MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 September 1922, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SITTING. BROTHERS-IN-LAW FIGHT. Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., presided over the New Plymouth sitting of the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Henry James Smith and Frank William Hutchings married sisters, but when Hutchings was sued under the Destitute Persons Act and Smith gave evidence for his sister-in-law, their relations became far from amicable, so much so that last Monday night open hostilities broke out. Smith was walking along Record Street, Fitzroy, with his sister-in-law when Hutchings intimated that he desired to converse with his wife, who, however, declined the overtures and walked straight on. Hutchings turned the front wheel of his bicycle across Smith’s path so that he stumbled against it, and, according to Smith, then sought vengeance for the slight offered. He “fetched him one” across the eye and then knocked him down, afterwards inviting him to get up, using expressions the reverse of endearing, and at the same time ricking his thumb so badly that he was unable to work. Smith therefore summonsed him for assault and sought an order binding Hutchings to keep the peace. This story was told in evidence, which was corroborated by Edward Proud, who was with him when the assault took place. Hutchings admitted generally the statements above recorded, but the whole trouble was due to the fact that his wife’s relatives prevented him from seeing his children. Whenever he came near Smith took the children inside and threatened him with trespassing if he came in the gate. It was Smith who pushed the bicycle on Monday night, and, when asked why he did it, he replied by hitting him in the eye. Hutchings therefore “sailed in” and gave him a hiding. After commenting on the evidence as to who commenced the fight and the relevancy of the statements as to the surrounding circumstances, Mr. Mowlem said he would not make an order in the meantime—that would be. adjourned for a month. Hutchings, however, would be fined £1 for the assault and ordered to pay £1 Is costs. CIVIL CASES. Judgment by default was given for plaintiff in the following undefended cases: W. T. Hookham v.| G. Thomas, £4 Ils (costs £1 2s 6d) ; Mary Ann Williams v. Pauline Hermina. Hannah Ellis, £7 7s (costs £1 10s 6d). Osmond and Sons applied for a judgment order against H. Hame, but after examination as to the debtor’s means, His Worship declined to make an order. A DAUGHTER’S CLOTHES.

Allan F. Mollison claimed from Patrick Raill the sum of £1.3 7s 6d for apparel supplied to defendant’s daughter. Mr. ,R. H. Quilliam appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. C. H. Croker for the defendant. From the evidence it appeared that the daughter had been supplied with the articles and that she had said her father would give her a cheque to pay for them next day. She had not appeared again in the shop and the account had been sent to the defendant.

Evidence was given by Mrs. Mollison and Miss Kathleen Warren, a shop assistant, to the effect that Raill had come in about the account and after being supplied with details had said he would settle it. Defendant, in evidence, however, denied this, stating that he had said he would see his daughter about it. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs £3 12s. ANOTHER CLAIM. Raill was also the defendant in a claim brought by F. L. Anderson, trading as the Medical Hall, for £lO .3s 3d for goods supplied. Mr. Quilliam and Mr. Croker again appeared for plaintiff and defendant respectively. As no proper statement of claim was filed or served, Mr. Croker consented to judgment for £8 17s without any costs except those for issuing the summons. Mr. Quilliam agreed to tins, explaining that the statement of claim had been issued by a debt collecting agency and not from his office. Judgment was entered accordingly. ELDERLY MAN’S OFFENCE. An elderly man, for whom Mr. R. J. Brokenshire appeared, pleaded guilty to casting offensive matter in a tram-car. It appeared that he suffered from a weakness, but His Worship said that, while there might be extenuating circumstances in this particular case, having regard to the accused’s age and the fact that he had been ill, it might be treated more leniently than would otherwise have been the case. Accused was fined £2 and costs.