RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 885, 9 November 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, November 7. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) ASSAULT. Robert Hayne was charged, on the information of his wife Amelia Hayne, with having assaulted her on the 4th inst. The informant stated in evidence that she managed a licensed house known as the Royal Oak Hotel, situated in "Wharf street. She went to bed as usual on the Friday night, and the lodgers also. She went to sleep, and was awakened by a knocking at the door and a noise as of the opening and closing of a window. The knocking was repeated and she got up, went to the bar and looked out of the window. A. boatman was in the act of launching his boat, and thinking it was he who had been knocking in order to get a drink, she returned to bed. Witness locked the bed-room door, and had not been in the room a minute when a hand was laid upon her shoulder, and witness saw a man standing by the bedside. Gave two or three shrieks, when the defendant said " It's only Bob, don't you know me." The shrieks brought two of the lodgers to the door, and the defendant then became very abusive, saying that no one came to lodge in the house when he was at home. He unlocked the bedroom door, and struck the informant several times until resisted by one of the lodgers. Witness got away and fetched the police. On returning with them, all was quiet, but witness thought it advisable, as the defendant would not leave the house, to go away herself. She left accordingly, shortly after the police had cleared out, but was overtaken in Gladstone street by the defendant, who knocked her down. As far as she could recollect that took place about three o'clock on Saturday morning. Finding that he was disposed to create a disturbance in the public streets, to avoid that she returned to the house with him, and on the way he endeavoured to throw her into the river. After reaching the houso the defendant again assaulted her, striking and wounding her with a bottle. Constable Temporley, stated in evidence that he was fetched shortly after 3 a.m., on Saturday by the informant and her daughter. It was represented that the defendant and another man

were fighting in the Royal Oak Hotel, and that unless witness arrived there quickly murder would be committed. He proceeded there at once in company with Jones. On reaching the hotel, they found all quiet. There waa a man man lyiug in a bedroom opposite to the room pointed out as the defendant's bedroom, and this man

complained that defeudant had taken away his clothes. Hayne said that he had found the clothes in his bedroom, and had taken possession of them. He was advised to restore the clothes, and Jones accompanied him for the pur- 1 pose of obtaining them. They were found under an adjoining house. Weston to whom the clothes belonged said that they contained the sum of £4<o, and on examining them witness found that amount. The defendant used very bad language. By the defendant: You got you? boots and coat from beneath the bed upon which Weston was lying. Charles Jones corroborated the tea* timouy of the previous witness. In reply to the defendant he stated that he recollected his taking a pair of boots and a coat from beneath the bed on which Weston was lying ; and also that a pair of Wellington boots subsequently put on by Weston was found iu the room pointed out as Mra Hayne's bedroom, together with a pocket book containing £1 10s. This was all the evidence for the informant. The defendant waa sworn, and stated that he arrived from south by the steamer Kennedy on Friday about midnight. He remained on board *ome little time, and saw the lights burning in the parlour of the Royal Oak Hotel. Shortly afterwarda the lights were put out, while he was getting his box and swag ashore. Jt had been the custom with the informant to burn a light in the bedroom, and, seeing none when he went to the window, his suspicions were aroused. He quietly lifted the parlour window and got into the house. He examined the various rooms, and found them empty. His wife's room was locked. He took off his boots and coat, which he placed under a stretcher iu an unoccupied room, and entering the bar knocked from the inside at the entrance door. No notice appeared to be taken of the first knock. He repeated it, and shortly after the bedroom door opened, and the informant proceeded to the bar to look into the street. He (defendant) slipped into the bedroom, and by the light from the window saw a man ia bed in a sitting position. He knelt at the foot of the bed, and shortly after the informant returned, locked the door, and got into bed. Defendant then pulled the two out of bed, and stated that he had satisfied himself, having now found out what the informant was. He told the two that he did not want any disturbance nor quarrel, but be should fetch some one to witness their conduct as it might be required at some future time. It was then that the disturbance arose, as both parties were anxious to hush up the" affair. Weston and himself struggled and finally Weston got away, and rushed into a bedroom opposite. He examined his own bedroom and found Weston's clothes which he planted. With respect to the alleged assault in Gladstone, street, he simply followed informant to deter her from joining Weston, and used no violence whatever; and in regard to striking her with a bottle after returning to the house, he denied that also. The informant took the initiative by throwing bottles and mirrors at him, and while struggling to wrest a bottle from her, the broken fragments might have slightly, wounded her. Defendant admitted that be called the informant abusive names, but pleaded provocation. He was anxious to leave her, and if His Worship waa of opinion that it was necessary to bind him over he trusted that he would only require him to enter into his own recognizance. His Worship was of opinion that an assault had beeu committed after the parties had returned to the Hotel for which the defendant would be fined 40s, or in default 14 days' imprisonment. He should adopt the defendant's suggestion and require him to enter into his own recognizance of £SO to keep the peace for a term of six months. DISORDERLY HOUSE. Two informations were laid by the police, one charging the abovenamed defendant with the use of obscene language in a public place, and the second with permitting disorderly cor. duct in his licensed house. The informations were laid respectively under the 4th clause of the Vagrant Act, 1869, and the 15th clause of the Goldfields Licensing Act. His Worship dismissed both informations deciding that the house at the hour of the alleged offence was not a public place within the meaning of the Acts.