RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume I, Issue 48, 2 December 1867, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geettows, Noveubee 25. Setose H. S. Wardell Esq., R. M. DEUSKENNESS. M. Moddison was charged with drunkenness Fined 10s and costs. ASSAULT. Haggerty v. Sullivan. —There were two -cases, one against Sullivan and the other against his son. The evidence in both cases wes similar. D. Haggerty on being sworn stated—That on his arriving home he saw the defendant’s son leaning over his fence in conversation with his (plaintiffs) son, and he not wishing them : to be together, and requiring his son to take his horse, called on him. His son ran away, and he followed him. On coming up to him he caught hold of him by the ear and was - chastising him, when defendant’s son leaped his fence and interfered, some words ensued and the plaintiff went away. Mrs Sullivan then came forward towards me and called me - something, I am not sure what it was, but I believe she called me an “informer” I am almost sure (considerable mirth in the Court,) that was-what she called me. I replied, “ Let .ye all go to hj L I Then saw John Sullivan come towards my gate, and I said, “What’s the word with you, you big bully.” He replied, “ come out here."—(Thelanguagethat was used is not fit for publication.) I then ran into the house for protection. He followed me. ,1 went into my daughter’s room; there was no lockon’the door, so Iput my back to it, and my ’. feet against the bedstead so that he could not push the door open. He put his hand to the hole over the door; the door is five feet high. I “hollared” out, but he could not hit me. I *. called to my wife and my eldest boy. He then caUed. me a “thief” and “informer.” He never had any peace at Carterton since the case of Stockport,, for he was called “informer” wherever he went, even the children in the road called Em by that name. ’ .- . The/Magistrateto the defendant—Haggarty a no more an informer in that case than you . wets yourselves, for it was the drink that done i .itall. ..... ’ ML JonM cqrroborated the evidence of the {laiptiff,"bnt,ah amusing cross-examination by laggarty m an-attempt to prove the witness drunk at the time caused considerable iriifth in Cdnrt ’ - r

:. I .We^ 1 believe if the 'plaintiff had had a legal ji wouldpdtmanybfourWellihgton -lawyers in ■ ■ Sullivan's son in his ’defence' stated, that r »emg J Haggarty iU-using his son/ihe jumped ShDivaultated by (ailing 1 ; his t: tfying-th gel? ah honest liyelihhnj'and also the'

coarse language that he had used towards himself.

The Magistrate strongly commented on the impertinent interference of the younger Sullivan when’ Haggarty was chastising his son, and on the elder Sullivan’s trespassing on the land of Haggarty for the purpose of assaulting him. He would i bind them all over 'to keep the peace in the sum of £SO each, anda surety for each in the sum of £25.

Masteeton, Novembee 22. (Before H. S. Wardell Esq., R.M.) Welch v Hill —Assault. Fined £2. Donald v Edwards—Breach of Scab Act. Case dismissed.

Welch v Tankersley—Disputed, impounding. Judgment for defendant. Donnelly v. Adams—Assault and threatening language. Fined £5 and costs. Hill v Welch—Assault. Defendant bound over to keep the peace for three months. Several drunken cases disposed of in the usual manner. CIVIL CASES. Carrington'V Eossiter —Debt, £8 8s 4d. Judgment for amount and costs. Same v Eossiter—Debt, £lO 4s 2d, Judgment enforced for £7 2s 7d and costs.

Tuck v Davies—Debt, £5 ss. - Judgment for £2 14s and costs.

Feist v Jonnston—Debt, £6 I7s 2d. £4 2s 3d and costs paid in and accepted. Carrington v Ileremaia—Debt, £6 11s 6d. Summbns not served.

Dixon v Adams—Debt,:£2 6s. -Judgment for amount and costs.

Tavener v Tankersly—Debt, £1 9s. No appearance.

Donald v Tankersley—Sheep assessment, £1 13s 4d. Amount paid into Court, Same v Brightwell—Sheep assessment, £1 9s Bd. Amount paid into Court.