RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 918, 25 January 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, Janf/art: 23. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) ASSAULT. Thomas Kerr appeared to answer the information of Robert Watson, charging him with having committed an assault on the informant at Mokihiuui on the 15th inst. Mr Pitt, on behalf of the defendant, pleaded guilty, and proposed to call evidence in mitigation. It would be shown that the assault was committed under considerable provocation, and he believed the smallest fine would satisfy the demands of justice. Robert Watson : I am a miner residing at Mokihinui. Yesterday week I went up the gully to work, and found the water turned off to the defendant's ground. He and I hold a joint registration of a water-right. He abandoned the right, and I took possession of the whole. I told him not to interfere with the water, and went away. He followed me up and gave me a black eye with his fist. Cross-examined by. Mr Pitt: The defendant Kerr is my brother-in-law. Ho went away on a visit to the reefs. I did not jump his water during his absence. He told me the previous Saturday to the assault that he claimed the water. John Douglas was present during one of our conversations. I never provoked the defendant to commit the assault. I did not lift my hand even when assaulted.

John Douglas: I work with Kerr, and am a brother-in-law of both complainant and defendant. . I was present at a conversation between Kerr and Watson. Kerr wanted Watson to come to some arrangement in respect to the water. Watson declined to listen to any proposal stating that he had no water belonging to Kerr, and was abusive in his language The following Monday I was on Kerr's claim. Watson came up, and his behaviour was anything but mild. He demanded to know what right Kerr had to the water ; he flourished his hands about, and, though I did not hear what he said, his manner seemed to be abusive, as also his language. This took place in LCerr's tail-race. Kerr told him to go away. I saw no blows struck.

Mr Pitt addressed the Court on behalf of the defendant, and his Worship then gave judgment. He considered the assault proved, and .in flicted a fine of 20s and costs. Mr Pitt on behalf of the defendant applied for a refund of the foe for mileage, as the summons had been served upon defendant in Westport. The charge was a very heavy one aad therefore a consideration to his client.

His Worship asked the Clerk of the Court whether the mileage had heen paid and the service performed. The Clerk replied that the defendant had been served in Westport, so that the charge had not heen incurred. The money, however, had heen paid by him into the Government Public Account at the Bank of New Zealand, and it was impossible for him to refund the money from that account. Mr Pitt in that case would withdraw the question, as he must relinquish all hope of obtaining a refund from the Colonial Treasurer. WILFUL AND MALICIOUS DAMAGE. .James Whelan was charged, upon the information of Mary Daniels, with having wilfully and maliciously destroyed two chemises, of the value of 14s, on the night of Thursday the 18th instant. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Pitt appeared for the informant, and Mr Home defended. After briefly reciting the circumstances, and staling that the evidence would show that the informant had been subjected to repeated acts of annoyance by the defendant, Mr Pitt called the informant. Mary Daniels: I am a washerwoman, residing in Westport, and know the defendant. I recollect January 18th. I had clothes drying that evening. It had been raining for some time previously, and the clothes were out late as I was anxious to get them dry. I put some chemises out about 6 o'clock in the afternoon. They were in perfect order up to shortly after 10 o'clock that night. I had reason to know it in consequence of removing some clothes adjoining the chemises. My clothes line runs along Whelan's fence. I had just taken some towels in from the line, and was returning from the house when I saw Whelan standing inside his fence and pulling the clothes on my line towards him. I told him he had better leave the clothes alone. His wife was standing beside him. They went inside, and three or four minutes afterwards I went to the line and found the chemises produced torn. The following morning I found the sleeve produced inside Whelan's fence. The chemises are worth 14s.

Cross-examined by Mr Ilorne: I saw the clothes in question between 10 and 11 on Thursday night. There was no wind. I saw the defendant dragging the clothes towards him. He pulled the clothes through the fence—not over the fence. The clothes had been repeatedly soiled, and I thought he was soiling them maliciously. Whelan and his wife went into their house, and the light was put out immediately. I did not go into my own house then. I stopped and took the

clothes off the lino. I then discovered i that they were torn. I have been on terms of enmity with Whclan for some time in consequence of his behaviour. By his Worship : The clothes wore twelve feet high in the air ; children could not reach them. I am certaiu thoy were all right at ten o'clock that night. It was moonlight when I saw Wholan. For the defence Mr Home called James Arthurs Maguire, gaoler, who stated that he knew the plaintiff and the defendant. He recollected the evening of the day that the complaint was laid. About 10 o'clock that night he had occasion to call upon Dr Thorpe. On his way he saw the defendant and his wife in a cottage in Palmorston Rtreet. It would then he 10 p.m. As he went forward they came out together. Whelan was a little the worse for drink. Mrs Whelan went first and Whelan followed. At that moment Mrs Daniels came forward and complained of the annoyance she had been subjected to by the defendant during the whole night. Witness did not believe what she said, as he had seen Whelan and his wife down the street. On returning from Dr Thorpe'?, witness listened at Whelan's house to see if all was quiet. He apprehended some disturbance, as Whelan was intoxicated. He heard voices talking in the house, and there was a light. Next morning about 5 o'clock witness was on the wharf, and saw the defendant Whelan passing down Gladstone street. He was then perfectly sober. He wished witness good morning and entered the Empire Hotel. Opposite to the police station witness met the complainant. She came up and asked witness what redress she could obtain against Whelan for his shameful conduct. She stated that he had been marching up arid down in front of her house the whole night in a state of partial nudity and had made indecent overtures to her. On being questioned by witness she stated that she had that moment left him " so drunk that he could not stand, walking about in front of her

cottage in a state of nudity. Witness again questioned her as to whether he was drunk, and she replied " God bless you, that drunk ho cannot stand, and there he is walking about, abusing me shamefully." Witness then informed her that-he had just left Whelan perfectly sober near tbe Empire Hotel. As he spoke the complainant looked in that direction, and saw Whelan coming up the street. She then went away and Whelan came and spoke to him.

By the Bench: Complainant made no remark when she saw Whelan coming up the street. I have not been subpoenaed in this case. I am quite certain that I saw Whelan and his wife in the house in Palmerston street on the night of the day that the present complaint was laid. James Smith : I know the plaintiff and the defendant. About half-past sis o'clock on that (Tuesday) morning I was sweeping out the store for Jules Simon. The complainant came and called me out. She said she wanted me to fix a post straight for her. She then said, " Smith, I will give you 10s if you will go to the Court to-day and state that Whelau tore the clothes on my line." I told her " I would not do such a thing for my father or my mother." I would not do it for £SO or £IOO. I generally work for Jules Simon. I went inside and Jules Simon asked me what the complainant wanted, and I told him. By Mr. Pitt: I cannot speak exactly as to the time. It might have been half-past seven when the complainant came. When she came xip she only first called me out. She first spoke about a pest, and then made the offer 1 just stated. I put some posts in the ground for her some time ago. The posts are as straight now as the day I put them in. By the Bench: Hive near Jacobsen's A fortnight ago I lived naar Mrs Daniels. William Morris stated that he knew the complainant and the defendant, and had known Smith for two or three years. About eight o'clock that morning he saw Smith e walking along the front of Jules Simon's store with a broom in his hand. Mrs Daniels was speaking to him. Witness was making for Jules Simon's. Mrs Daniels took hold of his arm and tried to stop Smith. He appeared to decline conversation, and walked inside. By Mr Pitt: There have been differences between myself and Mrs Daniels. I am not.on good terms with her. Mrs Daniels was recalled: She gave evidence in respect to conversations with Maguire, and denied any conversation with the witness Smith, excepting in respect to putting in a post for her. If is Worship dismissed the information with costs. In respect to the evidenco called by the defendant, he could not, overlook the fact that frequent cases had recently been before the Court, showing the relations upon which some of the residents lived one with the other ; and he was aware that these relations were as unsatisfactory as they could well be. If he could have seen his way clear upon the evidence produced to commit the complainant for perjury, he would have deemed it his duty to do so. He trusted, however, that the facts would be investigated. publican's license. A renewal of license was granted to George Craddock, for a house situated at South Spit. CIVIL CASES. In the following cases the plaintiffs

obtained judgment respectively by default in the amount claimed and costs: —Sheldon v. Burrows; White and Tiric v. Atkinson ; Brown v. Grotta Organ. STEWABT V. BLACKBURN". This was an action for £6 2s, for wages, cash lent, and goods. A crosssummons had been brought for £5 lis 9d, and by consent the two cases were taken together. Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiff Annie Stewart, who stated that she was engaged by the defendant in the capacity of barmaid on December 14, 1871, at £2 per week. She served two weeks and two days, for which she claimod £4 12s. The item of £1 cash, lent was money she gave tho defendant one day when going out, to pay a creditor whom she expected to call. She gave Blackburn a£s note. The creditor did not call, and on her return Blackburn gave her four £1 notes. The remaining items wore 7s 6d for a lamp, which the defendant had used and broke, and 2s 6d for towels which the defendant retained.

By the defendant l I did not engage with you at 25s per week. I agreed to take that after the holidays if the situation suited me. I was not frequently unwell while in your employ. I went out occasionally on the river with Ferguson, the boatman. I did not shout champagne for Ferguson nor for Powell's storeman.

George Blackburn, defendant, stated that he engaged the plaintiff as barmaid on the understanding that she should keep perfectly sober. She did not do so. She remained until Deceinber 31, and was scarcely ever sober. It was a matter of frequent occurrence for her to go out on the river with LVIr James Ferguson. He called m these excursions ' k constku. tionals," but she always returned worse than when she left, dn her return No. 2 would be freely opened, and as, freely partaken of by herself and Mr Ferguson. He need scarcely add that Mr Ferguson never paid for the champagne. By Mr Pitt: The defendant was supplied with all the articles charged against her. I am not particular about an item, but I could not stand the champagne racket at the rate of half a score bottles for herself and friends, besides bottles and glasses being frequcntly broken. James Bentley deposed that one evening he called at the Caledonian Hotel, Annie Stewart and Mr Ferguson were in the bar. He called for &orne beer, but was cordially invited to partake of champagne. There were two or three empty bottles on the counter. By Mr Pitt: It was on a Christmas Eve that the champagne was opened. I should imagine that Mr Ferguson would pay for any amount of champagne (a laugh), and drink it too. John Temperly gave evidence of having been present on an occasion when the plaintiff broke a bottle of brandy and some glassos with a walking stick. His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs ; and in Blackburn v. Stewart for the items admitted and breakages amountih" to £1 19s 9d and costs.