RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 319, 27 October 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Tuesday, October 26,1875. Before W. K. Nesbitt, Esq., R.M. Police v. Jbffbbys. Using obscene language in the public streets. Fined 20s and costs. Saunders v. Watbne. Assault.—Mr. Wilson for complainant; Mr. Rogan for defendant. George Saunders, landlord of the Waerenga-a-hika Hotel, deposed that accused dined at his house and assaulted him by hitting him in the face. He did not know why he committed the assault; which was quite unprovoked. For the defence: Mr. Rogan said he should adopt the somewhat unusual course of putting the defendant in the box, whereupon Mr. Wilson objected, and an argument took place between counsel and the Bench. Mr. Rogan read from the Justices of the Peace Act, and supported his right to examine the defendant, a view which the Bench endorsed. Defendant, sworn, deposed to having gone to Saunders’ Hotel to dine, and that while in the act of paying, Saunders struck him, and called him many bad names. He did not know why. He also knocked him down and kicked him without provocation.

Native witnesses were then examined, who deposed more or less in support of defendant’s statement; one of these stated that she was defendant’s wife, upon which Mr. Wilson again objected, and stated it was contrary to the law of England that a defendant in a criminal action should be examined, the law says he can be heart*, but not examined on oath. The learned gentleman then read the following extract from the Justices of the Peace Act, 1866, section 20 :— r l?lie Justices shall proceed to hear the informant and such witnesses as he may examine and such other evidence as he may adduce in support of his information and also to hear the defendant and such witnesses as he may examine and such other evidence as he may adduce in his defence.” The Bench took a different view of the case, and disallowed Mr. Wilson’s objection. The examination proceeded, and the defendant was fined 20s and costs. Hatfield v. Bbnson. Claim £l9 ss. Judgment for plaintiff. Bbown v. Meldbum. Claim £6 for labor. Mr. Wilson for defendant. Plaintiff deposed that he was engaged by defendant to work in his garden, there was no agreement made, but he (defendant) told him he could make his own arrangement about charging for the work. The defence was that the charge was excessive, defendant had paid £3 on account and considered that sufficient. Samuel Parsons corroborated this view, and judgment was recorded for defendant.