MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON.

Waikato Argus, Volume VI, Issue 448, 15 June 1899, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HAMILTON.

Yesterday—(Before Captain McPherson aud Mr A. Primrose, Justices). UNDEFENDED CASES. A NUMBER of small undefended debt cases were dealt with in the usual manner, judgment beiog given for the plaintiff in each instance with costs. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. P. LeQuesne v. John Clarke.—Mr L. O'Neill, who appeared for the judgment creditor, said a judgment summons had hcen issued some months ago, and a portion of the amount owing had been paid at the rate of 10s per month. He had evideuce to show that the man was earniog good wages, and was quite capable of paying 10s a mouth.—The Bench made an order for the payment of 10s per month, aud in default the first or any payment, 14 days' imprisonment in Mount Eden with hard labour. ASSAULT CASE. A strong, able-bodied young man, named Geo. Smith, was charged with having on the 23rd May last unlawfully assaulted John Fortune by striking him in the face, knocking him down and kicking him. Both the parties are residents of Karamu. Mr L. O'Neill appeared for the defendant and pleaded not guilty, and complainant, who is a very old man, was assisted in conducting his case by Sergt. Stapieton. By the evidence of John Fortune it was shown that Smith's cows were trespassing on his property. His dogs went after the cattle and chastd them down the road, notwithstanding his efforts to recall the dogs. Just at this time the three Smith boys rode up, and George (the elder) asked "Whit are you dogging my cows for," and without any further provocation struck witness several blows in the face, knockiog him down, and as he (witness) endeavoured to rise defendant kicked him on the back cf the head below the ear.

Cross-examined by Mr O'Neill, complainant said he was trying to stop the dog from chasing the cows, and he did not flog the cows at that or any other time. He did not take hold of a rotten post to attack Smith with, and did not close with him until he was forced to do so to save himself. Smith bit him on the finger, and the mark was there yet. "Dr. A. S. Brewis, of Hamilton, said that Fortune came to him for medical attendance on 23rd May l&st. He was badly bruised about the face, hid right and left eye 3 were both bruised, he had a cut over the right cheek, his nose was very much swollen, his, face was covered with blood and he complained of a pain in the back of his head, but witness could find no mark there. There was no doubt the man was badly bruised. Defendant in his evidence stated his case as follows: -Fortune was dogging the cows when defendant rode up and asked him his reason for doing so. Complainant at once collared a rotten post, and made use of bad language. He took hold of the post to stop the assault, and Fortune let go the post and rushed at defendant who in attempting to ward him off with his open hand was badly bitten by complainant. Defendant then struck him and both fell to the ground. Capt. McPherson : '"Could Furtune bite ? Did you look to see if he had any teeth ?" Mr O'Neill : " You can easily recall him and examine him." Continuing Smith said Fortune bit him on the hand, scratched his face, and tore his coat and shirt. He said he had no intention whatever of attacking Fortune, and when the latter rushed at him witness had his pipe iu his month, and the blow smashed the mouthpiece. Complaiuant's two brothers, who were present at the time, gave evidence oil his behalf, but nothing new was elicited beyond the fact that at the time Fortuue seized the rotten post he was standing on the side of the road aud not in his paddock, as stated by him. David Bruce gave evidence as to the good character which Smith bore in the district where he lived, and the quarrelsome disposition of complaintant. The Bench was satisfied that a heavy assiult had been committed, and did not think that anything Fortune had said or done could justify Smith in attacking bin). It would have been very easy for Smith to have avoided it without being charged with cowardice, considering that Fortune was such" aa old man. Defendant was fined £5 with £2 Os 3d costs, or in default one month's imprisonmen with hard labour. A fortnight was allowed in which to pay the fine. NO VISIBLE MKANS OF SUPPOBT. Joseph Maxwell, an old man, in a most disreputable condition, was rudely awakened from a deep slumber in the Court, to answer the charge of having no visible means of support. Sergt. Stapleton explained that the old man had been an inmate of the refuge. He, however, would not stay there. He had previously been sent to gaol on a similar charge and on his return had again been taken into the refuge. He had left on several occasions since then, and on Wednesday last had again wandered away and had been out iu all the rain which had fallen since then, and if had not arrested him he would probably have died from exposure. It was very hard to know what to do with such a man. Mr C. J. W. Barton, Secretary of the Hospital and Charitable Aid Board, said that Maxwell could not be induced to stay in the institution, although he was very well treated there. He had no means of subsistence. At the last meeting of the Board a resolution was passed stating that if Maxwell again left the institution he would not be taken back again. Maxwell had done so, and he believed the Board intended to adhere to its decision. • The old man, on being asked if he had anything to say, said he did not want to go back to the home, as he had no comfort there. The Bench thought the man could not be allowed to starve in the streets, aud thought it was a charity to send him to Mount Eden for three months, without hard labour.