Patea R.M. Court.

Patea Mail, 2 June 1881, Page 3

Patea R.M. Court.

Tuesday, before Mr C. A. Wray, R.M. DRUNKEN ASSAULTS. William Neary, saddler, was summoned for assaulting John Redmond, laborer. The parties had been drinking at the Masonic Hotel on the night of the 24th May. Each said ho was sober, but that the other man was drunk. They loft the hotel, and in a few minutes cries were heard from the bridge. They were found on the ground struggling together, one crying “Help” and the other crying “ Murder.” They were separated by Mr Howe, fellmonger, who himself got beaten, and a second case arose out of the scrimmage. Redmond’s story was that Neary followed and assaulted him. Neary’s defence was (hat he was taking Redmond home because he had fallen down drunk near the hotel, and while trying to nrge him to go home, Redmond began to fight, and they were struggling together when separated. The Magistrate said both parties appeared very disorderly, and both deserved to be punished. The case would bo dismissed.

Neary was then charged with assaulting and beating William Howe in the same scrimmage. Mr Howe said be was going home with his wife and daughter, and on hearing the cries near the bridge he went to separate the two men struggling on the ground in the darkness. He pulled Redmond off, and Neary then got up and using bad language made a rush round to attack Mr Howe. Neary rushed towards Mrs Howe, when she said “Oh you coward : would yon strike a woman ?” Neary said he would strike any by thing that came in his way. Mr Howe hit him on the head with a thin walking-stick to stop him from touching Mrs Howe. Then Neary sat down, took off his heavy boot, and struck Mr Howe on the eye, which was still black in a large round patch. Mr Howe was blinded for the moment, and seized Neary to prevent farther blows. Neary jumped up and bit Howe’s cheek and lip, the marks being still visible.

Neary’s statement was that Howe kicked him on the head while down (mark visible), and that on getting up he did not see Mrs Howe, did not attempt to strike her, but did strike Mr Howe, though only with his hands. Dominic Patrick said he was aroused from his bed at a boarding-house by hearing knocking and cries, that he found Neary on the ground and Redmond sitting on his chest, and Mr Howe was standing a little away. Witness put his arm between the men to get them up, but feeling somebody's lips and teeth he drew back the arm, as he thought there was danger.

Charles Moore’s evidence was to the same effect, but he added that Mr Howe was standing with his hat and coat off. Two horsemen were there, and one said he would see fair play, and held up a stirrup iron to strike the man who was topmost if

he did not get up. Neary then got up and said he would fight any one man, but two were too much. A woman then persuaded him to go home. These witnesses evidently came on tiie scone .after Howe had separated the men in the first instance, and after Neary assaulted him.

The Magistrate said the evidence was contradictor}’, but it was clear that Mr Howe had been assaulted. It was an imprudent thing to interfere, though when he heard cries of murder he could- hardly help himself ; still those who interfere in a quarrel generally come off second best. There were circumstances which led him to treat the defendant leniently. Neary would he fined 40s and costs, or in default 14 days’ imprisonment. The money was paid.

ASSAULT AT WAVERLEY. Patrick Lambert, a young man who had been arrested at Nelson under warrant, was brought up charged with assaulting and beating John Woolston, publican, Waverley, on the night of December 21st,' by knocking him down and kicking him on the month, on the eye. and on other parts. The prisoner, who was defended by Mr Hamerton, pleaded not guilt}-. John Woolston, publican, deposed : I had been waiting up for luggage which arrived at midnight. Lambert knocked at the back window. I told him it was after hours, and could not let him in. He said he would come in, and Mrs Woolston went to stop him at the door. She sung out, and I went and found Lambert had hold of her. I got hold of him, and we both fell, he being underneath. Bowler, who had come in with him, got hold of Lambert and pulled him from under me. I felt a kick from Bowler’s foot, and felt a crush in my mouth, my teeth being knocked in. I was senseless from the kick. 1 don’t remember anything more, except that I saw them going away. Magistrate : As far as you know, this man did not strike you ? Complainant: This man got hold of me, but I cannot swear which kicked me. I took hold of him to put him out, and he resisted. Sergeant Donovan ; Did yon not swear, when applying for a warrant, that Lambert threw yon on the ground and kicked your teeth out ? Woolston : Either 1 threw him or he threw me, I can’t say which. Sergeant : Dili }on not continually growl and gi v e the police trouble because we did not find out this man who had nearly killed you ? Woolston : I spoke about it once or twice. Magistrate: Yon have not told ns about kicking you in the eyes and face, as in the information. Woolston : My face was knocked about there. I can’t say whether they kicked it or boat it. Sergeant: Did a man take Lambert from under you ? Woolston : Yes, hut I had received the wounds then. Sergeant: So you were the better man of the two ? Woolston : f was on the top of him. I downed him. Sergeant: This case has cost the country a deal of money. I say Woolston has a right, to pay the expenses from first to last. He gave the police always to understand that Lambert was the principal. It can be sworn in Court, if necessary to make this man pay all the expenses. He told me there was nothing much to be said against Bowler. Mr Hamerton : I hope they will also consider my client’s expenses. I have proof that the wife smacked him on the face several times before he protected himself even. Magistrate : Probably Mr Woolston’s feelings were more excited at the time he laid the information. Sergeant: Yes, he has cooled down very much in the matter. I intend sueing him for the expenses if I can. They will be £25 or £3O. Magistrate: If the other man were here, the case could be more fully gone into. Case dismissed. Mr Hamerton : I understand Bowler is in Sydney. Sergeant: There is a warrant against him. Perhaps Woolston will withdraw it. Woolston: Yes, I will withdraw the information against Bowler.

CIVIL CASE. HARTWELL V. HUDSON, GUY, AND CO,

This was a claim for balance of wages, the plaintiff being a workman at the Kakarainea Saw Mill ; amount claimed £6 10s 6d. Defendants had a set-off for

| rent of house and garden, for timber, grazing of horse, &c, amounting to £9 i odd. A question of title to the land on which the house stands was a part of the dispute. Mr Guy said they held the land under lease from Mr Bucklhougbt, on condition that they used as much land as was required for mill purposes Cottages tor workmen had been erected ; and when Hartwell was engaged he was allowed the use of a house ami two tables at a nominal

rent of Is per week, so long as. he. worked at the mill. He wanted a garden, and Mr Bucktlionght, the lessor, let him a piece of ground for garden at £1 a year or for one crop. The rent of garden was to be paid through Hudson and Guy. This specific verbal agreement was made because of trouble with previous work-

men, who got;penaission to put up a house with mill timber, and then claimed to remain there without paying rent. Mr Hamerton, for Hartwell, contended (hat the rent could not he claimed as a set-off, because there Was a question of title, and that Hudson and Guy could not sue for rent of a garden which clearly belonged to Bnckthonght, unless they held a power-of-attorney to soe in liis name. The Magistrate said he could not see how they could sue for Mr Buckthoughl. He advised them to claim their rent in a separate action, and not as a set-off to this debt for wages. There was not sufficient to tdiow what there title is. Mr Guy said Mr Hudson was present when ihe agreement was made, and was now in Court. Magistrate : This Court cannot go into a question of title. Hartwell’s claim was reduced by consenting to £4 15s as a set-off for timber supplied tor building a house elsewhere, and for grazing horse. Verdict for the balance, with costs..