RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2263, 8 August 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. M‘Donald v. Dodson—2ss. There was a cross action in this case for livery of horses, which was alleged to be due. Jndgmeut for the plaintiff one pound. Each party to pay half costs. ASSAULT. John Thomas v. R. Robson —Mr Stewart for the plaintiff, Mr Catomore for the defendant. This was a claim for damages, estimated at twenty pounds, for an assault. The assault was admitted ; but it was pleaded that it was justifiable and in self-defence. Mr Stewart stated that the parties are neighbors, and it was asserted on the part of the plaintiff that the defendant, while intoxicated, charged him with throwing hot water over his goat and stealing neighbors’ eggs, and that ultimately the defendant struck the plaintiff with a stick and seriously wounded him.

The defendant said that, instead of him being the assailant, the plaintiff met him in the street, abused him and then knocked him down. On his rising he stood over him in a threatening attitute with a cricket bat, and that having a stick in his hand he struck him a blow with it.

‘The evidence of the plaintiff was to the effect that he met the defendant in Manor Place, and that Robson complained that plaintiff’s rooster enticed his hens away and they laid in plaintiff’s ground. The plaintiff complained of defendant throwing a stone at his “rooster,” told him it was an unmanly act, and that if he did it again he should summon him for it. On being thus threatened, the defendant struck him with a stick and ran away. The plaintiff swore p isitively he was not intoxicated, that he never struck the defendant nor threatened him with the bat.

Evidence was given on both sides. For the defence it was attempted to be proved that the plaintiff was intoxicated and quarrelsome, and for the plaintilf it was stated that he was seen bleeding. His Worship said the evidence was so evenly balanced that be could not decide who was in the wrong. The statements were diametrically opposed _to each other; and, under the circumstances, judgment must be for the defendant.