RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2381, 18 November 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) ASSAULT. Gibson v. Kirk.—A claim for LIOO, for assault. Mr Howorth for the plaintiff'. Mr Barton for Mr M'Keay, for the defence. Mr Barton objected to proceeding with the action on the ground that the defendant having already been lined LlO for the offence, it was not competent for the Court to take cognizance of the matter. After briefly stating the case, particulars of which have more than once been published, Mr Howorth called the plaintiff Gibson, who repeated the evidence given on former occasions, the substance of which was, that while engaged in removing a house at Mosgiel, the defendant began to joke with the men assisting him, but ultimately it ended in a quarrel, during which the defendant knocked down a man named Aitken. After dinner, while plaintiff was fetching some nails from his workshop, the defendant followed him, picked up v piece of wood, threw it at him, hit him on the bridge of the nose and knocked him down, when he became insensible. The assault took place on Saturday, and a charge was preferred against the defendant on the following Wednesday or Thursday.. He was still suffering from tho injury. He was unable to work for a fortnight, and his time was worth a pound a day. The contract, in consequence of not bang able to superintend the work, proved a loss to him of six or eight pounds. Tho doctor’s charge was three guineas In cross-examination by Mr Barton the witirss said he could not say what day ho became drunk after the assault. He was carried by two men from Court’s Hotel, but he was not unable to walk through drinking. He never said in Webb's store that he would not care to swear a d d lie to convict the old beggar. Tho defendant was charged with the offence in the Mayor’s Court, and paid five pounds. Tie evidence of Alice Gibson and others was repeated, proving the offence and injuries Mr Barton for the defence, said that all that was only necessary to prove the previous conviction and payment of the line, aud therefore the prosecution was barred. The law was only the same as the English lav/, which released a person from fnrthea prosecution for tho same offence. Mr Howorth objected to tho competency of the Court.

Tlio defendant was examined, and said that the Mayor was on the Bench. Mr Howorth said that the case was only heard before the Alayor. and that Mr Fish at that time was not a Resident Magistrate, but merely a Justice of the Peace, and two Justices of the Peace were necessary to constitute a competent tribunal. Mr Barton applied for an adjournment to obtain the evidence of the Mayor. Mr Fish was called by Mr Barton, and proved that at the time of the conviction, he was a Resident Magistrate. His Worship considered the plaintiff was out of Court, as it was shown that the Mayor was a Besident Magistrate at the

time, and therefore the tribunal was a competent one to hear and decide the case Mr Ho worth asked his Worship to assess damages, and leave it to the defendant to appeal. His Worship declined in the face of the evidence. Judgment for the defendant. The defeudent declined to press for costs. Civil, Cases. T. "Robinson and Co. v. J. Mcndclss' hn, L 59 7s Id. Mr Bathgate for the plaintiff, Mr Stewart for the defendant. The defendant pleaded never indebted. The claim arose out of a bill of exchange dishonoured by Mr John Uci l in April, and for the amount of which Mendelsohn became responsible by acreemont with Mr Vtnbbs, agent for the plaintiffs at Timaru. A document, signed by Mendelsohn, was put in, agreeing to pay the amount, but it was objected to by Mr •''tewar 1 on tbe ground of the stamp not being cancelled according to the statute. The evidence of Mr .Stubbs went to show that the defendant admitted his liability, and that he had funds in his hands and money to receive to meet the amount of the bill. In reply to Mr Stewart, the witness said he had sued Mendelsohn for the amount in the Court ;-t Timaru, and was nonsuited. It was there where the doc ment alluded to was stamped by Mr Berry, attorney, Timaru. Mr Stewart objected that the course of action arose without the jurisdiction of the Court, and applisd for a nonsuit. Mr Bathgate contended that the defendant having appeared in answer to the summons, brought the case within the jurisdiction of the Court. His Worship said it was evident the case must fall, as the defendant was not residing or carrying on business within the district, nor did the cause of action arise within the district. Case dismissed. (Left sitting.)