Kawhia Police Court.

Kawhia Settler and Raglan Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 231, 20 October 1905, Page 2

Kawhia Police Court.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER JB. (Bafore Mr H. W. Nortbcroft, 8.M.) SERIOUS ASSAULT. Duncan M'Daugnld wos charged n tbe information of Constable McCarthy with committing an assault upon Lawrence Armitage, thereby causing him bodily harm. Constable McCarthy conducted the prosecution, and accused was undefended. Lawrencs Armitage, settler, Maraktipa, deposed that bo knew accused. Remembered 21st September, when W. Wright, W. Smith, witness and accused were working together, O«> the morning himself and the first two went fo work at the same time, accused coming about 15 minutes later. Witness was manager of the contract, appointed by tbe party. On the morning in question when accused appeared late, witness asked M‘fijugald if he thought ho was acting fair to the rest of the men by coming out late. Accused replied, 14 Do you tbink I am not doing my share ?” to which witness replied, “ Certainly not; to cut a long story short you’re a darne l old loafer.” M*Dongaid replied, “ Loafer am I ?” and then struck witness with a mittook, inflicting a severe wound on the arm. Accused made another attemp* to strike witness, bit he managed to get away. The wound had been attended to by Dr Jenkins. Wifn s-e had beau idle fur three weeks. To Accused—Was sure that what he had giv.en-in evidence was all that wa= said that 'morning. He did not use any nor receive any money from accused.

To Police—He did not mention anything about the case till the poliee spoke to him. He could not swear that the mattock (produced) was the one M‘Dougald hit him with. The gang were being pail by the yard for t u e formation.

William Wright, settler, Marakopa, swore that when M'Djugald arrived later than the others Armitage spoke to him, but witness could not hear what was said. He then saw accused pick up a mattock aad strik< Armitage. Armitage then ran away, and accused followed him for about 20 chains, when Armitage rm behind Smith for protection. Smith told accused to put the mattock down.

To Accused —lt was raining slighriy that morning. Smith and Armi age left the camp together. - Accused was continuing his crossexamination, when the 8 M. advised him that it was better to cease asking question’, a« ha might elicit something that would efl'ict the case in the Supreme Gouri.

Accused : Gould you not take a ple< of guilty of common assault unde great provocation,

The S.M.: No. Taking a knife or any other weapon to a British subject is not common assault, notwithstanding provocation. Accused: Sanding me to the 81prema Court is like sending a sheep to slaughter. I ’suppose I will ba prose cuted by the Grown Prosecutor. 1 have no money to raise a defence nor to secure the attendance of witnesses. W. Wright (questioned by the S.M.) said that he did not sea Armitaga do anything that would justify accused striking him with a mattock. Accused was not defending himself. Dr C, Uampbeli Jeakins daposed that on September 23rd he went to Kinohaku to attend Arraitega and found him suffering from, an incised wound 2fin. long and fin. deep in the centre, on the left arm, below where big muscle i«, which had been none more than 24 hours. Tua patient being a well developed and extremely muscular man, the wound was through the flesh only and did not involve the nerve through which muscular effort and sensation is conveyed. The wound was serious, due principally to its depth. The mattock had evidently inflicted the wound in passing. Had tbe full weight of the mattock fallen Armitage would probably have lost the use of his arm, unless some intricate operation were performed upon him io unite the nerves ; or tbe bone would ba so smashed that the arm would have to amputated. Armitage was incapacitated three weeks. Constable M'Carthy, of Raglan, de posed that be arrested accused on Friday. Accused admitted hitting Armitage with a mattock, but under great provocation. M’Dougald also stated that he had signed a receipt for £7 due to him and had only received £3. He thought the matter bad blown oyer. Accused was committed for trial at Supreme Court in Auckland on Novembar 20th. A MERK DISAPPEARS. Robert Gientworth was charged by Constable M'Carthy with stealing at Kinobsku one mere, valued, at £fl, the property of Haupokia. Constable M'Carthy applied for an adjournment until next court day, on account of the illness of one of hie witnesses. Gientworth opposed the Application, but the S.M, granted it. ABOt‘T A FENCE. G. H. Mackenzie v. T. D. Hamiltoh* for £lB7 price of 150 chains of fenc* ing which he had to erect on a section be bad bought from Hamilton which was stated to be “ ring fenced. ” Both appeared in person. i The complainant wee proceeding with his case, when the S.M. enquired where the title was, and was iqformedthat it was in Dunedin. Tbe S.M. : Well, what are we to go ou ? The defendant said .that he did cot. Fell tbe property as be never owned it.l Complainant: I can prove that it? was put into an agent’s bands by defendant, who did tbe ueUing aud received to money. S.M.: Who signed the transfer ? Complainant: VV. Crotty. S.M ; Then bow are you going to

sue defendant when be did not own the property, * Coipplainaiit: The sale was made by HamUtop. land was only io Crotty’s name. S.M.: That does not matter. If the land was from Ceotty to you Hamilton could not haye owned the section. Complainant: Hamilton had possession of the place and was always recognised as owner. IgS.M.: You might have an action later on. The deeds must be produced, before the case goes on. Complainant: I cannot pat the deeds in now. Tbe section was sold to me as ring fenced, and I want payment for the fence I had to erect. Defendant cliiiaed a non suit, as be was neither the owner or mortgagee. A non-suit was entered, wivij X 7 if 6d costs against tha plaintiff. CIVIL. CASES.—UNDEFCMDED. P. Ward v. J. Watte, £3 15s, rent. —Order for amount with 12a costs. P. YVard v. R. Gientworth, sr, £6 6« 61.—Order lot amount with £1 9s cost*. emt CASES. DEFEM DED. D. Galvan v. A* E. Langley, £8 Is work and labour done.—Order for £6 3n and costs. A. E. Longley v. D. Galvan, £.6 for recsvery of a hirse. —Al jo irrel rill next court day. Mrs Coe v. F. Retsmeyer, £8 Os S’, n «atd and lodging. —Adj »u *ne.T tiil nnxt court day. , Q. Hartman v. A. M Symons, judgment summon •. —Adjourned ti’l i xt c mrt day. J M-Donaid v. A E. Lmghy, £7 4; 21 and £l2, work vid labour doce. —Order for fall amo ints and costs. il Campb ll v. G. Wuitcombe, £5 hie on an order.—N m-«uited. H. C impbell v. G. H Mackenzie I £l-5 10=.—Older f->r f ili a niuat wi-h j)-ts. THE LIQI OU I A v. Police v. Cou'-te, or sending liquor into the King Ohi jtry with »ut the fact ueiug mtrkeJ on the outside of_ the ease. Accused pla -<lel guiVy to < t chnical breach of ths Act owing to a cleri* cd error, and was fined 36with 14b •3oBte. The court then aljouraeL