MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2437, 10 January 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAKD—THIS DAY. [Before R. Beetlmm, Esq., 11. M., and J. W. Hall, Esq., J.P.] AX IRISH STEW. Bartholomew O’Rourke was charged by 4 Cornelius Brosmilian with assaulting him, and there were cross actions, Cornelius Brosmilian being charged by Bartholomew O’Rourke and Margaret O'Rourke, with assault. Mr Tosswill appeared for Brosmilian, and Mr Jameson for O’Rourke and his wife. Cornelius Brosmilian, laborer, residing at PI easant Point, deposed that' on Jan. J the defendant’s goats entered his garden, and on the following evening they came again, whereupon witness drove them hack to the defendant’s place, and demanded damages for trespass. Instead of acceding to this demand O’Rourke threw witness down throe times and “ hammered” him. Mrs O’Rourke pelted him with stones, and O’Rourke remarked that he would have witness’ life. Two or three witnesses, relatives of the complainant, corroborated his evidence. Mrs O’Rourke was then examined, and stated that on the evening that the goats got away Brosnahan called at their place and abused her in a most violent way, also striking her and throwing stones at her. Her husband was away at the time. She threw a stone at Brosnahan in self defence, but did not start the stone throwing. The goats had been well tethered up to the night of the 3rd, and then they broke away. Bartholomew O’Rourke deposed to the dispute about the goats, and denied that be was the aggressor ; what he did was merely in self-defence. Had threatened to take Brosuahan's life if he came to witness’s place again. His Worship administered a sharp rebuke to Brosnahan for throwing stones. If a man fancied himself aggrieved he had far better use his fists than resort to stone-throwing. And as for O’Rourke he had better not threaten peoples’ lives. If he had any reasonable cause for complaint he had his remedy at law. The whole of the charges would be dismissed, and each party would have to pay their own costs. The disputants then left the Court, apparently rather surprised at His Worship’s decision. DOMESTIC TROCHEES. Patrick Clancy was charged by his wife Ellen Clancy, an elderly woman, with failing to provide for her. Mr Jameson appeared for the defendant.

The prosecutrix on getting into the box made a long statement in which she charged her husband with boating and otherwise ill-treating her. She would never consent to live with him again.

The defence so far as it was entered upon was that the complainant left her husband of her own accord and had been living apart from him for 4 years. He was ready however to receive her back to bis borne.

The Hench told the old woman that her information was improperly laid as it charged her husband with failing to provide. She now charged her husband with cruelty, which she had no witnesses to prove. The charge must therefore be dismissed. imEACII UE THE LICENSING ALTS. George Joseph Palmer, licensee of the Hail way Hotel, at Albury, was charged with committing breaches of the Licensing Act of 1873 and 1870, in supplying an intoxicated person, John Tozer to wit, with liquor. The defendant pleaded not guilty. The evidence of To/.er and his little boy went to show that on Dec. 9 lie called at the llailway Hotel, and while “ skylarking ” with the barman got thrown down and hurt so badly that he had to stop the night at the house instead of going home with his dray. He was drinking while in the house, and his boy, 11 years of age, deposed that his father was supplied with liquor after he “bad had enough. The boy was cross-examined by the defendant, who denied that Tozor was given any liquor at the time alleged—while he was drunk. The case at this point was adjourned for an hour for the attendance of a witness named Mountain, who was subpoenaed and failed to appear when called. On the Court re-assembling, the witness Mountain was still absent.

His Worship dismissed the case, cautioning the defendant as to the conduct of his house.

The Court then adjourned