MAGISTERIAL

Taihape Daily Times, Volume 7, Issue 111, 13 January 1915, Page 4

MAGISTERIAL

(BEFORE MR W. R. HASELDEN, S.M.) . POLICE CASES. Jeremiah, Murpljyj for breaking bis prohibition order was fined £l, in default seven, days’ imprisonment. - W.' A. Mooney (Mr Loughnan), was charged with assaulting ,C. 0. Bertram (Mr Ongley), . „ Mooney laid a,, counter charge of assault against Bertram. .. Bertram,,in.the box,.said lie was using a plot of /ground for grazing purposes.. Mooney had been cropping the land. ,_on- the Ray in question, ?un,day,, the.3rd, witness said lie went into the paddock. Mooney was in the paddock at the time and had let down the railings to turn out witness’ cow. While witness was,putting up the rails Mooney had struck him several t'mes with a hay-fork, breaking the handle of that implement. He received a cut .oyer the eye which-bled a deal. While tie was wiping away this blood Mooney left, , ,Qross : exanrined' witriesfs said he war -an. entirely' defenceless man at the time, ho had no hammer with hijn, Tie did not strike Mooney nor did he throw ;; ■ ■. r • ft ones, tliere were no stones in the paddock. ■ -W. Bavin said' he saw Mooney coming back from the paddock,' Mooney had said he had hit Bartram with the hay-fork. The handle of the fork was broken. A. Martin saw Bartram go into the paddo/ik. He had nothing in the. shape of a hammer with him. Witness did net see the fray, but saw Bartram coming back bleeding at the head. Hie still had nothing with him!. Mooney said lie had received permission from the owner of the paddock to cut the hay_ He had, on the Sunday in question, turned cut cows that were ..‘damaging the hay. Later Bartram had put his cow in the paddock. Witness took down the, rails to put the cow ant. An argument ensued between Bertram and himself, the former afterwards going away and bringing back a hammer. Bartram told him to “get” and raised the hammer, whereupon witness defended himself with the fork. A t••ugh and tumble ensued. Bartram later wmnt into the adjoining paddock and bombarded him with rocks.

• Mr Ongley: “ About what size were the rocks?'’ Witness:, “They were about a foot

i long. ’ ’ Mr Ougley: “Would there bo any > trouble in avoiding rocks that size?” 1 Witness: “They were coming like 1 sharpshooters.” (Laughter), Sersrt Harvey gave evidence to the ■ effect that he had seen Bartram on the Sunday, after the affray, and he was then bleeding from a clear cut on the head. Mooney was convicted and fined £3. The charge against Bartram was dismissed. JUDGMENTS BY DEFAULT. In tlie following cases plaintiffs received judgment by default: N. Kirkpatrick (Mr Ongley) v. D. L. Patterson, claim £3 3s 10 and costs £1 14s 6d; C. E. Darvill (Mr Loughnan) v. T. A. Blockley, claim £2 ss, costs 10s # DEFENDED CASES. In the case Harris and Kelly (Mr Ongley) v. Chas. McDonnel (Mr Lough ban) claim for stallion fees, plaintiff was nonsuited. In the ease of W. E. Harvey v, TV. .1. Jorgersen (Mr Arrowsraith), claim for four days’ wages in lieu of notice and train fare, judgment for which was reserved, His Worship said that the notice given plaintiff, 48 hours, was sufficient and further that plaintiff was not under the circumstances entitled to his railway fare. Judgment was given in favour of the defendant. MACKAY v. TIMES. His Worship also gave his decision in the case Mackay (Mr Hussey) v. Taihape “Daily Times,” claim for salary in lieu of three months’ notice on the grounds of wrongful dismissal, judgment for which was reserved from last month. His Worship considered that the dismissal was not justified and that plaintiff was under a yearly hiring, and entitled to the three months’ notice claimed. Judgment was for plaintiff for the full amount, £52, and costs £7 14s. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES?, s . Reid v. E, Stevens, claim £6 10s Cd. Ordered to pay within a fortnight, in default six days' imprisonment.