ASSAULTING A CHAMBERMAID AT CARTERTON.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1081, 23 May 1882, Page 2

ASSAULTING A CHAMBERMAID AT CARTERTON.

Henry Giles, proprietor of the Marquis of Norraanby Hotel,-Carterton, 'was charged on Monday afternoon, before Mesßis Booth and Boys, J.P.'b, with having assaulted Emily. .Skipper. The defendant pleaded no,t guilty. Mr Sandilands appeared on behalf of the owners nf tlio hotel, -

Emily Skipper deposed: lam chambermaid at the Marquis of Norraanby Hotel. On the 20th inßt., I was sitting in tho kitchen, when I heard Mrs Giles call me. I went into the parlor, and saw prisoner holding Mrs Giles' hands very tight, hurting her. I told him he ought to be nshamed of himself. He said, "What the h-1 have you to do with it?" He then went out of tho roo'nv I Btayed in the room with Mrs Giles, and subsequently went into tho kitchen. I stayed there knitting. The prisoner came in some time after, and asked me what right I had to interfere and say .he \m not a man, He called me a liar for having Bpoken. He chased me round and round the table,, and kept putting his head in my face and saying I was a liar. I said if he did not keep.his face away I would smack him in the face, He said he would huve no servant of )iis striko him. Ho then hit me twice in the face with his I open hand, and knocked.hie on the stovo. Three witnesses were present. Mr Cunningham knocked him. down. Mr Giles was not then sobor.

Ellen Golden deposed: lam cook at the Martinis nf Normanby Heel. I was fitting in tho ki chen with Miss Skipper"und Mr Cuiniiimhain. The prisoner camo into the kitchen, and chasad Miss Skipper round the table, making use of Borne very nasty language, and finally knocked her against the stove. He struck her on the head with his open hand. lam not snre whether he struck her more than once. Miss Skipper was Bitlingqniatly working, and did nothing to provoke him. He came, I believe, from the sitting room to the kitchen. The prisoner stated he did not remember I'riking his wife or Miss Skipper Tho Constable in answer to a question from the Court stated complaints had been been made against the prisoner since he was lastbroughtupand it would bßhisduty to lay charges against him tn prevent his obtaining the renewal »f his licenao at the next Licensing Bi'iich, as Le did nut think it was safe for tho public that he should do so. He waß on the drink for 12 days subsequently to the 16th ult., but not sufficiently ft him to lay an information against the prisoner in his own licensed house, He had other witnesses to call if required.—The Chairman of tho Bench after consultation with his fellow Justice stated, according to the plea the prisoner put in that he knew nothing of tho assault, it was evident ho was in a state of intoxication. This was no excuse as regarded the information laid. An information for assault on his wife was not before the Court, therefore they could not deal with it. Tho evidence of the informant and her witness examined showed that ho had struck a defenceless girl. Probably if it had been a man who had interfered between him and his wife he would have withheld his hands. The. Court might have committed him without the option of a flue, but having regard to his age and that he had only been before them once before, the Court would be lenient and line him with 15. and costs, and on information convoyed to them would bind him over to keep the peace, himself in £3O and two sureties of £25 each. Advising the prisoner to keep from drink, or in the ignorance of the assault he had committed in this case a far heavier charge might on a future occasion be laid against him. The option in each ease was 14 days and one month cumulative commitments, Fine and costs paid and'security provided