RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3349, 13 November 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, November 13.

(Before I. N, Watt, Esq., 11.M.) Dkunkknnkss.- Alfreds. White, for this offence, was lined os, with the usual alternative ; Mary Jane Gibbs and I avid Lawson alias Wilson,- both of whom had previously figured in the Court, 10s, the former with the option of three days’ imprisonment, and the latter 48 hours.—A further charge against Wilson of wilfully breaking a pane of glass, the property of William Li. liaydon, was dismissed, prosecutor failing to put in an appearance. Assaui.t. Tinnock v. Lockhead was a charge of this nature. Mr Stout for complainant, Mr Harris for defendant. —Mr Stout said that the complainant and defendant were both settlers in the Portobello district. Some road had been taken through defendant's property by the Board, of which Tinnock was a member. On the day of the alleged assault some discussion took place about the road, defendant seeming to be much annoyed at the road being taken through his propeity. Some hot words were used by the parties, and defendant struck complainant with the whip which he had in hia hand. Luckily little injury was done.— William Tinnock, the complainant, stated that lie saw defendant on the district road on the day in question. In the course of a conversation, the road being put through defendant’s property was mentioned, the latter sayiog he would put witness out of the Board. After further words, witness said to defendant, “ You arc a d d liar,” whereupon defendant threatened to strike witness with the whip, ultimately carrying out his threat. The mark on his face was caused by the whip, hut it had nearly healed since the biow was dealt. To Mr Harris : He would swear that he saw defendant between the .'list of October and Monday last, (e would not swear that he had not said the hurt was done while he was in the bush, as he wished to keep the thing quiet.— lames Waugh saw complainant on the district road on the day in question, his face

having some blood on it— John Tinnock saw defendant, about 4.40 p.m. on the afternoon of Friday last. Witness also saw his brother (complainant) about ten minutes after, when the blood was running down Ins face.—Mr Harris drew his Worship’s attention to the fact that complainant’s evidence as to the assault was not corroborated, none of the witnesses saying that they had been told by complainant the cause of his face being out. Defendant had been living in the district some lifteeu or sixteen years, and had never had an angry word with any of the neighbors. —Defendant only mode a statement, his evidence not being given on oath. He denied having seen complainant on the day referred to. He said that if he had passed along the road at the time referred to it must have been during the time witness was iu the hush—about a quarter of an hour. Mr Stout said that he was instructed that defendant had been bound over to keep the peace.—Mr Harris thought a statement like the one just made required corroboration. -Mr Stout had sent for corroborative evidence. —Defendant said that it was not for an assault, but for obstructing the road. —ln delivering Judgment, his Worship said that, taking the assault as proved, which he had the power to do, it was one which should be visited very heavily. Defendant would he fined L 5. or, iu default, to undergo a fortnight’s imprisonment. —Mr Stout applied for costs. —Mr Harris objected to the application.—His Worship thought, as the case was a. criminal and not a Civil CHS6, lift was not at liberty to grant legal costs. —Mr Stout meant costs of witnesses, which were allowed.