RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 1547, 8 March 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before H. M'Culloch, Esq., R.M.) «» — Camfbeilltown, Mauch 6th. Q-eorge S. Abblett v. James Smith. — Mr Wade appeared tor plaintiff, and Mr Macdonald for the defendant. The plaintiff is a boatman in the pilot boat, and the defendant assistant pilot. Abblett sought fco recover the aum of £100 for damages auatained by an assault committed by the defendant on the 2nd of February. Tho plaintiff's case as atated by hia counael waa that on the above date, along with others ofthe boat's crew, he waa working on board the Government punt, under the direction of the defendant. In obedience to an order, he went into the hold of the punt to remove some timber and ballast, and bale oufc some water ; thafc while doing so, Mr Smith gave hia orders in a very loud tone 5 thafc Abblett requested him not to " hollow so," as he was not deaf, whereupon Mr Smith deliberately placed his hands on the hatch, and jumped on the back of Abblett (who was at the time stooping) with hia feet, knocking him down, and severely injuring his back ; plaintiff having been under medical treatment, and being still unable to resume work. When croaa-examined by Mr Macdonald, plaintiff admitted that he did not obey Mr Smith's order afc first ; thafc he did not complain of having received any injury at the time ; and that he continued at his work during the remainder of the day (some three or four hours). Two witnesses for the plaintiff were examined, who corroborated plaintiff's statement aa to the assault. The defendant's Btafcemenfc was that Abblett did not obey the orders given, and used abusive language to defendant, whereupon he proceeded fco exeoute the work himself. The deck of the punt being covered with seaweed and mud, hia foot slipped when on the combings of the hatch, which causod him to fall on plaintiff's back.

Mr Macdonald stated for the defence thafc the ■ plaintiff had failed to produce medical evidence that he had received any injury; that he had been at work some time after the alleged assault had taken place, and that it was possible that he had received the injury to his back while lifting a heavy mooring chain. Hia Worship considered that the evidence of the two witnesses clearly proved that a most unprovoked assault had been committed. There could be no doubt that plaintiff had sustained some injury, although there was no medical evidence to sliow to what extent. He would therefore gYe a verdict for £30 damages, with coats of court.