RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1168, 22 April 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Tejujka—Monday, April 21, 1884. [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M., and D. inwood, Esq., J.P.I ASSAULT. Boyd Thomson was charged with having on the 16th of April last assaulted Richard Knowles. Mr White appeared for the complainant and Mr Aspinall for the defendant.

Richard Knowles ; I was wanting some money from Boyd Thomson and went to see him about it. H was in the stockyard and when he was at liberty 1 asked him about my wages. He said if I got two men to value the work done he would pay me. 1 said it was impossible for any man to value work clone three months ago. After some conversation he began tampering with my character, and 1 said my character would bear comparison with his. He said he weuld kick me, and I said it was what I heard everyone say, that any one who ever worked for him could not get hia money out of him. He jumped off the gate and struck ma. He struck me again, and when 1 put on my hat ho again

struck me. He followed me out to the gateway and struck me. In reply to Mr Aspinall, the witness said Mr Thomson agreed to let the claim be settled by arbitration. He appeared angry when I asked him for the money. 1 was dazed by the blow upon the nerve of the brain. He struck me four or five times. Hobbs was on the the stack. 1 did not call him an old rogue. I picked up a stone after the last time he struck me. 1 took up a stone and said he would have that to strike against. George Hobbs : I remember the day in question. I saw Thomson and Knowles together. I heard some talking and saw the plaintiff roll up against the ditch. I saw him pick up his hat and both walked away. Knowles was walking up and down and Thomson following him. Ido not Know what provocation was given. Boyd Thomson : This man has been dogging me for money. I told him I did not know the work he claimed for had been done. He came on that day and he said he considered me a rogue as 1 would not pay him. I said,‘Say that again and I’ll hit you.’ He said it and a scuffle ensued, fie picked up a stone when I struck him. I did not follow him to the road and strike him.

To Mr White : It’s very likely I did hit him hard. I did not know whether he ever worked for me. I was away from home. He said as the work was done three months ago it was impossible to value it.

This having concluded the case, the Bench decided that there was no question about the assault. The proper course for Knowles was to sue Thomson for the money when he could not got it, but having been dogged was no justification for the defendant. He would fine him 20s and costs.

ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. Johanna Murphy was charged with having used abusive language to Mary Spillane. Mr Aspinall appeared for the proaecu* tion. Mary Spillane on being sworn said, in answer to the usual formula of telling 1 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,’ of course she would. She then proceeded to say that Mr« Murphy came to her house on Monday evening last, and asked what yarns she had been carrying. The R.M.: What yarns'? What do you mean by yarns 1

Witness: Stories, sir. The witness then gave a moat interesting account of what took place. She told how Mrs Murphy came and challenged her, called her certain names in language more effective than polite, and how she said that witness was unfaithful to her husband, and behaved in a shocking manner before the children.

This was all right until it came to Mrs Murphy’s turn to be cross-examined. The two went at it fast and furious in spite of the efforts of the Bench to maintain order, and it was impossible to catch the meaning of what they were saying. Both appeared determined to make each other out liars, and there was any amount of contradictions— ‘ I beg your pardon’ and * I beg yours’ passing between them—the Magistrate the while endeavoring to pull himself up to the degree that would ensure respect for his position. At last he ordered , the constable to bring Mrs Murphy near* himself, and when he got her there he warned her that if she did not behave better he would give her in charge of the police. This had the effect of mollifying her slightly, and she proceeded to ask Mrs Spillane ‘ Did you not throw a bottle at me V

Mrs Spillane said she did not, Mrs Murphy : But I say you did. The R.M. ; Now, now, confine yourself to asking questions. Mrs Murphy : Did you call me a ■ Mrs Spillane : No, but you called me one. Mrs Murphy : And I did not call you out of your name. Did you rise up your sleeves to me 1 Mrs Spillane : No. Mrs Murphy : Did you strike mo with a stone there (indicating the place by pointing to her left side under her aim) ? Mrs Spillane ; hio. Mrs Murphy : Did you throw a potato on me 1 Mrs Spillane; No. Mrs Murphy : You did, and I told you it was better for you to keep them in the house for fear you would want them again the same as last winter. His Worship told defendant to confine herself to questions, and after some further violent efforts the cross-examination conconcluded. On John Spillane being called, Mrs Murphy insisted that his name was not John Spillane but John Lordon, and her voice rose so high that she had to be again threatened with being locked up. John Spillane, a lad of about 14 years of age, corroborated his mother’s evidence, but, in reply to Mrs Murphy, admitted his mother threw a bottle at Mrs Murphy, who in vehement language directed His Worship’s attention to the fact. The boy also admitted that his mother called Mrs Murphy a after Mrs Murphy called his mother the same name. Johanna Murphy,. on being sworn to tell 4 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,' replied, ‘ Why then 1 will, and the God’s truth.’ She then proceeded to tell how she was called by Mrs Cunnard, and told that Mrs Spillane had said something about a debt of £5. She went to Mrs Spillane’s house, and she came out towards her like a roaring lion and threw potatoes at her. She threw a bottle at her, and called her

names, At last her evidence came to a close, and the Magistrate asked her if she had witnesses. She said stie had her cows that she was driving at the time. His Worship said she had better bring them into Court. It appeared to him that both plaintiff and defendant had acted badly, but he thought Mrs Murphy was the greatest nuisance of the two. Mrs Murphy : I am no nuisance, your Worship. The E,. M. : Hold your tongue. You have had your say, and now I will have mine. If you do not keep silent I will give you into custody, and keep you there until you get all right. You have a terrible tongue, and you must be a nuisance to your neighbors. You are lined 20s and costs. Mrs Murphy ; I won't pay it. I’ll go to gaol first, i have no money, your Worship. Mrs Spillane : She boasts she has money in the bank. Hia Worship: That will do, now. You ace fined 205.;

On the two women leaving the Court Mrs Spillane called out that Mrs Murphy was threatening her. Mrs Murphy was brought back and given into custody, and kept locked up in the witness room until the Court rose at one o’clock, when she was liberated. REFUSING TO ASSIST A CONSTABLE. C. H. Reid was charged with having refused to assist Constable Morton when called upon to do so in the Queen’s name on the evening of the 7th April last. He was further charged with having incited a prisoner to resist the constable. Mr Aspinall appeared for the defendant. John Morton, constable, stated : Shortly after 8 o’clock on ■ the _7 th inst. I arrested a prisoner for being drunk and disorderly. Reid came and said, 'Morton, you have no rig.it to meddle with that man.’ The prisoner was quiet until then, when be became violent. Reid repeated that I had no right to arrest him. I asked him to give me assistance. I demanded it in the Queen s name. He said, ‘ 1 will not. I shall not my shop up for you.’ Reid continued to say I had no right to arrest him. I told him I would have him before the Court, and so I have brought him before Your Worships. He is a very vicious example to the rising generation of Temuka. To Mr Aspinall: James Marshall wrs drunk and disorderly on the footpath, cursing and swearing and staggering and screaming like an uncultivated being. He was quite passive till after Reid had spoken. Reid incited Marshall to resist by speaking to me. Charles Henry Reid stated : On the 7th April I was standing at my own door between 8 and 9 o’clock _ p.m. James Marshall was sitting at his own place. Constable Morton told him to go inside or he would lock him up. I asked * What are you going to lock h m up for.’ He brought Marshall out on the footpath, put his knee on him and demanded assistance in the Queen’s name. There were about 20 others present. Never saw Marshall r:s : sting him. He caught hold of Marshall by the collar of the coat, threw him down on the footpath, and got on top of him. never incited Marshall nor refused lo assist the constable. The constable did not call on witness by name. ■ In reply to Constable Morton he denied having heard Marshall screaming or ■wearing as some girls were passing. Marshall was sitting quietly near his own place when he saw the constable take him. J. H. Walker, of Waitohi, gave evidence to the effect that he was standing at Reid’s door at the time of the arrest. Marshall was on his own ground. He heard Beid ask Morton why be arrested him and Morton said he would serve him the same. He heard the constable ask someone to assist him, but he did not mention any name. Marshall did not resist the constable. Ho did not hear Marshall screaming. Did not see him before the arrest. Boyd Thomson saw Morton lay hold of " Marshall and drag him out on to the street. They continued struggling down to the right-of-way, when Marshall walked with him to the lock up. He heard Morton ask someone to assist him, but he mentioned no name. He never heard Reid inciting Marshall to resist, nor did he hear Marshall cursing or swearing. . His Worship said he did not think Reid interfered very seriously, but at the same time he ought to know that it was his duty to assist a coustabls when called upon to do so. He was liable to a penalty of £lO or a month’s imprisonment, but as the offence was not serious he would dismiss both informations. CIVIL CASES. Siegert and Fauvel v. Michael Aherne —Claim £3 7s 4d. Judgment summons. Ordered to pay at the rate of 5s per week, or in default 14 days’ irapriaonment. . H. T. Clinch V. J- Wilkinson—Claim £1 10s.’ . Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiff. Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. Jas. O’Connor v. M. Dunn—Claim £4. The claim was admitted, but a plea of bankruptcy was put in. The plea was not allowed, as the usual notice was not given, and judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs, Richard Knowles v. Boyd Thomson— Claim £8 18s. Mr White for the plaintiff, and Mr Aspinall for the defendant. In this case the amount was alleged to be due for work and labor done—by the plaintiff at 6s per day and his boy, aged 14 years, at 4s, for 19 and 21 days respectively—for the defendant in clearing mangolds. There were two other men during the same time working there till the total amount of their wages came up to £l9 16s for clearing sa. 3r. 6p. This the defendant thought too much to pay. Richard Knowles, the plaintiff, stated that on the 23rd of December last Thomson told Hansen and himself to go to work in the mangolds witli Mackay. A few days after, Mackay, who had been left in charge by Thomson, as foreman, came to witness and told him to see Peter Thomson, who ordered himself and his boy to go to work. Witness worked 19 days and the boy worked 21 days. When Thomson came he said he would pay when he had seen the work. He afterwards had paid £1 on account when be came the second time. It was on the day before Good Friday he paid the £1 on account. In reply to Mr Aspinall, he denied that the £1 was given by Thomson because witness wanted the necessaries cf life. M. Hansen gave evidence to the effect that defendant gave orders to him and Knowles to go to work in the mangolds. He thought Knowles was worth 6s per day. A boy does as good work as a man at such work. Richard Knowles, junior, corroborated his father’s evidence. B. Thomson denied that he ever said one word about the work to Knowles, Never spoke a word to Hansen about it. Never gave instructions to Mackay to engage men. Peter Thomson had no authority to engage men. He gave £1 to Knowles because he said 1m was hard up > He was willing to submit the thing to arbitration. There were only sa. 3r. 6p. in the field, and he thought £l9 16s too much to pay for clearing them. The highest he ever heard of for cleaning mangolds was 16s per acre. George Dyson said he had surveyed the ground. There were only sa. 3r. 6p. in it. The mangolds did not appear to

have been properly thinned. George Levens also stated that he did not think the mangolds had been properly thinned. Their Worships gave judgment for £6, less the £1 paid, and costs. A, M. Clark and H. H. Loughnan (trustees in the late W. K. Macdonald’s estate) v. F.-Brown—Claim LOO. Mr Aspinall appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr White for the defendant. In this case the defendant contracted to harvest and stack grain for the plaintiffs. While the stacks were building a fire took place by which two of them were burned, and the plaintiffs sought to recover the above sum as the amount of damages sustained by them through the alleged carelessness of the defendant. After Mr Aspinall had opened the case to the above effect, John Murray, manager of the Orari estate, was called. He deposed that he had let to the defendant the contract. Everything went well until the 2Th of February. He visited the men (hat dry at about 2 o’clock. The de:euuant was was not the' '. At about 4 o’clock a man named Aus "n came to him and said two stacks were on fire. He went to the place. The two stacks were burned, but a third one was saved. He concluded the fire had occurred through careleseness smoking and the defendant agreed with him. The stacks were 9 or 10 chains from the road. He paid a part of the contract money, but kept L9O, as the trustees believed the contractor to be liable for th® burning of the stacks. The defendant subsequently sued the trustees and got judgment in the Geraldine Court. In reply to Mr White witness said the men were steady men, who had been working for himself. The defendant gave him a receipt on account. This completed the plaintiff’s case. Mr White asked for a nonsuit, and in doing so urged there was no negligence proved by the evidence on the part of the defendant. He cited the case of Williams v. Jones, 33 Law Journal, 297, to show that smoking was an act outside the work in which the men were engaged, and that their master could not be held responsible for any accident which might happen through smoking. The case he quoted was one in which a hotelkeeper bought timber from a timber merchant to make a sign board. The hotelkeeper employed a carpenter to make the sign board, and got permission from the timber merchant to work at it in a shed in his yard. The carpenter through smoking set fire to the timber merchant’s shed, and the hotelkeeper was held to be irresponsible because smoking was an act altogether outside the work he was engaged to do. In the case of McKenzie v. McLeod, 3 Law Journal, 79, a maid servant servant set fire to a house by heaping gorse and straw on the fire in order to clean the chimney. The house did not belong to her master, and he was held irresponsible on the ground that cleaning the chimney was work outside the maid servant’s duty. He also cited a case, reported in the Australasian, to the same effect, arid urged that there was no evidence ol any negligence on the part of the defendant. Mr Asi inall submitted the case or McKenzie v. Cox ; 9, Carrington and Payne’s reports ; Addison on Torts, 413 j Cobb v. Barnett, and other cases, to show that the onus of proof in such cases devolved on the defendant. The defendant was bound to prove the fire had not taken place through his negligence. His Worship did not think it was a case for a Resident Magistrate to decide. The judges had grave doubts on the points of law raised—but he would do his best in the case. He would prefer hearing further evidence. John Behrens was working at the stacks when they were burned. Austin, Shepherd, Cleary and Thomas were with him. The hut is 20 chains from the stacks. The fire took place about 3.30 p.m. Was not smoking that day. Was 10 chains away. Had not smoked that day. Did not see any of the men smoking that day except in the hut. When not working for Brown was working for Murray thatching. To Mr Aspinall : Was sometimes so far away that I could not see others smoking. Richard CUary was working at the stacks when burned. He was stacking. The stack that took fire had been built the day before ; no one had anything to do with that stack that day. Did not smoke nor see any other man smoking that day outside the hut.

To Mr Aspinall : I was the first to see the fire. It was up at the top of the stack. Thomas’s dray was empty at the time. He did not know where. Thomas came when the fire brok® out. Saw him on the ground three chains away from the stack. Would not swear he was not smoking, but did not think he was smoking. Behrens was foreman. There were no orders not to smoke. Did not say to Mr Murray it must have originated from smoking. To Mr White : Thera was no track of fire from where Thomas wa® to the stack. To the Court: When I first saw the fire it wasup the side of the stack, but when I came down there was no stubble on fire. Alfred Austin : Was not smoking that day outside the hut. Could not account for the fire. Any man wanting to smoke went a good distance away. To Mr Aspinall ; I was the last at the stack, because I could not get down off the stack. Could not swear that Thomas was not smeking, but did not see him do so.

William Shepherd ; Was engaged with the other witnesses. Was driving the horses. Did not smoke outside th® hut. Did not see Thomas smoke. Thomas hauled his cart awry as I came. He wa® not smoking. To Mr Aspinall ; Did not smoke in the field. We made it a rule not to smoke only once in the morning and twice in the afternoon. T e had not smoked on that day in the afternoon, for our hour for smoking had not arrived when the fire took place; Thomas went away when I came in. After counsel on both sides had briefly addressed the Court, judgment was reserved. The Court than rose.