RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, Alexandra, October 26th. Before Major Mair, R. M.

Waikato Times, Volume X, Issue 537, 28 October 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, Alexandra, October 26th. Before Major Mair, R. M.

C. "L. Perry v Jae. Prince. A Assault. — The Resident Magistrate said this case should nob have been brought into' Court, but the assault havingbeen proved, he would inflict .a tfine of ss. and costs. Jas. Scott v "iff. La Nauze. Assault. — Mr Madden for defendant. 3'his assault was alleged 'to have been •committed on the evening di the 22nd. 'The of the "informant went to' ;prove >thftt defendant had followed him' about for the prrrpoe^ of ge** in S ' Kirn t& .sign.a pro note, for money .which'he alleged! wasdue'toihim under the -award of Art>iJ itrators, and that on his .refusal to sign' <that night,tthe defendant pulled him from, Oi^s Ahorse and violently assaulted 'him/ Messrs Morgan, Earkwood, and Boon examined .for the prosecution, but 1 their evidence simply proved that, hearing 'cries for assistance, they went up and found informant and defendant straggling on the •ground, and separated them. Mr j&adden requested the Court to defer judgment till -after hearing tho cross action. • l H. La Nanze v J. Scott. Mr Madden for informant. Mr Madden stated this information was lodged in order to give him an opportunity of examining the defendant in the last action, who would give, an. entirely different version of the affair. The informant' La Nauzo upon being sworii entirely contradicted the evidence given by Mr Scott in the previous case, and Charged the rassault upon him. His Worship-. said that these cases defended entirely upon the credibility of the ■witnesses, and as the evidence was so confilicting he could se« but < one solution. (He should therefore dismiss iboth <.cases ; each ,;party paying his own costs. M. La Nauze v J. Scott. 'Claim £19 17s 6d for sawing timber. Mr Madden for plaintiff. This is the caso out of which the assault * cases arose, and the Court was occupied for a long time in sifting the facts from a -mass o r • contradictory and confusing evidence. f lt appeared that plaintiff was en-rgag-ed by defendant «,fc £l *per week, but - was to receive extra consideration for all "timber sawn. What this consideration j was to be the Court was called upon to t -decide. "Messrs Morgan, Sherard and Barker .we examined .for the plaintiff, * -and Mt j*cGriither and a native for the 'defence. Judgment for, plaintiff £10, and * costs £6 'los. I