RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2154, 29 November 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY.

(Before W. Fraser, Esq., R.M.) ■ EXTENSION OF LICENSES.

An application was made by John Wilson for permission to exercise the license held by him for the Imperial Crown Hotel, Tararu, at the Tararu Gardens, tomorrow, Tuesday, St. Andrew's Day, the anniversary of the Odd Fellows. Granted on condition that liquors be not sold to the public after* six o'clock jn the evening. Mr Macdonald for Charles Curtis applied for extension of the Pacific Hotel to the Academy of Music tomorrow evening, on the occasion of the Odd Fellows' Anniversary Soiree. Granted on the usual conditions. • . . ASSAULT. John Graham and Henry Wescott were charged that they did . unlawfully assault and beat one William McQuillan] on the 26th instant. Defendant Wescott;said his .summons was served in the wrong name, namely, " Henry Wescott; " when hia name was " James Coleman Warskitt." The Magistrate : We'll soon alter that. Defendant Graham said there were two separate summonses,-'and he wished the cases to be taken separately, Mr Graham's request was not complied with. .•...•-..■'•■:■ (Defendant Warskitt asked if he could be furnished with a copy of the evidence, so that he could cross-examine the witnesses. Ultimately he was accommodated with a chair at the barristers' table and .took notes of the evidence for himself, and he also cross-examined the witnesses with considerable shrewdness ; when he had finished, telling them they could " stand down.") Mr Macdonald, for complainant, stated the circumstances out of which the assault arose, and called—

William McQuillan, who deposed—r That he was a shareholder in the Rocky Point claim, BLaraka, adjoining that of defendants, whose name was- Twelfth of July. On the morning; of the 26th witness went to his work and missed a shovel. Went and found it in defendants' drive. Had missed it before and found it in their drive. Graham asked witness what he wanted, and witness said he wanted his shovel. Graham said they had taken it away the morning before without saying a word, and they shouldn't have it then. He also said witness had a shovel of his, and he wouldn't let the' bther away. Graham's son was in the mine .with witness, and he had brought a shovel, but the shovel in dispute was bought by the company. Witness went to take the shovel when he was hit in the back of the head, knocked down, and kicked on the loin, while Warskitt twisted'the shovel but of his hand. Witness got out of the drive as best he could, Graham still beating him u,p to the tips. Warskitt then said that Graham had given him enough, and that there was somebody looking at him. Witness went back to his claim and got Wright to go back with, him to get the tools. As he went back to get his hat and iris lunch, Warskitt said "He's come back for more." Witness replied, "I'll make you pay for what you have done." Warskitt then said if that werevthe case he would give him something more, and he at once hit him on the shoulder atid 1 kicked him over the tip. l '. Both defendants cross-examined the witness McQuillan. James Wright, working with McQuillan, partly corroborated complanant's j evidence regarding the second portion of the assault. He said McQuillan's face was "allbleeding" when-he returned from the; first visit to the mine. He said after the altercation between Warskitt and McQuillan, the former pushed McQuillan j over the tip. '' ; In cross-examination witness,said Me-< Quillan did not on going over to^he drive call defendants "a —— lot of thieves." .

Richard Webster deposed—That he was just opposite the claim of complainants and defendants on Friday morning last. He heard a cry, and looking round he saw defendant Graham striking McQuillan, and Warskifct pulling him off.

William Baildon, (who wanted a day's wages before giving evidence) deposed— That he kjiew nothing of the assault from ; porsontlMdjrl^P:6' He saw McQuillan with his'nose bleeding on Friday morning. / Afterwards' he sp,w Graham and Wayskitt, and -asked them,why they had pitch^intiP "ilittle Billy; " 'one-^of them was etyoujlb. ,to kill him. Warskitt said he didjft sfpke himi but •he' said he had fte}d J&raham by-the hands or he believedpti© old man would have killed him.

The Magistrate ruled this was not evidence.

.-, -Defendant Warskitt ,denie.d everything, except that he pushed McQuillan over the tip for the language he used. There was no assault in the drive.

Defendant Graham/made '■"'■& , s'tMtenJerit. It appeared there was a dispute over a shovel, and Graham refused to let McQuillan take one shovel belonging to him and his mates because they had broken a shovel belonging to defendants. McQuillan had used bad language* fowards him (Graham) and he had giveu him two or three bloiv s, and he would have given him more if he had "not been restrained by Warskitt. His Worship said the charge against Warskilt was dismissed. As for Graham it was evident that an assault had been committed. Unfortunately both. Graham and McQuillan were too well known to him "(His- Worship), and he could well believe that, defendant had received provo* cation. Knowing McQuillan's character, and the probability that he did use the language alleged, he would fine defendant in the mitigated penalty of 20s and costs. The costs amounted to £3 15s. CROSS ACTION*—THE PROVOCATION. : William McQuillan was charged that he did unlawfully use abusive and insulting language towards one John Graham . for the purpose of annoyance, tending to provoke a breach of jths peace, on the 26th instant, *: * ,{. }. 'Defendant pleaded not guilty. s John Graham deposed—That the language complained of was made use of by defendant as he came over to the drive. He said " You are a lot of thieves ; " opening the conversation with tho^e words. He,wished him bound over to keep the peace. : '"'"' ■

James Coleman Warskitt corroborated the evidence of Graham as to McQuillan using the words "You're a old thief" and a— — old liar," but said it was after asking for the shovel.

Sergeant Elliott who went up to mate enquiries as to an alleged larceny of tools, said Tte found both parties excited and talking. , ,

Thomas Graham', son '6f complainant, was at the Twelfth of July, or Argyle claim, on Friday, but not before the assault. ; '■"■■ ■:• • ■■ •■-■ /•■■■■■! •' '/■•>/. .•••■

Evidence ruled inadmissible

: James Munro, also called, did not know, anything of the occurrences before •the assault.

Mr Macdonald, for defendant, said, it would not be denied that some language had been used. No doubt Warskitt's account was pretty; correct. ; .McQuillan had gone to the drive of complainant for a lawful purpose, and it was a question whether the circumstances warranted ;defendant being bound over to keep the peace—whether the language was likely to be repeated. Defendant was bound over to keep the peace towards John Graham and all others for three months, in his own recognizance for the: sum of £20, and to pay the costs, £1 10s.

Mr Macdonald asked that Graham be also bound over to keep the peace. His Worship said he had no power. The Court adjourned. ;