RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume VII, Issue 1092, 25 July 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

(Before Joseph G-iles. Esq., E.M.) Tuesday, July 8. police cases. Fielder v. Poindestre.—Two'c'harg6s of using abusive language and for assault. Mr Shapter appeared for informant, who in evidence stated that on the 9th instant, while working in his garden in Eintoul street, defendant, who lives opposite', called birri opprobrious names. He crossed over and endeavored to speak to' Mr Munday, the owner of the house wherein defendant lives, whereupon she again abused him and threw stones at hirri. Informant then went to look for the police, and on returning was again abused by the defendant.

William Munday, called by infermant, stated that he had heard an altercation outside his bouse but could not state the exact words used. Defendant had been taking in clothes from lines on an unoccupied section next his house, and when witness first saw them both defendant and informant were coming towards him.

Poindestrecame inside the garden-gate and threw two or three stones, but riot at informant; she also used language that witness would riot have used himself, but he did hot know the precise provocation given. M L. Carruthers was called by defendant to give evidence, but stated that she was not present when the altercation took place-, and knew nothing about it until told of the occurrence. Had beard ruuidrs that informant frequently spoke against defendant, and had seen him as he passed ddwn the street frequently look towards defendant, but coujd riot say whether he intended such looks as insults Or riot. Defendant pleaded that Fielder was constantly looking arid grinnirig at her, and on the day in question she asked him what he was grinning at, arid he retorted by calling her an abandoned womanj and one word brought oil another until, the row ensued. Sh£ denied throwing stones at him, and said he gave the first provocation. The Court said that the only evidence of provocation 1 wasdefendant's own statement, and even if correct it would not have justified her in using the language stated, nor in throwing stdnes. Such conduct iri a public thoroughfare could not be tolerated: Two fines of 50s each were inflicted and costs, or in default 14 days' iriiprisonment with hard labor for each offence. Police v. R. M'Farlane : Complaint by Constable Ibbitson that defendant had on the i7th instarit neglected to keep a chimney clean at his hotel in Lyttletdn Street; whereby it took fire and endangered the safety of surrounding property. A fine of 10s and costs' was inflicted. CITIL CASES. Myles M'Phadden v. Terence Hines; —Claim for £l2 6s 6d goods sold and delivered. Defendant failed to put in an appearance, but plaintiff stated he had received £5 from him since the issue of the summons. Judgment given for balance of debt £7 6s 6d and costs 355: W. J. Patterson v; Henry Davis.—Enlargement of time granted until 5tH August, service of summons. Jdhn Rafferty, v. William Stavert: —Summons enlarged until next Court day, for service at Nelson. <►