RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S CRT RT. CROMWELL.

Dunstan Times, Issue 466, 14 April 1871, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S CRT RT. CROMWELL.

"Wednesday, Aprti,T2 (Befire Vincent Pyke, Esq., 8.M.) Smithies v. Scott.— Assault. Mr. H. W. Smythies, the mining surveyor, summoned the defendant fur having assaulted him while in the execution of his duty in effecting a survey ordered by the Warden.' The facts we.ie admitted, and the defendant pleaded justification. The Magistrate, in deciding the case, informed the defendant that he regretted Mr, Smythics bad not laid the complaint as for a breach of the Mining Regulations, a B , had plaintiff done so, he (the Magistrate) should have considered it his duty to have sentenced the defendant so a month in Clyde Gaol. As it was, the assault appeared to be trivial, and the defendant was fined £2 and costs, with one guinea for professional services to Mr. Broguh, who actfel iW Smith v. Fowler.

This case was adjourned from last Court for hotter particulars. Mr. Wilson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Brough for defendant. Mr. Wilson s'ated thathe could not supply any bettor particulars than the Conrt possessed on the former occasion, as all the accounts between the parties were in possession of the defendant, who refused access to them ; but he (Mr. Wilson) pro. posed to add a count for money due on an account stated and agreed upon between the parties, which was allowed. The plaintiff and his brother were examined by Mr. Wilson, and proved that, on the 24th of June, IS7O, the defendant admitted that he then owed to the plaintiff £4l 14s. fid., and a,n account or memorandum to that effect, in the defendant’s handwriting was produced a d put in evidence. For the defence, Mr. Brough s'ated ha should he able to prove that his client had paid the amount. He ealleb Mr. Fowler, who produced his books, in one of which appeare I a receipt fir the amount claimed. Defen cant was than crossexamined by Mr. Wilson : “ Will yon swear that the figures, £4l 14s. fid., were inserted when the plaintiff (Smith) signed his name?’’ Defendant : “ Certainly they were. Mr. Wilson: “Canyon explain how it is there is no date to the entry and how the entry appears on the same bill as ‘ Paid, George Smith?’ ” Defcndandt (hesitating) : No ! But it was there when Smith signed.” Mr, Wilson . “You observe, on the line above there is an entry, ‘ March 30, Cash, £lo.’ Was the £4l 14s. fid. paid on the same day!” Defendant: “No!” Mr. Wilson : “ Then where is the stamp for the latter sum ?” Defendant’s ease being closed, Mr. Wilson commented very str ngly on the evidence adduced for the defence, and ashed the Court to disbelieve every word the defendant had spoken, for there could, he thought, be but little doubt in the mind of any one who examined the entry j n defendant’s hook but that such entry had been inserted after Smith had signed his name for £lO in the previous line. The Magistrate (Mr. Pyke) observed that this was, perhaps, the most painful case that had ever come before him, for hy his verdict, if given for the plaintiff, he was asked to say that the defendant had falsified an entry in his books, and had sworn falsely to prove the same. Ho regretted very much that he could come to no other conclusion than that the defendantinaertedthefigures£4ll4s.fid. after the plaintifl had affixed his name as for £lO. He should say nothing further. His verdict would be for the full amount claimed and costsKidd and party v. Marshall and party. This case was an action to recover £2O expenses, to which the plaintiffs had been

put in consequence of several of the defendants having obstructed Mr. Smythies in making a survey ordero Iby the Warden. Mr. Brough for plaintiffs, Mr. Wils n for defendants The particulars hero are much the same as in the assault case, Smythies v. Scott, the latter being one of the present defendants. Mr. Wilson contended that the damages were excessive. The Court awarded L 6 6s. and costs.