RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5653, 13 May 1879, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, Mat 12. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. .Four or i five drunkards were dealt within the usual, manner. ASSAULT. , Henry Anderson’ was charged with unlawfully and maliciously wourifiing Richard Cbbden Easby with a certain instrument, to wit, n pair of tongs. Bichard Cobden Easby. sworn, stated ; I live in Austin-street., I know the defendant. In September I supplied him with blinds, and as I could not get payment I got Mr. FitzHerbert to send him a lawyer’s letter. Defendant then came to pae, and promised to bring fl»e the money pn the following Saturday. ' Ho sent a girl with £5 on account on the day named. I tried to get the balance for some time,«and failing to'get it I gave him an advertisement for bis paper for three months. I gave them one or two Other little advertisements, and a blind had been ordered for the office. At the expiration of the three months I sent word to stop the advertisement. 1 afterwards received an- account from the Chronicle office, but sent it back stating I would settle it when' my’ account' was settled. In reply, I received an' insulting letter fronrMr.'Henry Anderson. After a day or two .I .sent my young man for defendant’s' private account.-' Not receiving the money I called and paid their account, and at the same time instructed my solicitor to take proceedings against Anderson tor the recovery of the money. On Saturday night last a girl came to my house and said “ Mrs. Anderson has sent this account and monpy (or blinds’.! 1 I .told her to tell her mamma that it wasout of mV hands, and she, .must please send it, to my solicitors, Messrs. Brandon and Son. She went away. About two minutes afterwards

another knock came to the door. I opened the door, and Mr. Anderson walked right m, without being asked, accompanied by his daughter and a big dog. I told him to come into the sitting-room, and motioned him to sit on the sofa, but he stood by the table. He put down £3 on the table and said “ I sent this girl with the money—you refused to receive it." I said “ Yes ; I have put it in the hands of Messrs. Brandon and Son, and you must take it there.” He said “ I will see you in hell first,” and began to use abusive and threatening language. I said "I don’t want to be insulted in my own house ; you had better go.” I went and opened the front door for him and then went back and told him to go, as I did not want to be annoyed with anything of the sort. I put out my hand to open the door wide, when I received a very severe blow from defendant on the face, which felled me to the ground. I called for help, and tried to get up, when he commenced striking me about the face and body. My wife told my daughter to go for help t > Mr. Lloyd. Accused’s daughter had left. I think Mrs. Easby came to my assistance then, and some neighbors came in shortly after. Mrs. Easby several times tried to beat him off me, and ho struck backwards at her, and knocked over a kerosene lamp, breaking it. This left us without light, but lie continued to beat me, and in falling over me must against the bookshelves. By the light of the fire I saw him seize the tonga ; ho lifted them, and immediately afterwards I felt blows descending upon me. Immediately afterwards I got away, and rushed out, calling for help, as he had to murder me. Mr. Lloyd came up, and on going back to the house we found Anderson gone. He must have slipped out after me. The tongs also were gone. My wounds were dressed by Dr. Harding. This concluded witness’s examination-in-chief, and the magistrate said ho could not proceed further with the case then. The civil business which had been delayed must come on.

In reply to Mr. Ollivier, Mr. Mansford said he would not ask for bail. If the defendant attempted to get away he would be at once arrested. The case was remanded till Wednesday morning. CIVIL OASES. Davis v. Tramway Company.—This was an action to recover £IOO, calls on shares. The hearing took place last week, when defendant pleaded that he had been induced to take the shares by misrepresentations. The Court now held that defendant was liable forthe calls, he having signed the deed of association, W. V. Jacksom v. T. K. Macdonald.—This case, adjourned from Thursday last, was proceeded with. Defendant pleaded—first, that he had never received from plaintiff the document for which he was suing, and further, that, assuming he had received it, it was not, nor ever had been, the property of plaintiff. His Worship reserved his decision. Jameison Bros. v. Peters.—Claim for £7 Bs. fid. Defendant did not dispute the items, but as to £4 2s. 9d. pleaded that the debt was incurred before his bankruptcy, and that he had received a certificate of discharge from the Bankruptcy Court. The Court gave judgment for £3 3s. 7d. E. A. Watson v. Jacob Monteith.—This was a suit to recover £BO in consequence of defendant’s negligence in his treatment of plaintiff. Mr. Ollivier for defendant, Mr. H. H. Travers for defence. The evidence was to. the effect that on 18th March plaintiff had cut his hand with a lemonade bottle, and after fruitlessly endeavoring to find two doctors he went to Mr. Monteith’s chemist shop, and showed his hand. He asked Mr. Monteith if he could dress his hand—if he was competent, or something of that sort—and Monteith replied, “ Ob’, I have not been in a hospital for four years for nothing.” He then sewed up the wound. Instead of getting better he got very much worse, and at the hospital he had been told wrong treatment had been followed, Several.operations had been performed, and another operation was likely to follow. It had been found that a large piece of glass had been sewed up in the wound. The hearing was continued at some length, when the case was adjourned in order that the evidence of Dr. Johnston might be obtained. In the following cases judgment, was given for plaintiffs Zohrab and another v. Morton £72 14s. 4d ; Toomath v. Woods and another, £22 13s. fid. ; Beid v. Sbappere, £1 ss. ; Smith v Hollis, £6 os. fid ; Beid v Hathaway, £6 12s fid. ; Beid v. Sellars, £2 15s. ; Golden Point Gold Mining Company v Eccles, £lO ; Casey and McDonald v. Francis, £5 os. fid. ; Gwyneth v. Hay, £5 os. Bch If defendant in the last case does not pay within fourteen days, he is to go to gaol for fourteen days.