RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume VIII, Issue 426, 9 June 1877, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

May 25. (Before H. W. Robinson, Esq., R.M., and L. W. Busch, Esq., J. P.) Robert Aitken v. Harry Russell.—Claim, £35 7s. sd. Judgment for amount claimed, £1 7s costs, and £2 2s professional fee. Same v. Andrew Costelloe.—Claim, £4O 10s. Judgment for amount claimed, £1 7s costs, and £2 2a. professional fee. Walter Inder v. H. B. M'lntosh.- Settled out of Court. Adjourned hearing. George B. Pultney v. Charles Inder.— Claim, £9 ISs. Judgment for £6 Bs., 14s. costs, and 30s. expenses of plaintiff. » May 29. Police v. George Morris.—Drunk and disorderly ; remanded for 24 hours. «. _ May 30. Police v, George Morris.—Drunk and disorderly; discharged. ♦ Mat 31. (Before H.W. Robinson, Esq., R.M.) Robert Aitken v. George Murphy.—Claim, £8 ss. 9d. Adjourned to June 21st, plaintiff to pay £1 expenses of defendant. Andrew White v. Thomas M'Whirter.— Mr Hertslett lor complainant, Mr Rowlatt for defendant. This was a, complaint which had been made under the Ordinance for the prevention of cruelty to animals. The complainant owned cattle running on Xyeburn Hundred which defendant, in company with Stanley, drove off to Borton and M'Master's home station. It was alleged that the pace at which the cattle were driven was brutal considering their condition. The evidence did not bear out the complaint in the opinion of the Court. Complaint dismissed with £2 2s. professional fee, and ISs. expenses of defendant. Police v. Win» George.—Furious riding j case adjourned to June 21st. JANET WATSON V. MAEY ANN SMITH. Mr Rowlatt for the defendant. The information was that on the 16th of February last the defendant did unlawfully assault and beat Janet Watson by striking her on the forehead with a tin pot contrary to the Statute. The informant stated that on the 16th she was taken in charge, locked up, and sent down to do months in Dunedin gaol. The defendant struck her on that day as she was coming from her own house. She did not see why she should be punished because defendant struck her with the tin pot and took a small billy of potatoes that was to have been for tea. She had to have her head bathed by the doctor. " I p.m in danger of my life from her, your Worship; stones, abusive language—most disgusting." In cross-examination—She was not that drunk but what she could go to the Hospital and get her head bathed. Of course she had been convicted when she could not get justice. Was quite sure she did not come up and tell me to let go of the old man. She (Smith) was very well drunk as she can very well manage. Had spent £2 of Mr Farmer's in beer, which Smith helped to drink. Did not drink £1 worth herself, but could not say how much. She had a jolly good memory, If she had been often convicted she had suffered the punishment of the law, and that was sufficient. She (Smith) goes borrowing money all over the place. This pot might hold three or four pints of beer. Went straight away to see the doctor, who was coming along at the time. Had a faintish turn from the blows. Was subject to them. Mr M. Brookes said he had seen the transaction from the back verandah of his store. He saw Mr Smith and Mrs Watson jostling together: He did not know what the quarrel was about, but he saw Mrs Smith go out of her place, and with a billy, which she took up, strike Mrs Watson three times on the head. He then left the verandah, thinking it dangerous, and that she (Smith) might have killed her. He went round the bakery shop, and just then Mrs Watson came by him, so' he went home.

In cross-examination witness said -when Mrs Smith struck Mrs Watson he did not know what sho was doing. Did not think the Wows were struck to release Mr Smith. Mrs Watson cleared out, and it was quite time. Mrs Watson was not drunk. The bottom of the billy hit Mrs Watson. Did not examine Mrs Watson, but she had blood on her face caused by the blows. To the Court: Left the verandah because I was frightened that the woman might have been hurt.

Mr Eowktfc, for the defence, Btatedthat there had been a dispute about some potatoes. Mrs Watson took the old man and was likely to throw him over the bank, when Mrs Smith rescued him.

Mary Ann Smith, being sworn, said she did not know Janet Watson. She stole the potatoes. She came to her and went to take them from the old man, and might have murdered him. What could I do but liberate him? Yes, I struck her, but only once. She let my husband go after that. She was drunk.

Mrs Watson: I told you 1 would give you some potatoes for your husband's supper. Witness: No, you did not.

Mrs Watson : She is so deaf, Mr Connolly (who was conducting the cross-examination semi-professionally). I will not ask her any further questions. Mr Farmer has told me distinctly and plainly ;not to keep company with her.

By Mr Rowlatt j Mrs Watson brought the billy, and dropped it when Bhe took hold of the old man.

Alexander Smith : There was a dispute between my wife and Mrs Watson. When I came home about half-past five and asked for raj supper, my wife said Mrs Watson had stolen the potatoes. I went up and saw her lying on the bed. 1 said—" The billy is mine, anyway." I was going away, when she came after me. She held mo, and called mo all the names she could. My wife came to see what had become of me. Mrs Watson let me go when my wife came up. I could not get away from her. She was drunk and I was sober. Cross-examinod by Mrs Watson : Die I not open my door ?

Witness: No, you was lying on the bed,

I took up the billy of potatoes, and told you it was mine.

Mrs Watson : Spuak the truth, now ! Witness : So I will; what do you want more ? The potatoes did not belong to Farmer, and was ready for my supper. Mrs Watson : There seems to be no justice for me. I have suife-ed many times from these persoos. His Worship said the assault was not altogether justifiable. Mr Brookes says he saw the blows struck, aud thought she might have been killcl There wfi« limits of what was justifiable. He did not think it was the way to separate a very little old man and ti little old woman. Defendant would be fined 10s. and costs. He quite approved of Mrs Smith's spirit in defence of the little old mm, INTERPLEADER SUMMONS. Executors in the estate of the late Dr Dick> defendants ; John Laverty, claimant. —This case was in pursuance of action taken by the bailiff of the Court, against whom a rule nisi had been obtained in the Supreme Court at Dunedin. Ihe dispute wa3 as to the real ownership of certain cattle which the bailiff had sold to satisfy a judgment of this Court, which cattle were now claimed by Laverty- Mr G. F. Kowlatt appeared for the execution creditors. After a pro tracted hearing the case wa£ adjourned to Monday, June 4th, at 11 a.m , by request ot claimant, he to pay £2 12s, expenses execution creditors, and also to deposit £5 as guarantee of expenses bailiff may be put to in consequence of this adjournment. —. « JUNE 4. The above case jvas continued—Mr Catomore for the claimant, Mr Itowlatt for defendant. The Court decided to reserve judgment, considering that no special hardship would accrue. The difficulty was, in its mind, as to whether it had power to make an order as to monies not now within its control.Mr Catomore contended that the Court had a right to assume that the monies were still under the control of the Court, although they had been paid out, under what authority he, of course, could not say. The Court also doubted as to the rule about costs in an interpleader case, but would take a note of costs claimed by either side. Mr Connolly, the bailiff, asked that Mr Catomore should give an assurance that until the decision no mandamus should be issued against him. This Mr Catomore declined to do. Mr Connolly then said if such assurance were not given he should appeal to the Supreme Court at Wellington against the decision of the Court at Dunedin. Mr Catomore thought his client need not be frightened, and adhered to his decision not to bind himself to forego any course which he or his Dunedin agents might take. Judgment reserved till the 21st.