RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.— HAWERA.

Patea Mail, Volume II, Issue 169, 22 November 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT.— HAWERA.

—o—(Before Major Turner, R.M., J. Livingstone, and H. S. Peacock, Esqrs., J.P.’s Monday, 20th November, 1876. T. Chalmers was brought up charged with drunkenness, and lined 10s. After this case was settled, the series of cases against T. Quinlivan, were proceeded with The first of tin's series comprised a charge preferred by the Sergeant of Police (Sergt. Cahill; against T. Quinlivan for creating a Breach of the Peace by assaulting the Sergeant by using abusive language against him, thereby endangering his life. Mr Hutchinson, of Wanganui, appeared for defendant in this and the following cases. Plea—Not guilty. The defendant’s Council objected to the case being proceeded with on the ground that the information had been wrongly made. Ic was subjected that words do not create an assault, but that if words tending to provoke an assault be made, the person who uses the words can be bound over to keep the peace.

Under the circumstances the Bench con- I sklered that the information was improperly laid, and they decided that (as the Solicitor for the defendant and the prosecutor had no objection to a new information) the case be struck out. Verdict accordingly. L. Kolson y. T. Quinlivan (Same). — In this case the plaintiff pleaded that the defendant did “ unlawfully assault, beat, and ill treat her.” Plea—Not guilty, [lt was elicited at the onset that no warrant had been made out ; that a summons had been issued, but bad not been served on defendant in this case.] The case, however, was proceeded with. The plaintiff (a Dane) when interrogated on the subject wished to have her evidence taken through an interpreter ; Mr C. Mathieson accordingly acted in that capacity. It was ascertained, however, after a brief examination that the plaintiff was perfectly able to make herself understood in the English language, and consequently interrogations were subsequently put and answered to by her in that form. The evidence in this case was most contradictory. During the hearing much amusement was caused by the solicitor for the defendant eliciting from the plaintiff that although she sometimes indulged at the shrine of Bacchus, yet she never had so far trespassed on the kindly feelings of tbe god as to supercede the bounds of impropriety. Much amusement was also caused by a question fiom the Bench, in which they interrogated a well known citizen of Hawcra (who was giving his evidence) whether he was in the habit of escorting drunken men to their homes. Of course the reply was in the negative. The evidence being las stated above) most contradictory, the Bench had no other alternative than to dismiss the case with the world-famed proviso “ not to do it again.” The defendant (through his Council) asked the Bench for a “ Certificate of dismissal,” which was granted. L. Kolson v. J, Strachan Greig. — For unlawfully assaulting, beating, and illtreating the plaintiff. As the evidence in this case would have proved as contiadictory as that in the preceding case, it was considered advisable not to enter into it, and accordingly the Bench decided to dismiss it. The Court then adjourned for an hour. The Court resumed business at 2 p.m., when the case of— M. S. Kolson v. T. Quinlivan, for an indecent assault, came on for hearing. [We are obliged, from the nature of this case, to withhold most of the leading incidents, and can only give a mere precis of the evidence brought forward.] Sub-Inspector Northcroft, assisted by. Sub-Inspector Kenny, appeared for the Crown ; and Mr Hutchison for the defendant. During the course of proceedings, it was proved that the defendant had committed an offence against the laws of propriety, and was therefore committed for trial ; bail being allowed, himself in £IOO, and two sureties of £SO each. The Court adjourned at half-past G p.m.