MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 11 February 1922, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SITTING

■ASSAULT CHARGE DISMISSED. I - - A- number of police cases were dealt with by Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., at the New Plymouth Court yesterday. The police brought an information against Claude Hoskin, alleging that on January 13 he used threatening behaviour- in' St.- Aubyn Street, within the view of paeters-by, whereby a breach of the-peace was provoked. He was represented by Mr. A. A. Bennett, and pleaded not guilty. Senior-Sergeant McCrorie said that on th e . evening .of January 13 defendant came to the police station and complained that he had been assaulted by a man named Simons. Enquiries elicited that the men had a dispute over some wood- supplied to a woman in whom th<2' two were apparently interested. Simons stiniok Hoskin, who then took a whip" and chased his assailant down the street.

Constable L. Parkinson gave details of his interview with defendant, who denied striking Simons first. He explained ,that Simons had struck him, and he thefi took; the whip to Simons, who jtirfiped on a car and went to the breakwater.

To Mr. Bennett: There was no admission on the part of defendant that he had struck Simons at all.

A" girl gave evidence as to seeing Simons being chased by Hoskin.

Mr. . Bennett urged that .’defendant’s story would show that his ■ action was provoked and quite excusable. His Worship said' if defendant retaliated he was guilty of a breach of the peace.

Counsel, said that Hoskin only took action when he was grossly assaulted. His Worship t It is very English, but is it legal? The evidence of defendant, P. C. Hoskin, was to the effect that Simons had come to him and stated he wpuld not pay for certain wood.*There was some argument, and then Simons landed witness “a pearl in the eye.” Witness then took the whip to Simons. He said he had a “terrible eye” when he went to the police station. To Senior-Sergeant McCrorie: Simons had not accused witness of trying to cut him out of a certain woman’s affections.

His Worship accepted defendant’s statement and dismissed the case as being trivial as far as Hoskin was concerned.

A MAINTENANCE ORDER. On the information of Cecil Elizabeth Biggin (Mr. C, H. Croker), Vai Biggin (Mr. Bennett) was charged with failing to comply with a maintenance order. A conviction was entered, and defendant was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended if defendant pays .£5 within one week and a further £l5 within three weeks from the date of the order; Under discretion allowed His Worship gave consent to the issue of a distress warrant against the goods of defendant for the balance of arrears in addition to the £2O. Costs £1 Is were allowed complainant.