MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1455, 15 October 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, October 14, [Before G. L.-Mellish, Esq., R.M.] Manslaughter. —The hearing of this charge against John Dempsy was continued when Seargeat Morice was cross-examined by Mr Thomas—The witness said ;> I told the prisoner the charge that McClatchie had made against nim when' -T arrested him. No charge in writing had been made when I arrested the prisoner. I told the prisoner that I charged him with violently assaulting McClatchie and causing him grievous bodily harm. I did not caution him. The prisoner gave Im l account; of how the matter occurred Rftpr I arrested him. I arrested him at once after. explaining the charge. He commenced by shying, “ Does he say I jumped on him, &c.” The prisoner said it was to prevent McClatchie striking him again 'that he caught hold of him. When prisoner was putting a cork under the, door the deceased struck him in the face. Prisoner said deceased pulled him down, on the top ef him. When I arrested jibe prisoner I took him to Mr Mellish’s, next to the Court, then to the Depot, and from thehce we walked to the Hospital. The -prisoner made no mention of requiring any legal assistance when I took him to the Hospital. When the deceased made his statement ha was perfectly calm until the accused commenced to cross-examine him, and then he got excited. The deceased and accused did not seem on good terms. I could not say from deceased’s manner whether he thought he was likely to recover or not. ) He did not look like a man that was dying. Deceased made no statement as to his suffering from any disease. He said that he had been in excellent health up bo that time, and he attributed his injuries entirely to the violence of the prisoner. He also distinctly stated that when Mrs Oookson came in she ordered the prisoner to let go of him. Deceased said in reply to prisoner, “ I did hot abuse you. I did not call you a b Irish son . of a w- -r.” In reply to the prisoner the deceased said, “ I did not strike you, or attempt to strike you.” Deceased said the prisoner had accused him of abusing him. Deceased said he had not given the prisoner any provocation. The prisoner,' when deceased was being examined, accused him of calling him foul names, and the deceased denied that he had done so. When the Coroner warned the deceased not to excite himself, the prisoner had stopped asking questions. Cross-examined by Mr Inspector Hickson—When prisoner was arrested, he expressed no wish to see any one. If he had wanted legal help and said so every assistance would have been given to him. Dr, Nedwill was next called, and recapitulated his former evidence given at the inquest. In answer to Mr Inspector Hickson, the witness said that such an assault alleged to have been committed on the deceased, caused the effusion of blood into deceased’s bladders, which was the principal difficulty he had had in dealing with the case. He could not say say whether death in this case was accelerated in the least degree by the alleged assault, as the stricture of the urethra was quite sufficient to account for all the post mortem appearances. Cross-examined by Mr Thomas—There was nothing from first to last in the appearance of deceased either during life or after death that could not have been accounted for by the stricture of the urethra, or as he should prefer to say, what might not have naturally followed it. There was nothing in the appearance of the body which could not have been accounted for fully without any suspicion of violence having been used. The stricture was unquestionably of several months standing, more likely years. A person affected with disease like the deceased might fancjtohe enjoyed very good health. In answer to Mr Inspector Hickson, the witness said purulent absorption was the cause of deceased’s death ; this might have followed infusion of blood into the bladder, which might have been caused by a man falling on the body of tha deceased, and so have hastened his death, John Batley, barman at tho Garrick Hotel, was the next witness, and he described tha circumstances, as far as he saw and heard, that preceded the death of the deceased. His evidence in no way differed from what he had previously stated at the inquest. Referring to the witness (Mrs Sparey) whose evidence the coroner declined to take at tho inquest, the witness stated that Mrs Sparey came into the bar before Mrs Oookson and just after the witness Macfarlane had parted deceased and the prisoner. In cross-examina-tion, the witness stated he lived for two years opposite the deceased in Kilmore street, and he was a man of very intemperate habits, and was continually fighting and quarrelling with Mrs Sparey, the woman he was living with. When in liquor he was very quarrelsome. Ho was the occasion of the row, not Dempsey, and if ho said afterwards he was not, he would be telling a falsehood. The prisoner could not help falling, in fact one man could not have fallen without the other. The prisoner could not have got up until he was pulled off the deceased by Macfarlane. Archibald Macfarlane, being called, repeated his former evidence. Cross-examined by Mr Thomas—The witness would not swear whether prisoner’s knees wore on the ground or on the. body of deceased., If the prisoner had been working with his knees on tne body of deceased the witness must have seen it. The following fresh evidence was then called —Louisa Spary, being sworn, said—l have lived with deceased for seven years up to the time of his death. I called at the Garrick Hotel this day four weeks. It was about twelve o’clock. Deceased was in the hotel at the time. I went into the side passage, and asked the witness Batley what was the matter, and he sa ; d only Dempsey and McClatchie having a bit of a “scrummage.” I could not see into the bur. Mrs Cookson came in, and ordered the prisoner to go into the kitchen. I heard McClatchie tell the prisoner to get off of him. Afterwards McClatchie went into the back yard. I then went home, and about ten minutes afterwards McClatchie came home too. On arriving home McClatchie sat down for a few minutes, and then laid down on his bed. He had been drinking from Saturday until Monday, and was not sober then. He complained a good deal, bat it was about nine days before ho saw a doctor; not until the following Thursday week. I sent for Dr. Townend, but was not in the room wheu the doctor saw him. He always suffered greatly after drink. Deceased worked half a day between the row at tho Garrick and his admission into tho Hospital. Deceased complained to roe the night of the row, but he had always been a sufferer from his bladder. I cannot remember whether the deceased came home drunk on the Wednesday following the row. He always suffered from his complaint after a drinking bout, Anna Maria Jones, being sworn, said—l live in Manchester street, and was sent for four weeks ago by Mrs Sparey at 12 noon. I went to the house of the deceased, Hugh McClatchie, He was sitting in the kitchen, against the door, and wiw complaining, uud

he went to bod about ten minutes after. I went to him at 8 in the evening, and put hot flannels on hia cheat. His left bosom was swollen very much. After he had the hot flannels on he said he felt better. In the morning, about 8 o’clock, I went and saw him again, and put more hot flannels on him. This concluded the whole of the evidence. Mr R. D. Thomas briefly addressed his Worship, and said he should like to have an expression of opinion from him as to his intention of sending the case to the Supreme Court, as in the latter event he should like to comment upon certain parts of the evidence, which pointed to the conclusion that the prisoner was guiltless of having caused deceased’s death. His Worship said he had the evidence fresh in his mind. Mr Thomas then dwelt upon those portions of the evidence which went to show that no unnecessary violence had been used by the prisoner, and that there was no imputation of malice on his part against the deceased, but rather, considering the provocation that ho had received, he had been very forbearing. His Worship was of opinion, considering the gravity of the case, that it should be sent to a jury, although he would admit it was a very weak one, and were not a man’s life involved, he should have felt inclined to deal with the case himself. The prisoner was then committed to take his trial at the next sessions of the Supreme Court, being admitted to the same bail as before — one recognisance in £IOO. Tuesday, October 15. Drunk and Disorderly.— Harriett Battcock, who had frequently been before the Court, was fined 10s. Transfer of License. -- The Talbot Hotel, Yaldhurst, from William Atkinson to John Franks. LYTTELTON, Tuesday, Ootobeb 15. [Before W. Donald, Esq, R.M., and J. T. Rouse, Esq, J.P.] Refusal of Duty.— Jno. Rogers and; Thos. Gillon, seamen, belonging to the ship Southminster, were accused by Captain McFee of this offence, and sentenced to twelve weeks’ imprisonment with hard labor. Desertion. —George Charlton, a seaman, Belonging to the ship Orari, was sentenced to *ix weeks’ imprisonment for this offence.