RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 594, 16 December 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, Dec. 14. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E. M.) Constable Williams was charged, on the information of Thomas Dewdney, with having committed an assault. The complainant said : On the evening of Saturday week, as I was passing down Gladstone street, I saw Williams, who said he wanted to speak to mo. In about two minutes I returned, aud he, saying he wished to speak to me, took me out into the street, and asked me two or three questions. I said "Just mind your own business, Williams. I have told you that before now." A few remarks were made, and I left him, and went into Steel's Hotel. He came in after me, and made use of a few remarks again. I said " Look here, Williams; I have got enough of your dogging about; I'll have no more of it." He was not very complimentary, and I said " The best thing you can do is to clear out. I'll have no more of your nonsense." He left, and returned in about five minutes. I was sitting down, and he came aud sat alongside of me, and asked me to have a drink. I said "No ; I don't want to have anything to do with you; I've got tired of all this." . And I rose with the intention of going into the parlor. He rose, followed me, and struck me —a slight touch on the jaw. I resented the injury, struck him lightly, and threw him down. When he got up he put himself in a fighting attitude, and I struck him again. Mr Sheahan came in, and took Williams into the parlor, and afterwards to the Camp. On the following morning when I laid the information Williams said—" lam sorry for what happened last night. I was rather tight, or I would not have done it. I hope you will look it over, and say no more about it." I said it was unpardonable ; it was only three weeks before that, when he was sober, he challenged me to fight on the beach; and I called the attention of the Inspector to this system of dogging three months previously. By the defendant : It was not me that was looking for you, but you for me. Tes ; I have asked you to drink several times ; but I told you then to clear away from me. Tou struck me first, most distinctly. By the Magistrate: He was not asking for information about police matters. This is the third time he has put questions to me about a certain party.

T. Sheahan, while passing Steel's Hotel, heard a scuffle, and, looking in, saw a constable's cap on the floor, a constable lying on the floor, and Mr Dewdney in a fighting attitude, with his fists up. He lifted the constable, who proved to be Williams. He was bleeding from the nose or mouth, or both.

By the defendant: Mr Dewdney complained of the police having a down on him, and hunting him out of the place, on behalf of Jeanie Anderson. He appeared to be jealous of you on the subject. Ee appeared to dislike your freedom down there, and stated that the misunderstanding between you and him was your being so much about the premises. By the complainant: That was what I understood to be the tenor of your remarks. I have no idea how long it

is since you were on Mrs Anderson's premises. The defendant interrupted by stating that Mr Sheahan had entirely mistaken his meaning. By the Magistrate: Williams seemed to be the worse of liquor. Dewdney was certainly sober enough for all reasonable purposes. Mrs Steel, called by the defendant, said she heard Dewdney order him out of her house, and call him a low scoundrel. She prevented Dewdney from striking him, and she did not see Williams strike Dewdney. She did not know who struck first. The defendant's statement was that Dewdney had been looking after him for some time, as he had once arrested Dewdney, and on another occasion he had, on his account, been sent for with another constable. He (Williams) was going out of the hotel when Dewdney up with his fist and knocked him down.

The Magistrate said that, in dealing with the case as a charge of assault, he had nothing to do with the defendant being a police constable. He had simply to consider it as a charge against an ordinary person. In that view he did not see that the charge was substantiated. It was simply a quarrel between two persons, one of whom was in liquor. Whether he struck or not, the defendant seemed to have sustained at the time any penalty he deserved; and the charge of assault must be dismissed. Looking at the case otherwise, it was discreditable that a constable should be concerned in an affray of the kind; and it was a matter which called for investigation by the proper authorities. Sergeant Kiely intimated that the matter had been represented in the proper quarter. CIVIL CASES. O'Conor v. Eockstrow.—A claim of £6 15s for rent of a cottage payable monthly in advance for six months according to the terms of a written agreement which the plaintiff put in. The defendant pleaded not indebted. In the first place there had, he said, been a verbal agreement that certain repairs and improvements should be made on the house, and that had not been done. In the second place he held a receipt for one month's rent with which he was charged—the month from October 2nd to November 2nd —which receipt he had fortunately saved from the fire. The Magistrate said he could consider nothing outside of the written agreement, which contained no reference to repairs. With regard to the receipt, the plaintiff said he had charged the wrong months in his bill of particulars—it should have been November and December, instead of October and November. The Magistrate accepted the explanation of the mistake, and, amending the bill of particulars, gave judgment for the amount claimed, as owing to ~fche plaintiff under the Written agreement. If the case showed anything, and if the defendant's statement was correct, it showed that parties should have any understanding between them fully stated in the written agreement. London Brothers v. O'Brien.—A claim of £1 2s for a currant bun at the price of one shilling, a receipt stamp of the value of one shilling, damage done to goods, and horse-hire 10s. The plaintiffs are storekeepers at the Caledonian Terrace ; the defendant is Mary O'Brien, of the same locality. The defendant admitted her indebtedness for the currant bun, value one shilling, but repudiated the other items. The Magistrate disallowed the claim for damages, because they were not specified in the bill of particulars. With regard to horse-hire, the plaintiff said the defendant refused to pav for the horse because he was " a horse" that would not go," but he could show that he was a horse that had gone and would go. The fact was that she passed the worst of the road to town from the terrace, and had stopped at Anderson's accommodation house, sending back the horse with one Denny, who said she had fallen off the horse, had nearly broken her arm, and was lying at Anderson's. Next morning she returned, and laughed at them (the plaintiffs.) The defendant's statement to the Bench was that the the horse "stuck her up " at Anderson's - He had gone on other occasions, but on this oceasion he was " used up," and she had to unstrip him of the saddle, mount one of Anderson's horses, and send the other back. Anderson clearly corroborated her statement—he took the horse by the bridle, and " gave it the stick," but it was of no use. In reply to the plaintiff ho said that the horse was not, to his knowledge, a horse which was in the habit of stopping at houses when it had ladies on him because they were in the habit of stopping to drink. The Magistrate thought that in hiring a horse to go to the Buller, it was implied in the contract that he would go, and in this case it was clear that he would not go. He gave a verdict for Is, the price of the currant bun, with 9s cost, the defendant having neglected to pay the shilling into Court. The verdict did not prevent the plaintiffs from suing again for the alleged " damages."