RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S C0URT, TE AROHA. Tuesday, February 21, 1888.

Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 243, 25 February 1888, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TE AROHA. Tuesday, February 21, 1888.

(Before H. A. Stratford, Esq., It.M.) Meimes \j Reed : Charge of Assault. — In this case pinintiil charged the defendant with assaulting him, by striking him with a boot, ■whilst in the execution of his duty as bailiff, under a warrant issued by the Court. A. Monzies, on being sworn, stated the defendant struck him on the arm and on the forehead, and attempted to push him out of the house. In reply to defendant plaintiff admitted he did send a registered letter, and by that means got into the house. Defendant: — You knocked my mother down, and left her almost lifeless on the ground. This plaintiff denied, but admitted defendant did aßk him three times to help defendant's mother to rise, that he refused to do so, and did not assist her. ; Defendant : — That's what T assaulted you I for, because of the manner in which you I treated my mother. I had promised you to I go out of the house on Monday, and because I was unable to obtain a house by that time and do so, you called me a liar. E. Reed (Bworn), stated: I did not assault plaintiff, I only acted in solf-defcnce. In reply to the plaintiff : —On entering my house I did strike you with a boot, but did so in self defence of my mother. I do not recollect myself and mother trying to push you out of the door. His Worship : — It is a very serious thing to assault a bailiff (or a constable), in the oxecu tion of his duty. lie has to carry out his duties, and no one has a right to interfere with ' him i n the performance thereof. Fined £1. and costs 7s ; or, in default, 7 days imprisonment. „.,,.„ , . Robert Tftit v - Richard Brennan, claim, £31 4s : a demand for refund of £30 being paid on deposit", with interest; at 8 per cent. Defendant pleaded not indebted. Robert Taifc (sworn) : About 6th last August I purchased from defendant a house and section in Whitaker streetfor £55, (£3O down, balance at the end of three months.) Before purchasing ho tolil me the ground rent was <£1 a year. He said it had been £n, but the late warden had reduced it to £1 in consideration of it being a residence site. On 11th August, when I went to pay the £30 deposit, I asked to see the deed, and then saw it was signed by the late Warden, and that the rent was £5. I asked for the deed showing it had been reduced to £1. Defendant in reply said he had only got to come down to the Court, and he would make it all right in a fortnight. I told him distinctly I would not give the money if it turned out to be £5 a year rent He assured me on his word it would be only £1 a yonr. I then paid him the £30 (receipt produced, and acknowledged by defendant). During the throe months I went to him several times about the matter, and he told me he had a litfle difficulty at the Court, and had not got it settled yet. At the end of tho three months, viz., on 11th Nov., I went to r ftV defendant the balance clue £25, when he told me he had not got it settled yet, and had a great deal of trouble with it. I gave him two months more to fix the matter up, but it was not done, and I could not wait any longer. Richard Brennan (sworn): About six months ago I sold my hou«e and allotment to the plaintiff. I wanted £G0 for it, and I was to receive the rent for the three months until he paid the rest. He gave me the three months rent instead of the extra £&, leaving the amount payable in cash £55. Pie asked to pee my deed. 1 showed it to him, and he read it through and said " Well this is £5 a voar " I then tolil him what the late \S arden Kenriek had said to Mr Wilson in my presence about reducing; the rent to £1 a yea-, and ho then paid the £30 deposit. What I told him was that the late Warden had promised to reduce the rent of my section to £1 a year—had said so to Mr Wilson, Mining Inspector, in my presence. I did tell him tho rent would be £1 a year, that there would i be no trouble about it. In reply to plaintiff: I may have saia to you if the ground rent proved to be £5 a year I would refund the deposit, but 1 do not remember doing so. . In reply to the Bench : Plaintiff gave me further time to settle the matter. Honker a«ked mo to refund the deposit. The first demand I received was the summons with account attached. About a fortnight ago lie came to me and asked if the matter was settled up, and when I replied no, he saul, "That's not Rhing me back my deposit, or some mch words. Judgement for £30, with Court costs £1 10 a