RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume III, Issue 189, 30 March 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

(Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R,M.) Tuesday, Makch 28. davies v. aldek. This was an action to recover damn>"es caused by the defendant' haying ridden against the plaintiff, and thereby' occasioned him serious personal injiiries, &c. The damages were laid at' LSO. ' Mrl)' Lough lin appeared for the defendant, the plaintiff conducted his own case. James Davies deposed that "on Tuesday, the 19th, he was returning from the races on foot, in company with luspector J amgs. When on the sandy part of the road between the race-course road and the bridge, ' he was violently ridden against by the defendant, knocked down, and received severe injuries. His collar bone was broken in twq places. Inspector James, who Avas" in plaintiff's company at the time, followed the defendant and took her name. The accident incapacitated him from following his usual business ever since, and his medical advisor considered that his recovery would, under the most favorable circumstances, take six weeks. He claimed LSO as damages for the injuries and pain he had sustained, ancl the loss occasioned by his inability to attend to his ordinary business. Cross-examined by Mr O'Loughlin : The accident took place on the sand, through which there was a beaten track to the racecourse. By the Magistrate : The horse was going at full speed. It was ridden by a woman. I make out my damages for suffering from pain and being compelled to neglect my business. Mr O'Loughlin : To save the time of the Court, was willing to admit that his client was the person who rode the horse which knocked AJr Davies down. J. A. Maguirc, gaoler at Cobclen, deposed that he was riding in company with the defendant on the day in question. The horse she was riding was rather restive, and shortly before the accident, the defendant fell off owing to the saddle slipping round. When the accident to Mr Davies occurred, he (witness) was ahead. Cross-examined by Mr O'Loughlin : The horse was a strong draught horse, and not accustomed to be ridden by a lady, aud was not lit to be ha::dlud by one. By the Cou-t : Defendant fell off before the accident owing to this girth being loose. She foil off about 100 yards distant from Mr Davies. Dr Morice deposed that he was treating Mr Davies for broken collar bono. Plaintiff oamc to him on the nigiifc of Tuesday, the li)th. Under ths most favorable omjtiii»sfcantes it would be six weeks before tho plaintiff's left arm could be used. Mr O'Loughlin, for the dufunco, admitted that thsro could be no doubt of the accident having occurred, and no one "regreltsd it more than his client ; but to support the cast; of the plaintiff it must be showu that the defi'.ndasit was riding recklessly and cwirulessjw He would ba able to prove that the defendant's horse was unmanageable and beyond her control. The learnutl counsel read from K'gal authorities, showing that to support an action of this kind it was necessary "to prove t-aroless or negligence on the part of tho defendant. Hu should prove that his client .did not know that her horse was restive or umnaugeaLl-2. Christina Alder, being sworn, stated she nido to the: diy in question 011 a horse hired from Mauiilto.-i's stables. It was a large drauglithor.se, and she could h;u\lly manage it. Whilst on the road homo, ai.d between the entrance of the road to the race-course and the widge, some horses caute up behind and started Tier's off. The saddle slipped, and she fell off. A number of person's surrounded her horse, and the saddle was replaced aud she remounted.- Almost immediately afterwards some more horses came up behind, and her horse started ; she was unable to hold it, and sheremciubured knocking down some one. She could not possibly hold her horse until reaching the bridge, inspector James came up ancl asked for-libr name, which sl*c gave. The horse was perfectly unmanageable, although she (witness) was a good rider. Cross-examined by Mr Davies : The horse ho.d been restive in the town before going to the race-course, but it wont up the track quietly. . Mr O'Loughlin thought it hacl been clearly shown that the horse had started suddenly, and that the defendant had no control over it. The case was similar to those he had quoted in support of the argument that it was necessary to'prbve negligence or carelessness. This had not been done, and ho contended thiifc his client was entitled to a verdict. . The Magistrate considered that the plaintiff had failed to 'prove that the defenclent had wilfully or by negligence caused the in- . juries he had sustained. ■• It, appeared a> be cluar that the defendant's horse was beyond her control. He therefore dismissed the case. - . GEORGE DODD V. CARRY POPE.. This v.-as an action for assault, in which the damages were laid at LIOO. Mr Tyler appeared for the.plaintiff, and Mr O'Loughlin for the..dcl'endant.Before the case Avas proceeded with Mr O ; Lpughlin asked that the plaintiff should appear in person. He had reason to know that the action had been brought without and against his sanction. Air Tyler maintained that it was quite competent for the plaintiff to appear by attorney. The Magistrate took Mr Tyler's view, ancl the case proceeded. Mr Tyler opened the case by stating that' .the plaintiff claimed damages for an assault agaiust his wife in a booth on the racecourse, ou Wednesday, the 29th inst. He should prove that the assault was most violent and unprovoked, and that the wife of tbc plaintiff had received such injuries as. .deprived her husband of her. services."" He called Harriett Dodd, who deposed she was the wife of the plaintiff. . Mr O'Loughlin made p.n objection/Jiat in ,n.n action for assault and -battery the l&isband laud, wife must bs joinfed as plaintnf in the plaint. J? '^- i -'■ quoted pjiSthorities on ijljJoppJM

site view, and the examination of the witness was proceeded with. ' . " • Harriett Dodd : Was at the racecourse on Wednesday, the 20th inst. Her : husband had a booth there. In the evening she went into Puigg's booth, ancl saw the defendant there. Whilst Mrs Rugg was preparing a cup of tea for her the defendant asked-wit-ness if she was going to have anything to do with the ladies' race on the following day. Witness iaughed, and. then defendant said she would bet witness L2O upon herself, and witness agreed to race her. Defendeut then wanted the ■" money down," and witness upt complying with this demand the defendant cam o up to her and said "Take that, j'ou ," and knocked her over the seat. Mr Strike picked witness up. Some few minutes afterwards whilst Mr Strike was bathing her eye, defendant came in again and seizing hold of her hair pulled her down, and kicked her severely on the hip and legs. Defendant also used very "dreadful" language. Witness had never seen her before, and supposed her to be a respectable woman when she spoke to her. Witness's head was bleeding, and everything she hacl ou was torn or broken. A gold, chain was broken — Mr O'Loughlin objected against any evidence bejng taken of any damages not specified in the plaint. Mr Tyler contended that the broken cliain beir-gthe natural consequence of the assault, he had a right to give evidence upon it. The Magistrate supported Mr O'Longhlin's objection. Examination continued ': Witness's usual employment was to attend to her husband's bar, Owing to the injuries she had sustained, her hrsbaud had been obliged to hire a man at- 14 a week to look after the bar of his hotel at Hokitika. Since the accident she Had not been able to attend to her husband's business. Could not stand at the bar, her leg being frightfully swollen, Never gave the defendant any provocation. Crossrexamined by Mr O'Loughlin: 1 swear lam the lawful wife of the plaiutiff. My husband did not strike me or knock me down the same evening as that of the assault;. I did not strike the defendant before she committed the assault. To Mr Tyler : I came home from the races with a Mr Little. John Strike deposed that on the evening in question he was in Rugg's bqoth on the racecourse having tea. He remembered seeing Mrs Dodd and Mrs Pope there. The defendant came in ami saill she would r.ice anybody for L2O. Mrs" Dodd replied she was willing to race her for'LSO. Defendant then wanted the money down, and they had a "barney" about it. The defendant then struck Mrs D.odcl ancl knocked her qyer. tlr Paul came in and. took "defendant away. Witness picked up Mrs Dodd and was bathing her face with, warm water when the de : fendant came in again and rushed'at her, seized her by the hairj and struck her. 'or the eye. Did not see Mrs Dodd give, the defeu : dant any provocation beyond the argument about the racing. Did not see.MrsD.pcld push the defendant Patrick Ci •wford corroborated the evidence of the previous, witness. He considered both women a little the worse for drink", but they wore able to take care of themselves. George Moody deposed that after the defendant had been reinovecl from the bqoth by Mr Paul; defendant "called out to be allowed to go back, and that she " would only speak" to Mrs Dodd, She went back, and pulled Mrs DocUl down by the hair aud he,at her. Dr Morice stated that the wife of the plaintiff came to him an Thursday last, and on examination he found her to be suffering from a black eye aud "soreness qf the sealp 3 She spoke to him than of other bruises on her body, but witness did not "see $heni until the following day. He then found that her right shin had been much hurb, the akin being removed, and ulcers hacl since formed. She could not do much standing with safety to her leg. He considered it would take at luast a fortnight to. obtain a recovery. This concluded tlio plaintiff's casi). Mr O'Longhliis, for the defence, moved for a nonsuit on a point of Jaw. Tho clefendant. wa? a married woman, which he could prove bjyond doubt, and that her husband was living. As to the presumption of the husband being still alive, it was suHicient in law to jirovu that ho had been seen alive within S;svon years. He woiild, however, prove that he had been seen live months ago. A dismission ensued between the learned counsel, and ultimately Mr O'Longlilin.' -njas allowed to call evidence to prove that the defendant w;rs a married woman. Tbe defendant being sworn deposed that she was a married woman, and that her lmsband's name was Cochrane. She last lie;:rd of him live months ago from one Frederick Mnrtun. Crqs examined by Mr Tyler : I last lived v.ith Mr Coclfrane three years ago, but saw him last about two years since, before I came to New Zealand. You have no right to ask me if I am cohabiting with Mr Paul. I shan't answer'that question. (The witness being told by the Bench that she was obliged to a iswer) said, I am Mr Paul's partner. I swear I am not cohabiting with." hi ml Frederick Morton, waiter at the Albion Hotel, deposed, that lie knew defendant as Mrs Cochrane. Knew her husband- well. Was certain defendant was a married woman, as ho remembered her wedding, and had seen the marriage lines.' Believed that she had left him of her own accord, on account ef ill-usage. ' Mr O'Loughlin quoted authorities to show that the defendant, being a married woman, could not be sued under a civil process. He had established beyond a doubt that the defendant's husband had been seen alive five months ago, and he accordingly moved for a nonsuit. Mr Tyler contended that a 1 though apr % sumption might exist as to the husband b-.-ing alive, it was necessary 'to prove that he was so. It was also necessary to prove that the defendaut was living with her husbanl, or that she had good^cause for separating from him. Although defendaut had sworn she was not liviug in adultery with another man, he thought his Worship could hardly ciedit her statement. The learned counsel quoted jjgithorities to the e&fit .that if a woman ■wilfully left "her 'iffirsuantl' ami lived in adultery, her husband' was relieved from all responsibility for her tortuous acts. After some further argument, his Worship i overruled Mr O'Litoglilin's.view of the case; but consented to take a note of it, for the purpose of stating a case for the Court of Appeal. Mr O'Loughlin proceeded with the case for the defendant, and said- that he should prove that Mrs Dodd first assaulted the defendant. He was also in a position to prove that this action hacl been b ought without the consent of the plaintiff, who ought to have been produced as witness for the prosecution. He called Caroline Pope, alias Cochraue, who, after being sworn, said that on the evening in question she went into llugg's booth for ten minutes before returning home. Whilst she was there Mrs Dodd came in, and 'witness asked her if she was going to ride in the ladies' race the following day. Mrs Dodd said said she would race witness- or-" any' woman for L20,pr .£50.—- Witness asked her to. stake the money, which she would not do. Witness then accused her of "blowing" when she came up and said, "Who do^v^ call a ' blower,' " and pushed witn£^|jjflH Witness then "let. fly at heiv^tf^^^^H in the eye." Theymj^Ktt^^^^^^^M Prior to this, . Mrs^^^^^^^^^^^^H witness ; she said ' '-^^^^^^^^^^^^|

was in the Royal Hotel booth at^^^^^J way, Mrs Dodd and her husband^^^^^H and witness heard them say they *^^^^^H roy. r on the road. Cross-examined by Mr Tyler : j^^^^^H pushed me first ; the push caused i^^^^^H Mr Paul did get me away, and I ''^^^^^| back to the booth, Mr Strike wa^^^^H Mrs Dodcl's eye when I left. I or^^^^H her once/ l^^^^^l Wm. Paul deposed that he was booth oil the question. Heard M^^^^^J and the defendant having high wo^^^^^f racing. When defendant askecj^^^^H money to be staked, Mrs Dodd pushfl^^^^fl defendant, who then struck her. . '^^^^^H examination, this witness said that^^^^^H sent defendant against the seats. '^^^^^H defendant away, but she afterwi^^^^^H back again, ancl he saw her take -^^Pl^^| by the hair, and hit her. . By the Court :. The defendant JfHijH partner. lam not cohabiting with hwl^; l^B Win. Harvey heard defendant "bffivSlH Mrs Dodd. Saw Mrs Dodd raise hel^g/M but could not say if she pushed Defendant did fall to the ground. \"; .AIB- 1 BB Charles Harris recoUected com&-J»i'!L^B with Mrs Dodd from the races. Hf^f||'# ■ overtook us, and spoke to his wif^j!s«£jt H her she ought to be ashamed of her»fe|lf ,\H ing on as she was doing, disgraci&j|ijl r^M and him. He then shoved her, a:iafe|a ; ;; I ou her back on the road. Mrs !^'&% ;■ asked me not to say anything here |j|P''* ■ husband striking her, '}i|'' L i^ I Cross-exauiined by Mr Tyler : 'jjsW',:-l I row on the racecourse all the time}M|^st I not see the defendaut strike Mrs|p?|i>rl:ii,,B second time. 1 saw her strike Paii^l^^l .:!■ At this stage the plaintiff was g Mijte^U I having transpired that he Avas -cM|v]fj|Sl;.: ! ■ Court. He, however, refused to\ ,^**|i^|Jj the Magistrate sent a constable ft piS^lJI fl he hacl bolted. If BAI Mary Ann Smith stated that the plainlk p had told her that he and his »«old womamlj] (meaning his wife) had had a row ou till j side the bridge, oq the load home. }jl The counsel on both sides haviiig addresf M j the Bench, the Magistrate gave a verdict k?JI f t'le plaintiff — damages, L2O. „ '. Wmf,