MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2505, 31 March 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMAEU—THIS DAT. His Worship the Mayor and and B. Woollcombe, Esq., J.P.’s.) ASSAULT. Wreford v. Guthrie. Isaac Guthrie, a ploughman employed on Mr Richardson's home station, near Albur} 7 , was charged by William Wreford with assaulting him on Saturday, March 26, at Albury. Mr Tosswili appeared for the complainant ; Mr Reid appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Mr Tosswili said he should prove that his client had been assaulted four times in four different places. William Wreford, the complainant, said he had been employed for the lust three years by Mr Richardson. Remembered Saturdajq March 26, when himself, defendant, and two others were instructed by their employer to shift a threshing machine belonging to a man named Peter Nelson. Witness bad charge _of the thrashing machine. Owing to instructions received, stopped the horses by the Stack. Here Guthrie unyoked the horses and said he didn’t care a d for Nelson or anyone else. Witness then walked away, Guthrie following saying he owed witness a grudge for a long time. Ho then wanted to box but witness declined the offer remarking that defendant would box him at his own risk. Defendant thereupon struck witness on the nose and knocked him down. (Bruise on nose exhibited to the Bench). Witness did not strike the defendant. Witness then got a drink of tea, and went down to the river to wash away the blood stains on his dress and face. The defendant presently tame up, jumped off his horse, and asked if witness was going to summons him. Witness said lie didn’t know ; and added that he had always found him decent until that Jay, Defendant thereupon enquired whether the witness didn’t call him a decent man then, and he replied that he couldn’t call his recent conduct decent, and he then knocked witness down again and used insulting language. Defendant presently walked up to the witness again, remarked that he would make him fight, and struck him on the head. Presently they went into the hut to have their tea, and defendant struck witness once more before the men, this time on the head and breast, and kicked him. By Mr Reid—Did not strike defendant at first, and don’t think lie was struck at all. Defendant’s eye looks rather black now ; can’t say how it came so. Before the row commenced had two or three glasses of beer. At the Opawa Hotel the owner of the mill “ shouted ” half a a gallon of beer and a bottle of brandy, of which both witness and the defendant partook, but not largely. After this defendant borrowed half a crown of witness and “ shouted ” a second half gallon of beer. Witness had a glass of this. Believed another man at the hotel shouted another half-gallon of beer ; the hotel was crowded with men. On the way home witness took the wrong road. Was as sober as he was at present. Did not call witness “a crawler ” before he struck witness; called him one afterwards. Was not anxious to “go ” for the defendant. When they had the tea they drank it out of a bottle, and witness remarked when he had the bottle in his hand, “If it was some men bad the bottle they would punch your head with it.” Witness did not strike the defendant with the bottle ; he was not so “ uncivilised ” as that. Never remarked that he would “ take it out” of the defendant. Witness might have been a lamb all through and defendant might have been a wolf. Didn’t know how defendant got his black eye or damaged nose ; for anything witness knew defendant might have inflicted those injuries on himself. Several witnesses haring been examined on both sides the defendant was fined 10s and costs. The Court then adjourned.