MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2055, 5 December 1907, Page 1

MAGISTERIAL.

WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 4

(Beforo Mr W. A. Barton, S.M.) Drunkenness. —Two ‘first offenders for drunkenness wero convicted ami lined os each with costs 2s and in one ease cab 'll ire 3s m dofautb 2-1. liours’ imprisonment. .Destitute Persons Act.—ln tho case of Henry W. Hard, charged with disobeying an order for payment under this Act an adjournment was graaited until December 20th. Alleged Assault—Joseph Burko was charged with committing an assault on ono, James Thomas Hiardio, on November 25tli. —Mr W. L. Rees for informant Hardio and Mr Stock for defendant. —Mr Rees in opening the oaso described tho nativo of tho alleged assault in tho defendant’s Record Reign Hotel, and stated that ho would call evidence to show that the assault was premeditated by defendant. —Alfred Phillip Coker,medical practitioner, deposed that he examined tho informant on December 2nd and found his cheek-bone broken. This was the result of direct violence and would bo ■oxtremeßy painful. Informant would now have to tako his choico between permanent disfigurement and tho risk of an operation. To Mr. Stock: Tho injury would interfere., with informant’s yspe.ech; and with" his eating. It might have been caused by a fall. — 1 Constable Tait stated that he saw informant at the police station on the night of November' 25th, wQien ho appeared to be under, the in- ; fluence of drink. .Informant appeared to have had a severe blow in the eve which Was just beginning to ■swell at the time informant made a complaint .against defendant. ’! Mr Stock: Before informant arrived at the station defendant’s son had boon along to lay an information against informant for refusing to leave licensed premises. Informant had no other marks, of violence except on tho eye.—James Thomas Hardin, tho informant. was then called and said that ho had been staying at. defendant’s hotel, and had two meals there on the day of the assault. Witness .described bis return to the hotel at 10.20 p.m. that night when lie entered bv the fire escape and walked along the passage to his room. Defendant then came up to him and told him toclenr out of the house. Informant replied that- he was going to stay in the hotel that night. Defendant then struck witness in the hack with his fist and called out to his son Prank, who came and told witness to go downstairs. . Witness proceeded to do so and was hustled along the passage by botli defendant and his son. Witness.said to defendant. “None of vour dirty tricks with me, Burke, I have heard of you before.” Defendant then said, “If you talk like that I will throw yovidown the stairs.” .Defendant’s son .thereupon struck witness in tho eye and tho ■ jaw knocking him down. Witness was dazed by the blows. Defendant held witness while F. Burke, struck him. Witness went to the police to. givo ■information and found defendant’s son already there. To Mr Stock: Did not sleep in hotel on-the Sunday night. Had informed defendant that he was leaving on the Sunday and had. paid his board. Witness consulted the doctor about a week after tho assault and the information was laid on December 2nd.— Sadie Watson, barmaid, was the next, witness and deposed to having heard in argument in the passage upstairs and also to having’ seen defendant strike informant, saying at the same tjime, “I will put yon down the stairs and break your b neck.” Defendant then called his son Frank who came up, and then witness saw defendant, holding informant while F. Burke struck him. Witness further stated that between 7 and 8 o’clock that evening defendant had said to her, “I see Bardie’s things aro in his room. You will see some ■fun to-night. .If ho attempts to go upstairs to-night I will throw him down and break his neck.” After hearing tills witness was not surprised at . what had happened. Deft defendant’s employ on Monday .afternoon, after being served with a summons as witness in the present case.—lda Dauilop, barmaid, gave similar evidence and further stated that defendant’s.wife had locked defendant in witness’s room at the time of tho disturbance to keep him away from informant. To Mr Stock: Did not remember being told by defendant not to supply, informant with liquor. Diid not hear defendant ringing up for the police and was not in tho room when he did so. This closed the evidence for the prosecution.—For the defence Joseph Burke, defendant, stated that informant had been staying in his hotel from 17ith to 24th November, anil had paid his. board up to Sunday the 24th, telling 'witness ho was leaving on the boat that evening. Informant did not occupy his room on the Sunday night, and defendant next saw him on the Monday afternoon at 2 p.an. Informant had no meals in the hotel that day. Witness went upstairs as usual that night at 10.15 p.an. when he saw informant come along the passage, and go into his. room. There were three or four boarders ill the passage at the time, but witness did not see either of the barmaids present. Wit ness had not used the words attributed to him by tho barmaids, - but had told them not to serve defendant nor encourage him to tile-bar. Witness informed informant when he saw him going into his room that lie could not stay there that night, on account of his previous actions in the house, hut did not layhandsupon him or strike him. Witness told his soil to' ring for tho police and then went down and rang up himself. On. going down he found Mrs Burke and the witness Miss D.unlop in the commercial room. Witness then went down the street and met Consxa'uK Tait who told him that informant had been arrested. To Mr Rees: Saw somebody go 1 lin.tO No. 9, but could not say if it was informant. Witness’s wife had not locked him in Miss Dunlop’s room. Did not sec Iris son strike informant- nor hear informant appeal to- the borders for arid. In witness opinion tho evidence for the prosecution was alt -false. —Edwin Thomas Allen was Called and stated that lie was a boarder in the hotel on the night of tho 25th November. Heard defendant tell informant to leave his premises and also heard informant refuse to do so. -Witness saw no scuffle or any blows struck. Neither Mr: Burke nor the barmaids were on the scene. Witness and a man named Bell got informant away and quietened him down. To Mr Rees: Tin scuffle between defendant’s son and .informant was not over when defendant came upstairs.—Hannah Burke,

wife of defendant, said that on the in question was in lior room downstairs when she heard defendant call the son Frank. Was not upstairs or in Miss Dunlop’s room ■at all that evening. Did not lock her husband in Miss Dunlop’s room. Defendant oamo downstairs and rang for the police. Miss Dunlop also oamo down and remained until polico arrived. To Mr Rees: When witness heard tho disturbance sho called ' out to defendant, who replied, “It is all Tight.” Defendant himself rang up the polico. Miss Dunlop oamo down aftor witness called defendant downstairs.—Arthur Gladstone 8011, drover, was called and said lie lived at the Record Roign hotel . He heard Die disturbance just outside door of his room. Witness opened his door and heard informant threaten defendant and refusing to leave the house. Defendant said lie would ■ get some ono to make him leave. Defendant’s son then arrived and informant rushed at him, when they both fell. Defendant was not presont. With assistance witness, separated Burke junior, and informant. Did .not see defendant lay hands on informant at any time. To Mr Roes : First heard defendant ordering Hardio off •premises, and informant refusing to go. Saw F. Burke coming up, defendant not being present 'then. Did not, see Mrs .Bunko ■or..-MisS'?T;u'iilop present at tike time. Witness saw informant and defendant in the passage. Re-examined by Mr Stock: Door of No. 21 was not open when witness opened his door. No ladies were in tlho xiassage.—Henry Smith, buslunan, deposed that he shared : a room with last witness, and heard -tho defendant telling informant to clear out. Saw defendant, dnfor- : mailt and a number of. hoarders in alio passage. Witness saw aio blows 'struck. Informant was using bad language. After. defendant went away witness hoard no further disturbance. To. Mr Roes: Saw h. Burke in tho passago after defendant hail gono downstairs. No women were present.—Henry Doherty, laborer, Gisborne, heiu-d a “bit of ■a rush” in tho passage. Did not see defendant and informant in the passage.—Frederick Strickland deposed that ho was pouter in defendants hotel. Saw informant coming downstairs with two boarders. He went to a stack of timber and took a piece and then went out the gate. F. Burke went out a few minutes before informant.—His Worship in delivering judgment said that the evidence for the prosecution was very unsatisfactory. At tho time of the alleged assault the informant was evidently the worse of liquor. The information would be dismissed with costs £2 15s.

Second Charge.—James Thomas Bardie further proceeded against Frank Burke for alleged assault on ■tho 2Sth November.—Evidence was given for the prosecution by informant and Dawrence workman, while for tlio defence Harry Pool, John Young and defendant were called.— His 'Worship after hearing the evidence, dismissed tho information with costs £1 13s.

Counter Charges.—Joseph Burke v. Jas. Thos. Hardio, a oase of assault on Nov. 2Sth. —Mr Rees for defendant pointed out that after the other alleged assault defendant visited the hotel to get some of his ■things which were there, and while there .struck informant.—Defendant now pleaded guilty and was fined £1 with £2 17is costs.—After judgment had been delivered in the case of James Thos. Bardie v. Jas. Burke ttlio case of the same informant .v. Frank Burk e for alleged assault on Nov. 25th. was withdrawn.

j Pormiittring Drunkenness on licensed Premises. —Jos. Burke was charged with ]laving oil November 19th permitted drunkenness on his licensed premises the Record Reign hotel. —-A further charge of selling hqnor to an intoxicated person was men-tioned.—-On the application of Mr Stock for defendant an adjournment was granted in each instance til) Tuesday December 10. Threatening Behaviour.—James Mullooly was 'charged with having used threatening behaviour towards E. B. Mullooly.—On the application of Mr T. A. Coleman for informant an adjournment was granted until Tuesday December 10.

that ponies wero tethered at a place quite devoid of shade or Iced. In reply to another member tlio inspector said lie could not deal with a tubercular cow being milked—that was tho offico of the Stock Department. He could always deal with any animal being worked in poor condition.

After the meeting the executive committee waited on the Mayor, and asked that water troughs bo provided for both horses and dogs. Tho deputation pointed out that dogs bail a habit of jumping up into liorsctroughs, and that horses would not drin'k after dogs had been in the water. The Mayor replied that the Borough Council had decided to erect a number of iron liorso-troughs, tliough they would probably not put up as many as the deputation desired.