Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume VII, Issue 6, 25 June 1885, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

Wed>-esi>ay Jvxe 24, 1885. (Before R. Ward, Esq., R.M., aid E. H, Wright, Esq., J.P.) Larceny. Gustavo Kreegher, of Halcombe, . was charged 011 the information of Constuble Meehan, with feloniously stealing an overcoat the property of Christopher Brown, clothier, &C. t 61 Feilding. . , r -.- Prisoner pleaded guilty, staiing that he was tho worse for liquor at too time. •■■• --■-■-• The evidence of C. Brown and the constable showed that the coat wa»'- ; taken from the voranda of the shop of the former on the afternoon of Tuesday last. Prisoner was sentenced to 14 {d*y» T . imprisonment with hard labour -in . Wanganui gaol. ■■■M-'Ary.:: ASBAtXLT AND THKKATZSHrCfc : l> >r Thomas Dudson, saddler, was : charged on the inf ormatidn of Robert Parr, coachbuilder, (both of Feilding) with assaulting the latter on the 9th of June; and also with thteat n'agT by saying he would lie in wait forhiui him when there were no witnesses. Mr Staite appeared for the inf ormant, and Mr Prior for the defendant.; &-. ..•;? B. Parr gaveeTidooee of bofhthf assault and throafeniug; thought defendant would do him an injuryif he could, and he demanded; sureties of the peace.' •'• ■ .•■ ;.o:::'..'; . % ;;-;.-- f Cross-examined: Defmjfant struck witness four times before h$ struck, him; defendant said nothing to Him about his (witness) striking. his child; they both fell down among the felloes and spokes, and defendantbitwitness' hand, and tore his clothes; defendant did not beg and pray to be allowed to getaway; this action was taken after a civil summons had been issued by defendant against witness; >.-r This dosed the plaintiffs case^^-j Thomas Dudson, the defendant, deposed that on the day in question!}* was in Parr's shop, and taw him unmercifully beating his* child; asked him not to do so, and pushed^ him away from the child, whereupon Parr struck him several times , Told Parr he would get change for this when there would be bo one to hold his (Parr's) legs. , " ' Cross-examined: By Parr getting change, witness memt ho should iuih* mons him ; did not threaten : him with assault. The decision of the Bench wa» deferred till after hearing of the civil action between the parties. civil cases. ' J. C. Thompson v T. & W. Sexton. —Claim £6 10s. No appearanci of cither defendants. Ordered to b» paid with costs. G. C. Hill v J. A. Ferroau— Claim L\ 0s lOd for Borough rates. No appearance of defendant. To be paid with costs. '■'■' • 11. W. Morphy v Thomas Goodison. — Claim £3 1 0 on sale of a horse. Mr Prior for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for plaintiff and costs. . ' '. «».« v i;.;-.i „ . Dudson t Parr.-r-Claii^^Oas (|amages through an alleged 1 jfr Prior for plaintiff an 4 |ljr 4 ißtal6ft far defendant. * *" •* ■"*••» Dudson gavesiinUarevidencerk^tkat in the above criminal uas«j r and in addition described the injuries he haid received, the medical expends., fn* curred, and the losses he had sustained in his business as the result of the assault ; did not strike the defendaut. ' . , ""' ' . _ He was briefly cross-exainihed. Dr Johnston deposed to being called in by Dudson, who complained of shiv~ eriug, and pains in the abdomen; found him considerably bruised in yanoas parts of the body ; he had; evidently been severely .handled,,; ordere^luiii i few days' rest. ' "" ti. Purr, the defendant, again. said Dudson struck him four times'; ttud had sworn to a lie in saying. h» did UOt. ■ , . • : John Robinson, a hoy, was; present . when the assault took place, and said Dudsou hit Parr firot. < „ ;• .<- Benjamin Gosling, son., deposed jto seeing Dudson being dragged out of Parr's shop.; witness conohidedthe waa being forcibly removed because he would not do so of his own accord. Walter Motfutt, assistant of Parr, said he could not swear who struck the first blow, but saw Dudson rttsh for Parr, and after that they were Jitting oach other, when. they closed and fell down. ..;. . : : ..<», In cross-examination witness related the. details of the scrimmage; Dudson was hot struck »y Parr while w^tnesa and young Parr held him on the floor. Mr Stait© contended that there wa*. no claim, inasmuch as plaintiff had struck defendant first. ....-,*' Mr Prior cited authority to show that a person first struck by a small blow was not justified .in retaliating in such a. way as to inflict serious injury, and was liable for damages. Their Worships after a short consultation found that there were no grounds for damages, and the plaintiff would be nonsuited. There had evidtoitly b^eu six of one. and half a dozen of the other. Dudson had no right to interfere. The case of a^egßd^ssault must also he dismissed/ ''' "•'' ' 8. Knight; V D; L. a^tK^Dffi^' £10 18s for alleged loss through iUeSdt gaily "driving away a horse find «^i^ T^^ ing it astray. This was practically ; a re-hearing of a case heard some-tun* ago in which the wrong; ;partvwaasued, and the plaintiff notftuited. •••MrPrior for plaintiff and; Mr Hankinrf or defendant. . - . > .. The case, which had bee.n.adioiWie^ . several times, was again, opened^ari^l,. .tho evidence, w^icti has alreiii^ ap«' 'pearod in these column^ waajr^'wyeij. The parties reside at Awa^lun. . ' The Witnesses examined on tße i tiffs said were— Sttmuel Knieht, Mm» nie I^)vel(»ki,n»rry'LQT^wk, J^ra|ic9a Luoy Knight, 1 Edward^Ktu^B^^nd UfehaW'Khight: ; : ;: - :^ >h ; ? For the dofenoe,,Danfl ! Li eßfeith, manager for Juh^i Manson, th» penjda f<^(^y su(hJ, limUarWeMe

1* when, the ease was jjGrat he&rdV W.Brogden, >T. Jpnansenj and B. Johaiuen were aWexamised. . Aftor both counsel ha4a4sf essed the €ourt at C'insidei^blel«njK^itkeirAVprships delioeratedlf or a few nupifte* and gave judgment for £5 and costs. " J. £ G. Bowern y Charles Roe.— Claim £50 for commission as agreed tabe paid by deWdant on plaintiff finding a purchaser for lease of Denbigh Hotel, Feeding, together with f uraiture, stocfc-in-trade, &c. . Mr Hutchison, of l^anganui, appeared for. the plaintiff,' and Mr Staite for defendant ■/* ; ■ ■' .> .■ • •-.■ Mr Hankin* said he had been instructed by Mr Hoe to apply for an adjournmenVon the grdjind that Mr Sjtaite might not be. able to gp.through with the case. Both Mr Hut^aisi&jn and Mr Staite bbjecteji to an adjournment. Joseph Edwarjd. Gathorn Bowern, hotel-broker, deposed to being in* * atructed by defendant 'on the 20th Fefouaryto fiiida purchaser' for the leojße of said hotel (document giving 1 such instructions* produced); telegram abo produced notifying that the hote| had been sold and deposit taken) f gave 800 notice that he would complete the transaction early in Ajtol; at the time mentioned took Mr Owen (the buyer) up to Eoe'a ; Eoe declined to complete- the transaction; Mr Owen was in a financial position to complete the arrangement; Mr Boe had notoaid phuntiff his commission of £50. l^* Cross-examined^ by Mr Staite: Found a customer named A. Owen to purchase the hotel ; had submitted his client to Mr Boe; brought Otfeu to Feilding; Mr Boe declined to-glye up.pos^ession ; Mr Owen is a thoi^oUgiily good uian, of large experience, ;««^without a spot on his character ;| r »^;Boe never accepted the bargain i^^tiot know the reason; Mr Boe was -in ■'good health when he signed the agreemvnt. The 1 ' evidence of A. Mahtell, taken in Wellington, was read. Mr A^ Owen, of New Plymouth, deposed he was a hotelkeeper for six or seven years ; in consequence of a message from Mr Bowera, he authorised him to purchase the t Hotel ; | there ys nothing against witness to prevent him holding a liceuse. Cross-examined by Mr Staite : Kept a hotel at Hawera; sold out; wanted a spell; could have conducted the Denbigh Hotel if he had got it ; expected Mr Boe to approve of him as manager of the hotel ; at the time of bargain was equable of managing a hotel; Mr Bowern was not his agent. Re-examined :, Came prepared, to act as a purchaser of the hotel. Mr Staite opened the defence by saying the particulars were bad. This was a preliminary objection. There was no contract proved, and he vested 1i ; j» case on those two points. Mr Hutchison briefly addressed the Bench. Mr Staite further dwelt on the points ne had before raised, * Mr "Ward said the particulars were sufficient for the action. There was a contract betweeu Mr Bowern aud Mr Bee. There was no good reason not to conclude the bargain. The verdict would be for the amount claimed, £50, and costs, £7 Bs. J..G. Thompson r Horn.— Claim £2 3* lOd. Verdict for plaintiff with costs .