RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1272, 10 February 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

This Day. [Before M. Purcß, Esq., R.M.] Regina v. W.m. Burrows. CRUELTY TO A TORSE. William Burrows was charged with cruelly to a horse on the 27th ult., and pleaded not guilty. Alfred Wood, called : I am draughtsman in the Government service. I remember last Saturday week. 1 saw defendant on that day. Was at the Settlers Hotel, Gladstone Hoad about 3 o’clock that day. There was a horse which he had tied to the dray, and he wanted it to go along A case fell off the dray, and the defendant dragged the horse along the road and over the case. I should say that it was an accident The horse was unwilling to follow the dray, and was dragged behind the dray by a rope. The horse did not seem inclined to go and backed. The horse was not beaten by defen dant. The dray was full of goods. The falling of the box off the dray was accidental. Cross-examined by defendant: You could see the horse from where you were sitting on the dray. Alexander Robinson called: I live in Gladstone Road. I saw defendant on 17th of last month at the Settlers’ Hotel. He was driving a dray He had a horse fastened to the dray behind. It had a rope round its neck, and did not seem inclined to go A case fell off, and the defendant got off. He could not get the horse to go. By the Bench: J could not say whether the horse suffered or not.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

William Cooper called for the defence : The horse in question was delivered to inc in good order. 1 bought it town and gave it to defendant to take home for me. It was all right when delivered.

James Pritchard called : I saw defendant at the Settlers’ Hotel with a horse behind his dr.iy The h<-rse ap peared a bit frightened, and when a box fel l off the dray it startled the horse. Defendant did not illuse the horse.

William Burrows, defendant, was called, and stated that the horse was being taken up by him to Waerenga-a-hika on the day in question, and he had never ill-used the horse.

The" Resident Magistrate dismissed the ease, as he did not see that any cruelty had been proved. ASSAULT, Charles Goldsmith was charged with having assaulted one Ridea on the !th instant. Defendant pleaded not guilty. The complainant on being sworn stated that on Sunday morning her husband and herself were in their own room. Her husband was some time afterwards called away, and on going into the kitchen she saw her husband : and several others. She was concerned i about her horse, and told her husband to come out and stop drinking wine. She went- in and dragged her husband out. The boy (defendant) said if you want to fight Tom Collier you had better take it out of me. Defendant came up and hit her once on the nose, and he then got up and ran away. A witness was called and proved that he saw defendant give the complainant a good shaking and throw her down, and after she got up be struck her in the eve.

Thomas Cellier called, and stated that he was living with complainant He saw defendant strike complainant on the head and knock her down. Complainant was tussling with defendant, and the latter fell down and cut his head. This was all the case for the complainant. Defendant on being sworn, stated that there was a sort of squabble, and the complainant struck him. and then he struck her, and they rolled about together for some time. A witness named Mita was called, and corroborated the statement. The Resident Magistrate stated from the evidence brought before him, he was of opinion that it had been a sort of free fight all round, and that the complainant was as much involved as the defendant, in fact she had given defendant as much if not more than as he had given her. It appeared to him that on the day in question they had all been fighting like dogs, and as it was a Sunday it matters much worse. They should have been in their houses reading their Bibles, but instead of that thi-y were drinking wine, and this was how the quarrel arose. In order to enable him to convict a person for assault, there should be evidence before him that no provocation had been occasioned on the other side. He would dismiss the case, each party to pay their own costs. The cases of S. Goldsmith v. Ridia and Ridia v. S. Goldsmith, for assault, were withdrawn by leave of the Court.