RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 842, 27 July 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, July 25. (Before J. Giles, Esq.,E.M.) MtriTSON V. WEST. The defendant, in this case, Ellen West, was charged, upon information, with assaulting a child of eight years, the daughter of Job Munson. Mr Pitt appeared for the complainant, and Mr Home defended. Mr Pitt briefly explained the facts ho would in connection with the alleged assault which, he believed would be found to be such as to show the necessity of the defendant being required to find sureties for her maintaining the peace during the ensuing six months. If he was properly instructed Mrs Wright, who acts in the , capacity of housekeeper to Mr Munson, and who has charge of the child upon whom the assault was committed, was in a neighbour's house adjoining Mr Munson's shop. The child was with her, and, while playing about the door was suddenly followed by Mrs West into Mrs White's shop, as far as the partition dividing the shop from the parlour, and, in the presence of Mrs Wright the defendant, struck the child on the side of the head in an unjustifiable and violent manner. He must, add also that the occasion complained of was not the only one on which the defendant had assaulted and, abused the child. The complainant" had continually experienced insults and indignities of a similar character. The following evidence was then taken. Jane Wright; I reside at Mr Munson's. i know the defendant, Ellen West: She resides two doors from Mr Munson. I remember Thursday, July 13. I was in Mrs White's parlour on the afternoon of that day. Her house, adjoins Mr

Munson's premises. Adelia Munson had been in the parlour with me, and either went into the street or to the door for a minute. She was not longer than that from my presence. She returned, and was standing against the sitting-room door, when she was followed by Mrs West, who struck her in the face. She called the child a little bastard, and a little wretch. It is not the first time she has similarly abused her. Mrs West's manner was very violent, and I told the child to fetch her father. By Mr Home: The children are always quarrelling and fighting in the neighbourhood. Mrs West has children of her own. She never complained to me about the child; in fact, I have net spoken to her for twelve months. The child was fully a minute at the sitting-room door before Mrs West arrived. By the Bench; The child is between eight and nine. I heard no disturbance outside the shop beyond that of children playing. Ellen White: I am the wife of George White, and live in Gladstonestreet adjoining Mr Munson's. Mrs AVright was in my parlour on the afternoon of Thursday, the 13th inst. Adelia also came in, and as near as I can recollect, both came in together. Mrs West came in shortly after, and struck the child on the face. I was alarmed, and walked out. Neither did I wish to be brought as a witness to this court. By Mr Home: The defendant struck the child in the face with her open hand, so that her head came in contact with the partition. I did not hear her say anything to the child. Mr Home then addressed the Court, stating that the case was a most trumpery one. It appeared that the defendant, so far as the complainant had shown, had administered a trifling box on the ear. The defendant herself was a middle aged woman, and the mother of children, and it was ridiculous to suppose that she should have administered such chastisement to the child as should have justified the extreme course of laying an information and asking that she might be bound over to keep the peace. He regarded the case as a most paltry and unfortunate one, arising out of a mere neighhour's quarrel. The most charitable course for the Court to pursue would be to dismiss it, and after the evidence he should produce, showing the nature of the alleged assault and the provocation given, he had little doubt that the Bench would concur in the view that the information should have never been laid.

Michael Peel: I know Mrs West, and I know the child Adeiia Munson. I recollect Thursday, July 13th, and I saw the child Munson about five o'clock on that day. There was a scramble between her and Mrs West's children about a cake. Adeiia pushed Mrs West's two children down, and then went into Mrs White's shop. Mrs West followed her and gave her a blow such as would be ordinarily administered as a corrective to a child. I was too far distant to hear anything that was said. Mrs Wright was recalled, and in reply to his Worship stated that she took charge of Adeiia Munson. His Worship stated that, before giving decision, it would be desirable to take the two remaining informations. WRIGHT V. WEST AND WEST V. WEIGHT. Mr Pitt and Mr Home appeared in each case for the complainants and the defendants respectively. It was agreed that both cases should be taken together. Mr Pitt trusted that the Court would not regard the information, in this case, as the paltry matter that the defendant would make it appear. His client was a married woman who had her protection from the EM. Court and consequently was obliged to earn her own livelihood. Her position was one, therefore, rendering it especially necessary that any attack upon her character should be resenteJ, and that the court should not regard such attack as trumpery. He quite agreed that it was in the last degree uudesiruble that such cases should be dragged before the public, or before a court of justice ; but the fact that his client had submitted to the exposure might be accepted as a test of the nature of the assault complained of, -and- of the necessity that the defendant should be required to be bound over to keep the peace. By the evidence he should prove that a violent assault had been committed, and very insulting and abusive language used. With respect to the information laid by Mrs West, the Court would notice that it was taken out several days after his client had laid an information and, could, therefore, only have been an afterthought—done for the purpose of a make-weight and to insure the reception of Mrs West's evidence.

The evidence of Jane Wright was then taken. I have been in Mr Mun-' son's service as housekeeper for nearly three years. I have a protection from my husband. When Mrs West struck the child Adelia Munson, I told her not to do so again. She immediately called me names, and flew at me, scratching my face. She had a baby in her arms. She got rid of the baby, and I went into the inside room at the back of Mrs White's shop. She followed me, and knocked me down calling me moat horrid names. I called for Mr Munson, and she said that I might call him; she did not care for the bully. I had nothing in my hand at that time, except a piece of neodlo work Mr Munson arrived shortly after, and took her off me. My

face was scratched all over by the defendant. The followiug day I laid an information. By Mr Home; Mrs "West assaulted me without the slightest provocation beyond my interfering on behalf of the child. Hey manner was most violent. ] t alarmed Mrs White, who left, that she might not bo a witness to the assault. _ I got bold of a broom that wa3 against the partition, and warded off Mrs West's attack with it. I held it before me, and warned her not to repeat her attack, stating that I would make her answer for her abuse and blows. J did not strike her with it. She wrested the broom from my grasp. She had a child in her arms. " I went into the back room while she was eucumbered with the child, intending to get through the back to Mr Munson's shop adjoining. She came flyiug alter me with the broom in her hand. Job L. Munson stated that he was sitting in his parlour on the afternoon of the assault when he heard a noise in the shop adjoining. He thought some persons might be sky larking, and took no notice, but, as the commotion increased, he got up to see what was the cause of the disturbance. On his way he heard a woman calling somebody a , and with that he commenced to ruu. On getting into the parlour he found-Mrs "Wright sitting or lying on a chair at the foot of the bed, and Mrs West standing over her. Mrs Wright had hold of Mrs West's hair, and Mrs West returned the compliment by dragging Mrs Wright's hair, and with" the disengaged hand was busily occupied clawing Mrs Wright's face; Mrs Wright at the time endeavouring to shield her face wi.th her left arm. Witness took hold of Mrs West's arm for the purpose of releasing Mrs Wright, but said nothing "neither good, bad, nor indifferent." Mrs West relaxed her hold of Mrs Wright's locks, and turning round to see who had interfered, immediately paid witness the compliment of calling him " her bully," having reference to Mrs Wright. Witness, having succeeded in putting, an end to the fray, made no remark, but walked quickly away. Mr Home then called the rebutting evidence of Mrs West.

The witness stated that, after administering a slight correction to Adeiia Munson, Mrs Wright flew from the parlour, seized a broom, and belaboured her (witness,) while she used every effort to ward the blows from the child and herself. Mrs Wright kuocked the scales off the counter with the broom. Witness called for the nursemaid to take the child, and subsequently got hold of the broom when Mrs Wright, becoming frightened, called for Munson. Witness went into her own bouse with her hair down. In cross-examination Mrs West stated that she never opened her lips during the whole occurrence. Nobody but their two selves were in the shop.

Michael Peel stated that he was in the middle of the street, and distinctly saw Mrs Wright strike Mrs West or the child repeatedly with the broom. He heard nothing said beyond Mrs West calling out " child." Both parties went " head and hand " into the back room and were then lost to witness's view. The defendant West, on the first information, was fined 20s and costs. Both the following informations were dismissed. police t. m'leod.

Daniel M'Leod, charged with unlawfully removing driftwood from the sea beach between the Buller and Orawaiti contrary to the of the Superintendent, pleaded not guilty. James Arthurs Maguire stated that on July 21st he saw the defendant with another man sawing a log which was lying in the middle of Palmerston and Gladstone-streets. He mentioned to the defendant that he knew the police had instructions to stay parties from interfering with the driftwood. The defendant, in reply, stated that he was getting the log preparatory to removing the G-aol. The log was not removed. Samuel Alexander Leach, HarbourMaster, proved that he had given no one permission to remove any driftwood from the beach. The place where the log lay was included in the boundaries proclamed by the Superintendent as Crown laud from which drift-wood should not be removed. For the defence, Walter Bull was called, who stated that he instructed the defendant to level tvi o sides of the log, and to prepare it for certain work. About a fortnight previously, the Provincial Engineer had instructed him to get certain logs ready. Acting upon that he had instructed M'Leod. On the day in question a carpenter came and told him that people were complainingof what M'Leod was doing. Witness immediately saw M'Leod and ordered him to desist until he had seen the Provincial Engineer. He saw him a few minutes afterwards, and was informed that his instructions had reference only to round and squared timbers which were the property of the Provincial Government. At the outsafc it was not intended to remove the Timber.

The defendant stated that he claimed an acquittal on the grounds that the information charged him with removing the timber, whereas the timber was not removed, neither was it intended that it should be removed. Mr Pitt, who conducted the case on behalf of the police, contended that the taking possession of the log and sawing it, amounted to a constructive

removal. If it were not so, a conviction would always be difficult. A person might be removing timbor, and as soon as seen by the police put it dowu again, claiming not to have removed it from the sea beach. _ His Worship stated that but for the circumstance of M'Leod having continued sawing after being spoken to by Maguire, ho should have inflicted a merely nominal finoof ashilling without costs. Ho concurred iu the view taken by the prosecution with respect to the defendant's act having amounted to a constructive removal. The defendant would be fined 20s and costs, in addition to one guinea counsel's fee. LABCENY. William Ilauna was charged, upon tho information of Daniel .M'Leod, with stealing a pile ring of the value of 20s. It appeared that M'Leod had placed the ring outside his office in Wharf street, and had missed it from its place, and at once went to the river and searched the boats. He found it used by Ilauna as a stern mooring for his boat. Mr Pitt, who appeared for the defendant, showed that there had been no attempt at concealment, that the piece of iron had been found upon the river bank, and used by the defendant as a stern mooring His Worship was of opinion that the evidence of a felonious intent was insufficient, and dismissed the case. Civil Cases. Lavette v. Parer. —Claim for £2l 3s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff in the amount claimed and costs. Lavette v. Hayne.—Claim for £5 1-43 3d. Judgment by consent in the sum of £4> 10s and costs. Stitt Brothers v. Hayne.—The defendant in this case was summoned to show cause why he had neglected to pay £5 19s Sd, the amount of a judgment obtained by the plaintiffs. Mr Horneappeared for the plaintiffs. His Worship ordered the sum to be paid in fourteen days, or in default one month's imprisonment.

W. Pitt v. the Enterprise Quartz Mining Company.—Claim • for £93 os6d. Mr Home appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Bailie, one of the directors, on behalf of the company. An adjournment until the following day was mutually agreed to, and his Worship set the case down for hearing on Wednesday at 11 a.m. Austen v. Jones. Claim for £l6 14s 6d. Mr Home appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Fisher for the defendant. This case occupied a considerable time, the items in dispute having refence to the value of certain services performed by the plaintiff for the defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff in the first instance split five cords of firewood at 10s per cord and five cords at 12s per cord, commencing the work on June 3rd and completing it on June 26th. During the interval he performed sundry services for Jones in the shape of loading drays with timber and stores, killing sheep, driving and yarding pigs, &c, for which he charged at the rate of Is 3d per hour. On June 27th the plaintiff was • engaged by Jones to slaughter and work at the farm at the rate of £3 per week, a fortnight's notice on either side to terminate the engagement. The plaiutiff alleged that Jones had dispensed with the notice, and he sued for two weeks' wages in lieu thereof. The only matter of interest that transpired in connection with the case was as to what might be the necessary qualifications of a butcher on the West Coast. Jones maintained that the plaintiff had represented himself as a prize shot, while in fact he had proved unable to hit a bullock, and had nearly shot the defendant. A graphic description then followed as to the modus operandi in slaughtering bullocks at the Orawaiti. Ambushes were carefully prepared where the slaughter-man or men lie in wait tor their intended victims, the rather dangerous duty—a3 it turns out—of driving the animals to covert devolving upon Mr Jones. The defendant proceeded to describe how, after repeated firing at the bullocks without the desired effect, he came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not the man he required, and he thereupon instructed him, through a man named Moody, that he no longer required his services. After a long and patient hearing his Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of £ll 15s 9d and costs.