RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1183, 14 May 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, May 13. - „■- '*'-- \ (Before Mr W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) ' An inebriate named James O'Brien was fined ss. THE BBEAD CASES. The Magistrate gave judgment in the cases brought against Wm. Jones, Tho3. Moutray, and Thqs. Gleeson on Friday last, in which defendants were "charged with having sold bread other than by weight, thereby infringing the 10th section of the Bakers' and Millers' Act. t He said that since the cases were heard he had closely studied the Act, and also compared it with the English Act on the same subject, from which the former was apparently compiled. In the English measure it was compulsory on all bakers to carry with them weights and scales, and weigh bread on delivery, but in the' Colonial one there was no such compulsion, and all that was required was that the bread should be once weighed. He read the 10th and 22th clauses bearing on the matter, and remarked that by them it was clear that it became necessary for the police to prove that bread had been. sold without being weighed, or that it was deficient in the alleged weight. It was competent for persons to demand that bread sold to them should be weighed, or a fine of L 5 might be inflicted, but this had not been done in the present case. One weighing, whether in the shop or otherwise, he held to be sufficient, and there was nothing in the Act to compel weighing on delivery. The cases would therefore be dismissed. The Inspector of Police said, that after his Worship's ruling, the cases against Jellicoe and M'Donald, servants to two of the defendants, would not be proceeded with. assaults. •■'■■' Isaac and Elizabeth Hutchins charged Michael Clancy, on two different informations, with having violently assaulted them on the Arnold road on the 28th April last. It was arranged that the two cases should be heard at the same time. Another information was also laid by the police against Elizabeth Hutchins for assaulting Michael Clancy with intent to do grievous bodily harm, but stood over till the first two cases were disposed of. Mr Perkins appeared for Mrs Hutchins. Defendant Clancy appeared in Court with his head bound up, but otherwise j apparently little the worse for the injury j he had received. Isaac Hutchins, who was first examined, said he was residing on the Arnold road, and kept a boarding house there. On the 28th April, Clancy and some others came into his house, and defendant commenced to abuse him, and subsequently assaulted him, striking him in the face and cutting him. Another man interfered, and Mrs Hutchins also interposed, when Clancy assaulted her, threatened to kick her, made use of threatening language, and threw plates and other things at her. Elizabeth Hutchins proved that the defendant came to her hut and threatened to blow up the place, knock her husband's teeth down his throat, and make it a caution to him. At the same time defendant struck her husband in the face, and on her interfering to protect him, defendant kicked her with great violence in the thigh, and subsequently threw a dipper, a plate, and a tumbler at her head. The latter just grazed her hair as she escaped from the tent. A. man named Dan Malonc held the defendant and enabled her husband and herself to get out of the tent. Defendant followed her, and threatened that he would split her, kick, her guts put, and called her a b— — w -.' After she got out of the tent defendant followed her with a stick in his hand, and in order to protect herself she picked up the first thing she came to, the tomahawk produced, and threw it at him. She was at the time seven or eight yards distant, and believed the tomahawk struck him on the. forehead. That settled the quarrel. She had been ill since, and was confined to her bed some days after the occurrence. She j was afraid to lay the information sooner, fearing that the lot would kill her if she did. Clancy had threatened her about a week previously, and had then rushed at her like a mad bull,, but a swagman passing by interfered and protected her. At the time he told her he would make it a caution to her. She did nothing whatever to provoke his attack -beyond asking him to go away. Daniel Malone corroborated in a great degree the previous evidence, though apparently a very unwilling witness. He sud that whilst he was holding Clancy Mrs Hutchins pulled his (Clancy's) beard. He could not remember what language passed, neither did he see anything thrown at Mrs Hutchins, though something might have been thrown, at her husband. The memory of the witness was exceedingly defective as to the occurrence, and he explained the deficiency by saying that it all seemed like a dream to him. In reply to Mr Perkins he admitted that when served with the summons to attend as a witness he said that they might just as well summon a wooden man as him. Olive Brandt proved that he heard the defendant, when with a man named Harley, say that he would give Hutchins a good hiding and knock down his house.. Defendant did not appear to wish to go at once, but said he would, wait till after supper, but was persuaded to go at once, and did so. Thomas Nelson swore that he saw defendant throw a tumbler at Mrs Hutchins. Dr Morice proved that he had examined Mrs Hutchins and found abrasions on her right thigh, the kick to. cause such must have been severe. She was in delicate health and within a very short time of her confinement. Swain Stephenson gave further evidence as to the assault, saying that the only other person present was Harley, defendant's mate. Mr Perkins said that was the case. Defendant said that Hutchins had been speaking disrespectfully of him at Power's, at the Coal Pits, and that hearing of it he simply gave him a Blap in the face. He denied altogether having assaulted the woman, and said that when she threw the tomahawk at him he was standing with his arms folded, and had no stick whatever. He called f , Patrick Harley, who said that he and defendant had been to Power's store where they heard Hutchms had been saying something disparaging of the defendant. On charging the latter with it he said, either " you are a b— — y liar," or : " it's a b y lie," when a scuffle ensued, during which Mrs Hutohins atruok defeii- 1 dant and pulled his whiskers. Defendant i

told her to keep awayj as he had a re.spect"for her but not for her husband. .Witness was sure that , Clancy could not : Mve kicked her. ' In cross-examination by Mr Perkins, witness denied that he had urged defendant to go down^and kick up. a, rojir. .. No. abusive language" was used at i tlie time, and t - only- words- ,of respectability. He did. riot hear defendant threaten Mrs Hutchins. Defendant might-have kicked her, but he did nofcsee him,. He saw nocrockery thrown, though defendant swept a glass off the table in struggUng whilst witness was holding him. ;; f ; Dr Morice recalled, stated that the de-j fendant's wound wa9 two inches long and: one inch deep, the : tomahawk having apparently glided along the bone. It was not dangerous, excepting in the case of erysipelas setting ip. ......•■'.. The Magistrate said that the assault had been clearly proved, but he would reserve judgment till the r other case had been disposed of. - ; Mrs Hutchina was . then charged, with cutting and wounding Michael Clancy with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Mr Perkins . appeared for defendant. The evidence in this case was identical with the last, with the single exception of Clancy, who gave testimony. This was in effect that he was irritated at hearing Hutchins had been speaking disrespectfully of him at the store, and that on charging him with doing so he (Hutchins) called him a liar, when the quarrel resulted. .• During the interval, one of the most material witnesses for Clancy managed to render himself intoxicated, and on coming f orw ard was locked up. by the order of the Magistrate. The consequence was that the case against Mra Hutchins was necessarily postponed, as well as the Magistrate's decision in the assault case. , \