RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XIV, Issue 1733, 23 February 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT AHAURA.

Friday, February 20. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., B.M.,and F. Guinness, Esq., J.P.) ASSAULT.

George Cole was summoned for assaulting Richard Parker, at Callaghan's Creek, on 18th February. From the evidence it appeared the complainant and defendant were partners, mining at Callaghan's, the defendant having purchased the interests of the late Francis Hawk. Cole put a man on to represent him in the claim, while he " had a man on " elsewhere, and Parker it was alleged needlessly quarrelled with the representative of Cole, who when he returned demanded satisfaction. This was not given as promptly as it might be, whereupon Parker, to use his own words, "was laidout in a tail-race." He said he would not think so much about that, but Cole did not give him a chance to recover himself and " have it out in the open," but continued thrashing him when he was down, until at length he was unable to defend himself ; besides the marks on the complainant's face showed that somebody had been at work at it, but the defendant pleaded having received great provocation from Parker. He said they had been mates bfifore in the North Star claim, on the South Beach, and that

Parker was of a very quarrelsome disposition, and disagreed with the whole company. On the present occasion the dispute arose through the overbearing conduct of Parker towards a man he (Oole) placed in the claim to represent his share. This was an old man, and he (Cole) felt bound to protect him from the insults of the complainant. This part of the defendant's evidence was corroborated by David Williams, another shareholder in the claim. Cole also alleged that Parker was not to be believed on his oath, for he did not consider it binding on hi 3 conscience—an imputation which the latter indignantly denied. The defendant was severely lectured by the Bench, and cautioned not to take the law into his own hands again, but in consideration of the provocation he had received, and the aggravating conduct of the complainant, he was only fined 20s with costs.