MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 22 April 1926, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, (Before IV. .Meldrum, Esq., S.M.) LICENSING ACT, The Police charged a resident with being illegally on licensed premises (Railway Hotel). Ordered to pay costs 7s. On similar charges (Royal Mail Hotel. Woodstock) two men were charged. One was ordered to pay costs 7s and the other Bs. On a similar charge (Masonic Hotel) an offender was finet! £1 and costs 7s. To a charge of being unlawfully on licensed premises (All Nations Hotel, Kinitt) a defendant (Mr Murdoch) pleaded not guilty. Constable Drummond gave evidence and also the defendant, the latter’s explanation being accepted and the ease dismissed. A similar charge against another defendant (Royal Mail Hotel, Woodstock) was also defended, the explanation of defendant being accepted and the charge dismissed.

A. prohibited person for whom Mr Murdoch appeared pleaded guilty fo procuring liquor. Convicted and fined 5s and costs oil one charge and to pay 7s costs on a second charge. M. Keenan (licensee of the Royal Mail Hotel, Woodstock) was charged with selling liquor after hours, keeping open for sale and with exposing liquor for sale, after hours. Defendant pleaded not guilty to the two first charges and guilty to the latter. This was accepted by the police and a conviction was recorded and fine of £2 and costs 7s inflicted, the other charges being withdrawn. On a charge of knowingly permitting a prohibited person to lie on the premises. the same defendant pleaded not guilty. A fine of £5 and costs 7s was inflicted. DEBT GASES. J. E. Schroder (Mr Murdoch) v. W. McK. Hareourt, claim 929 8s fid on a maintenance order. Convicted and sentenced to one month in default of payment of amount with counsel’s fee. .1. Boyd (Mr Elcoek) v. IV. Shand. claim 26 2s. Judgment for plaintiff with costs 30s (id. Wells Bros, and Sons (Mr Elcoek) v. J. Timpson. claim 23 L'ls 2d. Judgment for plaintiff with costs 23s fid. Amos Dowell (Mr Elcoek) v. I*. Amherger. judgment summons. No order made. CHARGE OF ASSAULT. John D. MeQuiikin 'Mr Murdoch) v. George Williams (Mr Pilkington) claim for £45 for assault. Evidence was led as follows: Dr Baird gave evidence that plaintiff came to him on 6th April. He had a severe contusion of the left eye, a wound on the cheek below the eye. causing numbness of feeling for several months. Also a fracture of the upper jaw, with severe laceration of the lining of the nose. The injuries were consistent with blows from a clenched fist and would he painful. To Mr Pilkington—There would le no permanent injuiry. It would he necessary to have at least two blows to effect the injuries. James C. Mncl'arlane deposed lie was a civil engineer. Was at his front gate, when MeQuiikin passed and a moment or two later a man passed and when he got to MeQuiikin saw the man strike MeQuiikin. Did not know the man and could not recognise him again. John I). .MeQuiikin deposed he was a County roadman and 48 years of age. Defendant was married to the daughter of witness. Witness at the request of his son, returned a bicycle. Did not go on the premises of defendant. Left the bicycle at the gate. Then walked along and passed Mr Mncl'arlane. Then he heard someone call out. Turned round and saw Williams running towards him and lie almost immediately caught up to witness and caught him by rile right arm, asking wlmt was the game. Witness said, •‘Nothing that lie knew of. what’s votirs." Williams

said. “Why did you come to my place?” Witness .said lie came to bring back the bicycle. Williams said: "You came crawling into my hack yard.” and immediately struck witness. The Mood llowed down his nose and lie was stooping when he was struck twice again. "Witness did not offer tight, but went straight down the street and Williams followed, using threats and then stopped near the Marquis of Lome. AVitness went to the police station and the doctor, lie gave no provocation. He lost live days work as a result. To Mr I’ilkiiigton—AVlieu leaving the bicycle at the gate saw his daughter. Did not use any had language to his daughter. Williams did not warn witness to keep away from his house and to stop annoying his wife. Witness did not put tip his hands and tried to avoid defendant., when he was striking witness. He would not go through the same experience again for £11)0. Men W. McPherson deposed he was a fireman residing in Hampden Street. Saw Williams come along and hustle up to McQuilkin mid saw Williams strike him on the jaw and knock his hat oil'. Saw blood collie from Mo(.luilkin. AVilliams made other smacks at him. but if they landed or not. ho did not know. Did not see McQuilkin attempt to strike AVilliams. I''or the defence Mr Pilkington led evidence.

Mary Elizabeth AVilliams deposed she was the wife of defendant and the daughter of plaintiff. Her father came along and left a bicycle at the gate. She asked where her brother was and lie said lie was at Kanieri. She said he had no right to stay there. There had been trouble at her house through her father’s visit. AVcnt and told her husband what her father had said. Saw her husband follow up to her father. They had a few words and then saw her father shape up, and her husband struck him in sell defence. They had often squabbled before. Her father had often threatened her husband. Only saw one blow struck.

To Mr Murdoch —Her father had not been at her house for eight months.

George AVilliams deposed he was the defendant. The plaintiff had been warned to keep away from, the house. On the day in question after passing McQuilkin, his wife came along and said her father had been annoying her. AVitness went hack and asked McQuilkin what his game was. McQuilkin turned round and appeared to be going to grab witness and witness struck hint once only. He pushed him away and told him to go away and not cause more trouble.

To Air Murdoch—Ho was driven to strike McQuilkin by what his wife told him.

His AA'orsliip said there was no doubt the plaintiff was severely assaulted without provocation, damaging him pretty severely and he was entitled to damages. Judgment for plaintiff for £ls 17s with court costs £2, witnesses £3 16s, solicitor’s fee £2 12s.