RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5447, 11 September 1878, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, September 10. (Before T. A. Hansford, Esq., K.M.) ASSAULT. Samuel Hill was charged by John Hunter with assaulting him in Mrs. Hill’s shop on the 9th iost. Mr. Brandon appeared for the complainant, and Mr, Gordon Allan for the defendant. Complainant deposed that he was shopman in Mrs. Hill’s tobacconist shop, on the quay. Mrs. Hill was wife of the defendant, but was separated from him. On the day in question defendant came in the shop and said he was "oing to take possession of it, adding that he was going to send his wife to live with her mother, and that ho would allow her £2 a-week. Some high words then ensued between complainant and defendant, which resulted in the complainant being knocked down. Mr. Gordon Allan said that the defendant went to his premises under the direct understanding that he was the owner of the property, and of course had a right to be there if he chose.

Samuel Hill deposed that the shop in dispute was in his name and belonged to him. He had been away from town about two months and returned on Monday and went to his shop to take possession of it. Hunter, who was in charge, called him indecent names and took hold of one of the scale weights to strike him. A quarrel then took place, and witness threw complainant down. Mrs. Hill deposed that she had entered into a deed of separation from her husband. The property had been purchased for her by Mr. Krull. She lately obtained an injunction against her husband at the Supreme Court for his immoral conduct. She had become liable tor her husband’s debts in Wellington to the amount of £IOO. His Worship fined defendant £2 and costs, or in default to bo imprisoned for fourteen days, and observed that the defendant had no right on the premises. m.‘le.vn's case. The charge of forgery against Alfred Henry McLean was again proceeded with. Complainant (W. Nicholson) was further examined by Mr. Ollivior (defendant’s counsel), but nothing of any interest was adduced.

The next witness examined was Joseph Liney Kimbell, who deposed that he was a cabinetmaker, and was one of the firm. When the question as to the signing of the document

took place McLean replied “that a charge of forgery was a very grave offence to make.’’ Nicholson, after looking at the document, was asked to look at it again to make sure of the signature,' but replied that there was no occasion aa he was quite sure that he had never signed it in his life. Nicholson then said, “ Why McLean i' you would do such a thing as that what on earth would you not do.” McLean then said that he wished to make a statement. Nicholson replied that he did not wish to hear auv statement, and told Mcljean to go out of his eight, us ho did not wish to have anything mere to say to him. McLean then went away. In cross-examination witne-s said that Nicholson discharged McLean the day before one of tho documents was signed. McLean called witness to one side, and showing the document said, “Its no use the old man kicking, X have what I want.” Witness gathered from what McLean said that he (McLean) had bought the business. After soma further evidence of an unimportant nature, the case was further adjourned until Thursday.