The Nelson Evening Mail. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1869. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. This Day.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume IV, Issue 4, 6 January 1869, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1869. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. This Day.

(Before J. Sharp, Esq., R.M.) Brown v. Lloyd. — Thia was a claim for '< wages £1 10s. Mr Pitt appeared for the _ plaintiff. Defendant pleaded a set off, only part of which, however, was allowed. ' Judgment for plaintiff for 17s. and costs. „ Sedgwick and Gouland v. G. Houston. This was a claim for balance'of account, for goods sold and delivered. Mr Pitt appeared for plaintiff ; defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff, £21 6s. aud costs. Mr H. E. Nathan made application for a Pawnbroker's License under the Act of 1868 — granted. ASSAULT. John Campbell was charged witb haviog on the 30-_ ult., assaulted one J. C. Paul at the Sherry river. Mr Pitt appeared for the defendant. John Christopher Paul deposed: I am a miner residing on tho Sherry river. On Wednesday, 30th December, defendant came to my tent having a gun in his hand. He said he would shoot my dog. I said I would make it a dear dog to him if he did. He then up with his gun and shot at the dog. He missed it. He then went along the path and threw down the gun. He asked me if I ever knew him to tell a lie. I said, yes, many a one. With that he collared me and tore the sleeve out of my shirt. My wife came between us and we both fell. After that he struck me with his fist on the cheek twice. My wife shut the door in his face, when he smashed the. window with the shovel. In cross-examination by Mr Pitt, the plaintiff denied having struck defendant, but admitted having told his son to raise the axe to him to make him let go his gripGeorge William Paul, son of the plaintiff, corroborated his father's testimony. In cross-examination he admitted he had been told what to say, by his father. Mr Pitt, for the defendant, complained that his client had been arrested on a warrant. He thought that such a course should not have been taken on such a trumpery charge, which would be amply satisfied by a nominal fine. His worship observed tbat persons, at such a distance when served with a summons for an offence, instead of obeying it '.skedaddled/ and no doubt that was the reason why a warrant had been issued. The plaintiff had acted very properly in the matter, and the defendant had brought it all on himself. He should impose a fine of £2, or three weeks' imprisonment.