POLICE COURT.—THIS DAY.

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4640, 17 November 1883, Page 2

POLICE COURT.—THIS DAY.

(Before H. Eenrick, Esq., R.M.) INDECENT LANGUAGE.

James Thompson was charged with using indecent language. Mr Mille:* appeared for the defence, and pleaded guilty, He expressed Thompson's regret for the offence; he was drunk at the time—the Prince of Wales' Birthday— and asked the Court to deal leniently.; in the case.~The Bench said that the drunkenness of the defendant was an aggravation, not an extenuation of the offence, more especially Us the defendant was the licensee of a hotel. He would be fined £5, and costs 22s 6d. PBOHIBITIONS. Upon the application of the police a prohibition order was grafted against P. | Kelly. . _„.:; ; ; , :.,;■ .;; A similar order was applied for against Richard Morton by his wife, but tho case I was dismissed, )as; the applicant did not 1 j appear. I LIGHT OUT. j .Richard Richards, of the Governor ; Bowen Hotel, wcs charged with allowing llie light in front of his premises to go out. It was shewn that the lamp was not burning when the constable passed. .Mrs Richards, said .the should hare knocked at the door and she would have re-lit the lamp. 'I he Bench said it was not their duly :to do so, but it would bo advisable sqmetimes if they did. A fine of one shilling without costs. ASSAULT. Wm. Good was charg' I with assaulting a youth named M. McMahon, of Tapu, on the 9th November. Mr Lush appeared for the prosecution. Two other charges of assault were preferred against the wife and son of the defendant by the same plaintiff, and the evidence in one case accepted for all. ■ ' '■ The defendant said that the plaintiff had also retained" Mr Miller, and thus prevented him . being - represented , by counsel.' :' ' ' ■ ': ' " ' '' j \? : : - ■■■ ■ : M. McMahon deposed that he,' with two others, were passing Good's place when the defendant's son abused him ; witness Ordered him off his (McMahon'e) father's ground. Good then struck him with the handle of a whip he was carrying, and threw stones at him, when witness struck bim in self defence. Defendant then came up wit.h a stick, followed by his:wife, who carried a gun, and the latter threatened to shoot witness. Good, senr., approached with a stick, but was prevented striking witness by a man named Plummer, who was present. The defendant's wife presented a gun at witness, and raised the hammer, but the gun did not go off; H had some paper over the nipple.* The reason the gun did not go off, the* witness believed, was because the hammer was only half-cocked. The defendant then made his wife put the gun down, when she threw stones at witness^ and hit him with a stick.

H. Plummer and a boy named Jones who were with McMahon on the day in ;question, corroborated the chief, evidence of the previous witness, with the excep> tion that the defendant did not strike McMahon, or attempt:to do so, arid that the youths McMahon and Goodie had a stand-up fight. *

Wm. Good, junr;, deposed that he was out after cattle when he met McMahon, "PlununeFj and Jones, andMcMahonsaidif he did not get off; the; plaintiffs father's ground he would kick him, McMahon then struck him, and he defeuded'himself with a whip handle be was carrying ; they then closed and had *a fight* Good.was thrown down, Good: senior "did.not strike MeMahou, he simply said,* 1 boys will bo boys, let them alone." Ho had the gun in the morning, and had;.discharged it, leaving it. outside the house,: and his [ mother on going to see what the row was' I about, picked it up as she, went. The father of ;the laqt w;itnessT-lhe defendant— swore that pn. the 9th inst. he? saw some cattle .on, his ground, and sent his boy to turn theinout; he^wisl longer that he should have been, and ho (witness) on looking out of a window, saw his boy returning; he ya>;.oyossing:;\M'oMahon'{».property to get.borne/ when McMahon was approaching with .the packhorses. When Good, jun.; met; the horses, MeMahon went off ifche road, over- to the boy, and they began to fight., Seeing a man some distance ofl, which he took to be the complainant's < father, he went to meet him, as he thought he was standing watching young McMahon "beating his (witness') son. When he got to where the boys were fighting ho merely looked on to see fair, play, and to see what his boy was made of. When they stopped fighting he psked young McMahon why he struck his son," and he-re-plied that he waß always .abusing him. While the fight was going on, Mrs Good Game on the ground, and the witness-sent her away. She had a gun in her hand, and he took it from>her. The complainant, re called, said he took his shirt off after Good struck him, and the boy Jonos swore that, Good struck MoMahon first.

The-Bench ,sajcl it appeared that Good* junr,, struck the first blow. ' It was clear that he, therefore, was guilty of an assauit, and would be fined 20a and costs.

There was no evidence^to prove an assault against Good, senr., and the case against him would be dismissed. In the case against ;JVCrs Good, the evidence shewed that she had presented the 1 gun, and it was very fortunate that it did sot go off; for striking the plaintiff with a* slick sbe would be fined 20s and costs, and her husband ordered to enter into a sureiy in the sum of £25 that she keep the .peace for six months.

The costs iv the three cases were £2