R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 33, 7 January 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., R,M.) SATURDAY, ASSAULT.—HAMILTON V, PAULIN, Frank Paulin, a laborer in the employ of Mr. Bees, was again brought up on remand charged with a brutal assault oq-the prosecutor, B. Hamilton, The prisoner is a short, powerfully-built man, whilst the complainant is the reverse. Mr. Bees appeared lot defendant. It will be remembered that the complainant, whose face bore traces of severe punishment, deposed that he was on his way home on Christmas night, and had arrived opposite the cordial factory, in the Gladstone Bead, when he heard some one call out, and found the defendant sitting down. Upon Hamilton asking him what was the matter, he oomplained that he had been thrown from his horse and had sprained his ankle, Complainant then kindly got off his horse and assisted prisoner on. On arriving at the avenue which leads up to Te Hapara, the prisoner alighted, and Hamilton was about to mount, when Paulin seized him by the throat and savagely assaulted him. At the previous examination before the Court, W, Adams, who resides opposite the avenue where the alleged assault took place, gave evidence to the fact that when going home on Christmas night he passed some men and a horse, and after being indoors for a short time he heard a cry for help. On going out he heard a voic saying, “ I will make you pay for this." It was too dark to distinguish who the men were. On being again examined on Saturday, he stated that it was a very quiet night, and he heard the voices distinctly. Thought one of the voices was defendant’s, but he could not swear positively to it; He also heard a horse go past in the direction of Makaraka. He heard footsteps going up the avenue towards Mr. Bees'. Heard some one say, “All right; this won’t be the last you will hear of it.” He could not swear to the prisoner’s voice, as lie (prisoner) was not the only Frenchman in Cross-examined by Mr. Bees: Was sure it was between 11 and 12 when he passed the men on the road. He was on horseback, He was positive he heard the footsteps going up the avenue. He thought there were three men on the road.

Jane Solomon, domestic, in the employment of Mr. Bees, at Te Hapara, knew the defendant, and remembered him coming home on Christmas night about half-past twelve o’clock. On the defendant coming in, she remarked’ “Hullo, Frank, your coat is all dirty.” The accused thereupon immediately went out at the door without speaking. The back of his coat was covered with dust and dirt. He appeared quite sober. T. J. Dixon remembered the accused coming to the Argyle Hotel on the night in question, and leaving between 10 and 11 o’clock, Accused was quite sober. J. McComie, blacksmith, Ormond, was staying at the Boseland Hotel on Christmas night, Shortly after 12 o’clock the prosecutor came to the door of the where where witness was sleeping and knocked him up. While he (witness) was getting a light, Hamilton went and put his horse away. When he came back he (witness) saw by the light that Hamilton’s face was all smashed. He told witness that a man at Read’s gate had done it. The prosecutor was not drunk, but knew well what he was doing. The blood was still running from his face. This closed the evidence for the prosecution.

Mr. Bees said he would now call witnesses who would prove that it was 12 o’clock when the defendant left town; consequently he could not be the person who committed the assault. Timothy Brossnahan knew the accused, and saw him on Christmas Day. The accused sold O’Connor a horse, and O'Connor, himself, Davis, and Paulin walked into town together and went to witness’ house, where they partook of some beer. Davis and Paulin left his house about 11 o'clock, Paulin was not drunk, and had no horse. That was the last he saw of them. O. Davis, saddler, knew the defendant. Was with him on Saturday night. After leaving Brossnahan’s they walked down the town together, and then returned and walked up the road as far as the Settlers’ Hotel, where they parted company. Witness went straight to the Boyal Hotel. It was about twelve o’clock. Mr. Cannon said it was not twelve o’clock, but he (witness) thought it was. When he left accused he was sober and not lame. They did not drink at the Settlers’ Hotel. They left Brossnahan’s about half-past ten o’clock. Had no conversation with the prisoner next morning. They only had a cup of beer at Brosnahan’s, His Worship said no doubt a most brutal assault had been committed on Hamilton by the accused. The evidence of McComie proved that the complainant was quite sober when he arrived at Makaraka. The evidence of Adams was fully corroborative of the account of the affair given by the prosecutor, Though he (Adams) could not swear positively to the prisoner, yet his evidence was conclusive as to the voice of one of the men being that of a Frenchman, Added to this there was the evidence as to the footsteps going up the avenue. Then there was the evidence of the girl Solomon who had testified as to the condition of the prisoner's clothes when he got home, Taking all the evidence into consideration there could not be any room for doubting that the prisoner had committed a most brutal assault. He would inflict a fine of £5 Bs. 6d, which together with £4 Ils. Od. costs would make £lO, or, in default two months' imprisonment. Mr. Bees said that as the prisoner was his servant he would guarantee that the fine should be paid on Monday. His Worship having agreed to this, the prisoner was allowed to leave the Court, BREACH or THE THACH. S. Malstead and J. Maher were brought up and charged on the information of the police with fighting in the Gladstone Bond on Dec. 24. E. Woon knew Maher, but the other man was a stranger to him. Haw the two defendants fighting in the Gladstone Bond, opposite Nasmith’s shop. They were hugging each other. Malstead was very angry and was attacking Maher, who appeared to be acting on the defensive. They were biting and tearing each other's hair. A man named Sorry separated them. They were very angry—very angry. Could not tell the date. H. Sorry saw the defendant quarrelling on that day. There were no blows struck. They were struggling, It was not true that they were biting. Malstead had some blood on him, and was the worse for drink. G. Maher, brother to one of the accused, said he and his brother were standing in the road on the day in question, when Malstead rushed at his brother and struck at him. His brother only tried to defend himsell, and acted entirely on the defence. Malstead here remarked that he was eo drunk that he could not remember what took place at the time. The two brothers Maher had both assaulted him a week previous to this assault. His Worship remarked that there appeared to be an old feud between them. As Maher appeared to have acted only in self-defence, the information against him would be dismissed. He would fine Malstead £1 and costs, or, in default, 24 hours’ imprisonment. This concluded ihe business for the day.