RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 33, 8 March 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thvuday, Mams 6. [Before W.K. Nnsm, Esq., R.M.] Rupeni Ehua was charged by Sergeant Shirley, A.C., with using threatening and abusive language, tending to a breach of the peace. Fined £2, with an alternative of two weeks* imprisonment. Samuel Onions was charged, under the Licensing Act, with being drunk in the streets of Gisborne. Fined five shillings. A fine of one pound was also inflicted under the Rumi Police Act, for using obscene language in the public street. * Luke Bethel was also similarly charged for a commission of the same offences, and a fine of five shillings, and one pound, respectively, inflicted. Tvckeb v. Laxgfobd.—Assault and battery. William Henry Tucker stated that he went to see defendant on business. There liad been a disagreement between them. Defendant had broken faith with him and he told him he would not take his word again. Defendant then struck him, and he struck defendant in self defence. He did riot call defendant a liar. George Feary said he heard the altercation going on. Neither of the parties seemed th be in a very offensive attitude. Sydney C. DeVerney said, I was present when the assault took place. Defendant said, “ Do you mean to call me a liar ?" I heard plaintiff say “ yes.** I heard the plaintiff call the defendant a liar. Defendant fined £2. Chapmax v. Read—Claim of £4O 16s Id Balance of wages, board and lodging, and passage money to Auckland. The Court was occupied the remainder of the day in the hearing of this case, and finally adjourned to this day. It appears that the plaintiff was engaged, as an engineer, in Napier, by the defendant; and from what can be made of the conflicting evidence, did not seem to be up to his work. An agreement, appears, it had been drawn up the effect that if the alteration of the old Mill was not practicable, the defendant would give plaintiff a free passage to Auckland. Plaintiff shows that it was not Eracticable, but refused to accept terms which e himself had suggested, namely, “ a fortnight’s wages ; a free passage to Auckland, with board paid,” and Mr. Cuff, on behalf of defendant, maintained that. the sum, £8 10s. paid into Court, was all that was due to plaintiff, anything beyond that being exorbitant. Plaintiff located himself at aii hotel for some time after, and finally puts ii/a long claim for “ drinks.” The magistrate will give his decision this morning.