RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3270, 13 August 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, August 13,

(Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

Meikle v. Johnson.—His Worship gave judgment in this case, which was heard on Monday last, to the effect that he had gone fully into the question as to whether the document produced in Court Was a promissory note or only an acknowledgment of a debt, and that he had come to the conclusion that it was the former, and therefore, being also insufficiently stamped, nob admissible as evidence. Plaintiff would be nonsuited. Brodrick v. Dicks. —In this case, which was adjourned from Friday last in order to submit a document produced in evidence ti the inspection of Dr. Black, his Worship stated that that gentleman considered it preferable that the document should be submitted to experts, such as bank clerks. His Worship being also of that opinion, the case was further adjourned. Bird v, Leslie.—Claim, L 7 Is 6d, for groceries supplied.—Mr Wilson appeared for defendant, who admitted the debt, but stated that it was incurred iu 1868 ; that since then ho had been in gaol for four years ; and that, when discharged, he had obtained a situation through the influence of Mr -Strode and xMr (laldwell. He was now earning L2 par week, and was willing to pay the claim at the rate of LI per month. An order was given for defendant to pay the amount claimed at the rate of LI 5a per month. Hogg v. Monson.—Claim, L 9 11s, for damages sustained through an assault committed on plaintiff by defendant. Mr Harris appeared for plaintiff, and Mr M'Keay for defendant. Mary Hogg stated that she and her husband had for five months been tenants of defendant. On July 30 defendant was taken into custody on a charge of drunkenness. Witness took charge of defendant’s children, and afterwards bailed her out. Defendant came into witness’s house. Mrs Manning then came in, and a few words pasoed between defendant and Mrs Manning. Witness would not like to “ come over” the words used, as they were not very nice ; but Mrs Monson went outside and picked iip a stone, with which she threatened Mrs Manning. Witness begged defendant not to strike Mrs Manning, on which defendant turned round and knocked witness "silly.” The blow was repeated, on which witness called out “ Murder,” and a Chinaman came to her assistance. Witness’s shaul and other clothes were much blood-stained. The shawl cost 1.8 Bs. Witness was laid up for several days, and received medical treatment. Asked defendant to pay the doctor’s account, which she refused in the most foul language —Cross-examined ; Had always been kind to defendant, so that there were no reasons for the assault. There was a little provocation from Mrs Manning, but none from witness, Had no security from defendant for money advanced. Had jewellery belonging to her. On coming from the gaol, witness and defendant went into a public-house, and witness had a very small nobbier of brandy, defendant having two very good ones. Could not say whether defendant was a married woman or not. After Mrs Manning came into her house witness did not seize defendant by the shoulders, nor did defendant call out for assistance. Was not tearing handfuls of hair from defendant's head, and did not throw her down stairs. Re-examined : It was at defendant’s request that they wont into the public-house for the brandy, as defendant looked in a very shaky condition.—Henry Sorley : Was called in to attend plaintiff at the time in question, and found a contused wound on her head, probably caused by a stone. The wound would be likely to lay a person up for a few days.- Ann Manning : Was formerly a tenant of defendant. On July 31 called at Mrs Hogg’s house to inquire how defendant had got on at the Court the previous day. Found defendant sitting there, and remarked that she looked bad going along the street without any hat on. Defendant then went out and picked up a stone, she supposed to assault her with. Plaintiff told defendant not to assault anybody in her house, upon which defendant struck plaintiff. Plaintiff called out for help, and a Chinaman came and took defendant off plaintiff. Did not see plaintiff strike defendant. Was at defendant’s when the summons was served on her, when defendant offered witness Ll to speak in her favor at the Court, which she refused.— Cross-examined : When witness was a tenant of defendant, the latter did not give her notice to quit. Did not hear defendant call out "John,” When the Chinaman separated the two, plaintiff was certainly taking her own part. Never struck defendant or used bad language to her. Defendant was “not to say sober,” but plaintiff was.—Mr MLKeay contended first, that the summons had been taken out in the name of plaintiff’s husband, and he not appearing in Court, the proper person was not there ; and secondly, that defendant being a married woman, her husband should have been sued in conjunction with her.—Mr Harris said there was no proof of defendant’s being a married woman, —Mr M'Keay thought this was a trivial case : a mere neighbors’ quarrel. *There had been a good deal of " nobblerising,” which ended in a free fight, and it was hardly a case for damages. He called defendant, Jane Monson, who stated that it was plaintiff who wished to go into the public-house. Witness did not have much brandy, as Mr Fenwick, thp landlord, told her it was bad to take op ap empty stomach. After they had arrived at plaintiff's house, Mrs Manning came in and jeered at her continually. Plaintiff then took witness by the shoulder to turn her out, and assaulted her two or three times, on which witness said, “ Oh, if this is going to be the thing—all right.” Witness called for the Chinaman. The shawl was bloodstained by plaintiff putting it on her head after getting the wound. Plaintiff had told witness that she had had the shawl eight years.— Cross-examined : Did not like to speak of herself as a quiet, well-conducted person ; but would leave other people to do that. Had bad no quarrels except through asking for her rents, —Hia Worship considered that defendant had done wrong in not leaving 1 plaintiff’s house when requested, and that it *

was apparent the wound bad been indicted by defendant, and most probably with a stone. Judgment would, therefore, be given for plaintiff for L 3 3s, and i 3 4s co*ts.

Judgment was given by default in the following cases :—Sampson v. James Gibson ; claim Ll4 9s 7d, for clothing supplied Mills v. Geddes and Willis : claim L 5 Bs, balance of passage money of theatrical troupe in the Beautiful Star, from Lyttelton to Dunedin. Stcinmetz v. Schmbll: claim L 8 0s 9d, for bread and groceries and supplied. Smith v. King : claim L2 3s 9d,balance of account lor goods supplied.