Patea R.M. Court.

Patea Mail, 16 July 1881, Page 3

Patea R.M. Court.

Friday, before Mr C. A. Wray, R.M. A SQUABBLE. Benjamin Bligh, laborer and seaman, was summoned for assaulting Mrs Irwiiv, wife of the proprietor of a boarding-house near Patea Bridge. Mr Parrington appeared for the plaintiff and Air Hamerton for the defendant. The charge was that on Tuesday the defendant put some sloresinto a bedroom, as he intended leaving in the afternoon to sail to Opunake. He was a fortnight in arrear with payment for board and lodging. Mrs Irwin asked for payment. Some disagreeable words passed, she alleging that ho used bad language, that he threatened to break her neck, and that he did hit her on the month, making it bleed, knocking her against the mantelpiece, then hitting her leg with a.billet of wood, and twisting her wrist. She went to a doctor to see if her jaw was broken, and bad been poorlj 7 ever since. Evidence was called to prove wounds. Constable Crozier saw her mouth bleeding. Defendant’s story was that she said he was afraid she would steal his stores because she wanted the bedroom key to make the beds ; that he stated she was a liar if she said that ; and that she threatened to split his skull with a billet of wood, and did throw it at him. He did not strike her, but seized her wrist to cheek her fury. Dominie Patrick corroborated this story. Mrs Cross heard her say she would split the defendant’s skull. The Magistrate said much irrelevant matter was brought in as evidence. Mr Hamerton asked for the summons to be dismissed, as the defendant could be sued foi the arrears of lodging. The Magistrate said the case appeared to be trumped up, and he dismissed it with costs. DISPUTED TENANCY. P. Mahony, storekeeper, brought an action against G. A. Hurley, clerk to Mr Barker, to eject him from the tenancy of a house. Mr H. E. P. Adams was for plaintiff and Mr Hamerton for defendant. The plaintiff’s statement was that he let the house weekly at 13s rental. Ho consented to let the tenant have the option of staying in it three months if he desired. Afterwards the plaintiff consented to let the tenant have the house for a year, the tenant promising to bring a written agreement. He never brought it, and plaintiff considered the tenant was still going on weekly. The rent was paid at irregular intervals. Plaintiff eventually wanted the house, which defendant refused to give up; and hence this action. The defendant said he agreed, after being in the house a few days, to take it for a year, and upon that he made certain improvements. He did not get a written agreement because he thought Mr Mahony’s word was sufficient. The Magistrate said the agreement, whatever it was, had been loosely made ; that he was not satisfied that the term of tenancy was shown to have expired, which must be proved before an ejectment order could be granted. Case dismissed.