RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1134, 14 August 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka—Monday, August 13, 1883,

[Before S, D. Barker, and J. Talbot, Esqrs., J.P’s.] ASSAULT.

Frank Conway was brought up on remand, charged with having on the night of the 10th inst. assaulted Robert Fenton, of the Temuka Hotel. Mr Aspiuall appeared for the defendant, and admitted the assault, but pointed out that the defendant had received provocation. R. Fenton said that on the night in question, at five minutes past eleven, he was in bed. He heard a noise, and got up and went to the back of the hotel. Found accused and two other men in the passage. Told (hem to leave, and refused to serve them with drink. Accused struck him. Accused had been in there that afternoon, but he left when witness ordered him out. The reason witness ordered him out was because accused used insulting language some months previously to him. By Mr Aspinall : I did not call accused any names before he struck me. I had not been quarrelling with any other man that day. The accused was not drunk.

Catherine Horgan, servant -in the hotel, stilted that on the night in question she heal'd a knock at the door, and opened it. Conway and two other men came in. Mr Fenton came out of his bedroom and told them to leave, as he would not serve them, Conway waited a minute or two, and then struck Fenton twice in the face.

Cross-examined: I did not hear them ask for drink. The constable then came.

John Mortoo, constable, staled that he was passing by at about a quarter past 11 o’clock, and heard a noise. He went to the back door, and found it open. Saw Fenton and some other men in the passage. Fenton was bleeding. Accused was not drunk, and walked quietly to the lock-up. Scannell accompanied him to the lock-up. To Mr Aspinall: I did arrive at a very opportune moment. I was at the front door first, and then went to the back door. I have not seen such a row before in the house. Mr Fenton was bleeding from the nose. He was excited and shaky. Ho might have been under the icfluei co of drink, but he appeared rational, and walked to the station and signed the book. Michael Scannell, who was called for the defence, said he was with the accused that evening. As soon as they got into the passage Fenton came out and said, ‘ You low mean blackguards, I will not serve you with drinks.’ Accused then struck Fenton with his open hand. They had not asked for drinks when Fenton called them low, mean blackguards. Accused was not the worse for drink. He was playing billiards all the evening. He had been in the hotel that afternoon and Fenton ■aid to accused, * You are the man that

wanted ti fight mo ; you must leave the house,’ Accused left the house that afternoon.

Mr Aspinall said he admitted that the accused did strike Mr Fenton under provocation. He had certainly a good excuse for doing so, in having been called a low, mean blackguard. The Court fined accused £l, or 48 hours’ imprisonment, saying that as lie appeared to have received provocation they would deal leniently with him. CIVIL CASES. Temuka Butter, Cheese and Baconcuring Factory Co. v W, McCann— Claim £8 17s Id. Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiffs. There was no appearance of defendant, and judgment by default was given for the amount claimed and costs, W. Nichol v. 11, Williams. Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff, and said that as defendant had filed there was no use in going on with the case, R. Lavery y. J, Malarkey—Claim £5 12s. The plaintiff stated that ±1 10s had been paid into Court, which reduced the claim to £4 2s, This was a most complicated case, and every effort to understand it only added to the mystery. It arose out of some transactions between the parties in connection with harvest work. It seemed they agreed to help each other to save some harvest, and some damage having been sustained by Malarkey, he put in a set-off for £6, while at the same time he paid £1 10s into Court in payment of £5 12s. The case was heard at great length. Several witnesses were examined, and ultimately judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs. The Court then adjourned.