MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2503, 29 March 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. (Before R. Beetham Esq., R.M.) ASSAULT. Stack v. Heffernan, Mr Tosswill appeared for the defendant who pleaded not guilty. William Holmes/ sign writer, residing in Timaru, recollected seeing Heffernan assault Stack -at the Eclipse Brewery on Saturday March 19. The assault took* place inside the brewery between 2 .and 3.30 p.m., iff-the afternoon. Heffernan had a dispute with Stack and knocked him down, put his knee pn his chest, struck' him on the head and kicked him in the ribs. Stack got up and. said that Heffernan • knew he (Stack) was drunk and that he took advantage of his condition. Stack made a kind of rush at Heffernan and then was knocked down again by him. : By Mr Tosswill—Stack' was drunk and the men were quarrelling.

Thos Ness, billiard marker at the Club Hotel deposed-to seeing HefEernan lift upStack from the ground, throw him into an empty cask and kick him in the ribs as he fell. . ■ . • Mr Tosswill asked that thq case might ‘be’dismissed as an information could not be-laid by a third party as had been done in this case. His Worship said that he should dismiss the case bat not on the grounds urged by Mr Tosswill ; it was perfectly competent for a third person to lay an information, in a case if it was thought expedient to do so. But in this.case it had been shown Stack was drunk and although' Heifernan might have acted in a violent manner still it w-as.a. drunken row' Tind both mfen:M’e,re -tq, blame. The case would therefore,,bo. dismissed. A' koWEA* CUSTOMER. . John Gibson, a powerful looking man ; was charged with being unlawfully drunk, ana creating a disturbance in. a licensed house. Mr White appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. John Meikle,licensee of the Grosvenor Hotel, deposed to defendant coming to his house bn the night of March 21. He did not seem to be much the worse for liquor then, but afterwards witness was 1 called into the billiard room where ■ the defendant was creating a disturbance and interfering with the play., The defendant was asked to leave but he became very excited and refused to go. He was then the worse for liquor and made use of very strong language. The witness presently put ,him out and the constable took him into custody. Hugh Jones, billiard marker, said, the defendant caused a complete uproar in the billiard room. He was drunk and refused to leave when requested. Mr White at this stage retired from the case and the defendant said he would conduct it himself.

The witness Jones in reply to the defendant, said that he had struck a gentleman who was looking on at the billiards with his whip, and told him that it was time for him to give up playing billiards, as he was getting a gray-headed old b . The defendant was then further charged with using abusive language to John Meikle, such language being calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. The defendant said he admitted that he had had a glass too much on the night in question, but was still quite able to look; after himself. What hurt him was being in charge without just cause. He supposed he was'ot gentleman enough to be allowed in the billiard room, and that that, was the reason. :>h

His Worship said defendant hadbehaved in a very disgraceful manner. Holders of licenses were expected to keep houses in a respectable manner and.if they did not do so they had to ,answer for it. They were therefore-, deserving of protection when they endeavored to conduct their establishments in an orderly and proper manner. The defendant would be fined 20s and costs for the first, and 20s and costs on the second offence, those being the highest penalties the Magistrate could inflict, or in default would be imprisoned for seven days with hard labor. The money was paid.' buenham.

James E. Exley, a boy of 12 years, was committed, at his father’s request, to the Industrial School at Burnham for three years. The boy was stated to be uncontrollable. CIVIL CASES'.' In the following cases judgment was given by'.default for plaintiff, with costs Ebenezer Snjith vW. O’Connor, £1 2s; H. Walsh v W. Smith, £3 15s 3d. Ormsby v J. J. Daily-—Claim £3l I9s 6d for professional services rendered. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed with costs. Bell v Constable— £8 16s for grazing stock. Mr Hamersley for plaintiff ; Mr C. Perry for defendant. £ll6s had been paid into Court, the defendant pleading the statute of limitations as to the balance, ,v. A long discussion took place between Bench and counsel on certain technical points arising outi<of the case. Ultimately His Worship said he would? reserve his decision. Willisonv. W. L. Edwards—l6s. Judgment for 8s without costs.'.;;'