Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE.

Thursday, March 10th, 1881. [Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.] ’ W. 11. TUCKER V. E. ff. WARD. —ASSAULT. Mr. Turton for complainant; Mr. Finn for defendant. The charge was that defendant assaulted complainant in the public street by striking him with his fist. W. H. Tucker, sworn, deposed, through his counsel, to the nature and manner of the assault, and stated that he was not aware of having given defendant provocation. The evidence of several witnesses was taken at length, from which.it appeared that Mr. Ward accosted Mr. Tucker in the street, and asked him if it was true that he (Mr. Tucker) had been circulating defamatory reports about himself (Mr. Ward). Complainant’s reply was not satisfactory, and Ward thrust two or three blows at Tucker through vexation. He had no desire to assault Mr. Tucker, but was excited at the time. His Worship delivered a long homily. He would not entertain Mr. Finn’s defence of the assault being trivial and justifiable. It was his opinion that men of education and position should keep themselves under control. If one was called an opprobrious name, or otherwise insulted, a blow struck in anger might be an excuse or palliation ; but where there was time tor reflection, and a man did

not seek revenge in hot blood, it was the reverse. As to the ’ * human nature ” theory set up by counsel for the defence, that was an element he could not entertain ; and would mark his sense of the quality of the offence by inflicting a fine of £5 and costs. Friday, March 11th. ROBJOHN’s IRVINE & CO: V. PARAU. Claim £1 10s. uGoods sold and delivered. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs. SAME V. SAMSON JOHNSON. Claim £12,4s fid. Goods supplied. J udgment for plaintiff, with costs. PARNELL & BOYLAN V. SHEEHAN. Application for a judgment summons for £lOO. Granted. J. DICK V. A. ROBB. Claim £B, for use and occupation of certain premises. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBS18810312.2.21

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 925, 12 March 1881, Page 4

Word count
Tapeke kupu
328

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE. Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 925, 12 March 1881, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GISBORNE. Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 925, 12 March 1881, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert