POLICE COURT.—This Day.

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4418, 2 March 1883, Page 2

POLICE COURT.—This Day.

(Before H. Eenrick, Esq., E.M.) ASSAULT.

Bridget Leydon was charged with assaulting Jolid Maber on the 28th inst., by catching him by the collar. John Maher deposed that he delivered some wood to Mrs Leydon on the 27th of February. He called several times for the money; did not ask Mr Leydon to pay him, as he had told him to go to his wife, who would pay him. The wood was delivered on Tuesday, and he went for the money on Wednesday evening, and when Mra Leydon would not pay him he went to the heap of wood and took a stick, and was proceeding to take another when Mrs Leydon caught him by the collar. (She then seized an axe and threatened to strike him if he did not leave the wood alone, which he did and made the best of his way out. Annie Leydon deposed that she went to the door when Maher knocked. He asked for Mrs Leydon, and witness told him she was asleep, and she did not like to disturb her. Maher said if she would not pay him he would take away the wood. Witness told him to go to her father in Grahamstown, but he refused to do so, and started to carry away the wood. Mrs Leydon then came out and told plaintiff to leave the yard, and Wueu he did not do so, she took him b/ the collar and was going to turn him out. He re* sisted, and she went to take up an axe, when he cleared out.

His Worship held that plaintiff had no right in the yard; .if he did not feel sore about being paid, his proper remedy was to sue for the amount. The assault, if it could be termed an assault, was of so trivial a nature that it would be dismissed. CIVIL SIDE. Wood v. Emma Te Aouru.—-Claim, £16 10s 3d, goods supplied.—Judgment for amount claimed and costs, 20s. W. S. Bird v. Thos, Maher.—Claim for £3 15s 6d,; amount of a (judgment summons adjourned from last month. Plaintiff deposed that he had heard that defendant had been in work ; he was a bushmau at Coromandel. He could not swear that defendant was in a position to . P ay afcpresent. The case was adjourned for | three months, to enable plaintiff to collect evidence, showing that defendant was in a position to pay. Defended Case. M. CASEY V. StfbWUNG AND' BPBNCBE. Claim. £9 3s> 6d. Mr Miller appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Snowline admitted that the opal was supplied, but he was not liable, as there was no partnership existing between Spencer and himself at the time.

M. Casey deposed that in July last he supplied some coal to th« Vivid. He agreed to give the defendants £5 to tow a raft from Tararu to Shortlaud. They ordered some coal, which he supplied. Other orders afterwards came in for the same steamer. The defendants were acting conjointly. He sent in the account to Ppencer. . Thos. Spencer, father of one of the defendants, said the Vivid was chartered for a year by his son ; the charter ended on the 21st Sept. Mr Snowling and his son were partners for the months of July and August. The arrangement was made in the latter end of June. He .was re* sponsible for the rent of the steamer, and the agreement was made with his consent. ;

F. Snowling stated that he made no arrangement with last witness, who asked him to go shares with his son, so as to force the boat on to the Thames River Company. He made no arrangement with Mr Gr. Spencer to work the boat* conjointly. After towing the raft for Mr Casey, he and Spencer ran the boat on the Ohinemuri river, he working as engineer, for which he was to be paid wages. One week's wages was paid him, and the rest was still owing. He finisher! working for wages about the 13th July, and after that he went in with the Thames River Co. and Mr Spencer to work the boat on thirds. [Mr Miller then produced a letter from Mr Gv Spencer, stating that he and witness were in partnership from July Ist to the time of the agreement with the Biver Company, but witness denied this.] When Spencer, left th"c Thames he agreed with witness, so that he could collect some outstanding accounts in lieu of the wages due to him.

His Worship said it was not very clear as to whether Snowling and Spencer were partners or not from July Ist to July 12th, and he thought it would be better to adjourn the case for a month so as to obtain Mr G. Spencer's evidence. Thia was agreed to by Mr Miller, The Court then adjourned.