JONES v. CHURCH.
f • yuvxvvUi Ub T&i Editor.
Sib, —Your report of the above case, heard at the PoliceCoUrty esterd ay, states that " After hearing evidence, the Bench bound both women over in securities to keep the peace l to one.another.” This is , incorrect. Theßonch only bound Mrs Church over to keep the peace towards my client fbril2months,andordered her to pay the bosts of the information. My client was .not bound qyer; nor did the Magistrate, while censuring the conduct of Mn Church,' lay any blame whatever upon Mn Jones. Tho cae« -Church v.; Jones was not heard ut: all. Mrs Church’s counsel, after hearing the evidence in Jones v. Churehund the Magistrate’s decision thereon, asked leave to withdraw the information, rwhich was granted.—l am, &c., 0. W. Purnell. * July 30. v;.i- . [ln consequence of the large amount of straw-splitting indulged in by the learned counsel on both sides engaged in this case, it was not conpludedd natil we were abent to go to when our reporter had left. lact moment as to the WO were informed that it waaos in yesteitlay’t issue.. If Mrs Joueaveas nqt bound oyer,to.keep the peace as Well as her opponent, in our opuuen sheought to have been, on her own evidence, for filthy and insulting. langusge.-JSp. iffJ f
Permanent link to this item
JONES v. CHURCH., Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 409, 30 July 1881
JONES v. CHURCH. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 2, Issue 409, 30 July 1881
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.