RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 897, 7 December 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, Decembeb 5. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) ASSAULT. Kobert Mend was charged, upon the information of Margaret Eeid, with having beat her about the head with his fists and kicked her on Saturday, the 2nd insfc. The informant stated that she lived in Bright street, and had lived there with the prisoner until Saturday last. On that date the prisoner came home drunk and lay down to sleep. On awakening he committed the assault complained of. She gave him no provocation. The witness at this stage gave her evidence so reluctantly that the Bench had to admonish her. On resuming her evidence the witness stated that the prisoner knocked her down and kicked her. She went to the camp for protection, and remained thereuntil Mead v* as brought to the lock-up. By the prisouer: Tou were drunk when you came home. I had not been drinking. 1 did not wish to give you in charge. 1 came to the lock-up for safety, and to intimidate you, that you might desist from violence. I should not have signed the information if I had known the possible consequences. By Sergeant Kiely: I signed the charge-sheet in the watch-house. I was told what the nature of the charge was against Mead. Sergeant Kiely, stated, that in consequence of information received, he went to Mend's cottage between six and seven o'clock on Saturday evening. Mead was inside and very drunk. Witness saw blood upon his clothes, and the room presented the appearance of a scuffle having taken place. A lot of clothes that had been recently ironed were upon the table. Witness told Mead that he was charged with having committed an assault upon Margaret Keid. Mead said that it occurred through drink, and accompanied witness to the police station to see the woman. Witness told him if she were seriously injured he would lock him up. The prisoner went with him quietly. He saw the woman Beid at the lock-up. She was bleeding from a wound on the temple,

and had the marks of kicks upon her legs. Witness knowing the character of Mead when in liquor did not consider his state justified his being permitted to go at large, and he was consequently arrested. The prisoner, stated in defence, that he had been drinking pretty freely on the Saturday; that Margaret Iteid and himself had lived together peacefully for three years, and he heartily regretted his conduct in connection with the assault. An altercation had arisen between them and it had led to a struggle in which the prosecutrix fell over a form, whereby he believed the more serious injury had been inflicted. His Worship in. sentencing the prisoner, stated that drunkenness was no mitigation of the assault. Assaults of this kind often led to murder being committed, and they must be dealt with as serious offences. The prisoner would be imprisoned for one month with hard labour, and must then enter into his own recognizance of £25 to keep the peace for two months ; and find a surety in the sum of £ls. One or two unimportant civil cases were then disposed of.

Wednesday, Decesxbeb, 6. ASSAULT. Police v. Fry.—The prisoner Elizabeth Fry was indicted for assault with intent. A second charge of common assault was also preferred, so as to admit of the case being dealt with summarily should it be deemed desirable. The prisoner was. charged with wilfully and maliciously wounding Sarah M'Cullough on the head with a stone. Mr Pitt appeared for M'Cullough. The prosecutrix was sworn, and proved the circumstances under which the offence was committed. According to her statement she was in the house of Kate M'Carthy, who was sick, when the prisoner came to the house. She was drunk, and a conversation arose with respect to her daughter—a girl of eighteen. The prisoner spoke of bringing her from the Northern Terraces; and prosecutrix dissuaded her from so doing, stating that the daughter was better cared for there than she would be in town. The prisoner then became very noisy, and was ejected from the house. On getting outside, she put a stone through the window, and exhibited great violence. Prosecutrix went out, and a struggle ensued, in which the prisoner seized prosecutrix by the bair, and beat her about the head with a stone. A woman named Elizabeth Cameron came to the assistance of prosecutrix. The prisoner then got up and went to the camp. In cross-examination the prosecutrix admitted having struck the prisoner under provocation. Ann Jane Harper stated that she resided in Wallabi street, and was a witness to the assault committed by Fry upon M'Cullough. She saw Fry seize the latter by the hair of the head, and beat her with a stone. M'Cullough had nothing in her hand. They were on the ground together, M'Cullough being uppermost. When they were parted witness saw that M'Cullough was bleeding from the head.

By the prisoner: There were two men in the house all the time. I shut the door when JVTCullough went out after you. Lizzy Cameron released

M'Cullough's hair from your grasp, and took a stone from you. She did not take a stone from M'Cullough, as she did not use one at all during the struggle. Elizabeth Cameron corroborated the version detailed by the previous witness. Samuel Thorpe, legally qualified medical practitioner, proved having examined the injuries sustained by the prosecutrix and the prisoner. The prosecutrix had a slight wound on the head produced by a fall or a blunt instrument, such as the stone produced. The prisoner's injuries were such as might have been inflicted by abrasion with stones, but those on the face appeared to have been inflicted with finger nails. The skin to an extent of three-quarters of an inch in diameter had been scooped off the right temple. That injury might have been caused by the abrasion of the cicatrix of an old wound, supposing such to have existed. Sergeant Kiely also gave evidence of the condition in which he found the prisoner and the prosecutrix. The prisoner denied the evidence of the.witnesses for the prosecution, stating that the prosecutrix was the assailant and that she had only acted in self-defence. The stone had been used by M'Cullough not by her. His Worship reserved his decision until the informations against M'Cullough had been heard. police y. m'cttlloxjgh. Similar informations to those laid in the previous case were laid against the prisoner. The only evidence for the prosecution was ,that of Elizabeth Ery, and her testimony being unsupported by other evidence, His Worship dismissed the information, and in POLICE v. FEY, sentenced the prisoner to six weeks* imprisonment with hard labour.