TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 448, 16 March 1912, Page 5

TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

THURSDAY, 14th MARCH. (Before Mr F. O'B. Loughnan, S.M.) A youth named Richard Lovett who was convicted of an offence on September 11th last, and was released to con.e up for sentence when called upon and who in the meantime had committed another offence, was sentenced to three month' imprisonment with hard labour.

Samuel Marson, who did not appear to answer to a charge of a breach of his prohibition order, was lined £2 and 7s costs.

Creating a Disturbance. Five young men were charged with offensive "behaviour at Te Kuiti railway station on February 4th. Four of the defendants pleaded guilty, but one who was defended by Mr Finlay pleaded not guilty. The circumstances a3 revealed by the evidence, were that the party of young fellows were at the railway station at the 2 a.m. train on February 4th. Some of the party went through the train making a noise and leaving carriage doors open. Afterwards they were singing on the railway station. _ A complaint was made to the stationmaster, who took steps to have trie names of defendants taken. One youth gave a wrong name. All the defendants gave evidence to the effect that only four of them were present at the railway station, the other younp; fellow having left the party, which was being celebarted at the "bach." where some of the young men lived, about 11.30 p.m., and gone home to bed. It was admitted they each had a couple of drinks of beer.

Constable Mathew said he was instructed to press for a heavy penalty. Larrikinism of this kind should be put down, and the party had previously been warned by the stationmaster.

His Worship dismissed the case against the defended youth, and in delivering judgment against the other defendants, commented severely upon fiie practice of young fellows indulging in beer, and being led into trouble. Three of them were each fined 20s and costs lis 9d, and one was fined 30s and costs, the extra 10s fine being inflicted in his case because he gave a wrong name. Civil Cases. — Judgment went by default in the following civil cases:— Graham (Mr Finlay) v. O'Snllivan, £l9 19s 3d, costs £2 5s 6d; Day (Mr Finlay) v. Winchester £2, costs 19s, Furness and Co. v. Campbell, £4 7s 4d, costs 21s 6d; Green and Colebrook (Mr Hine) v. Bannon, £6 18s sd, costs 23s 6d; McColl (Mr Hine) v. Needham, £l, costs ss; Verrall and Price (Mr Hine) v. Waeroa, £1 17s, costs 57s fid; Tassell (Mr Howarth) v. Warbrick, £2 18s 3d costs 14s 6d ; same v. Searancke, £1 16s lid, costs 7s 6d; Clapham (Mr Finlay) v. Gardiner, £6 3s 6d, costs 23s 6d; Fickling (Mr Howarth) v. Campbell, £2 14s Bd, costs 10s; Tassell (Mr Howarth) v. Hallmond, £1 15s, costs 20s; Marckwick and O'Regan (Mr Hine) v. Graham, £5, co3ts 23s 6d; Snowsill (Mr Hine) v. Bowden, £l, costs 295. ASSAULT CHARGE DISMISSED William Alexander Scott, of Te Kuiti, dairyman, was charged before Mr F. O'B. Loughnan. S.M., on Thursday, with assaulting Wm. Henry Grant, farm labourer. Mr Short appeared for complainant and Mr Finlay for the defence. The story told by the complainant was to the effect that on January 11th he was working for defendant. About 6 a.m. they were employed in the shed. Defendant went out of the shed for a short time and complainant had bailed up a cow and asked defendant's little boy to open the door. As this was being done defendant returned, picked up the boy and told him forcibly to go away. Complainant endeavoured to explain that he had requested the boy to open the door, when defendant used bad language to him and told him to go too. Complainant remonstrated and defendant caught him by the throat and otherwise assaulted him by throwing a bucket of water over him and hitting him with the shed broom on the shoulder and arm.

Cross-examined by Mr Finlay, complainant remembered other 1 instances when he had slight differences with Mr Scott. Once defendant had caught him by the throat, and on another occasion had thrown a saddle at him. Complainant further said he had never had any trouble with a fellow employee named Frank Jones, and was, in fact, extremely mild mannered man and of a peace-loving nature.

Francis Jones called on behalf of complainant aaid he worked for defendant. He remembered the occaison on which the assault was supposed to have taken place. There wag a good deal of talking done by both men, but he was outside the shed when the row began. Mr Scott lifted the boy out and said "Run away, or you'll be getting hurt." During a lull in the language witness went into the shed. Grant was hugging a rail and Scott was tugging at him to put him out. Witness went out. Afterwards he saw Grant outside and he was wet. Grant was marked in one or two places about the shoulder, but witness did not see any marks on his face. In reply to Mr Finlay. witness said ho had been working for defendant for about four months and got on well j with him. Complainant was an irri- | table man and witness had gone to Mr Scott and told him that if Grant stayed witness would leave. He had told complainant he would do so. Witness understood Grant was to leave in any case a few days after the day on which the row occurred, having had notice from defendant. There had been altercations between complainant and defendant on other occaisons, but he had never seen any personal violence. Once he thought he was going to see some fun, but it all ended in smoke.

Constable Capp deposed to meeting Grant who complained of an assault.

There were marks on Grant's shoulder and arm. One bruise ho thought would have been caused by a blow and nut by being squeezed on a rail.

The defence as outlined by Mr Finlay was to the effect that complainant W33 a good worker but very irritable, and several altercation had taken place between complainant and defendant, but that no assault had been committed other than was justified. Defendant, in evidence, denied striking complainant or using the broom. Grant was coming in the door with the broom when defendant threw the bucket of water over him. Defendant admitted putting complainant out of the shed and ordering him to go.

His Worship, in giving judgment, said the evidence was very conflicting. If the plaintiff's story was correct defendant had committed a wanton and unprovoked assault. If defendants story was to be believed Scott was justified in ejecting complainant from the shed with force. Nobody had seen the assault as detailed by complainant, and it was one man's story against the other man's. The case was dismissed with costs against complainant, £1 19a.