RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 277, 20 June 1868, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Mondai, June 15, (Before J. Giles, Esq., R.M., and .T. R. Dutton, Esq.) LARCENY. A. Wise was charged with stealing money from the person of a man who did not appear, and the case was adjourned to compel prosecutor's attendance. BREACH OP LICENSING ACT. 11. Fry was charged with having allowed riotous conduct in his house, the Volunteer Hotel. Sergeant Franklyn said ho would

ttlso ask for the license to be suspended, as the house was one of the most disorderly in the town, and gave the police more trouble than all the houses put together. Sergeant Williams was called to give evidence as to the general character of the house. He stated that on Friday last a great disturbance was going on in the house, after 11 o'clock. The house generally was very disorderly. In reply to the Bench, the witness said on Friday night the only person making a disturbance was Mrs Fry. Constables Pringle and Drury gave similar evidence, though from the evidence of the latter it appeared that defendant was innocent of the disturbance on Friday, his wife being the sole cause of it. Mr Downe, clerk of the Court, proved that on December 13, defen-, dant was fined £3 and costs ; on the "2nd of March, £4 and costs, and on the 15th May the same amount. All the.se fines were inflicted for breaches of the Licensing Ordinance. Defendant said that he had nothing to do with the disturbance. There was more noise in other houses, but it was looked over. All the reason was that he was selling beer at sixpence a pint, and there was a down on him for that on the part of the other publicans. The Bench said that on looking a,t the Act, there was no medium between dismissing the ease and cancelling the license. Had there been, it might have been a matter for merciful consideration, however little he deserved it. As it was, there was no alternative, and taking all the evidence into consideration, they had no hesitation in recommending the Superintendent to cancel the license. Inspector Franklyn asked if his Worship directed the police to close ?the house, pending the reply to the recommendation. The Magistrate did not think he had power to do that. Civil Cases. P. Smythe and Co. v. Leathern.— Verdict by default for £26 19s. 7d., with immediate execution. Tuesday, Jtjne 16. (Before J. G-iles, Esq., R.M.) LARCENY. E Wise, charged with stealing < money from a man whose name was ] not mentioned, was again remanded, j as the prosecutor did not appear. Later ] in the day he was discharged, as it was i proved that prosecutor had left West- , port. ASSAULT. Nathan Abrahams was charged with assaulting J. Bafferty—The evidence ! showed that the complainant first •, threw water over defendant, when the latter knocked his hat off. The j defendant further said, that before the ] row took place, the complainant used ; filthy and insulting language towards t him. i The Bench dismissed the case, re- i marking that if defendant was assaul- > ted he seemed to have brought it on himself. < VIOLENT ASSAULT. g John Hunter was charged, with ( violently assaulting Catharine Abra- i hams, on the Bth instant. j Mr. Tyler, appeared for the defen- f dant. 1 Mrs. Abrahams, said—l am the s wife of Nathan Abrahams and reside e in Molesworth Street. On the night s of the Bth of this month Mr. Abrahams 1 was ill, and we went to bed between f 8 and 9 o'clock. I was in bed about ] 20 minutes when Mrs. Carlisle, a i neighbour of ours called out to Mr. t Abrahams, that there was a drunken 1 man at the door, and that he would s not go away. I said I would get up, f and I went out with only a petticoat s on. When I went out I saw no one, s but on turning to go away Mrs. Carlisle, 2 called out that he was walking round j the house. I looked and, saw the de- 1 fendant who was whistling, and had 1 his hands in his pockets. I told Mrs. Carlisle to tell him that she would go c for a policeman if he did not go away, and she did so. The man said, go, I I will wait till you come back ; and she s went to detective Lambert's house. I I said to defendant, why do you not go r away, you are making a mistake. He £ said all he wanted was a —and I i would do, and at the same time ad- t vanced towards me, as if to strike me ; I I backed to avoid him, and Mrs. Carlisle <3 told me to take care for that he had 1 something in his hand, and directly 1 afterwards I tripped and fell on my c back. He got hold of me by the s throat, and his knee or other hand c was also on me. I got up on my c knee and he commenced dragging me, ( -When Mr. Abrahams came out to my t assistance. There was something in v his hand whieh I thought was a stone. 1 i At the same time another man came r ffls_well as Mr. Abrahams to my as-

1, sistance. Defendant then let me go, i- but subsequently seized me by the e petticoat aud began dragging me. I s had no shoes or stockings on at the time. My husband called to him to 0 let me go, and he did let me go, and ,- began shaping at him. Abrahams t called out dont strike me, I'm not able s to fight, I have got a bad face. Defendant again attacked me, saving, I - will have revenge, and pushed me against a house. Abrahams then 3 called out murder, and said to the 1 people are you going to see a woman murdered ? Another with Abrahams > came up then when defendant made ■ a kick at me and I fell down senseless, ; and remember no more about it. Cross examined by Mr. Tyler—s When I saw the defendant I did not ; speak to him, Mrs. Carlisle did. I , told defendant to go away before he , struck me, and said he was making a mistake. Mrs. Carlisle came back first, as I fell before the defendant touched me. Mr. Lambert did not come then, nor was there anyone there but Mrs. Carlisle. When she came back she ran past me calling out police. She did not want to take me away forcibly from the man. I did not go into the house, when Abrahams first came out, because I saw defendant had a knife in his hand, and I was afraid he would strike my husband. Mrs. Carlisle called out and said defendant had a knife in his hand. I did not use language to the man calculated to insult and. annoy him. I have seen no doctor but Dr. Worrall. I did not strike any man's hat off the day after, nor did I have a row with my husband. I never in my life had my husband to court. I never offered £2 to any one to get it settled. Defendant, with Mr. Sloan, came to my house last night, and wanted to settle it. I said I had no wish to prosecute him as I supposed he had taken me for the wrong woman, and he said he had. I did not say that the man did strike me. The Magistrate remarked, that she did not say in evidence that he did : strike her. Cross-examination resumed He, i defendant, asked what the doctor's bill would be, aud I said he had sent in his ( bill for £lO, but that if it was me I i was not able to pay it. I also told i him that I was sorry he was locked up so long, and I asked the doctor when he was attending me to get him out. I never offered to settle it, neither did my husband in my hearing. Sloan went out with my husband and defen- ; dant remained with me. I know nothing of any agreement taking place for £2O and the doctor's expenses. I was in Dunedin five years on Bell Hill. I never was in any difficulty in my life about any disorderly house. i By the Bench—l have had fits since, i and previously I never had a fit in my j life. This occurred on Monday night, ; and I was confined to my bed till ; Saturday. I think defendant was the worse for drink at the time, but he • was not very drunk for he could walk ■ well. ] Mary Carlisle, the wife of William Carlisle, living in Molesworth street, : gave similar evidence as to a man : coming to her place, though she could i not identify the defendant as the one, ( and attempting to force the door open. She opened the door after some timeand 1 told him he had made a mistake. He < said he had not, and that he intended 1 staying there all night, and witness j said she would go for the police, but '• he said she could do as she liked about i that for no one could take him away, s He tried to catch her then, and she ] ran and called to Mr Abrahams for i assistance. She corroborated Mrs Abra- 1 ham's statement as to what occurred 1 subsequently, and saw him as if about i to strike her when witness ran away to ; seek a policeman. On her return she ; saw defendant holding complainant ] against Mr Wignell's house. The i next morning she found a butchers 1 knife on the ground where the struggle ■ had taken place. i By the Bench—Mrs Abrahams was ( carried in senseless after this. /' ] Mr Tyler cross-examined the witness but failed to shake her evidence in the j slightest degree as to the facts. She ] had had some conversation, the previous i night with Mr Cox, who was in Mr 1 Smyth's store, and was telling him how 1 it happened. She did not tell him < that she had sonie difficulty in getting 1 Mrs Abrahams away from the defen- j dant. She had often talked about the s matter with Mrs Abrahams since but 1 never said anything about settling it j out of court, she could not have done so, for she had never seen anyone to offer to settle it, Mrs Abrahams never i offered her £2 to get it settled; Mr 1 Cox told witness he had offered money j to get it settled. Mrs Abrahams told i witness an offer had been made to have i it. settled, but Mr Abrahams would I not have it. ( Dr. Worrall proved that he had been ■

called in to the complainant after this occurrence, and found her in a very agitated and tremulous state. She complained of being injured in the throat, and 011 examination he found a red circle round the throat and a few scratches on both sides, right and left. There was also a scratch on her left leg. He ordered her some warm drinks and very soon after that she was seized with vomiting and complained of strong uterine pains. He gave her a composing draught and remained with her until past 12 o'clock, when she became more quiet. Next morning she was but little better, the vomiting continuing. He attended her for a week and she was confined to her bed till the Sunday following the assult. The marks would be caused by hands grasping complainants throat and the other symptoms would be caused through fright, the woman being pregnant. She was for ten days in danger a miscarriage. The symptoms generally were arising more from a nervous shock, than from any actual violence used.

In reply to Mr Tyler, the witness said the complainant was within six or seven weeks of her confinement. Nathan Abrahams, husband of the complainant was examined, but merely corroborated the evidence already given. In reply to Mr Tyler, witness denied that he had offered to accept £2O in settlement. The parties had several times tried to settle it, but he had refused. He emphatically denied that he struck the prisoner with a stone in the face, or touched him, beyond catching him round the body. Detective Lambert proved that on the night in question he heard cries of murder, and on going to the spot from where they proceeded, saw Abrahams holding the defendant by the left shoulder. On getting up to where the people were standing he saw some one fall and found that it was Mrs Abrahams , who was insensible. He was under the impression that she had fainted. On enquiring what was the matter, Abrahams said that defendant had been ill-using his (Abrahams') wife, and witness took defendant into custody, and Abrahams subsequently came to the lock-up and signed the charge sheet. In reply to Mr Tyler, witness said that the defendnnt was drunk at the time, but did not resist at all. There was blood on his face, but witness did not see that he had black eyes till the next morning. When witness saw him, defendant said he gave himself up. > This closed the case for the prosecution. The Magistrate would dismiss the charge as laid for assault with intent to commit grievous bodily harm, and it was arranged that it should be taken as a summons case, the evidence as already given to be admitted. Mr Tyler remarked that this case was not so serious as had been made to appear outside that Court. He need not ask his "Worship, as was usual when addressing a jury, to dismiss from his mind all that he might have seen in the press, for his "Worship was of course far better up in his duties than jurymen were in theirs. He did think it was most unseemly that the press should comment on any case that was about to be brought before a Court, and he specially objected to such hot paragraphs as had appeared in reference to this case particularly. It might be true that a serious assault had been committed, but not of the aggravated character that had been represented, and from the fact that his Worship haddismissed the first information, it was certain that it was not so very serious after all. He then proceeded to analyse the evidence of the complainant at length, with a view to show f hat the utmost credence should not be placed in her statement as there were discrepancies in it; that at the most only a trifling assault had been committed, and that the circumstances had been much exaggerated. On the part of the defendant he expressed great sorrow for what he had done, and he had made every attempt to settle the matter, but the money demanded was too exorbitant. He (Mr Tyler) contended that if an assault had been committed some provocation must have been given to defendant, and therefore it must only be dealt with as a common assault, and punished in the same way that ordinary assaults were —by the infliction of a moderate money penalty. On behalf of the defendant, he called Timothy Gallagher, the newly elected member for the district, who said that he had known defendant some time, and he believed him to be as innocent a man when in a state of drink as any man in the world. He had never known him insult man or woman, drunk or sober, and he was a hardworking honest man.

Samuel Gilmer bore testimony to the quiet character of defendant. He had seen him drunk once but he never heard him say a cross word to any one. Patrick Smyth had known defendant some time to be a quiet, honest, and hard-working man, and never saw him drunk but on the night when he was taken into custody. The defendant gave a statement of some negociations that had been entered into with the view of settling the I matter, and said that the husband of complainant had offered not to press the case if £2O was paid for him into the hands of a party in town. The magistrate after giving his reasons for dismissing the information said, that there were circumstances that mitigated the assault in some degree, as the good character he had received showed that his conduct on this occasion was contrary to his usual habits, still the facts were such that he did not think would be met by the imposition of a pecuniary penalty. He explained fully his reasons for coming to this conclusion, and sentenced the defendant to two weeks imprisonment with hard labor.