RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 341, 3 September 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wedxesbay, September 2nd. (Before J. Giles Esq., R. M.) ASSAULT.

Hichard Hazell was charged with having on the first of September unlawfully assaulted and beaten C. M. Fox.

The prosecutor said, I am a hootmaker residing in Gladstone street Westport. On Monday night last I was at a ball at Brent's store and left this about 3 o'clock on Tuesday morning. Previous to my going away I saw the defendant who was there with oysters and T ordered a doson. Whilst eating them T had £3 in my left hand pocket, but on putting my hand iuto my pocket to get money to pay for them, I found it had gone. Hazell left before me and on my way home I called at his place. I asked him if he saw anything particular whilst I was taking the oysters, as I had lost my money. He then seized a knife off the eouuter and made a rush at me and struck me with it over the eye inflicting a severe wound. In trying to get away I fell down through putting my foot into a hole just outside the the shop when defendant attacked me again. I called, out police and then to let me alone. I ran into Gladstone 3treet and met the night watchman who walked up home with me, as I was bleeding profusely from the wound, I was told I could, not give him in to custody as the police'did not see the assault and so I laid an information against him in the morning.

Cross-examined by defendant—l have known you two years and have had no quarrel, I told you before I left the store that I had lost my money, but not before you served me with oysters. I do not think I told you I had been gambling. I did not tell youl had lost £-13. I had no scuffle with any one I had been gambling with I did not shove the man I had been gambling with outside that I know of.

I swera you stabbed ine with a knife and you said nothing but what I have stated. I did not call you a b lying thief. You did not tell me to go out of the shop, or I should be knocked out. You followed me out into the street and kictied me on the jaw and on the hip. By the Bench—l was not particularly sober, but I was not drunk, and knew particularly well what transpired. I had had one glass of gin, and one glass of claret punch at the store, and I was perfectly sober when I was there ; defendant appeared to be perfectly sober. William Pagg, night watchman, proved that on the morning in question, between three and four o'clock he heard someone say " that's the way you do it, is it ?" He turned and saw the complainant leaning against Smith and McDowell's store, and subsequently go up Gladstone street, and call police. He told witness that he had been assaulted, and that his eye had been cut I out. At the time he was bleeding, and i witness took him home,

Iu reply to defendant, witness said that when he first met complainant the latter told him that Hazoll had struck him. He did not sap that he had stabbod him till afterwards.

A. Russell called by complainant to prove that he was sober, proved that he saw him on that morning. Fie had had a good nobbier, and was pretty hot: he was not sober.

Dc Thorpe proved that ho had examiuod complainant, and found him Pilfering from a severe coutusion of the right eye, and a lacerated wound five breadths of an inch long, and a quarter of an inch deep, over the right eyebrow. He also had some slight scratches on other parts of the face. He complained of kicks on the body, but there were no bruises. 'lhe wound was caused either by a blow or by a blunt instrument, but not by a sharp i instrument.

In reply to defendant the witness said the cut might have been occasioned by knuckles.

William Lemming and Richard Sowrie called in defence, proved that complainant came into defendant's place, called him a liar, a thief, and other names, and that the latter then put him out, and struck him. The Magistrate did not think that the use of the knife had been proved, but he considered that a brutal assault had been committed, _and he should fine defendant £5, or three weeks imprisonment.