RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Tuesday, October 23, 1883. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M.) Assault.

Te Aroha News, Volume I, Issue 21, 27 October 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Tuesday, October 23, 1883. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M.) Assault.

T, W. Hector v. T. Hinton,— Mr Cuff for the complainant. In this case the complainant charged defendant with having, ■\n^tho 17 tli inst, assaulted him by forcibly ejecting" him from the Robin Efooil Hotel, Te A.rolia, and throwing him on tho ground. Defendant admitted th« assault, but said that he did so in conseq\ionco of complainant being vory drunk

nd rpi uTeiaontte. On the other hand ,t& ompiuinant alleged that lie w m per ftctl r>W, and denied th»t he whs eijl c Irunic or used any l.ingnago of the kind itated Ivy tko oompluinaufc.. Tine manner n which dpfend :nt tbiew him out was /Qvy violent, and lit* (plaintiff) sustained mob injury to Mh back that he had not jeeu able to work since. Mr Poole was culled and proved that hesaw dot'end.int put Hector ouf, but did not sje him throw him dowu. Gompliiiniut aeemed oxcited, but not very* Jnink. Hector walked away all rights urul did not neein lama »r anythinjar. Sdi^t. Em Jim in wiis called by Mr Cnffj and .^tatjd that Hector came to him anq compla.ned to him between 2 and B o'clo«k on the d ty thufc this took place, when hd dpp"<ired to be sober. The Magistrate said the only thing 1 he had to consider was, whether defendant had any right to turn complainant out at .ill, and to act as he had done. The* assault appeared to be uncalled for ami ■ unjustifiable. Defendant was finod 203 and costs. The Magistrate, addressing Sergt. Emerson, said that it would be worth while for him to see if tho landlord of the bouse had given liquor to 'defendant or Murphy when di\»nk. Defendant nsk^d what he was to do when compl lin.mt or his wife c.nne to tho house, for th<j\ were both great niisances. He was uidUctger more than barman in the house. The Magistiata said that all he had todo was not U> «upp)y liquor to pt-raons who, were intoxicated. On the npplicAtion of Mr Cuff, nrofes^ional costs wore allowed, but the Magistrate refused to award complainant; any portion oi: the fine.

Civil Cases. Squinell v MeLeod.— A claim for £13 Gs I*l, which defend mt admitted., and tt verdict was gn en fur t\ie amount anck costs. Wilson v. Asltlev. — Verdict by difault for £2 19^ 9d and costs. Dillon v Bennett.— MrCnff for plaintiff, Mr C.impbull for tlu defence. Tliib svms an action to recover £27 5b 2d for work done in connection with the new hot springs baths, on a sub-contract for earthwork for £58 Is, taken by plaintiff frotiv defendant. A sum of £10 Is 9i! was paid into Court. A portion of tho work contracted for was not done, and plaintiff allowed for it. The amount now claimed was for extras on the contract, and the matter in dispute was whether or not these were in the contract, or whether, with the exception, of the sum paid intj Court, they were fairly chargeable. It was also "-tilted on the part of tho defendant, that some of thu work had not heou dun& oroperly by plaintiff. Tho ci^e lasted a 'onsf time, the evidence bAng very C nn lahetor}*, and in order ta vatisir liiin ' f >n several points, thft .M.ui-ini "• u iU!i-i ground. Evontimllv a veidtcL • ir/ci for i£s over uiui above the amount paid into Court, and j£4 Uocks v, J.in^en. — A claim of Cl f<;r tnouoy K v nt, ?.Ir Cuif for tho plaintiir. Tjio money in f[iv->tiou had boon burro awl by def>Mid.mt\ ivi'i, - 1 minor, lor the purpose of ptyine; for mei[i' % iue .md eterinavy atton lance vn (iol'ondant's hor.-io, ttt cions- jxanjin pl.titittlt t,aid that lio had bold tlio h>)iso to .{cfendant t.ev-in Orei^nt moqth>* previously to the money being lent. The defence. \viv< that tho horse wn« di«-oa*ed wh^n bold to defendant* i and Morgan undertook to cure, it for £2, h ilf of whii'h was to be paid by the plaintiff;, This the plaintiff denied, A verdict for the amount was given with OOhtii. This was all tho business aud tho Qouri then adjourned.