R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1818, 20 October 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON—MONDAY.

(Before H, S. Wardemi, R.M.) Allen v Knight.—Assault. Mr Beard for informant, Mr Bunny for defendant, Mary Alien, wife of John Allen, Masterton, deposed that defendant came to her house and said her boy hit his girl. Defendant called her a bad name, and witness pushed him away, He thou hit her with a bridle and was about to strike her again when her husband interfered, The Court; What was the result of your push, did he falll Witness; No, he did not!" Mr Bunny said he had been instructed at a moment's notice, and was placed in an embarrassing position. The Court said this negligence was the fault of the defendant, but it would let the case stand back for a few minutes,

After a brief adjournment Mr Bunny asked for witnesses in the case to withdraw. Mrs Allen (to Mr Bnnny): Her boy was about thirteen. The girl was a good sized girl, Defendant did not ask her to correct the boy, She told liim tlmt his gifl hit her girl; vVitness was not underlie influenced drink on the occasion. She attacked him when he called her a foul name, She did not catch him by the shirt. Mr Bunny (producing a torn shirt) : Do you see that 1 Witness: That could be accidentally done. If it was not for my husband lie would have given me a pair of black eyes, You know nothing at all about it Mr Bunny. I rent the house from Jack Devonshire. Knight does not collect the rent, at least not from me. I never spoke to Knight before in my life. He lives close handy to me. Sometimes the girl calls my boy an •' Irish Paddy," and then he has to go and hit her, Tito assault took place on Friday fortnight. [am not sure whether it was three weeks ago, Me and my old man laid '.he information,

John Allen, husband of the late witness, remembered Knight coming to his house on October 3rd and confirmed the evidence of his wife.

To Mr Bunny; His wife did not strike Knight, The blow from the bridle was not extraordinarily heavy, She did not push Knight before he struck his wife. She caught Knight by the coat not by the collar. His wife was not drunk or nothing like it. She might have had some drink. He did not strike Knight for abusing his wife. He did not wish to put himself within the power of the h*v. The Court at this stage objected to Mr Bunny suggesting to the witness an unlawful act, and a somewhat warm altercation ensued between the Court and the counsel.

John Patrick Allen, son of the late witness, said Knight came up bullying with a bridle in his hand. His mother pushed Knight away because he was talking badly. He hit his mother on the ear with the bridle and called her a foul name again. He was going to strike her again when his father interfered.

■ To Mr Beard: His father was washing himself outside when Knight came up and spoke to his father who referred him to his mother. His mother was not in drink but Knight was. Thomas Knight, the defendant, sworn deposed that lie went to Mr Allen's and asked him to correct his boy for striking his girl. Allen said " All right." Mrs Allen then ran out and made for witness straight, He swung the bridle about to protect himself. He couldn't stand there and have

the Lair torn off his head by a woman. She said she would strip his skull. He denied that he ever used bad language. Mrs Allen caught him by the shirt and would not let him go, She would have got him down if the shirt buttons had not given way, Mrs Allen seemed to be mad drunk.. Mr Allen took her indoors after he_ pulled her away from witness. Allen made no complaint to witness of the way he had treated his wife. (To Mr Beard,) He did not, speak to Mrs Allen till she spoke to him. He told her that he did not wish to speak to her.

The Court inflicted a fine upon the defendant of 20s and costs. ; Shute and Jones v. Olsen.—Debt £8 5s for 2500 bricks. Mr Beard for plaintiffs, Mr Skipper for defendant, Mr Skipper stuted that the wrong man had been sued as the bricks were purchased by one Magnus Neilsen. J, Jones proved the saleof the bricks, and in cross-examination stated that Murrell ordered the bricks for Olsen, "Witness did not know Keilson in the matter at the time but heard afterwards thathe was interestedin the transaction. Murrel did not at the time supply bricks from the kilri to others parties without the consent of witness. Murrell was employed byhim making bricks and he was paid so much a thousand he began to make for him in March of last year. Robert Murrell, awornj'said that he was working for Shute and Jones brick making up to May. He went' and asked Mr Jones if Anders Olsen could have the bricks. Anders Olsen came down and got the bricks. Witness told Olsen to pay the money to Mrs Jones in reply to his question. Ho had no authority whatever to sell bricks without the sanction of Mr Jones He looked to Mr Jones for the money for all the bricks he made. •

In answer to Mr Skipper; He knew nothing of Neilsen and Jones affairs. Had quite enough to do to mind his own affairs,

For the defence Andrew Ulsen was called, and through Mr A. S. Dryer, interpreter Said he never bought any bricks from Shute & Jones, About May last year he bought about 2500 bricks from Mangiius Neil sen, who keeps an accommodation house. He told Noilseii if he could get the bricks lie wanted he would take them. Neilsen told witness to go to Murrell and get delivery of the bricks. He paid Mangus Neilsen for the bricks on 'May 4th, 1883 (receipt produced) by contra account. He refused to pay Shute & Jones because he had already paid the man he got them from. By Mr Beard: He asked Murrell to whom he was to pay the money, and he was told to pay Mrs Jones. He got the receipt for the bricks from Neilsen before Shute and Jones demanded payment from him. Mangnus Neilsen deposed that he bought 2500 bricks from Murrell and sold them to Olsen. He considered that Murrell had a right to sell on his own account when he bought them. He thought Murrell had the brick kiln on his own account.

By Mr Beard: He had offered to pay Robert Murrell for the balance between what he owed and the cost of the bricks, He told Murrell that he wanted the bricks now as Mr Olsen would require to remove them before the roads were too bad. John McLennan deposed to having bought bricks from Murrell whilst he was at Shute and Jones'. He did not remember whether he got a receipt from Murrell when he paid for the bricks.

By Mr Beard: He did not know whether Murrell was principal or agent. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £Blss and costs £0 4s, His Worship instructing the interpreter to inform the defendant that he had been cautioned before ho paid the money to Neilsen for the bricks. Neilsen v. Neilsen and Petersen. Ordered to stand over, Jorgen Kronius v. W, L, Dorset.— Debt £7. Mr Beard for plaintiff, Mr Bunny for defendant, Plaintiff deposed that he held a piece of lane 1 from Mrs Dorset, which he agreed to give up to defendants for the sum of £l2, of which he had been paid £5, and he now sued for the the balance £B, which they had promised to pay and had not done so, By Mr Bunriy: Ho had a written agreement for the occupation of the land (produced), for which he was to pay 5s a year. He agreed to give up the place for £l2, There was only a piece of loose paper on which the particulars were written of the terms upon which he was to leave the land. He did not leave at the'time agreed to. (Left Sitting),