THE HAMILTON EAST EJECTMENT CASE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2321, 26 May 1887, Page 3

THE HAMILTON EAST EJECTMENT CASE.

At the Resident Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M., Alex. McLeod was charged on the information of Augustus Vincent with assaulting and beating one Mary Vincent on the 23rd inst. Mr O'Neill appeared for the plaintiff and Mr W. M. Hay for the defence. Mr O'Neill opened the case and called Mary Vincent, who deposed that on Monday morning she. was in her house, when she saw young Mcl'herson stop outside the gate. He looked very hard at her and went away, but in about a quarter of an hour he returned with McLeod. The latter, after wishing them "good morning" quite friendly, caught hold of Vincent (who was with her) and put him out "quick." He then turned to witness and told her she must go also, but she declined the polite invitation, and recommended defendant, if Mr Vincent owed him auything, tojsue him. She was scrubbing at the time, and defendant opened the battle by upsetting the bucket and spilling all the water. He then caught hold of her, but finding he had undertaken too large a contract single-handed, requisitioned the aid of McPherson, at the same time calling her by a name unfit for publication. After a considerable amount of trouble they succeeded in "pitching" her right out into the veraudah. She had a lot of things in the house, consisting of crockery, clothing, &c. Both of her arms were much hurt, and were bruised and blackened. Her dress was torn off her back. She thought it very hard that a scoundrel like McLeod should assault an old woman of 62 years. Mr Northcroft objected to the use of such language, and said it was plain witness could not keep her temper. Cross-examined : McLeod and McPherson did not say anything more than '' Good morning," before they pushed Vincent out. McPherson asked her to go out, but she would not have gone unless they had used force. Could not say whether it was as much as they could do. One was pulling and the other pushing her ; she held on to the door-post until they compelled her to let go. They put all the tilings outside. They said nothing to lead her to believe that McLeod asserted a right to the house; but he held the keys. Did not know if he had given any document to her husband. Did not hear McLeod say he would hold the house until the amount owing was paid. Witness got into the house on Saturday, when Messrs Bunting and Evans were taking a look at it, but could not say how they obtained admission. Augustus Vincient gave corroborative evidence. He said the suddenness jwith which McLeod ran him out of the house after civilly wishing him good morning airly astonished him. In fact he was quite taken aback. He looked through the window and saw McLeod dragging Mrs Vincient across the floor with her dress torn. On Saturday he wrote requesting McLeod to attend ar the house to admit two builders to inspect it with a view to arbitration. The work was a disgrace. Defendant was not there. He (witness) had done all in his power to meet defendant, but the latter would not meet him, for the reason, he supposed, that he was afraid the building would be condemned. Cross-examined : Had mentioned the subject of arbitration to McLeod many times. He took Mr Bunting to see the house and found defendant and Mr Cochrane there. The latter refused to go on as defendant tried to throttle plaintiff. Did not go to the house every day to quarrel with McLeod. He weut there because he was his own architect. There were no plans and specifications. In answer to his letter McLeod wrote refusing to attend, and warning witness that if he tried to take possession of the house he would

make it a caution to him. Witness did not break into the house, merely turned the hasp and walked in. The door was not fastened up with a 6 x 1 boards. There was no timber of that description on the ground. He believed the door had been fastened up at one time. For the matter of that, however, he could takeout the window a without injuring the house, so badly were they fitted. There were holes by the chimney also, through which a person might enter. Dr. Muroh deposed that he had examined Mrs Vincent that morning. She was very feverish. There were bruises on her arm, and her breast was tender. Mr F. J. Von Stunner deposed that on Monday morning he was going through Albert-street, when he met Mrs Vincent. Her clothing was torn, and her left arm was bruised very much. She informed him that she had been badly used. In cross-examination, witness said the injuries could not have been inflicted unless defendant and the other man had used great violence. This was the case for the prosecution. For the defence, Mr Hay called Alexander McLeor!, the defendant, who said he had built a house for plaintiff in accordance with agreement, but he had not received the whole of the money. Plaintiff had imitmated to him that the money would not be forthcoming until witness had spent £10 of it in court. When he left the house he fastened the doors and windows. Constable Murray saw him do this. The back door was barricaded with 6xl timber nailed inside. This was on the 20th of April, and he never went into the building again until Monday last. What Vincent said about the chimney was not true. [Mr Northoroft here signified his intention to go and look at the building.] Witness then gave an account of the " bad time " he had had of it with plaintiff since he undertook to build the house. No plans and specifications had been prepared, but plaintiff gave him verbal instructions, and they agreed gererally about the size, shape, &c., of the house. They began to have differences at once. Witness had employed McPherson, but was obliged to part with him to save him from being tomahawked by Vincent. (Laughter). On another occasion plaintiff pelted defendant with the latter's tools, and had to be " walked off." He denied the accuracy of the statements of the Vincents. The bucket of water was disposed of by Mrs Vincent herself, who emptied it on witness, whereupon he took her by the shoulder, and after a scuffle got her out. When she got on to the verandah she tore her dress right down the arm. He used no more force than was necessary, though the woman hit and tried to bite him. In cross-examination, witness said he had acted on Mr Hay's advice. Mr Hay told him to go into the house and remain there ; and, further, that the law would allow him to take the Vincents by the shoulder and tell them to go out. Had been obliged to use force both in the case of Mr and Mrs Vincent. Had it been necessary he would have used more force. Mrs Vincent was rnuch the more difficult subject of the two. He had never been asked to go to arbitration. Re-examined by Mr Hay : You advised me to ask the Vincents to go out first, and, if they refused, to use sufficient foroe to put them out. I did not use more. I was always ready to have my work inspected by a certificated architect, but not by rival builders. W. B. McPherson gave evidence corroborative of McLeod's statement. No more force was used than was necessary. He and McLeod acted strictly according to law. Geo. Anderson deposed that he went on Saturday, witli MoLeod, to Vincent's house. In answer to McLeod, Vincent said he had broken into the house. This concluded the case, and the court then adjourned and inspected the building. On resuming the court dismissed the information, with costs, £2. The Court was then adjourned until 10 a.m. this day, when several other actions between the same parties will come on.