RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3641, 23 October 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Fkiday, Octobbr 23. (Before J, Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness . —Hichard Beaty was Mis ;charged with a caution..,-, . t ; ,

. CIVIL,.OASES.- i..' i Pritchard v. Shag Va ley Quartz Mining Company. —Mr Stout, wlio r appeared for plainUff ' said he did not think-the Supreme Court had.power to interfere in the matter, seeing tba there was a District Court Application should have been made through the latter.—The case was adjourned till Mondaj’ next, to allow Mr Stout an opportunity of applying in Chambers to have the order issued by the Supreme Court, restraining plaintiff from taking proceedings, set aside." Sheedy v. i hwaites. This was an application for ejectment —Since serving a uotiVe on defendant asking him to leave the premises, plaintiff had accepted rent.—The case was accordingly dismissed.

Alexander Simpson and Catherine Simpson v. J hn' Smaille.—Plaintiff sought to recover from defendant, for having, on March 14 and on divers other days, assaulted and beat his (plaintiff’s) wife) whereby she became sick and suffered great bodily pain, the sum of L 8 0; and L2O for having been deprived of her comfort.—Mr F, R. Chapman appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Stout for defendant.—-Catherine Simpson : I am the wile of Alexander Simpson, a wood-turner, and a plaintiff in this action. Ke left the Colony about the middle of February. 1 remained at Mosgiel, being then employed In the factory. My cottage was below the factory. The assault took place ou March 14. t )n the night before, defendant having had a daughter ma ried, I was asked to assist at the wedding, aud did so. On the next day I was asked by defendant’s wife to assist in amoving goods from the wbols'icd, where the wedding had been celebrated. On going in and laying down tKe basket, defendant put his arm round me, pushed me back into a corner, and put bis hand up my clothes. I told him he ought to remember that I was a married woman, and that no decent man would do what he had done. When I was in the woolshed an hour later, aud still removing the things, he put his arm round me and I told him to go. On going from my house to that of defendant he told me not to go the way I was taking, as the people would notice that there was something wrong, and that he would not again assault me, I replied that he had put me in that state, and that I would go. In the pickingshop in April, on passing him he said, “ I see you are beginning to place confidence in me that 1 will not touch you any more.” He then repeated his former promise: In August, when I was sweeping up the packingroom, and the others engaged in the factory had left, defendant came up to me and placed his hand on my bosom. I pushed his hand from me, and told ma that he had no right to place it there, as I was only an . operator. Ha said that he meant no harm. At the time of the first assault I told,two of the women in the factory—Mrs Beeves and Mrs Sinclair about it. I complained of the matter to my husband on the Saturday after the last assault. I did not take steps on the first occasion, because, being a stranger in the place, and having no other means of earning a livelihood than by being employed in the factory, I was afraid to do so.—By Mr Stout: I have not been in the habit of “ skylarking ” with young men. On one occasion I threw a pillow at Mr Bardon, of Mosgiel ; but never used improper language to Mr Sinclair.—Mrs Sinclair was next called, but nothing was elicited from her.—Mrs Leys remeinoeted Mrs Simpson complaining that defendant had taken hold of her some days after the wedding at Mosgiel. Witness was related to Mr frmaille.—Mr Chapman : And your having to be brought hero is an unpleasant circumstance to you ? Witness : I came here to tell the truth.—This was the case.—Mr Stout said that perhaps this case was a more painful one to Mr Smailie than to anyone else. The first intimation defendant got of th« alleged assault

was on October 5, When he received a lawyer’s letter, saying that it had been comminted some time in M .rob, and threatening him with a very disagreeable exposure if he did not hush up the matter by making plaintiff some compensation. A more remarkable thing'was never done by a believing his wife had b-sen so assaulted-. . Defendant, who deni-dever having done what was imputated to ’"m, n fused to doas requested--; and sooner . solved to have the scandal brought agai- -fc him fnV d-r srigatvd. It was an extra ordinary ti;i that a married woman, wirh live childr< > „ --Hfl skylark wi'h young u u ; and at ’ .vould re t'.dve itself iu'o a cjues i agai>.st oath, and see ng the Ir-. s between the alleged circumstance charge being made, his Worship »o dismiss the case.—John SiuaiHe, ■. lant, said that what had been said < ■ a.i-s Simpson was utterly false, and \v, -.e to extort money from him. -By M- .spman ;He had never done anything im; , u per to anyone working in the factory—l i p Worship, in giving judgment, said the d- im for damages by the wife for injury to body and mind, and by the husband for deprivation of his wife’s comfort, fell to the ground, because the former bad received no bodily or mental injury, and the la ter had not been deprived- of hot comfort, The question was, therefore, reduce.. to one of assault, and had there been any proof of that? j'o justify giving a verdict in plaintiff s faver there must be corroborative circumstances, or that the defeud.xpt’s charact-. r was such as to necessitate giving the preponderance of hdirf against him. Aura Luys’s evidence went for nothing, because the information was imparted to her so long after the alleged occurrence. Nothing was said of the assault till over six months after it was suit! to have occurred, during which time plaintiff iemained in the factory. It was the duty owing to themselves and society, if any persons were indecently assaulted, that they should take steps to have immediate redress. Then, as the case stood, was theie anything against defendant why he could discredit his testimony, or had he any' reason 10 believe that he was unworthy of belief? He was bound to give the preponderance to the plaintiff; but when be looked at the facts before him, and saw defendant holding a re- , spons ble position, he did not think he would take such ski ps as would ruin him, and then go into Court and submit to this public scandal rather than n;ivo what.he believed to be an illegal demand. He must look upon that conduct iu the defendant’s favor. • Seeing. further, nothing to weaken'defendant’s testimony, and the case being one of oath against oath, i t would be dismissed.