MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 925, 1 December 1910, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

The monthly silting of the J Magistrate’s Court was held before Mr A. D. Thomson S.M., yesterday. BREACH OF PROHIBITION ORDER. Otho Barber, charged with a breach of a prohibition order, did not appear and was convicted and fined 2os with costs 12s. undefended cases. Judgment lor plaintiffs was entered up in the following undefended cases : —Easton and Co. v, Fred Hadfield, claim ,£53 12s nd, costs xSs ;M. H. Walker v! R. H. Dalhousie, ,£4 15s 6d, costs 5s ; P. Hennessy v. J. Rogers, 10s costs only ; and E. A. Smith v. A. H. Eee, 12s costs only, solicitor’s fee 15s 6d, and an order made for possession of house within seven days, AEEEGED ASSAULT. In the case George Hennah v. H. S. Muuro, in which plaintiff alleged that defendant assaulted him on the 16th inst., by striking > him on the face and kicking him 1 on the back, both parties conducted their own cases and defendant pleaded not guilty. The plaintiff, who described himself as billiard saloon keeper, stated in evidence that on the date in question at about 5 o’clock he and two or three others went into the defendant’s hotel and had drinks for which he (plaintiff) paid. After having the drinks witness went into the back-yard and defendant followed him, and without saying a word hit him in the face and kicked him in the back. Witness said he was quite sober at the time. After assaulting him, defendant returned to his hotel and witness followed him and asked why he had been assaulted. Defendant’s reply was : “You get out of this house quick or I’ll punch you in the jaw,” and got hold of him and put him out of the front door. Witness then went away. Plaintiff had two witnesses, but they had not put in an appearance and the defence was proceeded with.

Henry S. Munro, defendant, stated that plaintiff, together with several others, was in his hotel on the date in question and had drinks, but did not think plaintiff shouted. Mrs Muuro informed witness that Henuah had thrown a glass of beer in his little boy’s face. He spoke to plaintiff about it and he (plaintiff) ran out the back door. Witness followed him into the yard and told him to go away and look after his business and not to come there and cause a disturbance. Witness then returned to the hotel and a little later found plaintiff arguing with Mrs Munro. Witness ordered him to leave the hotel and upon his refusing caught hold of him by the shoulder, and he made a grab for witness’throat. Witness pushed him off and put him out of the front door.

Jolm Taylor stated he was in the hotel at the time plaintiff alleged lie was assaulted. Saw Mr Muuro’s little boy come to the door of the commercial room and plaintiff pulled it open and threw,* the contents of a glass of beer into A the boy’s face. Plaintiff then turned to witness and said “I done quite right didn’t I?” Witness said “I don’t know,” and walked out of the room. Some time later heard Munro order plaintiff off the premises and upon his refusing put him out.

T. M. Tapini, who was also In the hotel at the time, corroborated the previous witness’ evidence as to Hennah throwing the beer in the boy’s face, and for this reason Muuro ordered him off the premises. Witness did not see any assault.

Plaintiff’s witnesses having arrived, were called, the first being William Aparaima, who said he did not see the beer thrown into the boy’s face, but he beard the boy complaining to his mother about it. Mrs Munro “ got on ” to witness about it, and the boy said it wasn’t him it was George (meaning Henuah) that threw the beer. A little later he saw Mr Munro catch hold of plaintiff and put him out of the front door.

Alfred Withers stated that on pas'sing the hotel he saw Hennah coming out of the door backwards. He had hold of Munro by the throat. Munro struck out, apparently with the intention of making Hennah let go his hold which he did, and Munro went into the hotel. Defendant had other witnesses to call, but the Magistrate said he was satisfied that Hennah threw the beer into the boy’s face, and that lor this reason defendant put him out, which, he said, he was

quite justified in doing under the circumstances. The plaintiff had brought the trouble on himself. The case would be dismissed.

DISPUTE OVER A HORSE. Charlotte Duggan (Mr Moore) proceeded against A. Evans to recover the sum of £1 us id, deposit paid on a horse. Plaintiff alleged that the money was paid on a certain horse, and defendant contended it was paid on a different one. Evidence for plaintiff was given by George Small, Robert Andrew and the plaintiff, and for the defence by the defendant. After hearing the evidence, the Magistrate entered up judgment for the amount claimed, with costs 1 os, witness’ expenses 10s, ♦ and solicitor’s fee £1 is.

ASSYRIAN V. MAORI. A considerable amount of the time of the Court was taken up yesterday in hearing a case in which George Hennah, an Assyrian, claimed the sum of £"] 18s fid, from Pingi Tahu, a native. Against this the native filed a counter claim for £6 10s igd.

Moore appeared for the plaintiff, and defendant conducted his own case.

The statement of claim set forth included a coat, a blacket, repairs to a bicycle, money alleged to have been paid out on account of defendant’s board and lodgings, tobacco, etc., and hire of a trap The defendant’s counter claim was for three week’s work at billiardmarking, train fare from Auckland to Palmerston, which defendant alleges he paid on account of Hennah. The evidence was of a most contradictory nature. The plaintiff swore that he sold defendant the blanket and the coat, etc., and he (defendant) had agreed to payfor the repairs to his (plaintiff’s) bicycle, which was broken in learning plaintiff to ride. He put a book in as evidence, which he alleged had been signed by the defendant as an acknowledgement that that amount, something over was owing. The trap hire claimed was an amount paid by plaintiff for a trap in which he visited Shannon for the purpose of endeavouring to collect the amount which he alleges defendant owed him, but his journey was in vain, for he stated that when he saw defendant in Shannon he repudiated ever being acquainted with him, saying he “ did not know him from a bar of soap.” The defence was that the blanket and coat were a gift from plaintiff, that the breaking of the bicycle was an accident, and there was no agreement to pay for repairs. Further, plaintiff had paid out no money on his account. He repudiated ever signing a book as alleged by plaintiff, stating that the writing was not his, and further that the name was spelled wrong. By direction of the Magistrate, he signed his name on a sheet of paper. He contended that plaintiff really owed him money, as he had employed him as billiard-marker for three weeks at “ thirty bob a week and his tucker,” and had not paid him. The Magistrate said the evidence was of such a contradictory nature and he did not know which to believe. One or the other was telling deliberate lies, which was a very serious nutter. On the evidence bCoie him he could do nothing but enter up a non-suit. No costs were allowed.

The eight charges against a local resident for alleged breaches of the Gaming Act have been adjourned until Monday next, at Palmerston North.