RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S' COURT, BLENHEIM.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume I, Issue 90, 30 January 1880, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S' COURT, BLENHEIM.

Thursday, January 29th. .'{[Before S, Johnson and H. Dodson, Esqs.. > .Justices.] ASSAULT, Winsor Soper, of Spring Creek, fanner, ■vtes charged on the information of Andrew Henderson, junior, of Blenheim, with having unlawfully assaulted and beaten him on the 24th instant. Mr Sinclair appeared in support of the information, and Mr Rogers for the defence. Mr Rogers said he understood the case had been settled out of Court. There appeared to be a difficulty as to costs and the case was accordingly proceeded with. Andrew Henderson, the complainant, deposed that he had been working lately at Kaikoura. On Saturday evening he was at the Club Hotel. Mr Campbell, painter, Mr Draper, and Mr Soper, the defendant, tv,ere there also. Mr Soper was going t

strike Mr Draper and witness iuterfered, saying, “What’s the use of your doing that?” and trying to pacify him. He (Soper) caught hold of witness and struck him, and in self-defence witness knocked him down. In the scuffle witness got his shirt torn and went into Mr Clarke’s kitchen to get it mended. On coming back again into the passage defendant struck him across the face. Witness at that time had his hands in his pockets and offered no provocation. There was a scuffle on the floor, and witness feels the effects of what occurred now : indeed he has been unable to eat properly since, in consequence of the blows he got on the body. Mr Rogers cross-examined the witness to show that he provoked hostilities and that the blows struck were not violent, but the witness would not admit that such was the case.

John Campbell, painter, stated that preliminaries were being arranged about a trotting match when the row occurred. Soper was apparently goirg to strike Draper and Henderson interfering Soper struck him tore his shirt. He went away to get it mended, and when he came back, defendant struck him a cowardly blow in the face, a regular sledge hammer blow. They then scuffled together, and Henderson got on the top of Soper and hit him. By Mr Rogers—When Henderson got Soper down after some trouble, witness told him “to slip into him.” By the Court—Henderson was sober. Soper must have been under the influence of drink, or he would not have acted as he did. Mr Draper deposed that there was a bit of a quarrel, and Soper was going to hit witness, who said he’d get him locked up if lie did. Henderson then interfered, apparently to protect witness, and got struck himself by Soper, and had his shirt torn. When he came back, after getting his shirt mended, Soper struck him very unfairly. A scuffle took place, and Henderson threw Soper down. Mr Rogers admitted that his client had committed an assault, and that had Mr Soper been quite sober, the occurrence would not have taken place. He (Mr Rogers)subthat the assault was not so violent a one as the witness Campbell endeavored to make out. He submitted that a light penalty in addition to costs, would meet the justice of the case. It was a case that might have been very well settled out of Court. The Bench imposed a penalty of LI and costs L 4 2s.