R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2937, 29 June 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MABTERTON-THURSDAY,

(Before JJrYon Stunner, R,M,)

[continued,]

The defendant was put into the box, and deposed tlwt he had gone to the Boarding House where Morrison was living, and that the informant had seized him by the throat. Witness then struck informant two or three times,

In Qross.cxamlnation, witness said the female was in tho room fully dressed, with hat and cloak on. She asked him what he wanted there, at the same time assaulting him. Informant seized him by the throat at the same time. He struck Morrison two or three times, who turned away, aud pretended to cry. His opinion was that Morrison was a hypocrite. Witness said to him: '! If y<m are a man, step qu| and take your part!" That was after he (witness) had got up from on hjs back. He did not cqnsider himself smart, strong, oranything else, hut he considered himself pluckj enough to meet Morrison. He did not go up on purpose to give Morrison a thrashing, With' the exception of the language imputed, to. hjui. he i|iij i|pt Uov}y the evidence of the two witnesses. He.did not ask Wright to turn Morrison out of the house. But he considered it to ho his duly to caution Wright against the class of man he had in his house. He had never threatened, Morrison since. lip inpre' Inclinecj' to think that Mprrisqn tqqk the woman there, He was always, waylaying her. His Worship said to informant's counsel that as this was merely a, pas? of assault there was up p|tas|qn to, go, injp the history! '" By Mr Beard: Afprrison was the aggressor otherwise lie (witness) certainly not have struck him hut have left it to the husband. A.. Elkii|s, sifpro, eaid qn tl|«r%

night last lie saw Morrison, He was informed tliat twomen were "fighting at thebackV He went round and saw Williams and Morrison He asked them what they were doing there, Williams said "I've caught this blackguard with my wife."*Morrison said " I was not with your wife. I was doing no harm. I was having a quiet cup of tea," With that Williams struck hito again and the man tried to get away. Witness told them they had better clear off his premises. Williams said to witness" wliat would you do." Witness said " you should give him a good hiding or -I would give you one." Williams struck Morrison twice in the face again and Morrison cleared out.

M. j Williams corroborated the evidence of last witness as to punishing Morrison on the night of the 21st, The informant was re-called by Mr Bunny to re-but.the evidence as to having been struck a few days before the alleged assault by Pickering. He swore that it was absolutely untrue that Williams struck him on the night of the 21st. His face was uninjured up to the time he was assaulted by Pickering. Cross-examined by Mr Beard; There were no Hows struck after Mr Elkins came up. There could not be any truth in Mr Elkins' statement.

Mr Beard: "By-the-bye Morrison have you ever been in gaol ?" Witness: " Not very likely." Mr Bunny objected to the question, which was withdrawn.

lii reply to the Bench Mr Elkins said: "I distinctly say that two blows were struck in my presence. Why did Morrison try to get into the cottage to get away? It was becausehe was being assaulted. Morrison is swearing to a deliberate lie." His Worship said.the two charges were actually one case. A lot of unsavoury business had been introduced and valuable time wasted. He had very little sympathy with Morrison, When a man Knowingly destroyed peace and comfort of afaniily the Court was not expected to extendsympathy to him. If the assault had been by the husband he should have said probably that he was perfectly right. (Cheers), Defendant was impetuous and jealous of his friends honor, hut he had no right togointoiuformants'sroom, and if he did get assaulted he had uo one to blame but himself. As he had no right to enter the room and commit an assault, he should fine defendant five shillings,uo costs wouldbe allowed in either case, (cheers). Mr Bunny," Of course that carries Court Costs." His Worship, "No."

W. B. Buick vP. Carr, adjourned to Friday 10 o'clock. Rationalistic Newspaper Company v F. Von Keisenberg-Withdrawn, the newspaper proprietors having paid all costs. The Court then adjourned,