MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 228, 20 January 1911, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

| TIU'UsrUY, JANUARY 19. *• (Ileforc :.;;•. if. : . Kilzherbert, S.M.) MAINTENANCE. John Cliinles Smith was charged with failing to provide for the niamtciiiiik-e of his wife and live children (the eldest of whom is about thirteen years of upland, the youngest but three months). It appeared from the evidence of Mrs. Smith that under a deed of separation, which had been drawn up in November between the parties (but which was not completed), defendant agreed to pay 25s a week towards the family's maintenance, but was now £3 IDs in arrears. Defendant admitted the agreement to pay 25s a week, but said that he found lie was unable to pay that amount, ana had got into arrears owing to the scarcity of work on the railways and the wharf during the holidays. According to defendant, his wife had an ''Ungovernable" temper, while she classed his asj "fiendish," and further accused him of having ill-treated her. His Worship said it was clew that defendant could pay, and the amount was little enough for a woman and five children. Defendant left her apparently, and she had the burden. His Worship said he would not increase the amount, but would make an order for the payment of 25s a week (12s Od for the wife and 2s Od each for the children). THE SANITARY BY-LAWS.

George Barr, of Aubrey street, New Plymouth, was charged on the information of the borough, inspector, with having deposited nightsoii on his property, contrary to the provisions of the borough by-laws. Defendant admitted having carried out the same practice for the past nine years, and never knew anything was wrong. The inspector stated that he had spoken to the defendant about the matter in October last, and after that the gates were locked, so that the nightman could not effect an entrance. A fine of 5s and costs 15s was imposed.

ASSAULT. Georg;> 'Pippins was charged with, on Friday, e.'i inst., committing an assault on Robeu Todd, whereby he suffered bodily harm; and application was made that he be bound over to keep the peace. Mr. I<\ E. Wilson appeared for this plaintiff, and Mr. Govctt for the defendant. All witnesses were ordered out of court.

In opening, Mr. Wilson stated that the parties were neighbor on the Frankley road. A hayrake belonging to one King had been lent to Tippins, who had cut part of his crop, and the rake was iu use by Todd, who told Tippins on that day that he would not be finished until 11 o'clock. One word led to another, and the result was that Tippins dealt Mr. Todd a severe blow and had blackened his eye and lacerated his face. It was not a matter of provocation, as none was given sufficient to entitle one man to strike another from the side. Todd was somewhat dazed by the attack, and Tippins easily bore him down and hit his head unmercifully on the ground. It was a cowardly assault 01 the part of the defendant. * Robert Todd, farmer, Frankley road, plaintiff, sworn, said that on the Ctli January about 7.30 a.m. at his place, defendant came to ask.for a hayrake, belonging to one King, which h:i<i been used in defendant's hay, ami plaintiff was entitled to it until his crop was linislied. Defendant was to get the use of it afterwards; he had made a request for the rake the night before, and been told that he could have it next day at 11 o'clock. Defendant became abusive, and said "I've come for that rake, and I'm going to have it." Witness said that King had told him -to keep it until he was finished, and he remonstrated with defendant for using language to his nephew. He denied tile allegations, and said "It is a lie. Do you call me a liar? You had better get away." Tippins followed witness very closely and eventually, on reaching the road, defendant hit plaintiff, inflicting the injuries, and even bit him when he was' down. Witness never touched defendant. He was covered in blood as the result of the blow, and felt very queer all day after it; and next day consulted Dr. McClelnml. His age was 50. The assault was at the gate about three chains from the stable. To Mr. Govett: He had between o or 0 acres which would take half a day to rake with a good man and a good rake; he had had the rake since one o'clock the day before. Defendant said lie would let him have the rake back] again, but did not remember him specifying the time. Witness refused to let defendant have the rake just then. As neighbors they had been on perfectly friendly terms.

Dr. H. A. McCleland said plaintiff came to consult him after the assault. He liad a black eye, abrasions round the edge of the eye. a cut on outer margin of right eye about %-incli long, and abrasions on nose and under. the right eye. Tie also had a couple of lumps on the back of his head, which had undoubtedly been caused by blows; these were given not from the front, but in his opinion plaintiff was struck from the side or behind with a sort of upper-cue blow. '

To His Worship: It was what he called a "decent black eye."

Ernest Maseall, nephew of plaintiff and working for him on the date of the assault, corroborated the evidence of the plaintiff. Tlif defence was that one party was as bad as the other, plaintiff having first knocked defendant down and being in turn knocked down. Mr. Govctt said bis client was very careful not to strike plaintiff on his own farm.

His Worship: Then it appears to mo that the assault was premeditated; that is the only construction I can put on the case.

George Tipping defendant, said when he met plaintiff lie said "Good morning."' but got no reply. When asked about the rake. and being remonstrated with for keeping it, plaintiff said, "You won't (1 • well have the rake; I will keep you waiting for it." Plaintiff had also threatened to shoot him while in the yard, and kept hitting at defendant all the way up the road. Todd swore at him. and called him a h liar. Defendant then said, "If you call me a

liar on the road I'll hit you." His Worship; What dill'erenee is there between calling a man a liar on the farm and a liar on the road?— Oh. I expect there is no dill'erenee. Defendant said that on the. road plainlift rushed him anil knocked him down, and afterwards hit him on the eye.

His Worship: Insulting things are sometimes said about a"man, but he is not entitled to strike a blow if he waits some minutes; it lie says "come into the street, and repeat the words there," it. could not he held that there was justification for striking a blow after being called a liar there.

Frank Landers, farm employee, and James Ha]l, manager for Mr. Newton King on the Barrett road, also gave evidence.

Tn giving his decision His Worship' said the evidence in the case was very conflicting. He believed that what took place was that defendant became annoyed because ho could not e;et the rake. No blows were struck until the parties

got on to the road, when 'Pippins did strike Todd on the eye—a severe blow. J lis Worship said lie did no! pay mu'-h attention to Landers' evidence, as he could not see much a quarter id' a mde away; also he did not like the M■ h of the last witness in the box. ;iie did not believe 'Pippins was ever on the ground, and considered it was a most cowardly thing for ii man of 2!! years of age to do to strike a man of .",(! and knock him down on the ground. Defendant would be fined 40s and costs,-12s (doctor's expenses 21s, and solicitors' fee 21s). The application for sureties to keep the peace was withdrawn.