RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4873, 3 November 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

: Thuesdat, November 7. (Before J. O. Crawford, Esq., R.M.) ■ 1 drunkenness and.vagrancy. Two per-asns:were charged as above, one, an old min who had -been begging at the Hutt an l idling about public-houses, was discharged; and an unfortunate man, a' good tradesman, ■ was charged with being an habitual drunkard. The latter was in a pitiable condition, and his Worship sent him to gaol for one month’s imprisonment, with hard labor. i VIOLENT ASSAULT. Two young men named William Dougherty and Thomas Blackwood were charged with. . having violently assaulted one Edward Glutterbuck on the 21st October. The police conducted the prosecution; Mr. Allan appeared for the defence. Both prisoners pleaded not guilty. Edward Clutterbuck depbsid ; that he resided in Edward-street, Te Aro. ■ Knew the prisoners. Dougherty lived in a right-of-way-leading from Herbert-street into Edwardstreet. On „tho 21st .October witness, was, going home, aud on passing through this right-of-way he heard a woman screeching; fear-:.;: fully. As he came opposite Dougherty’s house he sang 1 out ' 7 “ What's up here," as the sounds proceeded from that house. The door was ’ partly 'open.' Dougherty - rushed out, and, using foul language, struck witness on- the chest and knocked him up ■; against'the fence. He got witness by the throat, and then another man rushed out, and both of them kicked and ■ beat witness all over- * his body, knocking eight of his teeth out.. . While witness was, on . the ground some one sang but. - . He, recognised the voice being that of M!r. White. Witness called to him, and - was at once recognised in turn, when the. , prisoner let him go. Witness had sustained severe injuries about different parts of his Ijody; and was suffering inwardly. By Mr. Allan : I did not burst the door _ open, l nor did I strike Dougherty and knock one'of his teeth out. I did not go inside the house, aud could not therefore have been ordered out. ! I cannot say whether anyone , witnessed the assault. ■ George White deposed that he was a fireman. Lived at the back of Dougherty’s house. Knew both prisoners. On the night of the 21st was in bed. About, half-past II o’clock heard a voice coming from Dougherty and a boy named Peter Garrick. Got up, and found that Dougherty had the boy on the ' ground. Saw Clutterbuck coming up. and he looked into Dougherty’s house. The next he saw was Clutterbuck on the floor, both prisoners being in ,the act of beating aud kicking the’complainant, Witness opened the window and sang out “You had better leave off , or it will be worse for you in the morning. Dougherty replied, “ You come down here, and wa. will serve you in the same way." 1 Dougherty then left off. .When witness saw Clutterbuck afterwards the latter.

wii» iu ft terrible plight, his countenance being mm h <litfigured and covered with blood. The witness-was cross-examined, by Mr. Aiiftn.' :■ I, mb'vwu.'t.'-- : ,:b _ This co&TwJed the case for the prosecution, In-poctor Atcbeson intimating that ho had no other witnesses to call. ...T’. , . . ~ Mr. Allan then opened the case for the defence, stating that prisoner had received provocation, complainant having burst open the door and assaulted Dougherty. He contended -that,a man was perfectly justified in defending his own house. . . Inspector "f Kicking a man’s teeth out! , Mr. Allan : In this case it would be proved that defendant. Dougherty had been not only interfered with, but; had been assaulted, and if in the heat of contest Clutterbucksustained a severe thrashing, the- action of * the prisoner was quite justifiable.A -W. Dougherty . was. then examined., He and h’is wife hail a few, words on the nightjn question. . Domplainant 'shoved the' door in. Blackwood asked him what ho wanted.- Complainant asked what was the row. Witness was in the bedroom -at the time. The lad said, Aothing ; ;go away ;” and then shut-the -door. Complainant opened the door again, and witiiess then came out and told him to go out. Bo said witness was a coward, and witness then shoved him out, but immediately afterwards received a’ blow on the mouth which knocked one : artificial toqtb down his throat. He then knocked complainant against the fence, and left him’there. Inspector Atcheson examined the witness in’ respect to the character of his lady partner. 'Thomas Blackwood corroborated the evidence given by, the other prisoner, saying that when Dougherty and Clutterbuok were fighting he came, out and. tumbled over both of them, they bfeing on'the ground. . His Worship "said there was not sufficient evidence to convict the lad Blackwood, aud dismissed him accordingly. . The boy Peter Garrick, referred to in evidence, was called, but bis evidence was not material. 1 The Court fined the pri-oncrDougherty 50s. ar/1 costs, 245., or in default fourteen days’ imp^onment.-., >~; ii-: _ CIVIL OASES. : Ifay v. Bonner.—This was a claim of £SO, for injuries received by the plaintiff, a seaman on board the steanler Tni, of which the defendant is master. Mr. Allan appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Trovers for the defendant. The plaintiff’s statement was that while discharging railway iron at Foxtoh the iron was raised from, the hold bar by bar, but’to expedite the work two’ bars were slung at a time. The slings, which had been made put of some spare iron c{iain, broke when this was’ done, aiwftwo barsfell, strikinghim on the right' h-g. A month afterwards he had toga to, the hosidtal, and still suffered from the injury received. In reply to [Mr. Travers, he said the slings had broken-twice previously, once when', raising two bars, and’ once when thrown into r.e hold. He had been ordered by Dr. Diver to lie up for a few days, hat afterwards continued his work.- He had one day been the, worse of liquor,-bat had not been knocking' against kerbstones so as to get injured. A seaman named’ Ball said not more than, hur or five times had two bars been raised in t! e slings before the accident happened. The Of- plain had given orders to the mate to lift two bars, but after the accident, and on examination of the broken, chain link,’which was rusted ‘ only one bar was raised. The vessel had since been supplied with stronger slings. The crew had not slung two bars at a time before or since. He did not consider the slings sufficient lor two bars, even if sound, and had said so. This concluded plaintiff’s case. Mr. Travers,in opening the defence.remarked that an important point for consideration in the case was the question of the liability ef the captain—as to whether the captain was liable, being in point of law a fellow-servant of the injured seamnu. Again, there’ was nothing to show that the captain, of the vessel had ordered,, these particular slings, the choice of material resting with-’the mate, who was ’ shine responsible, /if, the first consideration was set adde.. He quoted a. Scotch case in support of the second point, to the effect that the master whs not responsible for the injuries done to one servant owing to negligence on ’the part of another fellow servant. He then’called Charles Pope, first mate of the Tni, who deposed that : 'o sling p odijcecl was quite strong, enough to cs 7 two rails, and attributed the breaking to concussion, that is to say, the men were careless in the use of them; and when the. rails were suspended' in, air would frequently' let them down by the’run, and fall upon otheriron on the wharf, and the links had been frequently known to break in consequence of that. He had repeatedly cautioned .the rnen to observe care in the nse ’of the slings, v Defend- ’ ant was laid up at his own house at Westport; about a week, and then turned to work again, and remained at work for some, time without making any complaint about his .leg. He turned to by his own desire and without request. The captain of, the ,Tui was next examined,; his evidence being substantially the same as that given by the mate. The slings, he said, were quite capable of’ lifting two rails ; they had been tested withlour rails. The plaintiff made no complaint of;his leg until after he returned to work, and after he had come on board in a state of intoxication one night, having obtained a day’s leave of absence. Counsel having addressed the Court,' His Worship delivered judgment. He said, without going into, the question as to whether the master was responsible, it appeared to.hitn that the case hinged chiefly on one point, viz., as to whether the slings were fit to carry-two iron rails, the evidence in regard; to which was contradictory ; but he was of opinion that the slings were: sufficiently strong. It would have been better,,perhaps, if there had- been to-give evidence of the competency of the slings; but takinginto consideration all the circumstances of, the case, he was of opinion that the plaintiff could not recover, and therefore -gave judgment for defendant, ■with costs. ’A. . V There were several-small - debt cases of no interest, some of them being amicably settled.