RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, FOXTON.
Manawatu Herald, Rōrahi II, Putanga 108, 20 Hereturikōkā 1880, Page 2
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, FOXTON.
» Wednesday, August 11, 1880. (Before R. Ward, Esq., R.M.) fighting in the streets. Jobn Hamilton and Micbael Foley were cbarged witb figbting in the street on the 14th Augus.. Hamilton, who was arrested at the time of the offence, but released on bail, admitted the charge, but Foley pleaded not guilty. Chas. Ailey was called to identify Foley, but could not swear to him, owing to it being dark when the fight took place ; he had since heard that Foley was one of the men, but could not of his own knowledge swear to him. John Hamilton, the otber defendant, was called, and said that he found a Maori and Foley fighting, that he went to separate them and got into it himself; he did not know Foley, but fully believed he was the man he fought with. Another witness named Dennihee identified Foley as one of the combatants. His Worship (to defendants) — Have you anything to say in explanation of your conduct. Hamilton — I'm very sorry for what has happened. Foley — Indeed, we're all very sorry. (Laughter.) His Worship fined Hamilton jgl, and Foley £1 and costs, 12s. wandering horse. Edmund Osborne was charged with allowing a horse to wander in the street on the 6th ol August. Samuel Tansley gave evidence as to defendant claiming the horse in question, and proved that it was wandering on the day stated in the charge. j Constable M'Anulty gave evidence in support of the charge. Defendant said his neighbour owned a horse very similar to hi
own, and he wished to be quite certain the horse that was wandering actually was his, of whioh he was doubtful at present. Fined 5s and costs, 7s. -^ LABCENY. Henry Johns was charged by W. F. Mason with stealing certain firewood from the Paiaka mill. Mr Staite appeared for complainant, and Mr Hankins for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. The case wasa most trumpery one, as it appears defendant was one of the mill hands, and having had an altercation with Mason over taking waste wood for his fire, an assault took place, in , consequence of whioh the charge of stealing the firewood was laid. In support of the charge, the evidence oi the complainant, his son Robert Mason, and a boy named Mark Foster was taken. After hearing the evidence for the prosecution, his Worship said tiie case ought never to have been brought into Court, and he would therefore dismiss it without calling on the defendant to reply. ASSAULT. H. Johns was then charged by W. F. Mason with assaulting him on the 14th of August by striking him on the neck and kicking him. Mr Staite for complainant, Mr Hankins for defendant. W. F. Mason deposed that on the morning of the day in question he saw defendant taking firewood from the mill ; he went to him and complained; defendant said he did not acknowledge him, and got behind and kicked him and hit him on the neck ; when he saw what Johns intended to ■ do, he popped up his hands in selfdefence. Cross-examined by Mr Hankins — He went up to Johns in a quiet and . gentle manner ; would swear he never popped up his hands until Johns shaped at him ; was a little excited, and thought Mr Hankins would get j excited if he saw his property being j stolen ; though excited, he was very . civil, and took great precaution as to that. > Robert Mason, son of complain; ant, deposed to having seen the as- I sault from his father's door ; he saw > Johns strike his father two or three 1 times, then get behind and kiok bun ; 1 his father said nothing except that 1 he would not let Johns take the fire) wood. Mr Hankins cross-examined this ' witness with the view of showing that [ the row outside attracted him to the > door, and that he was not present i when it began. W. Richardson deposed to having 1 seen Johns shake complainant ; be lieved he also struck and kicked him ; he heard no conversation between them, and saw nothing before the : row. ' This concluded complainant's case. Mr Hankins, for the defence, said > he would prove great provocation, and that the defendant acted in self defence. Thos. Unsworth, Clerk at the Paiaka mill, deposed that on the morning in question he saw Mason on the flat opposite his (witness') house ; he was inside at the time, i and hearing loud talk went outside, ; and looked on; Mason was going towards Johns, and had his hand ' out ; Johns went up to Mason, who shaped at him ; was certain Mason shaped first; Johns then kicked ; Mason ; he thought Johns was provoked by Mason putting up his hands;. Johns only asked why he should not be allowed to take the firewood ; Mason seemed to be much excited. ' By Mr Staite— Mason was 20 yards away from Johns when he first spoke ; Mason stopped, and Johns went up to him ; Mason did not strike Johns, nor kick him ; I am a " particular r friend "of Mason's ;— I was a friend i up to a certain time ; I summoned him on the 14th of August for using ( threatening language towards me on L the 27th July, and calling me a r loafer and scoundrel ; it was not my intention to take proceedings, but r Mason has on two occasions since been very abusive towards me; I '- have Mason and Hodder's books in ; my possession. I His Worship considered defendant , was guilty, as he had no occasion to advance towards Mason, and also should not have taken the law into , his own hands, even though Mason did " shape "at him. Fined £1 and [ costs, £1 Bs. THREATENING LANGUAGE. > W. F. Mason was charged with using threatening language towards » Thos. Unsworth. Mr Staite appeared for the defence, and applied for an adjournment, as defendant had been . summoned only at 9 o'clock the previous evening, and had not had time to obtain the attendance of an impor; taut witness. Mr Hankins, who appeared for the complainant, offered no objection to the proposal, and the oase was therefore adjourned until next Court day, September 8, The Clerk explained that the delay had taken place through no mileage fee having been paid when the sum* mons was taken out. CIVIL CASES. Chapman v. Hodder and Mason. — Claim £42 17s Id, for services as engineer. —This case had been remanded from last Court. Mr Staite, for the defendant, asked for a further remand, owing to the non-arrival of Mr Hodder and another witness, who were coming up by the Tui. — Mr
B/ Hankins protested most strongly W Against any further adjournment of E the case, unless security were given f for the amount claimed by his client. —His Worship fought that a fair » compromise.— Mr Staite said his clients were not prepared to give the -teourity asked -for. — Tbe oase was t tnen gone on with, and occupied a considerable time. The principal L item in dispute was a sum of £17 12s ' 6d, for board and lodging, which defendants pleaded as a set-off. Mr Hankins strongly protested against this being allowed, on tiie ground that no written agreement having been entered into, with the , lodgingi house keeper by which the defendants * became liable for the amount, his . client (plaintiff) could be sued for it. i His Worship took a different view, I and allowed the set off, giving judgment for plaintiff for £18 4s 4d, with costs, £4. ■ J. H Brown v. Hodder and Mason. I —Claim £86 10s 6d, for wages.— Adjourned till next Court day, owing to bill of particulars not being complete. T. P. Williams v. Hodder and Mason.— Claim £25 9s lOd for goods supplied. — Judgment by consent. " f M. Walsh v. W. R. Anderson. — Ik Claim £4 ss.— Judgment by default j for amount and costs, 7s. V In the following cases the sum' mouses had not been served: — T. - Ea__foh v. Kawana Hunia, claim I £4 10s ; F. Robinson, junr., vF. W. ■ Hodder, claim £16 Is ; H. Davidson P v. F. W. Hodder, claim £84 18s ; T. P. Williams v. F. W. Hodder, claim I £12 18s. _■_■___■__■__■_■■_