RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3191, 13 May 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, May 12. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

H. S. Fish, juri., v. C. S. Reeves, kfr Stewart appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr W. W. Wilson for the defendant. In this case complainant complained that on the 7th inst., defendant committed a breach of the Vagrant Act Amendment Aofc, by using insulting words to the complainant. H. S. Fish, junr., importer, and Mayor of Dunedin. said he knew the defendant On the afternoon of t’.e 7th May he met the defendant in Stafford street, opposite Mr Houghton’s office. He heard him make use ot the words set forth in the declarat on. He said, “You b -y scoundrel.” Witness was going ta lunch. He saw the defendant coming down the street, and could see by the twitching of his month that he (defendant) was in a passion. As he passed, hefendant hissed out the words men? tioned. A case had been heard in the Court in the morning, in which complainant wan a witness against defendant, and that, he supposed, was the cause of defendant’s annoyano\ The words used were very galling, and caused him (complainant) to stop involuntarily. His feelings prompted him to resent the insult, but his better judgment restrained him. The wotds were used, complainant thought, for the purpose of provoking him to commit a breach of the peace. Was quite sure that defendant did not use the words, “ Fish, you are a mean paltry frllow.—Mr Wilson addressed the Court, when His Worship said he would reserve judgment, and proceeded to hear fthe case of H. S. Fish, jun., v. C. S. Reeves.—A case very similar to the above.—The defendant was charged with using insulting words to the complainant, to wit: “ I have found yutt to be a despicable and contemptible liar”— in Princes street, whereby a breach of the peace might have been occasioned.—Counsel appeared as in the first ca^e. —H. S. Fish, jun., gave evidence to the effect that two days after the first occurrence, that is on the 9th inst., defendant came to his shop with an account which he- (defendant) wanted settled. Witness not wishing to have anything to say to the defendant, desired him to leave. This, at first, defendant did not do, but ultimately went into the street and waited until he (Fish) came to the front door, when the defendant used the language complained of, in the presence of witnesses. —•Wiliam Hobbs, in the employ of Mr Fish, was in the shop on the 9th inst. Complainant aud defendant were present. Witness was called'by Mr Fish, who wished hi in to take notice of What Was said. Mr Fib turned round to Mr Reeves and said, “ Will you be kind enough to leave the shop ?” Mr Reeyes declined to do so‘, and complainant then sent witness for a constaole. Moss, on the 9th inst, heard complainant ask defendant to leave the shop. Defendant did not leave at first. Witness heard defendant make use of several offensive epithets. Witness was at the shop door when defendant spoke to complainant outside. Defendant was standing at Spedding’a door. Witness saw complainant go to the door. When he (complainant) 1 stepped outside defendant said’, “ 1 have feiund y>u to’be a despicable and contemptible liar. ” Complainant said to Mi Hume, “Listen to what Mr Reeves is saying.” Defendant said, “ Take notice, Mr Hume. I say I have found Mr to be a despicable said to defendant ‘‘very well, very well.*’ Witness saw defendant do nothing to provoke the insult; saw the complainant put out his band towards the defendant’s arm, when he (complainant) told defendant to leave the shop. Witness did not think comlainant pushed the defendant. Tbis being the complainant’s case, Mr Wilson addressed the Court at some length, stating that the case was brought from vindictive motives ; that the complainant had brought it all on himself by his intemperate conduct, and was entirely to blame. He called Mr Gregg, merchant, who went to Mr Fish’s shop on the 9th inst. to get a matter settled that bad occurred in the Court. He went there in company with Mr beeves. Witness said to complainant, “ I and Mr Reeves have come to get a settlernnt of Mr Stewart’s account.” Complainant said he did not want to hold any conversation with defendant, and he went into his office. Defendant, himself, aske 1 for a settlement of the account. He asked moderately - fairly. Complainant was a little excited at first, and asked, “Will you go out of my shop ? ” in a loud tone of voice. Mr Hobbs was then called in to listen to what was said, and to fetch a pplioe r man. I left then. This concluded tjife caSs. His Worship said he should dismiss the first case, but as it was clearly not advisable to allow Mr Peeves to take the law into his own hands, he should inflict a fine of L 5 with costs.

CIVIL CASES,

Connor v. Rodgers.—A Main* for fivo weeks’ house rent, at 7s fid per week. Judgment by default for amount claimed.

M‘Donald r. J. M'Coll, Allan Cameron, and Hugh Cameron.—This was a claim for L2) for trespass Mr Harris appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr Sanders for the defendants.' Mr Harris said the cause of this complaint was somewhat peculiar! The defendants had been circulating a report of a natrue prejudicial to the character of the plaintiff, This report assumed a fchttae amounting to a charge of murder. ' The plaintiff had dug a stump out of his paddock I ,’ and filled in the bole again. Some one in the neighborhood was missing, and the defendants alleged that plaintiff was seen to carry home a bag and bury it in this hole. The defendants were seen goinginto plaintiff’s paddock with spades, Ac. Plaintiff’s wife went down to the men to inquire what they were doing there, when she was met with some abuse, and was openly told of the charge. They dug up the place, and whether satisfied or not, commenced to fill it up again. 1 be plaintiff came up to the men, when they again made the charge, Hq (plaintiff) then made them dig up the ground in the presence of two witnesses. Counsel called George M‘Donald, who said he was owner of block 13, Brighton, and was there on the 16th April last. It was fenced in. Previous to the Ifitk April he made an excavation. On or about the 4th A pril h e dug up a log in his ground, and cut it up for firewood. At dusk, on the’lfith April, three men, J. M‘Coll and John and Allan Cameron came to his ground. He saw his wife talking to them. In consequence of some conversation he had with his wife, he went down to where the men were. He found them digging in a place where he (plaintiff) nad dug up an old stump. Asked them by what authority they came there. Allan Cameron took up a spade and said, “ There are three of us, and we can do as we like.’’ Plaintiff asked defendants why they Kggicg- Allan Cameron said a report was going about, and there was something strange there. That a man when out shootmg ducks, saw what looked like a grave in plaintiff’s paddock. Plaintiff went for a pitchfork, aud met the defendants near the fence. Plaintiff told them to come back again and clear oat the hole in the present u two witnesses. The hole was cleared out, when one of the defendants sai I, “ If it is »ot found here, it must have been taken oat and pqt somewhere else. M‘CoU wap pr*.

ftbnt all the time ; he Whs forking. Th. defendants Were dressed In black, havingcorm from a funeral. H« (plaintiff/ had been pu to expense. His wife had been very ill, and was not well yet. He had to send for th. doctor, and had to employ a person to attend to her. Her illness was brought on through the act of these men.—By Mr Sanders: When he came back he did not jump into tin hole andsav, “Come on, boys.” What bf did say was, that ii he had a pitcht.uk he would clear the paddock, and he went to get one. When he came back again the hole was partly filled up. Hugh Cameron said he (i-laintiff) had been seen carrying a long bag on bis back, which bag was put into the hole, which looked very suspicious.— Walter Soigler, a contractor, saw the defendants in plaintiff’s paddcck, and corroborated the plaintiff’s statement with regard to the Cameron’s saying plaintiff was seen carrying a bag on his back and burying it in a hole Wm. MThail gave similar evidence,—Mrs M‘Donald, wife of the plain tiff, saw the defendants digging on her husband’s ground, and asked them why they were so doing. J. M ‘ oil said there was a rumor going about concerning her husband, and that he had come as a friend to clear up the matter. Witness replied that she thought it would have been more like a friend if he had gone to her husband and told Mi;;. Mr Barry’s son was missing. The defendants had commenced to dig '.efore she came up. She became unwell inava-di the fright, and had to call in a doctor, and get another person to work for her. —' This was the plaintiff’s case. —Mr Sanders said the fac.ts of the defendants’ case wore that a man had been seen carrying a long bag, which he had buried in a hole. Prompted by curiosity, they had asked plaintiff ’s wife if there would be any harm in clearing out the hole, and she said “No,” and \vent into the hole herself He called John M'Cull, who said he in company with Hugh Cameron went to plaintiff’s p ddock. When looking at the hole, Mrs M'Donald, came down with Allan Cameron. She asked what they were going to do, and was told. She said, “ Come on,” and went into the hole.—Allan Cameron corr borated the evidence of the first defendant, and said that Mrs M'Donald, when told, said, " Come on, Hugh, and dig here.” She went into the bole and commenced pulling up the flax and earth. Geo. M'Donald asked if they thought Barry’s son or a bullock were in the hole.— Hugh Cameron gave similar evidence. —His Worship was of opinion that there was no evidence again«t Allan Cameron, and should give a verdict for the defendant, with costs LI la. In the other two cases he should give a verdict against John M'Coll for 40s, with costs L2 10s ; and against Hugh Cameron for 40s, with costs 12 10s.