RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Kumara Times, Issue 3129, 13 November 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, November 12. [Before J. Giles, Esq., R.M.]

RESISTING THE POLICE

William Hunt was charged on two informations: first with being drunk and disorderly; .second, with resisting the police in the execution of duty. Accused pleaded not gui'.ty. John M'Manus, the arresting constable, swore to the accused being drunk and disorderly, and resisting him in the execution of his duty. Accused told him to "Go to h—!" which he repealed two or three times.—Accused, on being asked if he had anything to say, said he was not drunk, nor did he resist the police; hut he refused to go to the lock-up.—Constable Williams was then called, who also asserted that accused was very diunk, and jefused to go in the cell, and it was with difficulty that they got him in.—Accused was fined 20s for each offence, with Court costs, each 2a j or one week's imprisonment. ASSAULT. James Morgan was charged with unlawfully assaulting and beating James Dand by striking htm in the face three times with his clenched fist. Mr Purkiss appeared for informant; accused was undefended. Accused pleaded guilty to striking once, under great provocation. Counsel stated briefly that the informant, Mr Dand, was passing along Main street on the evening of Sunday, 31st October, from his boarding-house to hit) home in the evening, in broad daylight; that defendant called Mr Dand over to him, and accused him (Mr Dand) of having some spite against him (Morgan). Mr Dand used no provocation. Accused dealt informant a violent blow, which resulted in a mark on his face, and a black eye. He might explain that some time ago defendant was employed by Government in the erection of some fluming at Kawhaka ; that Mr Dand regarded the claims for work done by Morgan as extortionate, and refused to report favourably upon them. He asked that a suvere fine might be inflicted. Mr Dand was a peaceably inclined and quiet and inoffensive man. He ihen called

James Dand, who, being sworn, said: I am manager of the Kumaia Waterrace. I know the defendant. I recollect Sunday, the 31st October, f board at Mrs Stewart's. As I was returning home, I saw Morgan on the opposite side of the ro >d to the Post Office. He came out of his house as I passed. I was in the middle of the road. Defendant called me by name over to him. I stopped, and he came over to me. He said " I thought you was to put something in my way ?" He repeated this, and added, *'l think you have some spite against me?" I asked him of what nature. He made no reply, but stiuck me violently over the mouth. He followed me up and struck me over the eye; he struck me at least three blows; the mark is still visible and the eye discoloured. 1 neither struck him nor provoked nor insulted him. Some time ago he made a claim upon me in the capacity as manager of the Government water-race. I did not recognise that claim. Defendant made the claim to the Government, and Hie claim was referred to me to report upon. I admitted one or two of the items, but reported unfavourably of the remainder, In answer to accused, complainant said theie was no room for any ill-feel-ing. In reference to some matters which had taken plnce during the visit of the Minister of Minos and Mr Gordon, his

Worship ruled that such evidence was not admissible; if such were allowed, parties coming into Court might perhaps state grievances extending many years buck. To accused : I did not say I would put you out of the place yet. I did not call you a liar. George Anderson, sworn, said: lam a tinsmith, living in Main street. I know plaintiff and defendant. I saw them in Main street on Sunday evening, the 3lßt ult. I saw Morgan hit Mr Dand. Complainant tried hard to walk away. Morgan followed him up, and tried to hit him again. The first blow was a violent one. I was standing side on, about eighty yards off at the time. Joseph Harron, miner, sworn, said: I known plaiutiff and defendant. I saw them last Sunday week in Main street. I saw Morgan make an attempt to strike at Mr Dand. I was about one hundred yards off or theieabouts. I could not swear that Morgan Lit Dand. In reply to the Court, accused gave in defence some reasons for provocation. He admitted that he struck Mr Dand, but only the once. His Worship said he regarded the case as one of unprovoked assault. The informant was a Government officer, holding a position of trust. It would be intolerable to allow such conduct. He would not give the defendant the option of a fine. The sentence of the Court would be one week's imprisonment with hard labour in the Hokitika Gaol. He hoped it would be a caution to persons not to take the law into their own hands. THREATENING LANGUAGE AND ASSAULTS. James Fitzgerald v. James Taylor, for using threatening language by saying—"l'll have your life ; I'll put an inch of lead through your heart!" Patrick Fitzgerald v. James Taylor, for using threatening language by saying—"l'll have your life; I'll drive an inch of lead through your heart!" James Taylor v. Michael Filzgeiald for using threatening language by spying—" Come out till I murder you!" which words he repeated several times; and at same time the said Michael Fitzgerald was flourishing a big stick in his hand. James Taylor v. Patrick Fitzgerald for assault, by seizing hold of informant by the coat, shoving him about, challenging him to fight, and endeavouring to make iuformant commit a bieach of the peace. James Taylor v. James Fitzgerald, for a similar assault, Mary Fitzgerald v. Rose Taylor, for assault, in beating Mary Fitzgerald, the ' child of informant, by catching her by the hair of the head, swinging her around, and hitting the said child with the clenched fist on the arm. The foregoing six informations were the result of a squabble between the parties named on the evening of Wednesday, the 3rd instant, and which was continued next morning. The several persons concerned gave evidence, as well as one or two other witnesses. His Worship, in giving judgment, said he did not believe the evidence prit before him. The parties had for several years been in the habit of coming into Court with summonses, and cross-summonses, and had committed the most flagrant acts of perjury he had over heard in Court" in his life. He was inclined to beiieve that traps were luid and statements made by the opposition families to go into the box and deliberately perjure not only grown-up people but children, and these children ■were made to siy what their parents tell them. He could not act on the evidence, for he was not satisfied of its truthfulness. He would add one word of caution : If anything serious should take place, the.offender or offenders would be severely punished. Every one would be dismissed of these informations.