RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5249, 19 January 1878, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

■ Friday, January 18. (Before J. C. Crawford, Eaq., R.M.) .•} -FIGHTING. William Brosner, Thomas Doyle, and Marshall Nealey,’ were charged with fighting ia Willis-street at four o’clock that morning. Their faces bore evidence of. the fray; they •syere without, coats or waistcoats, and their aliirts were in ribbons.- Their excuse was that they were the worse for liquor, and knew very little about the disturbance. They were each fined 1405., or in default seven days’ imprisonment, . Brosner was further charged with assaulting a policeman and tearing his uniform. ' He was fined ' 40s. ‘with the usual alternative, and ordered to pay for the damage done to the constable s clothes, -orhioh was estimated at £2. ;, Thomas f Lawlor; and James Kelly were also charged with fighting. They belonged to the mob who were fighting opposite the Melbourne Hotel- • They were dealt with similarly to the others. - . : ' , BRUTAL ASSAULT.' Thomas Bawlor and J. .Kelly were charged with assaulting G. Ward, turncock for the Waterworks. It appeared from the evidence that Ward had informed the police of the disr turban ce. The two prisoners were not arrested with |the others, but succeeded in reaching Manners-street, where they saw Ward.' One of the prisoners, said, “ This is the ’.who told the police,” and the two thereupon attacked him with stones in their hands, knocked him down, and kept beating him till he became insensible. The prosecutor received several severe cuts in the head. ' The prisoners had nothing to say for thorn-; selves!. In answer- to-the Bench, Sergeant Smith' ,'said the prisoner Kelly had hitherto borne a good character.. Nothing . .was known by the police against Dawlor. " His Worship said in consequence of the good character of the prisoners he would let 'them oS-wibh the light sentence of one month’s imprisonment, with hard labor. - ■' * ' ’ ASSAULT. Edward _ Thomas Gillon was charged with assaulting Robert Kent on the previous day. Mr. Ollivier appealed for the complainant,* and Mr.'Barton for the accused. Robert Kent, accountant, stated that on the 17th insfc. the defendant called at his private office, accompanied by a Mr. Seymour. Mr. ..Grillon said he came to take the books, and 'stretched his hand to a ledger. Witness told him'not«tb touch anything. He then went into the editor’s room, and witness heard the defendant tell Hr. Perrier that he came there in his former position, and wanted to see everything which would appear iu the paper.. Mr. Perrier replied he could make his mind easy on that point, for he would not see a line. The defendant then returned to witness’ office, and witness adeed Gillon to produce his authority for coming there. Witness was taken all aback, as he did not know how the' case was settled the previous evening. He then left from behind the counter to see one of the directors, and instructed Mr. Waters to see that no one went behind the counter. Gillon said he would go in, and attempted to raise the flap of the counter, and .witness prevented him doing so. He shoved him on one side, but not with ony force. .Gillon thenstruck him a blow unexpectedly on the left eye; from the effects of which he was three or four hours under the doctor’s hands. Witness was stunned, and not prepared to defend himself. Gillon gave him no warning. Witness, after the blow, was held back by others.

Cross.-examined by Mr. Barton : He believed that what he called his private office had been declared by the Supreme Court on the day previous to the assault to be the office of Gillon, Kent, and Waters. Before the assault he was told that Gillon was declared a partner ; but as he was not a lawyer he could not tell how the action went from reading the answers given by the jury to the issues. , Ho would swear he did not say, “ Come, Gillon, give no more lip.” Ho believed Gillon said ho would stay there to maintain his rights, but that he hoped there would be no row. J. M, Perrier, editor of the Evening Argus, deposed‘to the defendent calling at the office the previous morning, and stating that he did not wish to disturb him, but as a jury had decided that he was a partner in the company ho would require to see everything before it wont into the paper. Witness replied that he. would not see a single line. Mr. Gillon then left, and witness heard Mr. Waters call the defendant an impostor, and said he would have to pay the £230 he owed Mr. McKirdy. Gillon said if Waters touched him he would leave. Witness a short time after, saw Kent with a nasty blow on the eye, and bleeding from the mouth. Ha had a billet of wood in his hand, and appeared to be very excited. He (Mr. Perrier) thought that Kent had been struck more than once. Gillon then seemed to,bo in a state of fear. John Waters, one, of the proprietors of the Argus, deposed that he told Gillon on the morning of the assault that he would not recognise him, in any way till , he brought an order from the Court. Gillon asked him to sign n cheque for the costs of tho recent action,. Witness's account of the assault did not differ from that given by the complainant. ’., He was of opinion that it was a cowardly and unprovoked assault."; V" . Cross-examined by Mr. Barton; The offices were rented from Mr.,Chew since April, 1870;: lender the circumstances he considered Gillon, [ an imifoStof.' The defendant'would have beCn ! ihore justified in striking witness than Kent. Witness: told Gillon if he did not go out by; fair moans ho would go out by rough meatls. Ho did not know tho exact meaning of the verdict at the time Gillon called at the office. This closed the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Barton contended that his Worship should

dismiss the case, as it involved a question of -title. Mr. Ollivler having replied, .the Court adjourned over luuch hour. On resuming, his Worship said he had looked over the Act, and it was clearly laid, down that iu any assault arising out of a question of a question of,title he-had no jurisdiction. He would give no opinion as to the advisability of such'a law; but the Act was so explicit that lie could not deal with the matter. He had no power even to order costs. The Court therefore ruled that it had no jurisdiction, and each party has to pay his own costs.