RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XIII, Issue 1555, 30 July 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Friday, July 25. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M., and F. Guinness, Esq., J.P.) Alexander Bruce was charged with unlawfully wounding, with intent, one Joseph Steel, at Moonlight, on 16th July. The prisoner was in another count charged with a common assault. Sub-inspector GoodaU conducted the case, and the prisoner was defended by Mr Staite. The prosecutor was in charge of the store of Messrs Aikin .and Magill at Moonlight, . , and the .defendant, who.: is a mirier long resident at Moonlight, was at the store on •the night of the assault. When it was time to. close ithe storej Steel asked the defendant to. leave. Bruce asked for a candle to light him home; arid Steel, after knocking away the bottom of a bottle, made an impromptu lantern by placing a lighted candle in it, and then handed it to the defendant. After this a slight altercation took place, and Bruce struck at the prosecutor with the broken bottle. Steel put up his arm to guard his head, and he received the blow inside : the left elbow joint. What at the, time seemed a very serious wound was inflicted, but the prosecutor stated that when he went' to a surgeon the injury was not pronounced dangerous. The prosecutor further interceded for the defendant, who, he said,' bore the character of being usually a quiet and inoffensive man, althoiigfrvery strange, in his condact when under the influence of liquor. Dr Phillips described; the nature of the injury received by the prosecutor. Mr Goodall applied for a remand I to enable him to produce a, witness namedJames J. Aikin. Mr Staite objected. He admitted the assault, but denied any previous malice. He -hoped 1 the Court would . try the case' as one of trivial assault. T. Garth, of White and Garth, gave the defendant' an excellent character, from: a knowledge of him for six years. The Bench, in consideration of the previous good character of the defendant,, and in deference to the intercession of the prosecutor, would deal with the case as one, of common assault. At the same time ' it could not be forgotten that the defendant used a very dangerous weapon, and it was not his fault that the prosecutor did not suffer serious injury. The defendant was then sentenced to one week's imprisonment with hard labor, and to pay the expenses of the prosecution. John Hayes, a draper at Half-Ounce, was summoned for using abusive arid offensive language, to Sen. Constable Dorris, at Half-Ounce, on 19th July. The constable said he was on duty at the Upper Town, Half-Ounce, on that day, and. the defendant came up to him and in a threatening mariner demanded why he (Dorris) had been rummaging his (Hayes) goods where they were stored at Totara Flat. He denied doing 50,. , when the defendant menacingly warned him that if he did not cease interfering in his concerns he would The witness here said that having a tender regard forthe modesty of the ladies present in the Court, he could not bring himself to repeat the r words of the threat, but he wrote them down for the private information of their Worships. Henry Drum mond, M'Pherson, and Daniel O'Connell were called for the prosecution, but neither of the witnesses heard defendant use the words complained of. Both witnesses said they heard the constable use the words charged against the defendant. In explanation, they stated that Dorris used the expressions when asking them if they heard Hayes make use of them. Danial said that any threats used by the defendant towards Dorris were not intended to have a retrospective or present effect, they applied to the future good behavior of the constable and were altogether promissory Dorris seemed to be trying to provoke Hayes to assault him. The defence was a denial of the charge, and a complaint of great, provocation on the part of the constable in attempting by his conduct towards the defendant, to incite him to commit a breach of the peace. Ttwas, shown that the constable had overhauled l and examined certain packages of merchandise, the property of defendant, during transit to his store. This gave rise to a good deal of scandal to the injury of the defendant in his business, and he naturally felt aggrieved at the meddlesome and officious interference of the constable. Mr Staite; for- the defendant, endeavored to show ; that Porris acted without authority and on his own responsibility to s gratify his mischievously inquisitive disposition in examining the defendant's goods, and exposing his (defendant's) affairs for motives of his own. The Bench declined to allow this evidence to be given beyond a certain point. The constable said he acted under instructions and fro in information received with respect to a matter in the hands of the. police, and that was sufficient justificar tion for this interference, r Mr Stajte contended that the mariner of the constable in performing his duty, if it were suoh,. was most irritating and vexatious to those with whom he had to deal. The witnesses for the prosecution and the evidence he had offered for .the defence would : show that the constable should be in the position of defendant, instead of his client, for if any one had been guilty of using obsgene or abusive language it was the constable, Thjs dispute might only be of an apparently trivial oature, but it was important in its consequence 1 to tfre defendant and to those living' in the district ovei* which Dorris ! had' apparently irre-. sponsible control.— Henry P. Skead said he heard a 'portion of the h altercation be-: tween Dorris arid Hayes with respect to the rummaging the goods. He heard I Dorris ask Hayes if he would put hi 3' threat into execution, ©orris at tlje time using the expressions written on the paper produced. His (witness's) impression was that Dorris was trying to incite Hayes to commit a breach of the peace, but Hayes distinctly told him (Dorris) that he (Hayes) " was not to be caught." After some further remarks from Mr Staite, the Bench, after a long consultation, considered that the defendant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to whether lie did use the language complained of. The defendant was warned not to again interfere with the constable in a similar manner. If there were complaints to make against coustables, they could be : made to the officer in charge of the district, to the head of the force at Nelson, or to the Superintendent if necessary, but obstructive interference with constables on the part of any person would not be permitted. The charge was then dismissed: Peter Mulvey v. Hugh' Calder.— A comolaint that the defendant had assaulted a uoy named Alex. Mulvey, a son of the

complainant, by throwing stones at him. The defendant was further complained against for U3ing abusive language towards the wife of the complainant. This was. a very trivial case, arising out of a neighbors' quarrel, which appeared to be wrought about through the unmannerly conduct and annoyance of a cople of precocious boys. With respect to the language complained pf, the defendant and his witnesses indignantly denied that the words were ever used towards Mrs Mnlvey in the sense alleged, or that any offence was intended-towards her. The Bench, after lecturing both parties, .dismissed the basest and divided tne costs; Mr Staite for the complainant. , ■■■■■■■ -'-. : ' orvni oases. " ■ J. F. 'Jbhnstorie v. GV Murphy.—A judgment summons to. recover' L 9 3s 6d; Thejoriginal debt was.contracted at Murray Creek some.years ago. The defendant was examined as to. his ability to pay. He said that he had endeavored to make an arrangement with, the plaintiff, bufe he could not succeed. The debt was due by a coKipany of which he was formerly a member.; Previous to leaving the Inangahua he. offered to plaintiff marketable scrip for the debt, but he refused to take it. He was now at work at the railway works, and.his employer offered to advance half the amount, bnt the plaintiff would not accept it. The defendant was ordered to pay LI per week. Smith v. Johnston. —A fraud summons for L 2 18s 6d. , The. defendant; was directed to pay 5s per week until the judgment was satisfied.. .;;, r i Same V. Holdway.—Judgment for the plaintiff for LI 13s 6d, and costs. r '!fl; Wick v; C Clausen.—A claim of; LlB 17s 6d. Judgment confessed for lil7<lßs6d, with costs; U White and Garth v. Flowers.—Judgment by default for L 5 13s usd, with, costs. The Court was adjourned to 28th July. 1