RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1131, 26 January 1884, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geraldine—Thursday, Jan. 24, 1884

[Before H. C. Baddely, Esq., R.M.] I ALLEGED ASSAULT. C. L. Webb appeared in answer to an information laid against him by J. Mackay, iu which he was charged with having assaulted him at Woodbury, during the evening of the 15th inst. The prosecutor was one of the Government Life Insurance agents and the accused acted in the capacity of medical referee, both travelling together through the district at the time the alleged assault took place. Dr Foster appeared for the prosecutor and Mr White for accused. Th’ prosecutor did not answer to his name when called. Robert Scott, a farmer at Woodbury, deposed that on the night in question he saw both parties in the hotel at Woodbury. Mackay was sitting down, when Webb went up to him and bit him in the face. Mr White remarked that they could not go into a question of battery as accused was not charged with it in the information. Dr Foster stated that he did not draw the information up. Had he done so it would have been done properly. Witness continued : Saw Webb hit Mackay and a kind of wrestling match ensued. They fell on the floor, and when they got up they parted. Cross-examined : He was not with the parties all the evening ; only part of the time. Was at a lecture given by Mackay. Didn’t hear him make any sneering remarks against medical men and whiskey drinkers. The assault took place m the lecture room itself. By the Court: Webb hit Mackay with his open hand, Re-examined by Dr Foster : There were three other persons in the room at the time. He did not remember hearing Mackay say anything offensive to Dr Webb. The lecture lasted about half an hour.

William Scott a farmer, at oodbury, deposed that he was present at the lecture on the 14th inst,, and was sitting down afterwards opposite Mackay. Saw Webb come along and bit Mackay. Heard no provocation given previous to the assault. Heard the lecture, during which no sneering remarks were made against me-Ucal men or Dr Webb. Cross-examined : There might have beer liquors supplied after the lecture, It was not very entertaining. He did not take much notice of either plaintiff or defendant. He thought the blow was given intentionally,

By the the Court: Webb anH Mackay had some conversation in the passage of the hotel before the assault, Webb was one of the audience. Re-examined by Dr Foster : Mackay came into the room first and then the doctor came in and went up to Mackay and struck him in the face. Frederick Coskey corroborated the evidence given by the two previous witnesses. Mr White contended that the case must be dismissed as the prosecutor was not substantiate the charge. If he had a charge against his client he should have been there to prove it and not have made a fool of himself in laying an information. He did not think it necessary to trouble His Worship with any further remarks. If he thought it necessary, Dr Webb was present and would give his version of the affair. He thought that Mackay had treated the Court with disrespect. Dr Foster expressed his regret that his client was not present. No doubt he was away on his official duties, and unable to be at the Court. He had not been instructed to withdraw the case, His Worship remarked that the information was laid for an assault only and he could not therefore go into a question as to battery. It was a great pity"the prosecutor was not in Court. The evidence disclosed a most paltry case, and as Mackay was not present he should dismiss it. He never heard a more ridiculous case. The Government would have excused him from his duties for one day bo that he could have been present. He would allow one guinea as professional fee to accused’s counsel, CIVIL CASES. Joseph Waite v, James Bennett Claim 17s 6d for goods sold and delivered . Judgment by default for debt and costs. Same v. Patrick Ryan—Claim 3s 9d for goods sold and delivered. The defendant denied he had ever bought the goods in question. Joseph Waite deposed that a pair of curtains of the value of 7s 6d had been sold to defendant’s wife ; that 3s 9d had been paid of that amount, and they were delivered by one of his sons. William Waite stated that he recollected taking a parcel over to Mrs Ryan for his father. It contained a pair of curtains. He told her they were 7s 6d ones. She opened the parcel in his presence. Was certain they were 7s 6d ones, not 3s 9d. Cross-examined : He showed the curtains to Mrs Ryan, They were not sold to any other person. For the defence, Patrick Ryan deposed that he never got a bill from plaintiff for the goods. The Resident Magistrate remarked that it was a mistaken idea that a person must be billed before receiving a summons. A person could summons another whenever they liked, without furnishing any account previously. Mrs Ryan, wife of defendant, deposed that she never bought any curtains of the defendant. She paid 3s 9d to Mr Waite for another person, Mrs Maloney. She saw a pair of curtains Mrs Maloney had previously purchased of plaintiff, and said she would like to have a pair like them. Mrs Maloney said she would see if she could get them, and went across to plaintiff’s shop and one of his sons sold her & 3s 9d set. Cross-examined : Plaintiff’s son came over with a pair of curtains. He did not open the parcel. She never said she would keep them and settle with his father in a day of two. She told him she had a pair like Mrs Maloney’s. Plaintiff’s son never told her they were 7s 6d curtains. By the Court: She did not offer to give plaintiff 5s in settlement of the account, but for the boy’s trouble in going an errand for her she said she would give him Is fid. Mrs Maloney deposed that she bought a pair of curtains from plaintiff’s son, and asked him afterwards for another pair for Mrs Ryan, who kept them. His Worship, in addressing defendant, said that out of the mouth of one of own witnesses he had condemned himself, and judgment must be given for the plaintiff, for it was quite clear that His wife had had the curtains. He felt inclined to order some steps to be taken in the case. Judgment for plaintiff with costs, 10s. P. McShane v. J. P. Wilson and another—Claim £ll 17s, on a dishonored acceptance. Dr Poster appeared for plaintiff. The defendants were not present.

The plain tiff pro red seeing the acceptance signed by one of the defendants. It was given for work and labor done. William Wills, Clerk of the Court at Temuka, proved the signature of one of the defendants as endorsement on the back of the acceptance. E. J. S. Eckford, manager of the Bank of New South Wales, Geraldine, gave evidence as to the bill being dishonored. Notice of the dishonor was given the same day. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, with interest at 8 per cent, together with one witness’ expenses. The Court then rose.