R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 3014, 27 September 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

0 4 RTEETON—TUESDAY. (Before S. Von Stunner, K,M.) H. H. Wolters v, C. J. Mumford. No evidence was offered, and the case was dismissed. MALICIOUS INJURY. T. H. Blackwell v. Thos. Bennett. Assault case, and 'l. Bennett and A. Armstrong for knocking down a gate on tho property of the plaintiff, being part of Section 17, township of Carterton, for which he holds a title through the. Land Transfer Court. M Beard appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Middleton. for defendant. Tho solicitor for the defence pleaded that under the 67th section of the Land Transfer Act; tho plaintiff had no title to the said property. Plaintiff deposed that as he was erecting a gate, Bennett assaulted him by striking him in the face, and knocking him down, also punching him while on the ground. He again erected the gate, and again accused broke it down, J.' Greathead corroborated the evidenooof the complainant, and stated that tho accused offered to sell him the hinges which he had taken off the gate.. Plaintiffwas inside the gate on the disputed land when the assault took place. He had seen the complainant take down the rails from the land, which the accused had put thero, To Mr Armstrong-He had seen him assist Bennett to take the gate off its hinges. To the Court —He could not say iu what way Armstrong assisted Bennett. James Peters deposed that he saw 1 Bennett chop the gate down, and strike the complainant, This was on' August Ifltii, and again on tho.l9th September, be saw Armstrong holding the gate whilst Bennett was' fileing. the ohain. To Mr Middleton—He heard nothing that was said between tho parties: : To Armstrong—He. saw him holding the gate while Bennett was cutting tho chain; W. Ingley deposed that he was present' on : the 19th irist,, and saw Bennett kiiockiug the gate, while Armstrong held it.. Mr Middleton contended that the assault was committed before the complainant had any title to the land. Thomas Bennett, sworn; eta^ed; tliEit he had been in of.fhe land for 28 yoars, decision ■ of: whioh .was given at the 'Court/t]i»

question of . Urn being=a baukrupt.On tlieday fifilfa assault the-com-plainant ..was on'.the land, - and witness told bim that lie bad no business tbere,- ,whereupon plaintiff rushed at' him,- and tried to throw him down, ■ (Several papers were then examined by. the' .Court to' showBennett's claim to the land.) To Mr Beard—-Ho did not-"remember wilfully striking him, but he might Lave done so in the souffle. : He did not damage the gate, and Armstrong did not assist to take the gate down. A. Armstrong deposed tliat he was present on the 10th iust., and saw Bennett and a man named Harnian at the gate, and saw that the .gate was off its hinges,' but tlio gate was riot broken. He did not assist in mi

moving the gate. Finley Bethune deposed that he saw the parties at the land in dispute, and saw Bennett out the gate ;downi Blackwall rushed at Bennett in order to prevent him from using tlie axe, but.Bennett dropped the axo.'and struck Blackwall. To the Court—He was too far away to hear what passed between them. Rupert Fairbrotlier stated he knew the parties, and on August 16th he saw Bennett trying to lift the gate off its hinges, but finding he could not succeed, he commenced cutting it' down with an axe. He saw Blackwall rush at Bennett, but whether he touched him or not he could not.say. Beunet, however, knocked, Blackwall down. Richard Harman deposed that on the date in question, he.saw Bennett take the gate off its Hinges, but the gate was not in ( any way. damaged. • Fe did not spo'tmy bolt smashed. The Counsels. then addressed the Court oh behalf of their clients, after \yliich His - Worship dismissed the information againßt Armstrong, and fined Bennett 5s for the assault, and 2s 6d for malicious injury, with ' DEBT CASES. G. M, Gardner v. G. Butler, Debt, £3 10s Bd, judgment by default, with costs Bs. .

Mercer & Bayliss v. W, Holstead: 45 2s 8d; judgment by default, and costs 18s.

D. Pi Loasby v. Jacob Johnson: £2 Is; judgment for amount with coats 65,"

.J. C, Reid v. R, Crawford: £8 2s lid; judgment by default with costs 10s.

MASTEETON-THURSDAY. (Before S. von Sturmer, E. M., and and A. W. Renall, J. P.) CfIUOABHS, Turnor & Co, v, Carl Fredericks?!), —Claim £l6 Is fid for meat supplied. Judgment was given for amount and £2 Is 9d costs. F. W. Parker v. Robert Aitken.— Judgment summons Xj3 12s, Order made for payment ot 10a per week in default seven days imprisonment.

Isabella MoKonziev. John Blatchford,—Action to recover three acres of land on the Upper Plain. Mr Skipper for plaintiff, and Mr Beard lo>'defendant. The Bench non-suited the plaintiff with costs LI Is on the ground that she had no authority to sue. .Mr Skipper gave notice of appeal.