CAMPTOWN.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 725, 10 September 1870, Page 4

CAMPTOWN.

Wednesday, September 7. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.) ASSAULT. Slattery v. Molloy. Mr Davies for plaintiff, Mr Drnry for defence. This was au action for L4O as damages for an assault at No Town on August Ist. Plaintiff said she went to defendant's store on the , above day, and after sunie conversation had passed between them, which ahe repeated, she went out. Defendant followed her and rushed at her outside, and struck her a blow on the face, from the effects of which she fell. Defendant then, she said, lifted her head and dashed it against the ground, causing injuries from the effects of which she was still suffering. The scars visible on her nose and forehead were the effects of the injuries she received. She was at defendant's store on one occasion since the assault to obtain L2l cash, and three nuggets which she left on the counter by mistake on the sth of May. She obtained the money and gold on satisfying defendant and his Btoreman that it belonged to her, and the defendant said he was sorry for what had occurred, but denied that he struck her, he said he only pushed her. On the occasion when she called for the money, defendant's storeman wanted her to settle the matter to avoid any further expense. She refused to do this, as she was determined to let the law take its course. The witness was cross-examined by Mr Drury at some length to show that plaintiff fell as she was turning the corner of the street going towards her own house, and also to elicit from her that she was not sober at the time of the alleged assault. A sketch of the locality was shown to plaintiff, but she said she "couldn't make head or tail of it; she had no head for figures." James Nolan, a baker, said he saw defendant outside his own store when plaintiff came up and called him an opprobrious name, and used other disgusting language. Defendant told her to go away. She continued using the bad language, and defendant went towards her and laid his hand on her shoulder, as if to give her a shake, when, she being so very drunk, she fell forward on her face in the mud. When she got up she had mud on her face, but no blood, as far as witness could see. By the Bench : That was the only assault he saw committed. When defendant got up she went and sat down on a butcher's block close by. A man named Dodson was present. Nathaniel Dodson, a blacksmith, said he saw plaintiff, on the evening, in question, go to defendants' door and begin abusing him, and using obscene language. Defendant ordered her away, but she would not go. Defendant caught her by the ahould'er, when she foil.' Saw no blood when plaintiff got up, but saw some a quarter of an hour afterwards. Thought the blood came from the effects of the fail, and the fall was, in his opinion, the effects of beer as much as anything else. Hugh P. M'Keover, a chemist, deposed he dressed the plaintiff's face on the evening referred to. The witness described the injuries sustained by plaintiff. They consisted of an incised wound along one side of the nose and a deep cut diagonally •cross the forehead. He produced several particles of gravel, one piece the size of a large pea, which were embedded in the plaintiff's flesh. Some of these pieces, he said, he had to remove with a probe. Such wounds might be caused by a heavy fall or by a blow of a stick. A blow of a fist would not be likely to cause them, and there could not have been a ring used, because there were gravel and dirt in the wound. Plaintiff was severely injured, and she suffered for some time. His bill for attending her was L 3 10s. James Whitehead proved going to defendant's store with plaintiff, and hearing a conversation between defendant, his storeman, and witness, with reference to a settleia&nt, of the case ; but his evidence did not heac «i the alteged assanlfc. For the defence, John Clifford, defendant's storemau, was called, and said that on the day referred to plaintiff had been to the store several times in a state of intoxication. Did tell plaintiff it would be better to settle the matter, but it was without defendant's authority. Did not see the assault committed.

Mr Drury addressed the Court for defendant, and Mr Davies replied, pointing out the hostile nature of the evidence towards his client, even of that given by her own witnesses.

His Worship, in giving judgment, said that the case, as borne out by the evidence, did not warrant him in awarding damages to thft amount sued for. The medical evidence'sliowed that plaintiff had been severely injured, and the question for the Court to decide was how far plaintiff' had caused these injuries, or how far plaintiff had contributed to them by her own act. It was in evidence that she was not sober at the time of the occurrence, and he would not pay much attention to her version of the matter had it not been corroborated to a certain extent by the witnesses Nolan and Dobson, who did not vary much in their statements. He was satisfied that defendant's pushing plaintiff in the drunken state she was in was the cause of her falling and receiving the injuries she complained of, but as she had contributed to those injuries by being in that state, and by her conduct previous to the assault, he would have to take those facts into consideration in assessing the damages. Defendant would have to pay plaintiff L 5, with L 3 10s costs and expenses. CIVIL CASES. Haisty v. Maguire.— A claim for Ll 10s, the value of a set of scales lent by plaintiff to one George Lane,' and since converted by the defendant to his own use. The defendant alleged that the scales had been given him by Lave in satisfaction of a debt, but it appeared Lane had no legal right to dispose of the property. His Worship ordered the scales to be given up. forthwith or the amount sued for paid. Defendant to pay costs. Molloy v. Walker.— A claim for L 8 17s Cd for goods delivered. Defendant admitted the amount, but put in a set-off for L6for a piece of greenstone cut and mounted at the request of plaintiff. Defendant's evidence was most unsatisfactory, and his Worship, after giving expression to his dissatisfaction, gave judgment for plaintiff with costs. Same v. Urquhart, L 5 13a 4d ; same v

Commellan, L 7 Us Bd.— Judgment for plaintiff by consent in both cases. * Haisry v. O'Connor, L 6 16s 6d ; aamo v. Doherty, Ll6 Js 11.— Judgment went by default for plaintiff in both cases, with costs. " , There were a number of cases called in which there was no appearance on either side, and the Court was adjourned to 21st September.