R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3753, 13 March 1891, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON—THURSDAY.

(Before Colonel Roberts, R'M.)

Clifton v Parsons. -Claim for the recovery of a horse sold by the bailiff to defendant, with damages £5. Mr Pownall for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant. The contention of the plaintiff was that, although the property had been sold by the bailiff, although not belonging to the defendant, he, the plaintiff, had not lost his common law right to the property, and could recover it from the person who bought it at the bailiff's sale. G. W. Deller, butcher, of Carter-: ton, Bworn, staled ho was a trustee in the estate of the late Mr Clifton. The mare Nanakaia had been claimed by Mrs Clifton,but to obviate any dispute or trouble when the estate was being disposed of, the trustees had the mare sold, and he, aB trustee, had bought it for Mrs Clifton. Mrs Clifton had no right to deal with the property without his sanction. Mr Pownall applied to have ths name of Mr Deller inserted as co* plaintiff. Mr Beard objected, but after some discussion the application was granted. Considerable argument took place on tho facts of the case, which was a vory . , intricate one, and the case was finally adjourned for a month on the application oi Mr Pownall with a-view to a settlement. j Further evidence-was taken in the case Jaclcson v. Johnson, which at Bix ' I o'clock was adjourned.

FRIDAY BREACH OF BOROUQH BY-LAWS. J. 0. Ingram vT. P. Lett. Breach of Borough By Laws in driving loose horses through the streets. Fined 2s 6d and costs, 7s. DISTURBING SALVATION ARMY MEETING.

Charles Bentley was charged under the Pohce Offences Act with ing a Salvation Army Meeting on 26th February. The defendant pleaded guilty. Sergeant Price Btated that tho caso had been brought to to put a stop to rowdyism which was becoming prevalent in the town, and especially in tha Salvation Army Barracks. .The Salvationists were a harmless lot of people and should not be molested. Captain Close and Seorotary Wyeth gave evidence a 8 to the offence. The accused was severely roprimanded by- the Bench, but as the charge was not pressed by tho captain, a fine of Is and 9s costs was inflictod. ASSAULT. Cornelius Dixon v Clark. Assault* Mr Pownall for plaintiff, Mr Beard for defendant.

Cornelius Dixon, sworn, deposed: I am complainant ia this case. On Friday last early in the morning. I met Mr Clark, who had threatened me on tho previous morning in my own paddock. He met me on the road, and turning round said, " You ' old b , I've got you now." With that he struck at me. He then flew at me and got hold of me. He threw mo on the ground ani kicked me on the side. Whilst on the ground he hit me three or four times on the face. I caught hold of him by tho whiskerß, and he then got told of a stone and said he would smash my face in if I did not let go. He was kneeling on me at the time. "When I releasad my hold he got up and walked away. I received injuries to my groin, cuts on my face, and a black eye. lam in fear be will do mo further bodily harrc. When I come home from church ho continually annoys me, as he is working in his garden all day Sunday. lam not jfc) taking the pres3nt action out of any malice.

By Mr Beard : I saw nobody about at the time, tat I believe my wife saw what took place, as she followed me out. She was at the corner of tha cross roads, which was about a quarter of a wilo from my bouse I did not nsk my wife to follow me. Clark's property adjoins mine. I had no reason to expect that I would meet Clark on the morning ia ques - tion. I saw my wife immediately I got up from the ground. She had followed me because she expected an assault. Clark did nothing to me more than 1 have related. I always take a whip with mo to utfiv cows, and I had one on tbe*|Wking in question. I had not spsOi to tho defendant for yeais before this morning. I may state that on one occasion the defendant indecently exposed his person before my wife and roysolf, Clark did not ask mo if I had poisoned his dog. The day before tho assault , took placo he was in my paddook and shouted out, " Who poisoned the dog 1" He did not mention anything about the dog on the day in question. I am not aware that my whip was_ r broken on the day of the assault. SPi. v N lost no part of it. I did not use tho whip upon ; Clark this I will swoar. I made no remark whatovor to the defendant before he spoko to me, I have a number of friends on tho Upper Plain; my neighbours are friendly with me. It is only tho lower order that is unfriendly to me —the ruffians and drunkards, who do' ' not like to see me get on. I was once bound over to keep the peace, but this was a cross action brought in self dofence. To Mr Pownnll: Mr Clark has, also been bound over to keep the peace,' Ido not belong to the neigh , bours'union, and therefore am boycotted. I know nothing of tha head of the whip produced. Elizabeth Dixon, wife of the complainant, stated. that on tho morning |in question she became alarmed on .seeing the defendant go down for.bift--1 \ > ' v

cowb half an hour earlier than nsua), and she walked down the road quietly When she got down to the end of : the road she saw her husband cetting up from the road. His face was bleeding and he was walking larae. .By Mr Beard: Thig was all she ' sw on this occasion. She saw no blows struck. She had hoard the defendant threaten her husband. She not recollect her husband saving anything to her on the morning iu question about Clark. She did not recognise the whip or the handle produced as her husband's. All she knew was that her husband had receded a pretty severe handling from . "that old brute." She could not tell the shime of the knob oF a whip, but knew the shape of old Clark's hands. They were like " legs of mutton" (laughter.) Dr Beard deposed to having examined Mr Dixon. He found him Buffering from a black eye and pains in the side. He had also a cut on the lower lip. This was the case for the plaintiff. Adam Clark, swora, stated : I am defendant in this case. I have been unable to terms with Dison. I had to Tinui and when I returned I found a valuable dog of mine poisoned. On Thursday morning I shouted out, " who | poisoned the dog *?" He replied, " you dare not say so before a witness." On the morning of the 6th I went tc work some time b&tneen six and j seven. I met Dixon on the road, and he said, "You dare not repeat what you said yesterday morning?" I said ye 3 I will," and asked, " who poisoned the dog Dixon then struck me with the whip on the arm. I caught hold of his whip and twisted it frop-him. I had not spoken to him before. The witness was cross examined at some length by Mr Pownall, but stoutly maintained that Dixon was the aggressor. As a cross action was brought by Clark against Dixon for assault on the same day, and under the same circumstances, the Bench decided to biud both parties oyer to keep the peace for a month in thtir own recognisance ofLlO.