RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 364, 30 September 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, 29 Seqtember. (Before J. Giles Esq., R.M.) ASSAJLT by a prisoner. John Trafford, a prisoner, was charged with assaulting James Coulahan, a Warder of the gaol, on Friday the 25th, and on the morning of Tuesday the 29th instant.

According to the evidence of Coulabau, it appeared, that on taking the prisoner's blankets to his cell 011 Friday evening and requesting him to get up and make his bed, the latter refused, and a scuffle ensued between them during which the prisoner seized hold of Coulahan's whiskers and so held on until obliged to let go. He also com. mitted another assault that morning. Having refused to wash himself he had to be carried out and washed by force, and while doing his duty in that way Coaluhan was struck by the prisoner a violent blow on the mouth which had the effect of loosening some of his teeth. This witness, evidence was confirmed in all material points by that of another warder who was present at the time.

John Leathern, examined, said be was in the gaol on the evening of the 25th and saw Coulahan carry some blankets into the prisoners cell and ask him to get up —prisoner told him to go to the d , and witness then heard a scuffle and heard Conlahan ask Traftbrd to let go his whiskers. This witness was cross-examined by the prisonea with a view apparently to show that partality was exhibited in the treatment of the prisoners, but was stopped by his worship who remarked that he was not sitting there to try the general treatment, and that if prisoners had anything to complain of they should complain to the visiting justice. Prisoner—very little good that womld be lam afraid. Magistrate : —Well you must confine yourself now to the case before the Court.

John Jones and George Anderson was called and gave evidence of similar character to that of the last witness All the witnesses were perseveringly cross-examined by the prisoner without however any portion of their evidence being shaken, and in reply to questions put by him, they declared they knew of his being occasionally punished with solitary confinement, but had never seen him struck or ill treated by the gaol officials. A fellow prisoner named Thomas Nbolan was exanmined for the defence but without anything material to the case being elicited. On being asked if he had anything to say in his defence, the prisoner made a long statement, to the effect that ho had been provoked to commit the assault by being called an " old lao - ," and other abusive epithets by the gaoler nn'l warders, who bad also otherwise ill treated him. Near th conclusion of his harangue, the pri-

sober apparently became so -overpowered by excitement that he had to stop, aud sit down until revived by a glass of water. In sentencing the prisoner to two months additional imprisonment, the Magistrate observed that if it had been clearly shewn that the assaults had been purely premeditated, he should have sent the case to be dealt with by a higher Court, instead of passing a summary judgment. He also thought it to obsarve that, as a visiting Justice of the Peace, he often visited the gaol, aud prisoners having any complaint to make, had therefore frequent opportunities to do so.

civil C.VSES. The Superintendent v. Evans—This was a claim of £35 for maintenance of defendant's children since April last, at the rate of £l2 per month. Judgement confessed. Wm. Ancell v. Rooke—A disputed claim of 18s 6d. Plaintiff non-suited. Metcalfe v. Brown—Claim £lO 7s, of which £5 5s was paii into Court. Mr Tyler appeared for the plaintiff The la'ter, on being sworn, said that he had been engaged some Weeks ago by the defendant, at a salary of £3 per week, but had recently been dismissed at a moment's notice without any fault being found with him. by defendant, further than his saying that the plaintiff was not pushing enough as a drapers assistant, and that he declinedto " stick it on " in the way of asking purchasers extreme prices. In addition to a weeks wages the plaintiff claimed £2 for expenses he had been put to in consequence of the defendants not paying him what was due. The defendant on the other hand stated that hehad told plaintiff the the first week that lie entered his enployment that he would not suit and he would have to look out for another situation. Judgment for £3 in addition to the money paid into Court, and costs. Elward v Fahey.—Claim £ls for for money lent. Judgment for plaintiff by default.