RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4591, 21 September 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. (Before H; Kenrick, Esq., E.M.) DISORDERLY PERSON.

Hugh Smith who was last week re-1 manded on a charge of vagrancy, to enable him to obtain employment, was discharged, as he had gone to work. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. Edward Short. was charged with illtreating a horse. It was, shown by the evidence of Mr F. C. Dean that on the 7thinst., he was in Shortland near the railway works, and saw Short who was driving a horse attached to trucks on the Works, strike the animal 37 times before it reached the tip, it was a small horse and was not fit for the work. His attention was called to the defendant's treatment of the horse, saw that a stick was taken from the mangrove and broken over the horse at every trip. He had remonstrated with the defendant who replied that he had the right to strike the horse as he liked, so long as he did not strike it on the head. The animal was also struck with a long broken carter's whip. -■".■•■ Constable Stapleton said he had spoken to Short on the subject, and he had denied ever beating or ill* treating the horse, he said he was obliged to beat it sometimes to compel it to pull the truck over obstructions' on the line. He saw the horse, but noticed no marks on it, and it was in a fair condition. The defendant said he was not sure as to the number of blows. ,

Joseph Robinson, the employer of Short, said he did not consider the horse had been ill-treated; he admitted that the trucks held about two tons of stuff, and weighed about a ton. The horse was not a heavy one, nor was it "light. The Bench held that unnecessary violence had been used; that the defendant had struck the horse 37 times, and with considerable force. He should, if he found the horse unable to do the work, report the circumstance to his employer, and not severely beat the animal. The fine permitted by the law was £20, but it trusted the defendant would be warned by the infliction of a light penalty: He would be fined 5s and costs, 9s. USING INDECENT LANGUAGE. Lewis Lewis was charged with using indecent language.—lt »appeared that during a matrimonial squabble the defendant had used very strong expressions to his wife.—He stated that he was aggravated by his wife, and had been provoked into transgressing.—The Bench said the charge was proved, and no aggravation was sufficient excuse for the use of the words spoken.—The defendant was fined £2 and costs, 14s.

ASSAULT. John Townsend was charged with assaulting John S. Hart.—Mr Miller appeared .for the defendant ?nd pleaded not guilty. J. S. Hart deposed that on Monday morning last TowDsend had thrown water over his (Hart') son while the latter was^ sweeping a veranda, and on Wednesday Hart was sweeping the footpath underneath the same veranda, when Townsend told his boy to throw a bucket of water •rer the place, and not to mind him (Hart). The boy did not do exactly as he was told) and then Townsend took the backet and threw its contents over Hart. This was nothing <- but the continuance of a series of annoyances he and his family had been suffering at the hands of Townsend, who—in Marchlast— had challenged him to fight, and he (Hart) ' wished the defendant tobe bound over to keep the peace. When he was sweeping he was about 1.2 feet or more from Townsend's shop. He had pushed the defendant away with the broom he had in his hand. Townsend had never asked him to sprinkle the footpath to prevent the dust rising and injuring his meat. John Harfc aged 12 years a son of the plaintiff corroborated the chief portion of his father's evidence. .

Mrs Isabella Hart deposed to seeing her husband after the alleged assault, and he was very wet down one side from his waist,and gave other evidence similar toMtst of the two previous witnesses^--^ Mr Mjller.eatferWm. Brown, butcher, ?stxo deposed that it was injurious to meat in a butcher's shop to sweep a footpath outside of it without sprinkling it first. John Townsend, the defendant, sworn, stated that on Wednesday morning he was in his shop, and saw young Hart sweeping the footpath, and told his lad to go and sprinkle it, as it appeared Hart would not. As soon as the lad proceeded to do it, Hart stepped forward, and the lad stepped back; be (Townsend) then took the bucket and threw its contents to the end of the verandah, but previous to doing so he got a blow in the face with the. broom in the hand of Ha rt, who said," Go away you — loafer." He had previously requested Hart and his son to sprinkle the footpath. Thomas Williams deposed that he heard Townsend ask Hart's boy to sprinkle the footpath on. Wednesday morning before sweeping it.

Daniel Ensor corroborated the evidence of the defendant, and said no water was thrown at Hart.

John Townsend, son of the last witness, aged 13 years, deposed he was the son of his father. The evidence given by him was similar to that of the last witness."

J. S. Hart, re-called, denied using the expressions imputed to him, but admitted calling defendant a d—■— pig. There was a cross-action brought by Townsend against Hart, and it was agreed by the parties to allow the evidence heard to b# that of both cases.—The Bench thought both parties were to blame ; it appeared that ill-feeling existed between them, which had culminated in: the present dispute. Hart should have sprinkled the fo6tpath when he found that Townsend was likely to suffer injury by r his nqt doing so. It appeared that Townsend did not wilfully throw the water over Hart, nor did the evidence prove clearly that Hart struck Townsend before the water went over him. Both, oases would be dismissed* each party to pay their own costs.

The Court then rose