RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5435, 28 August 1878, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, August 27. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. One prisoner was fined 55., with the alternative of twenty-four hours' imprisonment, for drunkenness. VAGRANCY. evAn unfortunate woman named Hannah Mendoza was charged with having ko lawful visible means of support. Prisoner appeared in tho dock in a very miserable condition. She was so benumbed with the cold that she could scarcely speak. In answer to his Worship, Sergeant Smith said that the accommodation for prisoner in the lock-up was none of tho best, and that it was on account of the coldness of the cell that the prisoner was so cold. The police gave the woman a very bad name. His Worship sentenced her to gaol for fourteen days, and added that ho would make a report to the Government regarding the state of tho lock-up. LARCENY, Alfred William Thompson was again brought up for stealing throe silver watches, three gold albert chains, and one seal, all of the value of £ls. It will be remembered that this case was adjourned for further evidence. .lossio Walker, wife of the complainant, deposed that she saw tho prisoner at her husband's house on Easter Sunday and Monday. She took three watches and chains out of her husband’s pocket. She had some words with her husband, and left the house. Prisoner and two other men were also there. Prisoner brought her tho key of tho house at about 5 o’clock. Stic gave him no authority to lock up the house. When she returned home tho watches, &c., were gone. • Prisoner, after tho usual caution had been read to him, said that he had a watch and chain which he bought from a person in the presence of a man named Smith, who was known to Walker, the complainant. Tho prisoner was then committed to take his trial at tbe next criminal sittings of the Supreme Court. REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER OP THE COURT. J. Do Bordo was Charged by tho Clerk of tho Court with neglecting to pay an order of the Court for the support of his children. Defendant said in defence that he had no wish to expose his wife. It appears that tho parties reside at the Hutt. His Worship said that he would be at tho Hutt the next day, and would make inquiries relative to the case, and would therefore adjourn the case. UNREGISTERED DOGS. William Ebdon and J. Buck were charged with having an unregistered dog in their possession. This case was adjourned from last Tuesday in order that the police might procure more evidence. The police now intimated that they had nothing fresh to offer, and both cases wore dismissed. ASSAULT. Antonio Pilossl was summoned by George Garwood for assaulting him on the wharf. It appears that tho parties are fishermen, and a dispute arose between them relative to the purchase of some fish. The assault was a trival one, and his Worship dismissed the case, each party to pay his own costa. BREACH OP CITY BY-LAWS. Henry Victor Clifford was summoned for driving round the corner of Molesworth-atrcet at other than a walking pace. Defendant was fined 2s. Gd. and costs. ASSAULT.—SHEPHERD V. GILMER. Mr. Samuel Gilmer was summoned by Mr. Thomas Xi. Shepherd for assaulting him in the public street on Thursday tho 22nd inst. Mr. Moorhouse appeared for the complainant, and Mr. P. Buckley for the defendant. Mr. Moorhouse, at the commcncsmonfc of tho case, said that his client (Mr. Shepherd) had been for many years—s me eight, lie thought—a m-mber of the old Provincial Council of Otago, and had also represented an important constituency in the General Assembly. During his term of office his client had become the victim of a joke by a political opponent. This joke took the form of a nickname, which on the occasion had been thrown out to him from a window at the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel, at the corner of Willis and Manners streets. This nickname, or expression, had been made use of in a very offensive manner, and in a very loud tone of voice, much to tho annoyance of the complainant. These expressions so called out from an hotel window were very naturally offensive to Mr. Shepherd, and ho of course felt very indignant at the uncalled-for outrage. Mr. Shepherd was determined if possible to find out who it was that thus insulted him, and determined to stop outside the hotel in question for that object. He had not been there very long before tho defendant came outside, and Mr. Shepherd made known to him tho facts of the case, and a conversation took place which resulted in the ass mlt complained of. The defendant W'«s a very powerful man, and struck out deliberately at tho complainant, but he (complainant) had the presence of mind, to avoid the blow by what is generally known as “ducking.” Had he not been so self-composed as to avoid the blow the consequence might have been most serious. As it was his hat was knoitke t off his head into tbe middle of tho road.

Thomas Lowther Shephered deposed as follows I reside at the Albert Hotel. On last Thursday I left ray hotel between four and five o’clock. As I was passing by tho Duke of Edinburgh Hotel I heard somebody in the hotel, apparently from an upper storey, call out “Smiler.” (This cognomen, complainant explained, was given him as a nickname by a political opponent during his term in tho General Assembly.) I look upon the name as a grass insult. The expression has frequently been made use of in the public prints towards me by political opponents; but to allow any body to make use of such an expression in the public streets I shall not allow. It is absurd to think that I should allow persons to call mo nicknames with impunity, and I don’t intend that they shall. After remaining outside the hotel for some minutes I went on a few paces further, when I again heard tho expression made use of. I looked up at one of the upper storey windows and saw a white faced looking man Just drawing in his head from the open window, and I knew from that that ho was tho person who called out. I looked about for a pollceand while I was so engaged the defendant came out of the hotel. I did not know him to speak to, merely having seen him standing outside the bar door. I told him that I had been grossly insulted in his hotel, and wished to complain to him as landlord of the house. Defendant replied in a rough manner that ho was not tho landlord, and that I had better settle my grievance the best way I could. Defendant then walked away a short distance, and t repeated what I had said before. I might hero state that I did not know defendant nor his house, nor did I ever have a drink in his house in my life. I then said to him, “I think it is your duty as landlord to put a stop to such blackguardly conduct. Ho walked back a few paces, and then said, “ What has that to do with you?” and then returned to where I was standing and said “What is that you say?” I repeated again that it was his duty to put a stop to such behavior in his house. Defendant then said that “he’d knock my —— head off,” and dealt a blow at mo. I dodged the blow, but it knocked my hat off into the gutter. lat once picked it up, and called on a laboring man that was standing close by and told him that I should summon him as a witness, I had my gloves an at the time, and was quite unprepared for the assault. I never put ray hands up. Cross-examined by Mr. Buckley : Now. Mr, Shepherd, what is there offensive in the name of “Smiler?” It seems to me a very pleasant name. Witness : You might’ consider it so ; Ido not. I take it as a gross insult, as I would any other nickname. I was extremely angry*when I heard tho name used, and I was determined, if possible, to find out who said it. I accordingly entered the hotel, and wont upstairs to ascertain who tho person was that called out. I might have said in the house, “What blackguard was it that sang out.” I will swear that I never said, “ If I could catch tho ■ . ■■■ scoundrel I would punch his - head.” I never asked Gil «er to kick the man downstairs, neither did I tell him that ho kept a disorderly house. I never followed him down tho street and put my face to his face, nor did I put myself in a fighting attitude. Patrick McKeegan, a sailor, deposed that he saw the assault committed, but could not hear the conversation that took place between complainant and defendant.

Henry Best, a dork in tho employment of T. K. Macdonald and Co., gave similar evidence. Mr. Buckley for tho defence stated that it would bo clearly proved that tho plaintiff went into tho defendant’s hotel and made use of strong language to the landlord, about what he (the landlord) know nothing whatever about. Defendant left the hotel, and complainant followed, and overtaking him put himself in a fighting attitude, and the defendant struck out in self defence.

Samuel Gilmer, tho defendant, deposed as follows: I reside at tho Duke of Edinburgh Hotel with my brother. On tho evening of tho 220 d inst. I. was leaving the hotel, and I saw complainant talking to a young man named Chalmers. When he (complainant) saw mo he bounced over towards mo in an excited manner and said that ho had been insulted by some one in the hotel. Up to this time I had no knowledge of what had taken place. Complainant then wanted me to kick tho man out of tho house. I replied that I was not in tho habit of kicking persons out of tho house, and advised him to settle his own private grievances personally. He thou told me that I kept a disreputable house. I said that was rather strong language to use, and walked away. He followed, me, and said, “ Are you not going to kick that blackguard out,” and imt his shoulder into my face, saying again ; that I kept a disreputable house, I certainly thought from his manner that he was going to strike me, and I “let out,” and knocked his hat off. By Mr. Moorhouse : I cannot say that complainant looked more frightened after X had knocked off-his hat than ho did before. X cannot say whether it is usual ornot to push people out of hotels. lam not a hotel proprietor. 1 thought complainant looked like lighting when ho shoved hia shoulder in my face. Mr. Moorhouse then asked witness to have a good look at tho defendant. Did ho think that a person wearing black kid gloves, a black hat, and got up generally like Mr. Shepberd, looked at all like a fighting man. (Laughter.) Witness said that he looked very dangerous when bo shoved his shoulder in bis face. (Laughter.) . Arthur B. Chalmers deposed as follows : I was sitting with four others in an upstairs room in the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel. Some one sang out, “ There’s tbe Smiler.” Tho window was open, and I shortly afterwards heard complainant shout out “You—— scoundrel.” I could not say to whom the remark was addressed. A few minutes afterwards somebody tried to open tho door of tho room In which we wore sitting. I think it was complainant. 1 then almost immediately went downstairs. I met somebody on my way down, who said, “ Smiler is looking'for you.” When complainant saw mo bo said, scoundrel has been insulting me.” I asked him if ho thought it was me. Ho said, “If it was you I'd punch your head," Ho was very much excited at the time. Mr. Moorhouse: Was complainant excited at tho time I—Witness : Yes, I think so, Mr. Moorhouse: Might ho not have been soliliquising when ho said that some ■ ■■■■ ■ scoundrel had insulted him ? —Witness: Probably. Mr. Moorhouse : What was it that took place upstairs ? —Witness: Someone called out “ There’s tho Smiler.” Mr. Moorhouse: And what did Mr. Smiler say? (Great laughter)—l beg your pardon. Mr. Shepberd ? Witness: It was then I heard him say some—-* scoundrel had insulted him. John Owen and John Adolphus Laing were also in the room with tho last witness, and gave corroborative evidence. Thomas Dwan deposed as follows : I was sitting in tho cotnmorclal-room on the evening in question. The door was partly open, and complainant looked ia the room, having a very fierce aspect. I asked a friend of mine who it was, and was told “Oh. that's the nvm they call tho Smiler.” Another person then came into the room and remarked “ Smiler is cutting up roxigh.” I said, “Judging from his fierce appearance ho will make it hot for somebody.” I know nothing about the assault, nor heard no obscene language. Inspector Atchcson was called to bewr Witness to the dcteiidant's good character.

Mr. Moorhousa remarked that he did not wish to cast any imputation as to the house being disorderly. His Worship, in giving judgment, said th*t from the evidence before him he thought complainant had become more excited than the circumstances warranted, and by his conduct complainant was very likely to bring about what had happened. He (the Resident Magistrate) could not however think that the defendant struck complainant in self-defence. At the same time he had not the slightest doubt in his own mind that the assault had been committed through complainant stating in a public street that the defendant kept a disreputable house; aud he could verjr easily imagine that the excitement of the moment led to the assault. Ho did not think that Mr. Shepherd intended to strike-Mr. Gilmer, and therefore he did not consider that the latter acted in self-defence. As ho did not consider the assault a serious one, the defendant would be fined 6s. and costs. There was a cross-action, but on the application of Mr. Buckley it was withdrawn: