R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 2102, 23 September 1885, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

CARTERTON—TUESDAY,

(Before H, A. Stratford, R.M)

Contable Darby v D. Baggerty.— Drunkenness. Fined os or 5 hours imprisonment. . . George Meikleson v George Preston. .Charge of assault. ' The "defendant, through his solicitor (Mr Beard), pleaded not guilty. Mr Sandilands acted for the plaintiff, who stated that he had no money; and. his solicitor paid the hearing fees to let the case proceed. The plaintiff deposed "On the 18th inst., in the Hinau Gully, defendant came to my house, I sent for him to know what he' had been saying about me but he would not tell me, .He afterwards struck me' with something,' which'cut my face,,ldid;not see what he had in : his hand. I then went to the chemist, and from there to the constable.' '

In answer, to Mr Beard: I did not strike the dejendant. I only held up my hands to ward off the blow.

To Mr Sandilands: My wife was not present when this affair happened.

Constable Darby gave evidence to the effect that plaintiff came to him and com-. plained of the assault, His faco was bleeding at the time. The defendant, on being sworn, stated that he was told that the plaintiff wanted to see him. When in the road opposite his house plaintiff came out to him and asked him if he,was going to Carterton, and if so, they would walk and talk to-' gether. Plaintiff then commenced blackguarding defendant, and struck him, Defendant then closed in with him, but did not strike him with anytliing but lu's fist. .Tames Peter Preberson corroborated the evidence of defendant,

His W orslup remarked'that he always made it a practice to deal severely with any one who took the law in their own hands, but in this case the plaintiff was the aggressor, and he reprimanded him for bringing it into Court, and dismissed the information. Peter Pearick v Martin Ososka.—Case of assault, in which the complainant Btated that the defendant gave him some beer mixed with mustard and pushed some meat into his mouth, through which treatment lie was ill for some time, and unable to work.

Mr Beard for plaintiff, and Mr Bunny for defendant. After about four hours of contradictory evidence, the case was adjourned till Friday morning at 9.30. As there is another case in connection with it, viz selling beer, to some of his (defendants)neighbours.