RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
ASHBURTON. -To-day. (Before Joseph Berwick, Esq., R.M.) Wounding with Intent. —Par Peterson was brought up, on remand, charged with wounding one Joseph Capstick.— Mr Purnell appeared for the accused.— Tho informant stated that he was a laborer working for a man named Griffin, near Ashburton. Was sitting in the kitchen with Peterson, Griffin, Drinkwater, and Mrs Griffin, at about half-past ten on the 12th inst. Griffin told his wife to do up a bundle of clothes belonging to the accused. Griffin put the accused out of the house. Witness followed them out. Accused got Griffin down on the ground. Witness pulled the accused off Griffin, and toldßiim if he wanted to fight, witness would fight him (accused). Paterson “ came at him,” but did not strike him, and ran across the garden, witness after him. Accused then stabbed witness in the left arm with a knife. The blow was a violent one. At the same time he got another stab on the left shoulder. Accused then ran away. Had suffered much from the effects of the wounds, and was still under medical treatment.—By Mr Purnell : There was nothing said about wages. Had no quarrel with the accused. When he invited the accused to fight he refused. Accused pulled the knife out of his pocket as he was running away. Tho knife was a “pampa” knife. Witness struck accused in the face. Might have struck tho accused a violent blow. Accused struck at witness. Was sober at the time. Griffin had a glass of beer with witness as they were going home —By the Court : Followed Griffin and accused out of the house to see what would occur. Accused was sober, but had quarrelled with Griffin on several occasions. Accused struck witness first, when asked to fight. —Thomas Leahy, a duly qualified medical practitioner, deposed that Capstick came to him on the 15th July. He wa suffering from two wounds—one on the left forearm, and one on the shoulder’ The wound on the forearm was an incised penetrating wound. The arm could not have been extended at the time the stab was given. It was a severe wound on the arm The wound cn the left shoulder was a small one, and was almost healed now. The knife produced would inflict similar wounds ; accused must have used great force to do so, as it was very blunt. Capstick was still under medical treatment.—By Mr Purnoll ; The wound in the arm was a penetrating wound, but, as a matter of fact, any of them were not dangerous.—John Griftin, sail he was a contractor, living near Ashburton. Knew the accused, who came to his house on the morning of tho 12th July. Witness told him to take his things away from his house and clear out. The accused came back to witness’ house the same evening. Witness asked him why he had not cleared out, and he replied that he did not intend doing so. Witness took the clothes belonging to accused, who said he would not go. Witness then put him out of the house, and in the scuffle both went out together. Accused then threw witness down on the ground, and held him by the throat. Witness called out “ Peter, don’t choke me.” Capstick then came out, and as soon as he pulled the accused olf witness, the accused “ went for ” Capstick. Accused then ran away. Witness took Capstick into the house, as he was bleeding terribly, both from the head and arm. Accused was in the employ of witness, and had lived about ten months in his house. Did not owe the accused any money.— Capstick was in witness’ employ as well. Accused had been drinking, but knew what he was about. —By Mr Parnell: Capstick had also been drinking, but was not drunk. Did not know why accused refused to leave witness’ house. There was a dispute between witness, Mr Bennett, and accused. There was nothing said about the dispute on the evening of the row. Capstick never said anything to accused about the dispute that evening. Witness and Capstick were not both on the top of the accused at the same time. Never heard any disputes between Capstick and the accused. When witness saw the accused on the morning after the row, his eyes were black, and there was blood and dirt on his face. —By the Bench : The dispute between Bennett and the accused was settled on the evening of the 12th, It took place near Power’s Hotel, and there was a “ Horange ” dinner on at the time. —John Drinkwater, a laborer in the employ of Griffin, corroborated the evidence of the last witness. —Constable Hicks, said he arrested the accused on the 13th inst., on a charge of stabbing with intent to murder. Accused said he knew nothing about it. He had a black eye and a bruise on the nose at the time.— Sergeant Felton said that about 9 o’clock on the 13th July, accused was brought up to the police station by Constable Hicks. Explained to prisoner that the charge against him was wounding with intent to murder. The knife produced was in the pocket of the accused. When examining the knife, accused asked what he (the Sergeant) was looking at it for. Witness replied that he was looking to see whether the knife was washed. Accused said ho had no knife on the 12th, and only get it that morning. Mr Purnell said there was no evidence to show that the case was other than that of a common assault. As such he would ask to have the accused put in the box to give evidence. The wounds were not serious ones, and accused had been treated badly. His Worship said that he must hear the counsel’s defence on behalf of the prisoner as the case was an indictable offence.—Mr Purnell said that his client was dissatisfied with tho result of some dispute about payment for work. Capstick had invited Peterson to tight him, and the latter had no intention of drawing a knife until he was unconscious of what he was doing. His client was severely mauled by the two men, and, in self defence, had drawn a knife, and Capstick had been instrumental in bringing it upon himself in a great measure. There was no intention to murder, as the accused had only de-
fended himself.—His Worship said he would deal with the case as one of common assault. The accused was then put into the witness box, and stated that he * was turned out of Griffin’s house. Griffin owed him money. They had a scuffle, and witness was kicked a severe blow on the head ; his face bled very much, and he had a black eye. Caps tick and Griffin had been drinking. —By the police : Griffin told him to take his things and go. Did not know tho reason why Griffin told him to leave the house. Had finished all the work for Griffin a few days previously, —His Worship said that there was no doubt that tho accused had been put out of Griffin’s house, and that Capstick had invited the accused to fight. There were faults on both sides, but nothing can justify the use of a knife. Ti.e accused had been nearly in the position of being liable to imprisonment for seven years. He would be imprisoned for two months with hard labor.—Mr Purnoll said there was a charge brought by the accused against Capstick for assault.—His Worship said that the case must be dismissed. Assault. —Frederick Howard, a disreputable looking character, was brought up, on remand, charged with assaulting a woman named Ellen Jones, a domestic servant, living at Mrs Harper’s boardinghouse, on the 29th of April last. The evidence of the informant was to the effect that the prisoner threatened to assault her iu the washhouse whilst cleaning some knives.— Mrs Harper slated that she knew the prisoner, whom she ordered out of her house as he had been insulting and abusive. —Sergeant Felton said that the prisoner had been allowed to go to Wellington by the police, as he had expressed a wish to attend his father’s funeral. The police had since found that the prisoner never went to Wellington, and had told a deliberate lie. He was arrested at Rakaia, and had several previous convictions against him for assaults on females. His Worship said that, as the prisoner had told a deliberate lie as well, he would be sentenced to two months’ hard labor. Leaving a Cab Unattended. —Robert Walsh was charged with leaving his cab unattended. Fined 20s, and two wit--1 nesses expenses, 5s each.
Forgery and Uttering. —Alexander Clark was brought up on remand, charged with forging and uttering a cheque for L 3 O’Learey, barman of the Hindhope Hotel, sworn, said that on the 2nd of July prisoner left the hotel, and returned on the sth, when he gave witness a cheque (produced). Prisoner asked what he owed, and gave the cheque in payment. He said it was Osborne’s cheque. Witness gave the prisoner the balance in silver of the cheque, after deducting the amount due by him. The cheque was paid into the Union Bank of Australia. Knew where Mr Oabofna lived.—By the prisoner : I told you I knew Osborne, but not Sheppard, the name in the body of the cheque.—lsaac Osborne said he was a farmer living at the Hinds. The handwriting on the cheque was not his. There was no one of the same name in the County of Ashburton to his knowledge. Had no banking account. Knew Joseph Sheppard, who is still in witness’s employment as a ploughman. Knew the prisoner before last harvest. He was then at Tinwald. Never gave anyone authority to sign cheques.—Joseph Sheppard said he was a ploughman in the employ of the last witness. Had not been absent from Mr Osborne’s farm since last May. Never gave any cheque to the prisoner.—William Hutchison, accountant in the Bank of New Zealand, Ashburton, deposed that there was no name like that of I. Osborne in the books of the Bank. The cheque was presented, end marked “No account.” —Constable Neill said he arrested the prisoner in Ashburton on the charge of forging and uttering a cheque at the Hinds. The prisoner said in reply to the charge that he was sent up to Maronan with a warrant, and on the road between Maronan and Tinwald he met a man carrying a swag, who asked prisoner if he could change a cheque for 13, which he did. The swagger said his name was Sheppard, and he worked for Osborne. Piisoner remarked that it was a pretty mess as he knew Osborne well. He asked the barman at the Hinds Hotel if he knew the signature, and knowing it changed the cheque Prisoner had endorsed the cheque as “ John Clarke, ” and witness had known the prisoner for the last twelve months as Alexander Clark.—The prisoner was then committed for trial at the next criminal sessions of the Supreme Court.
CIVIL CASES. Andrew Orr v. Williams. —No appearance. Case struck out. Sullivan v. King.—Case adjourned for one week. Maxwell v. Gibson.—Claim, L - Mr Purnell for plaintiff, Mr Branson for defendant. This was a case which was adjourned for arbitration from a previous hearing of the case. A further adjournment of a fortnight was granted. Nome v. Cairncross. —Claim, L 47 10s, Mr Crisp for defendant. Plaintiff was nonsuited, as the defendant had filed in bankruptcy. Lucas v. Foster.—Claim, L 5. Defendant had paid 70s into Court. Judgment for plaintiff for balance with costs. Hunt v. Cornelius.—Claim, L 3 Is. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed and costs.
Poiter v. Edo.—Claim, L 6 6s. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Immediate execution granted. Physic v. Lancaster.—Claim, L 4. Defendant paid LI 10s 7d into Court. Judgment for LI 6s 6d in addition to the amount paid into Court. Allan v. Emerson.—Claim, LI ss. Mr Purnell for plaintiff, Mr Branson for defendant. His Worship said that as the case had been heard before two Justices he would adjourn it until Monday next.
Permanent link to this item
Ashburton Guardian, Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 694, 21 July 1882
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume III, Issue 694, 21 July 1882
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.