R M. COURT, HAMILTON. Wednesday.-(Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.) ASSALLT.

Waikato Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1975, 5 March 1885, Page 2

R M. COURT, HAMILTON. Wednesday .-(Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.) ASSALLT.

Moses MoNicol w.isclurgod on the in fur illation of Jjvmrs Hastie, with th.it he del on the 19th Februnry unUw fiilly, awl with out piovocation, as-nult him l>v stuknr/ him on the nock and arms. A second mfonnation charged defendant with nss.mltnig James Hastio on the 20th Febiu.uy b\ striking him on the client find amis. Mr Hay appeared for the informant, and Mr 0 Neill foi the defendant. It appears from the evidence that tbeie was some dispute between the parties in lespcet of the exact position of the dividing fence, defendant claiming that the fence erected by plaintiff was on his land. Hegarding tlio cause of action, Hastio deposed that on the morning of the l!)th ho went to ask him why ho sot fire to the fence, and McNicol, by way of leply, struck him several tunes. On the night of the 20th Hastie saw defendant setting fire to the fence, and he procured a bucket and proceeded to put out tho flau.e3, when defendant again assaulted him by knocking him down. Tho dofence was that Hantie had como to tho defendant's place in a defiant attitude, and that defendant had nuuely pushed him away with his open hands. On the 20th he ran after the plaintiff, not knowing who he was at tho time, and ttipped him up. Defendant denied having set tho fence on tire, but admitted that he had nevei tri<-d to put thf fire out. Judgment was reserved, pending the hearing of a cross action. There was a cross action, in which Jauvs Hastie was charged with, on the 2 1st I'Vb., assaulting Moses MrNicol, and D.ivid Hastie was charged with aiding and abetting. Mr O'Neill, for tho plaintiff, detailed the proceedings, and called Moses McNicol, who deposed that he was a farmei residing at Hukanui. About () o'clock in the evening of tho 21st ho was digging potatoes, when James Hastie rain • over the fence with a stick in his hand, and followed him in a threatening m inner to the whare, demanding to know why ho (witness) hid set fiie to his fence. On witness turning lound, Hastio backed :i\\ ly tiw.itds the fence and witness followed. When within a couple of yaids of the fence H,>stie tinned louud, and David Hastie (c.uiyiii,,' a stick also) coming thimigh fie fence, they both nislied at v.itni's-, and ■iss.mlted him, Jam"-! Hastie stiuck him on the heid, leaving a inaik. Could n-it sweat that David Hastie stiusk him, but 1 c leceived a violent blow on tho shoulder. His shirt (produced) was coveied wiMi blood. When defendants .saw that wittier was bleeding they beat a ietie.it. Cross examined by Mr Hay : Could n>l say whether he stiuck James Hastie. Did not throw i\uth in his face and then strike him. Could not say whethei he Used the spade, but if so he certainly did not .strike until Hastie stiuck him in the head. By the bench : Had known defendants for about eight or nino years, and this was tho fn-t quairel they had had. John Frawr, a carter in tiio employment of the Waikato Land Association, who lived opposite tho property of tho H.istie's, deposed that on the evening of the 21st he heard a noise over at McNieol's, and ho went over. Ingoing he saw the H.isties cronsin? tho fence from McNicol's. He aftci wards n.iw MtNicol, who was bleeding troin a nasty cut in the head. Tlieio v\,is blood also on his tiou.seis. He had on a clean bhirt, and had appaiontly washed his faco. Mr Hay said the defence was a omplete contiadiction of the plaintiffs, allegations. I'laiutifF had given a \eiy ciicuinstinti.il account of the nroccecliiign, butho had omitted to state tli.it he fn.st struck James Hastie with a spade b^foie the latter picked up a stick to defend himself. It was only fair to presume from wh.it tho bench had seen of tho informant that ho would uso tho spade. He cilled James Hastie, who deposed that in tho evening in question he arnvnd fiom Hamilton about (i o'clock when ho s.uv McN'.col deliberately sotting firo to tho fence. When ho hid imh iiuescd his hoise lie ran down with Ins brother, to put out the hre. He stepped ovei the fence to a^k McXic>l to assist in extinguishing the flames, but tho lattei threw a spadeful of earth at him Afteiuards, McNicol hit at him with the spade and witness picked up a piece of titieo to defend himself and struck informant on the he.id. Infoimant was in a most infill lated condition. David Hastio did not stnko the informant. Witness was cross examined at some length, but nothing material was elicited. David Hastie gave corroborative evidence. His Worship found McNicol guilty of assault in the first case, and fined him 10s and cost 1 -, £2 13s. He also found him guilty in the second case, and fined him 20i and costs, fl 18s, in default, fourteen daysitnpusonnicnt. The charge against tho Hasties was dismissed, the magistrate accepting the version of the story given by David Hastie, but for w hose intei ferenco there would probably have been murder Civil Side. Hamilton v. How em,, claim, £s.— Mr Hay for plaintiff. Judgment for amount, less £3 paid into couit, w ith costs, €2 Bs. W. M. Hw v. Uko. Kkli/v, claim, £5 Bs. Judgment for amount and costs. I'K.vr v. Buiii), 18s foi saddlery. Judgment for amount churned with costs, £l Bs. J. Smith v. S. W. Bick, claim, £0 10s £4 10s for repairs to waggon, and £5 fur damage*. Mr Hay for the plaintiff and Mr O'Neill for the defendants. Mr Hay in opening the case said the ciicumstances were as follow : — The plaintiff ivas the licensee of tho Jfiiwiiix Hotel, Morrinsvillo, and the defendant wns the former landlord. Amongst other things wns a waggon, which was out of lepuir, but Mr Buck promised to have it put in thorough repair, and it was valued an a new wasrgoif. This was not done, and plaintiff now claimed the value of the waggon and compensation for the loss of hire, &c. A largo amount of evidence was adduced, much of which was very contuductory in character. Defendants plea was that the repairs to be effected wore to consist of a now pole. Ultimately judgwas given for £4 10s, the amount of the repairs, with costs, £10 Gs (id. The claim for damages was disillowed, HITTING .IN Of,I) MAN. Joseph Hinton and John Whihht, jux., wore chaiged under the Police Offences Act with fighting in the street on Saturday, 21st Feb., at Hamilton. Sergt. Mc(jovern prosecuted, and Huiton, who was defended by Mr O'Neill, pleaded " not guilty." It appeared from the evidence of two l.ids named Heiny Stokes and Tom Caldei wood that on the night in question Hinton was passing down the street, when Caldei wood, with whom wero witness and Wnght, sung out "Joe.' 1 Hinton turned round, and after some parley struck Wright, who returned the blow. His Worship administered a reprimand to Wright for wtiiMm?an old man, and advised Hinton in future to appeal to the polico when he was annoyed by boys calling after him in the street. Both cases weie dismissed with a caution. A BAO CHAHACTFR. Patrick Kioley, for boing drunk, using filthy language in a public place, and for resisting the polico at Hamilton East on the previous night, was sentenced to pay a fine of 20s for the first offence, in default, 48 hours' imprisonment, for the Recond to two months' hard labour in Mount Eden gaol, and for the thiid offence he was fined 41s and cost*, or in default, one month in Mount Eden gaol, the sentences to run concurrently.

Amkkh'vnh sometimes honour a toast with "nine cheers and a tiger" — that is, nine oheuis and a scream. Amonu the Staffordshire cottagers it is considered a mark of good manners when any person drinking inau inferior's honsu stands up to take the first draught. The ulflictiou which shrinks from publicity, seeks to be invisible, and avoids ceremony is more true and deep than thtvt which finds is solace in tlu.| outward display which invites the comment of the wotM at large, RlrJ. S BiH.kl.ind will sell at the Cambridge Yards on lliuriday next, '2000 crossbred ewes from Napier 111 1 nders .ire w anted for the cnlargctiPnt of the o it f ill drain, Ru.ikura Junction, Hamiltcn-Cain-bi id-jf railway. Special attention is drawn to Messrs W J Hurst and. Co 's new ndwMisrmu.it in anutlu r ( (ihimn, relating to tlnir new mason's sect's, m iniirv*, &<*. A number o'«ma11 c ontr.T Is a oboinjl -t in t! p \t in" ipiko d-lrnt, i untr ii tors in- inxiid in ,i,i|)l) to tin iiii'iu i-is of iho bo.ud Im itifoi m.i - t (in. A poll of lbi> Mti'pnrrs of iW W.iioi Lnen>iiiu I >i»li it f . (it uVtrru iic , hi'il.i'r ilic i, limber nt In i n»i'< -~ 111 1 •. 1 1 [»• n > imO «i)I InIrtlen on t lie 21-t I■ st ,il i ln. s, huo! liojh', I Morrins* lilt'-