RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, WESTPORT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 225, 21 April 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, WESTPORT.

Monday, April 20. (Before J. Giles, Esq., R.M.) ASSAULT WITH INTENT. George Triplet/, a stoker on board the John Penn, was charged with an aggravated assault on Angus M'Gillivray, chief officer of the above vessel. Sergeant Williams proved the arrest of the prisoner, who then stated that he was very sorry for what he had done.

The prosecutor deposed—l am chief officer of the steamer John Penn. Wo left Hokitika last evening, and crossed the bar about five minutes after six o'clock. At that time I called a man named Michael Barrett who was drunk and lying in his bunk. On charging him with being drunk he assaulted me and a scuffle ensued, when prisoner came to Barrett's assistance and tried to throw me overboard. Both prisoner and the pother man then seized hold of me and tried to carry out their threat. Prisoner at the time was not drunk, though he was the worse for liquor. At the time it was dark and a nasty night, with a heavy sea running. The vessel was at the time about a mile and a half from land. The two men who came to my assistance were Arnold and M'Kay. The captain came up after these men had protected me. The port which they tried to put through was about three feet square, and they got me half out of it. I should have been pushed out if Arnold and M'Kay had not pulled me back. Magistrate—Do you wish to ask the witness any questions ? Prisoner (after hesitating)—No, Sir ; I don't know anything about it. The magistrate to witness—Do you think they would have thrown you out? J

Witness —I am sure of it. They Nvero uot so drunk that they did not know what they were about. William Arnold said—l am one of the seamen on board the John Bonn. I know the prisoner. Ho is one of the firemen on board that vessel. Last evening I saw the prisoner on board and noticed him coming up the stoke hole after crossing the bar. The chief officer was coming aft, and I saw a man that I know by tho name of Michael following him at about that time. Directly after that a scuffle took place between Michael and the chief officer, and prisoner went to assist Michael. It then seemed as though they, were about to put the officer through the port. His head and shoulders were through it, the two men pushing him, and Michael said he would put him through it. It ap-' peared to me that they were trying to throw him overboard. I and another went to the rescue, and the captain came up to us at the time and ordered prisoner forward, and the latter obeyed. I heard prisoner say " Knock the b down."

On the magistrate asking prisoner if he wanted to ask witness any questions, he again replied that he knew nothing about it. By the Bench—lf the mate had been thrown overboard he must have been drowned in such a sea, and on such a night the vessel could not have saved him.

John M'Kay, another of the seamen of the John Penn, corrohorated the evidence of the previous witness. By the Bench—l do not think they could have intended to throw the mate overboard. I cannot say whether it was their intention to do so or not.

The prisoner on being asked what he had to say, said that he had no intention whatever to throw the mate overboard; in fact, he had never spoken to him at the time. The Magistrate said that the prisoner had great reason to be thankful that his design had not been successful; otherwise, from the evidence given, it was clear that he would have been charged with the far graver crime of murder. As it was, there was abundant evidence to send him for trial for an aggravated assault. The prisoner was then committed to take his trial at the next sittings of the District Court holden at Westport.

civil, CASES. Ilashins v. Hardy —This was:a summons to recover the sum of £IOO for goods sold. Neither plaintiff nor defendant were represented by counsel. The plaintiff stated that he had rented a store of defendant, but the latter had neglected to pay the groundrent. The consequence was, that the original landlord issued a distress warrant, and his goods being under the same roof, were seized and sold to pay her rent. The first cost of the property seized was £175, and the least market value at the time was £125. He had -thrown off the extra £25 in order to bring it within the jurisdiction of that Court, and now claimed £IOO He had paid all his rent due, and held receipts for the same, till within a few clays of when the execution against defendant was put in. In reply to the Bench the plaintiff said, that the whole of his goods were sold. Defendant, on being asked what her defence was said, that she never had anything to do with Mr Tibby's business transactions whilst she was in his service. After his death she tried to keep going, and had paid Mr Askew, the landlord of the place, £75, being three months in advance for the rent of the house. She thought this would satisfy him, but an execution was issued for another £75 in accordance with the agreement which was, that the rent should be paid half-yearly in advance, and in addition for £23 more, making in all, £9B- She did not deny that the plaintiff's property was sold under the execution, but pleaded that she personally was not liable for it. After some further evidence, in which the statement of the plaintiff was not contradicted in any degree, the Magistrate said that he was not prepared to give judgment on the case that day. It was a matter of regret that the parties had not engaged professional assistance, for various difficult points of law arose in connexion [with the case, that might then have been argued. He did not think on looking at the summons that the plaintiff's bill of particulars was correct, for the claim was there made for goods sold, whereas it really was for damages sustained. Had professional men been employed they would have materially assisted the Court in coming to a conclusion. "Under present circumstances, it was Ja case that he could not decide hastily, and he had a doubt whether, under the form that the action had been brought, the plaintiff could recover, though doubtlessly he had a remedy. He would therefore reserve judgment till Wednesday next.