RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XV, Issue 4838, 11 July 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAS'.

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M.) . ASSAULT.

Charles Gallagher was charged on the information of Michael Conroy with striking him on theJiead with a stick. Mr Lush appeared for the plaintiff, acd Mr Miller for the defence. > '

The plaintiff deposed that on Monday night he met the defendant in Pollen street,and parted with him at Cosgrave's corner,, walking up Mary street on the church side. Defendant crossed to the other side, and walked up the same street, and when witness got to Mackay street, he crossed oTer to the County Council corner, ard again met defendant, who turned ,'round 1 and said, "You scoundrel," striking plain* tiff several times on the head with a stick. Did not proTpke him nor lay a word to him. Witness took the stick away from defendant and knocked him down. To Mr Miller—Was not fond of hammering people, though he had been before the Court half a dozen times for assault. Did not know he was called "Mick the* bullock" because he was fund of, rushing people. Did not speak (o Mr Gallagher, about painting his house. iv : Henry Beitman swore that he was in Mary street in Monday night while the plaintiff and defendant were fighting. Did not see the commencement of the quarrel. Saw defendant strike plaintiff with a stick. Did not see Conroy strike a blow. Defendant was trying to keep Conroy off with the stick. ;

Charles Gallagher, sworn, stated that on j the night in question he was proceeding home bywayof Pollen street, whenonthev other side of the Earaka bridge he wias accosted by Conroy, who asked him if he was Mr Gallagher, and continued-- ••' You are an Irishman; and ybu haW let your work to Pricker, an Englishman," and followed him (defendant) up Pollen street and into Mary street, calling witness names and threatening to punch his head. When the ; County Chambers, Conroy rushed him, and he

(witness) kept him off with a stick he was carrying, and they both fell, .y nThe Bench said it was a case of one man's evidence against that -of another, and the evidence was not corroborated. The case wduld be dismissed, each party to pay his own costs. -