RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1357, 25 June 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine—Tuesday, June 23,1885,

(Before Bev. Geo. Barclay and Ur Fish, J.F.’s.) ASSAULT.

H. P, Jones was charged with assaulting his wife; Ann Jones, on the 20th instant, by throwing a bread knife at her with intent to do her bodily harm. Accused pleaded not guilty. Ann Jones, sworn, said : 1 am the wife of accused. I remember Saturday the 20th instant, I was having dinner by myself about 2 o’clock, Jones and Mr Patrick Were in the bouse at the time. As 1 was drinking some tea Jones threw a bread-knife at me, The back part of it struck me on the arm and it also broke tiie cup in my hand. Jones was the worse for liquor at the time, and I do not think he knew what he was doing. We never had any words at the time, nor previously during that day. We bad a row on Thursday. Jones had a few glasses of drink on that day. He is never cruel to the children : only to me when in drink.

A. Patrick, sworn, said : I remember Saturday last. 1 was in Jones’s bouse at about one or two o’clock, I do not remember any unpleasantness between

husband and wife, I did not see the knife thrown, but heard the cup broken. Jones was raising up some horse medicines for me at the time. He was under the influence of drink. It was quite possible for the knife to have been thrown without my seeing it. There were no words used between the two, To accused ; I did not take any notice of what you said to your wife about the medicine chest,

Thos. Beck, for the defence, said : Jones was working part of last week. 1 did not take any notice of the differences between Jones and his wife. They were often baring rows. I could not say who was the worst. Sometimes Mrs Jones had very good reason for quarrelling. I was not in the house at 2 o’clock on Saturday. H. P, Jones, the accused : I have been married ten years. I have had a great deal of provocation, and have suffered through my wife’s ill temper. I have often begged her not to annoy me, but leave me alone. I sometimes take a glass of beer. On one occasion my wife followed me to the hotel and threw stones through the windows. I was mixing medicines on Saturday and my wife annoyed mo by trying to make light of what I was saying about the medicine chest. I was using the knife and threw it at her, but not in a way to do her any harm.

The Bench considered the offence proved, and bound over the accused to keep the peace for twelve months, himself in the sum of £2O and one surety of £2O, and a prohibition order—to extend over the Raukapuka and Temnka Licensing Districts—to be issued against him. In default of finding sureties the accused to be imprisoned for one month.

TEMUKA.

Wednesday, June 24, 1885,

[Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M., S, D. Barker, and D. Inwood Esqs., J.P.s] BREACH OF TOWN BY-LAWS. George Davey was charged with driving a horse and dray on the footpath m Commerce street. The defendant admitted the charge but said the footpath bad been used for years. His Worship inflicted a fine of 10s and costs.

UNREGISTERED DOGS. Edward Walker (native) was charged with keeping four unregistered dogs. The defendant said he never had registered his dogs before. His Worship said he would not inflict a penalty, as there appeared to be some doubt as to whether natives were called upon to register. He would give him a fortnight to register the dogs, and adjourn edtbe case until that date. Edward Yaliender was charged with having kept an unregistered dog. The defendant swore the dog was not six months old and the case was dismissed. Charles Clarridgedid not appear on a similar charge and was fined 10s and costs. CIVIL CASES. Charles Jones v, F. R. Oldfield— Claim £ls lls 3d. Mr Foster appeared for the plaintiff. The plaintiff stated that the defendant bought his oats at Is per bushel. The oats were left on the ground at his request, To the plaintiff; They were Danish oats. You were there when the chaff was cut, and saw the oats. You were there on the morning when the oats were threshed, I could not swear you saw (he oats before buying them.

Michael O’Connor stated he was present when the baigain was made, and that Oldfield bought the oats for Is 3^d —and 6d for empty bags. He bought the oats on the ground.

To the defendant: I do not know whether you saw the oats or not, but your mill threshed them. F. R, Oldfield, th<* defendant, stated that the plaintiff represented to him they were a good short bright oats, but he found they were not. While short oats were worth Is 7d per bushel, the oats sold by defendant were not worth Is. The Court gave judgment for the amount claimed and costs. Allan and Carter r. J. H. Dickenson —Claim £—.

Mr Aspinall appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Raymond for defendant.

A. R, Allan stated he had sold defendant 64 bags of wheat at 2s 8d a bushel and offered to take it out in flour, bran, and sharps. He would take a certain balance out now. To Mr Raymond : He had sold the wheat for 2s Bd. He was not an agent for Mr Dickenson. He was now agent for Mr Inwood. The agreement was not that he was to sell the wheat for 2s 8d and take it all out in Hoar at £8 per ton. He was to take it out in flour, bran, or sharps. J. H. Dickenson, miller at Milford, stated that be agreed to take the wheat if plaintiff would take the flour at £8 per ton. The agreement was that the plaintiff was to take it out jn flour made from the same wheat, There was nothing said about bran or sharps. The flour was to be from the wheat mixed with other wheat. Hr was ready to give him the flour at £8 still. The wheat was not yet fit to grind. In the course of argument it appeared that the real difference between the parties was that while the defendant held tiiat he was to pay for the wheat in flour made from the same wheat mixed with other wheat, the plaintiff held he was to take it out in flour, bran and sharps. The real cause of the difference, however, appeared that Allan and Carter gave up selling the flour of the .defendant, and took the agency of the Winchester Mills.

His Worship said the agreement was a stupid one, but both parties gave their evidence straightforwardly, and the Bench had no reason to believe one before the other. Both appeared to be telling the truth, and it was difficult to decide when evidence so conflicting, and yet so credible, was before the Court. He would suggest to the parties to tiy to settle it.

Messrs Raymond and Aspinall offered to try to settle the case if the Court would give them half hour to do so. the Court accordingly adjourned for balf-an-hour, at the expiry of which time counsel returned into Court and stated that the case had been amicably arranged. The arrangement did not transpire. The Court then adjourned.