintiff having returned home late with Miss Robinson. Plaintiff said that defendant was one of those who called after him in the morning. He threw his whip down. Saw him struck by defendent, and rise up bleeding. He was not struck with a tumbler. Defendant afterwards took him by the collar and dragged him outside. Witness saw no more of the assault. Mi". Cox, the landlord, afterwards brought plaintiff into the house, when he was bleeding profusely. Cross-examined by Mr. Haughton: Was behind tha bar all the time. Thomas S. Harvey, sworn, deposed : Recollected the right of the 7th of April. Was in the bar of the Port Phillip Hotel. A scuffle between plaintiff and defendant drew my attention. Defendant appeared to be about to put his hand upon plaintiff. Defendant pulled plaintiff out of the house, but did not use sufficient force to compel • him to go. Went outside a short time j afterwards and saw plaintiff lying upon the ground. He 'got up, but was struck I down by defendant. He was bleeding {very much. j Cross-examined by Mr. Haughton : Did

not see plaintiff struck by defendant while at the bar of the hotel.

John Cot, sworn, deposed: On the night of the 7th of April plaintiff returned a horse which he had hired from me. He fiatl some words with defendant re* pecting his (defendant's) calling after him in the morning. Saw him let fall a whij>, and set down on; a form.- Saw defendant take him by the collar of his coat, and pull him outside the house. When witness went outside he saw plaintiff lying upon the ground. Plaintiff got Up, but was struck down by defendant. He was bleeding considerably from the face.

Charles Morice, a legally qualified medical practitioner, deposed that on Sunday, the Bth of April, he was called in to attend plaintiff, who was suffering from a wound at the corner of the right eye, and he was much 'swollen about the nose. He was much disfigured. Witness requested plaintiff to remain at home from his business. The wound was the result of a severe b'ow,

This closed the case for the plaintiff. The defendant, Edward George Ryan, deposed : On the night of the 7th J pril he went, with others, to the Port Phillip Hotel. They sat down in the bar and had a drink. Plaintiff said that he (de fendant) was one of the fellows who " Joe'd" him in the morning, while riding out with a lady, and that he deserved to be punished for doing so. He (defendant) replied, "Surely you are not going to strike me with that." meaning the whip which he held in his hand. He also said that the landlady was ill, and that plaintiff had better go outside. He opened the door, and plaintiff followed him out. They both "shaped," and plaintiff was knocked down. Did not strike plaintiff while at the bar of the hotel. Before striking him plaintifl made use of some very unseem'y expressions. Cross-examined by p'aintiff: You offered to strike me with a whip, but did not i do so.

Samuel Cannon deposed, that on the night in question he 'was at the Port Phillip Hotel, Plaintiff was sitting clown. He said to defendant, " You were very good, Mr. Ryan, calling after me this morning while riding out with a lady." He then rose up, flourishing a whip, and saying defendant should be punished. Defendant rep icd, " Mrs. Cox is ill, come outside." They both went outside. Saw no blow struck in the bar.

Two other witnesses gave corroborative evidence.

The Magistrate, after carefully summing up the evidence, gave a verdict for £ls damages, and costs. Shanley v. Quadri. —Claim for £42 75., for goods supp'ied. The service of the summons being incomplete, plaintiff was non-suited.

Austin v. Pyke.—Summons not served. Hazlettv.Larkin.—C'aim for£9s 7sGd. Settled out of Court. Same v. Birnie.—Claim for £46 19s. 2d, goods supplied. £9 was paid into Court Judgment for balance.