RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Grey River Argus, Volume IV, Issue 270, 5 October 1867, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, GREYMOUTH.

TgUBSDAYj OQT. 3. (Before W. H. Reyell, Esq., Rlt) ATX USTKROTHERLY QUil^/REL, Simmons v. Peljing.- The defendant was charged .with having assaulted ythe complainant on the evening pf theiJisV instant. The facts of the case will be better stated: by the complainant,; who said :— On the eveuipg 'of Tuesday, the Ist instant, 1 attended a meeting of the. Foresters' Lodge, of which I am a. member, at" the United. States Hotel. The meeting was called to investigate the con duct of certain persons connected with the Lodge; in regard- to a ball which too'i place recently. I attended to give evidence in the case, and so did the defendant. We were ordered into the back room, to wait till called upon.. Pelling then ... accused me. of interfering in his. private business, and asked my reason for so doing. I replied, that I did not do so, but that I had nothing then to say to him/ He "then pulled off his coat and. challenged me to' fight, saying, "If you, are a man strip." I said, "If. you are a, blackguard, I am cot." He then said something about my children, for thq pmpose of rousing me to fight, and when I replied, he swung his hat in niy face I lifted up a small table to keep him off but lie got round.it and struck ir<e a blo^ on the right eye, the effect? of which you can now see." "1 then wrestled with him in my own defence/ and put him on the floor, wheu his wife and a man named Rapson came, in, seized me by the hair and dragged me out o f ie rppm - wjuj Q they -were holding me, defendant rushed at me again and struck Due a blow on the left side.oHihe face. I asked him to explain himself— what .1 h.ad done to him, when he repeated that I had interfered in his private business before the Foresters' Court. The defendant was proceeding with a, cross-examination as to whether Foresters usually called each other "~ brothers," and if it was a brotherly action to ia-= terfere in Ms business and tell lies about him, but he was stopped. .'.."- Edmund Wickes .; On Tuesday night, I . was at a meeting of the Foresters' Courtcalled for the purpose of investigating charges brought against certain members of selling tickets for a ball, purporting ta be a Foresters' ball— in fact, obtaining money under false pretences. Simmons, and Pelling were very noisy in the Conrt, and v they were ordered out, Before, leaving the room, Pelling used very stronglanguage to the complainant, such as " A* low mean scamp," or " blackguard.'' Simmons gave no cause for the use of such language that I could see. I after, wards heard a row in the adjoining room, but did not see the assault. Daniel Connell : 1 was a member of thq Court of Enquiry, on Tuesday night last, Hearing a noise in the adjoining room, J opened the door, looked in, and saw Pelling standing, in . a fighting attitude, with his shirt sleeves rolled up, but Simmons did no.t appear to be willing to fii?hc. I was ordered by the Chairman t« close the door, which I did.,- ~ ■ ' For the defence, Pelling said : I was at the meeting of the Foresters referred to. • I asked Simmons, what he had. to do in^ terfering with my business, and why he went rouud "tittle-tattling" about me. for. He denied doing so, and we go| using strong language, till 1 threatenegPlQ strike him, He took up a table, and rushed at me with it. • I took it from, him, and then we had a good stand-up fight. He. got me down, put his knees on me, kicked me, and tore my hair out, The persons, in the, W rushed in, and pulled him off me. He said he would lie in wait for me, and I said that although, he had nut my thumb out, [wxmld meet him wherever he liked. Thomas. Rapson : On Tuesday .night, I; was in the United States Hotel, sitting in the room adjoining tho bar, I-heard si, noise, an.d the smashing of glass in the parlori 1 rushed in, fqund Pelling :bn the floor, and Simmons, holding him down* by the hair, and kicking him with his left foot. I took hold of Simmons' by the collar, and dragged him put of the room, Mrs Pelling picked up Summons's hat arid took it out to him. He ma.de use of very bad language, and challenged Pelling ta come out and fight. By the Magistrate > After 1 separated them, Pelling did not strike Summons) ha did not strike him in my presence. Mr*. Pelling was in the room when I got in, trying to part them. She' did not assist me to remove Simmons out of the room. The Magistrate delayed judgment iq this case, until he had heard other two* charges of assault . brought by Simmons, against Mrs Pelling and Thomas^Rapson. ■ The evidence in these cases was "precisely? similar to that given iv the first, and in neither of them were there any witnesses, called. The Magistrate then ordered the, two last cases to be dismissed; as, it ap-» peared to him the parties merely, inter-, fered to protect Pelling from the assault of Simmons, who, it appeared from the evidence, was using more force than was, necessary for his own protection. Whoever was assaulted had a right to use force* in repelling any. attack made upon him, but he had no right to prolong his 1 1 ack, or use more force than was necess; ry fcfl£di§i his own protection. This it .appea^^^^ Simmons had done. Yet he mustil»§||P; taking into consideration the p«b3»P^ before him, that he was under ,itEw§ rP" A pression that there was soide^cl^S^ Stf*i#-> given for the assault,. and^othai|thl^^' was some justification of tlie^Ma^^^^jßP defendant, in the first caaeTwßjflllHpfined Is' and costs.' civil cases. Felix Healyv. Henry Pridgeon.— -Th^^ was a claim of Ll4 14s, for wages.. Irar*^ plaintiff stated that his agreemenifvfo serve the defendant was at the rate« / L3 per week. The defendant pleiide'<f: that the agreement with the plaintiff was at the rate of 30s per week and board ; tint he was only indebted: "in the sum, of LlO 10s, and put in a set-off for Lll 2s. An alleged payment of cash was disputed, and the items in the accounts 'were gone into. The Magistrate was inclined' to believe the defendant's statement, as to the rate at which he engaged the plaintiff, and gave judgment for L 2 3s 6d and costs Joyce v. Smyth.— This was'a el|rim for the unlawful conversion to his oi(?n use /^ and refusal to deliver up certain goods, the property of the plaintiff. Mr o'Loughlin appeared for the plaintiff. It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff had a quantity of ,oats stored in the building known as" Keenan's store^ and when it was sold the plaintiff removed his oats to the defendant's store. Aftenvards he removed 36 bags pf the eat? £691 the de-

fendant's store, and no charge was made for storage. When a second quantity ■was being removed, the defendant refused to allow any more to go until storage was paid at the rate of L 2 per 'week. The plaintiff offered to pay the usual rate, charged in other stores in town, but the defendant refused to ~ deliver the remain--j! ing 17 bags until he paid L 2 a- week for 'Wfltorage. He how sued for non-delivery *' pi the oats.. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had been asked several times since to take tlie oats away, but never unless he paid the L 2 per week. Jle had been asked that morning to remove the oats, which he refused to do, unless the defendant paid the expenses of the summons and tlie counsel's fees. The /defendant was not present when the first quantity of oats was removed from the gtore. George Taylor was called to prove the usual charge for storage of goods. The usual charge was :2s 6d a ton per week, and L 2 a week would be considered an exorbitant charge for the quantity under dispute, unless a special agreement: ■was made.. Donald Maclean gave similar evidence. The defendant's statement was that the plaintiff came on the morning of the' 11th ult. and asked if he could put somejwts in his store.. He said he would if hjfluid L.2 a- week. This was said in thejflßesence of his storcman, who had sinflgone to the Buller, When he pre(se^pd the bill for storage the plaintiff - tore "it up, and disputed it. He af ter^ wards asked the plaintiff to take the oats . £way, and he would sue him for the amount, but he refused to do so, Seventeen bags of the oats still remained in his store. Jas. Wilson, the plaintiff's storeman, stated that* the defendant came several times and asked him to take away the oats. He heard Smyth make no de^ maud for payment, except when they were from removing the oats, .and Smyth then demanded L 2 a-week. The .Magistrate said the only point he had to decide in the matter was whether Smyth had refused to give up the oats or not. He had nothing to do with the amount of. storage fees charged. On the whole, he thought that Joyce had acted wrongly in the matter, and it would have been better for him to have taken the oats when jSmyth told him to do so, and allowed Smyth to sue on his agreement, if he had '\ one. Case dismissed. '\ - tjHildebrand and Weber v. Isaac O'Donnell.—This was a claim of L3O 10s, for butchers' meat sold and delivered. Mr O'Loughlin appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr £>. Maclean appeared as trustee on^ the estate of the defendant. Mr o'Lough- ? N \\\\ asked\that the deed under which he acted should be produced. Mr Maclean stated thaWt was in Hokitika, for the purpose of^being registered.. It was v "executed on Saturday last. Mr O'Loughlin objected to*Mr Maplean's statement ps to the contents\vf a deed being taken. The deed must be' -produced, as it might be found to be informal or invalid as against the present claim; but he would take judgment for the amount, subject to the production of the deed, bearing date prior to the purchase of the goods in disr pute. Mr Maclean agreed'to this, Biibject. to the approval of the items in the account by Isaac O'Donnell. There was some argument, and an adjournment _pf the Court, after which Mr Maclean consented to judgment on the conditions. "statxL In the following cases judgment was given bydefault for the amount claimed '^4 : and costs:— F. Clark v. Hastie, LlO ; Oomiskey v. Benjamin Harrison, L 3 7; Hewitt v. Hughes, L§ (by consent). Cases dismissed in consequence of the non-appearance :-^Gle.nn Bros. v. Stephen TEgan, Julia East v. Anue Waters, Ray^ pioncl v. 'Davis,- Same v. Jessie, Same v. M' Williams, Same v. Jacitson.