RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume VII, Issue 1102, 29 August 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

(Before Joseph Giles. Esq., E.M. Tuesday, August 2(3. police OASES.. Drunk and disorderly.—Charles Jones for this offence was fined 20s, in default 24 hours imprisonment. Assault with intent to commit bodily harm.- -Flanagan v. Morris. Mr Shapter for defence. The complainant, a married woman, charged defendant, the wife of William Morris, with having, on Saturday the 24-th instant, struck complainant's son, a child six years of age, with a tomahawk, inllictiiig thereby wounds on his face.

Complainant alleged that she and defendant lived in houses oidy some little distance apart, and that on Sunday morning while coining towards her house from Pahnerston street she heard her child screaming, and on going nearer saw the child standing at the door of her house cryingand with blood streaming from his faco, the defendant at the same time walking away from the child in the direction of her own house, and having a tomahawk in her hand. Complainant said, " My God did you strike my child with that," and defendant replied, " yes, and I'll do the same to you if you do not keep your brats at home," using also very foul language. Complainant examined the boy and found blood flowing from a cut on the eyebrow, and also other cuts and scratches on his face. She took the child into a neighbor's house, went for the police, and afterwards in company with the constable took the boy to i)r Thorpe to get his wounds dressed. The tomahawk defendant had in her hand was similar to one complainant had previously seen in the hands of Morris' children.

By Mr Shapter: Our houses are separated by some spare ground and a street along which there is a tramway. Never had an angry work with defendant until the Saturday preceding the day when tlie assault was committed. She had then chased my children away and 1 had told her to let them alone. 1 am quite positive I saw a tomahawk in her hand.

James Whelan : Lived near the house of complainant, and was .it home when she brought her child there bleeding from a wound in the face. Mad previously heard Mrs Morris calling to the children to go away, and then heard Mrs Flanagan's voice asking Mrs Morris if she had struck the boy with the tomahawk. Heard defendant use foul language and say to complainant "if you come over here I'll do the same to you." There had been an altercation between the two women the day before, and defendant had told complainant that if she did not keep her brats at home she would murder them.

By Mr Shapter : Did not see the assault. Heard the children previouslymaking a great noise, but did not see them in drays near the house. Heard defendant ask them to go home because they disturbed her baby. Can't say whether Mrs Flanagan is a quiet goodtempered sort of a woman. She never troubled witness nor any of her neighbors unless they began with her first. Women of course had their little ways, but witness had never seen complainant more out of temper than the rest of the women living about her. She might have a brawl now and then, but that witness did not consider unusual among women folk.

Constable Maloney gave evidence as to state of the child's face, and also to having arrested defendant on a warrant. Had on searching her house failed to find any tomahawk, and on asking both defendant and her husband if they had one both replied that they had not for a month past, and defendant said she believed Flanagan's children had stolen one from her about a month previously. Samuel Thorpe, medical practitioner, gave evidence as to the nature of the wounds, one at least of which, in his opinion, had been inflicted by some blunt instrument similar to a tomahawk with a blunt or notched edge. By Mr Shapter: I don't think it impossible that the wounds might have been caused by the child falling on his face from the dray, on which he and others might have been playing. A fall on the tramway might account for one wound separately but not for all of them except the child fell more than once.

On being asked the usual questions

defendant replied that she had nothing ti> say as to the evidence.

In defence, Mr Shapter pleaded that the case for the prosecution had not been made out, no one saw the blow struck, and the proof was at the best but presumptive. His client had been charged with striking the child with a tomahawk, but no existence of such weapon had been proved. The complainant had said that she saw a tomahawk in defendant's hand, but she had also admitted that a week before Mrs Morris had sent to her asking her if hef childreu had taken it away. Again the sudden search made by the Constable without previous warning had not resulted in the weapon being discovered, and evidence was ready to prove that defendant had not such a weapon in her house. The evidence of Whelan suggested the only common sense View of the subject, namely, that the child, playing with others on a dray near defendant's house, had fallen off and thus sustained the injury. It was against all reason to suppose that the various marks appearing on the child's face had been produced by repeated blows of a tomahawk, for had such weapon been used as alleged even by another child, more serious wound's would have been inflicted, and although it was quite possible Mrs Morris used the violent language asserted, yet the theory of the evidence as to the assault had not been proved. He would produce evidence of the daughter of defendant, who, in a plain unvarnished tale, would tell exactly what did occur, rebutting the evidence already given. The Court said that conflict of evidence would have no weight in preventing a committal, the question of weight of circumstantial evidence being one for a jury to decide. There . had been positive evidence given that the child had been injured, and that defendant had admitted she had committed the deed with a tomahawk. Any contradictory evidence would not prevent coinmital unless very strongly preponderating against the evidence on this particular point, and any other evidence in defence the Court thought should be reserved until the hearing of the case before a jury.

The defendant was committed for trial at the next sitting of the District Court, bail being allowed in two sureties of £4O each.

Hassan and others v. Towndrow and others, —Mr Shapter for plaintiffs. No appearance of defendants. Claim for £3l lis, wages due for working in quartz claim at the Mokihinui. Thomas Meikle, one of the plaintiffs, proved the debt, and judgment was given for amount claimed and costs £2 9s.

Smith and Faris v. Patrick Burke.— Mr Shapter for plaintiffs. Claim for £66 5s M, money due on sub-contract work, No. 1 contract, JN'ine Mile road. Defendant admitted the debt, but claimed £6 lis 6d for stores supplied. this plaintiffs allowed,and judgment was given for the balance, £59 14s, costs £1 19a, and counsel fee £3 3s. M'Gonagle and others v. Burke.— Claim for £IOB ss. Defendant admitted debt, and claimed that a contra account was due for stores, but was not prepared to prove the amount. Judgment for amount claimed and costs £1 19s, and counsel's fee £3 3s. Creed v. Burke—Claim for £8 13s Id, contra account £2 13s Gd admitted. Judgment given for balance, with costs 13s and counsel fee £1 Is.

Lyons v Burke.—Claim for £6 19s 6d, contra account £2 admitted. Judgment for balance and costs 13s. LeJeune v.- Burke. - Claim for £8 Ss. Defendant chiined payment of store account but could not prove the amount. Judgment given plaintiff in amount claimed, costs 13s. In these cases orders were made on the Government Paymaster, under provisions of the Contractors' Lien Act, to retain the amounts recovered from coutract money due to the defendant.