Untitled

Patea Mail, Volume VI, Issue 508, 14 April 1880, Page 3

thivatfiied mo several times. I was neither i. n gruel nor bad terms. I wo’kcd with him fiv • or six mom ha on the i • vor, and he rohhivi im' out of m uuw for work I had done for him. Ism ke several limes about tm money, until I got tired speaking about the money. The defendant asked : Were you not lying along-side the fence listening to what Mr Grace and I were saying ?—No. Did you not fall, coining through Grace’s gate, after that ?—No. Defendant—l have no more questions to ask him. It is no use.

William W. Whitmore, brewer, Poverty Flat, said—On the 26th March, Kennedj asked to wash himself just about dusk. I saw blood on his handkerchief, and he said he had had some quarrel with Wright. His ear was bleeding.

Defendant—Could not that cut on his ear have been done by falling through the gate ?—lt might have been. Could there have been any loud quarrel without you hearing ?—No, there could not have been any high words. Police-sergeant iPGrath deposed that the complainant came to him on the evening in question, and stated he had been assaulted by Thomas Wright. He showed his ear, which was severely skinned, and showed his handkerchief, stained with blood. The Sergeant told him that as it was nothing serious he could do nothing for him then, and that Kennedy would have to lay an information.

Defendant—Would there be no more marks than that if he had been kicked ? It wuula depend how he protected himself.

Defendant was then sworn, and said—l am a boatman at Cartyle, and on this evening Mr Grace came into my place, a whare on the river bank. He was shaking with cold, and I got out of bed and lit a fire to warm him ; and after that I led him home to his own place. Having got him into his house he commenced crying about a debt of O’Sullivan’s, the man who got killed. 1 put him into bed, and covered him with blankets. On coming outside, this man Kennedy was lying alongside the fence listening to the conversation we had inside. I asked him what he was doing there, and as soon ns I spoke he rushed through the little broken gate, which was only laid np against two sticks. His foot caught, and he foil down. I asked what lie was listening to there, and lie sings out for Sam Black. 1 said, “ Aro3’nn hung in wait of me, or what are you calling Sam Black for?” He said “Nothing.” 1 told him that if I over caught him listening again I would wring his nose for him. I never put a hand or foot to him. If I had done so, I had only a pair of india-rubber slippers on. It is only a made-up thing to get me put off 1113- work, so that they 111:13’ have the river to themselves. I went up the river the other day, and when I came back they had broken into my whare and stolen a" gun. I never mentioned the names he states.

The Magistrate—Have yon been on bad terms with this man ?—No.

Do 3*ou say he stole 3’our gun ?—No, I don’t accuse this man in particular, but onl3’ to show the spite there is. The Sergeant—Did 3’ou report the loss of the gun ?—No, I thought it was no use, as the gun would be hidden near the river. Complainant—Did 3’ou not jump on Mr Grace’s breast on one occasion ?—No.

The Magistrate—This is not the time you have been charged with assault? —No, but the previous case of assault was not my fault. The Sergeant—l don’t know of any other case against hiiii, except shooting ducks on one occasion.

Defendant—That might be done by an>’bod3 f , because I could not keep them out of m3’ paddock. The Magistrate—The evidence in this case is not conclusive. The plaintiff brings forward no witnesses, and the defendant swears he did not lay hand or foot to ithe defendant. The Court may have its own opinion on the matter, but I don’t feel justified under the circumstances in convicting the defendant. The case is dismissed.

CIVIL CASES. R. Fo twooo v. W. Bolton was a claim for 17s 9d, goods supplied. Defendant did not appear. Judgment I)3’ default, with costs. Mauchant v. G. A. Pore, no appearance. J. Rhodes v. T. Rogers was a claim for 18s for a pair of boots. Plaintiff, a bootmaker at Carlyle, claimed 18s as the credit price for tho boots ; and defendant disputed the amount. Plaintiff said the boots were obtained last November tor cash, the money being promised the same week. The money was not paid, although he had applied repeatedly for it. The defendant was earning 11s a day, working for Mr Milroy at the new hotel, and the last time he was asked the defendant had threatened to kick Mr Rhodes for bothering him about mone3’. These were slop boots, 16s 6d for cash, 18s booked. Plaintiff’s price for elastic side boots made to order is 265. Defendant’s contention was that the boots were bought without anything being said about cash price, and were not good boots. He had not received a week’s pay on the building since he began work. He also said Mr Rhodes had not rendered any account. Admitted tho debt, but would pay only 16s 6d. Judgment for 18s and costs.