Police Court TE AROHA.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 437, 15 January 1890, Page 2

Police Court TE AROHA.

TUESDAY; JANUARY 14th. (Before Messrs J. A. Dobson, and H. D. Johnson, J.’s P.) Frank McDevitt v. Ilobt. Michael. Plaintiff charged defendant that lie did on January Bth, at Te Aroha, unlawfully assault and heat him. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty. A second case arising out of the same rffair was also heard, that of: Robert M chael v. Annie McDevitt. In this case plaintiff charged Mrs McDevitt with tluowing a stone at Te Aroha, on January. Sth, to the damage of plaintiff, Defendant pleaded Not Guilty. From theevidoneeadduced in these cases it appears McDevitt and Michael, althouik neighbours, have not been on fr'enlly terms for some time past. Briefly stated the evidence went to show •that on the date named McDevitt requiting the services of a bull, drove one the property of Mr Maisey (which had been at la g - along with some cows the property of Mr jas. Clarke), towards his own place. It would appear Maisey’s bull had just previously broken through Michael’s fence and an encounter took place between it and a hull the property of Michael. Soon afterwards Michael found his fence had been broken down, and meeting McDevitt charged him with driving Maisey’s hull through the fence and breaking it, stating a man named Hawkins told him (Michael) lie did so. To this McDevitt replied if Hawkins said that he was a liar. Strong language was followed by blows, Michael hitting McDevitt in the face and giving him a black eye. Mrs McDevitt coming on the scene took up stones ami threw at Michael, etc., etc., neighbours at length arriving put an en I to the quarrel. Several witnesses were examined, one witness, R. Mackie, stating that before the blows were struck, he saw McDevitt ‘shaping’ up to Michael and shaking his fist at him. In the first case the Bencli found defendant guilty of the assault, an! inflicted a fine of 1 os‘ and costs 245; also binding him over to keep the peace for six months, himself in £2O. In the second case defendant was also convicted of the offence with which she was charged, and fined Is, and 11s costs.