R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 2224, 19 February 1886, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

'■ GREYTOWfI.-WEDNESDAY. (Before fl. A,- Stratford, R.M,, and Dr Spratt, J.P. E. Orbell vJ. Tully;—Failing to destroy rabbits on his. land. Defendant pleaded guilty. Fined £5 and costs. Constable J; Eceleton v E. Loader.— Assault whilo in the execution of his duty. Defendant said lie was drunk and did not remember anything about it. Constable Eceleton informed the Court the defendant had been imprisoned for three days for the drunkenness and disorderly conduct. Fined 20s, and costs 14s, in default 7 days' hard lubor.

,;Same v Matini Te Ore.-Drunk and disorderly on racecourse. Ruka Kingi was also charged with a like offence. Aftor hearing evidence in both cases the Court inflicted a fine of 10s each and costs, Vs. William Pole v. James Harris-Assault. Defendant pleaded guilty. Fined 10s and costs, in default 48 hours' imprisonment. William Lower v. Matini TeOiuAssault. Defendant, pleaded not guilty. Information dismissed. Maria Haxton v. James A. Haxton.■Application for a re-hearing of complaint for maintenance order, Application refused.

Akenehi Tutere v. William MitchellClaim £lolss. This was a claim for a refund of monies entrusted to defendant to be used in payment of a certain account due by the plaintiff to a Mr Freeman. Plaintiff was. non-suite^.

Richard Wondon v. W. Mahupuku. —Possession of a horse, or £9 value. This was a long case, and resulted in a judgment for the defendant. Several other cases wero settled out of Court. THURSDAY, (Before Dx. Spratt and J. Tuliy, J.P.'s) : William, Lower v. Hoani Manihem,— Claim for painting a house, £6 IBs. Judgment for plaintiff for £3 and costs. FEATHERSTON-THURSDAY. (Before H. A. Stratford, R.M.) Edward Orbell v Charles Harris.—Failing to destroy rabbits on his land. Defendant pleaded guilty. Fined L 5 and costs..

A like information was laid against thei defendant- but was withdrawn by consent. EdwardOrbell vW. M^e^,—lading to destroy rabbets, on, bis land. Fined 2(fe and oopjs,. Two, arising out of a matrimonial difference were withdrawn by consent.

T, T, Evans vB. do Forms, Debt £2 gs, Judgement by default for amount and oosts,

W. Smith v W. Hutana.-Debt £5 lis fid, Judgement by default for amount and costs.

There wore several other cases on the list which wore withdrawn or settled. MiSTBRTON THIS DAT. DISORDERLY CONDUCT, Qarew Thomas E|ers. and J ; o]m Hannltqn were charged, with disorderly conduct anti assaulting onb another in Dixonstreet oh the evening of the 15th inst, Sergeant Price prosecuted. •

Thomas Winteringham and W\Wam, Dixon wore called in support o/ the same. Sergeant Price the rp.w was somethin" intense.' ' " ' " Winteringham stated that, he only np.ticed the defendants hurrying up to each other,

Dixon said they were, doing a bit of scuffling and one another about. Constable (Minane deposed that he went to the scene of the disturbance, but the ".telegraph" had been set to work-, and. before he could got t-hore the men had made themselves, ayaivfl, lor the defence Elh-rs called Hugh Ward, who was present the whole time, and who said there were no blows struck.

Cross-examined by Sergeant Price witness said the men were atrippod and had a wrestle, but no blows were struck, Ellers said the row commenced with words, and Hamilton had too much drink in him. They went round to the back street where they wrestled, but they did not strike each other. Hamilton being the strongor knocked him down. Hamilton, in excuse, said he was sorry if he was the worse for drink, for the sake of Ellers.

His Worship said lie had no doubt there was a disturbance, and it would have been better for them to, have admitted it, The were each fine/] B\, and Court costs, or in default three, days imprisonment, dlstorbahoe at salvation army Barracks. John Hounslow was charged by Charles Bates with having on the 15th February interfered with the religious servico being held at the Army Barracks, also that he did on the same evening assault the informant. Mr Skipper appeared for the prosecution and Mr Beard for the defence.

Mr Beard, for the defence, said he could not dispute the fact that defendant was the cause of the disturbance, but it was not a similar caso of disturbance to what had taken place on otljer!'pccassioiiß. Pdfendanfasa'regiiiar'BtQndan'fw.cnt'to theArniy oh the night in question and Mr Bates, after he had been thoro some time, camo down and ordered him out, and defendant said he would go out after the meeting was over. Informant then attempted to put him out,' defoliant resjsted,, henqe the assaujt complained of. Defendant'was ultimately put out. He asked that the penalty should bo a 'minimum one.

Mr Skipper for the informant said tho evidence he should brine; forward would pu.t a different complexion on the case as stated by Mr Beard. Mr Bates being in charge of the meeting that night did in consequence of |he misbehaviour of defendant, deem it necessary to take the stops ho, did, to eject the defendant. The jvitnosses at the request of Mr Beard were at this stage ordered out of Court till called upon to give evidenoe, Mr Skipper continued, When Mr Bates went to defendant on the night in question, defendant refused to leave, and used offensive words. He raised his clenched fist and threatened to strike the informant " between the two eyes." He then put one arm round Mr Bates' neck and waist, and threw him down with violence. He still retained his hold whilst on the floor, and bumped the informant considerably. The object of the prosecution was simply to prevent a recurrence of the misconduct complained of, and his instructions were not to press for a heavy penalty, if the oaso was proved, but one that would be a warning toothers. Sergeant Price deposed that he heard of a disturbance at the Barracks, and he sent a Oonstablo down to see what was going on, (Left Sitting.)