, — » ABHBURTON— THURSDAY. (Before Mr O. A. Wray, R.M.)
DRUHK*»KESS. A nun who bad cot been before the Oonifc for some time was fined 20s and ooils with the alternative of 48 hours imprisonment for having been dtaak while U* ohargo of a horee. A first offender wai fiaed 6i with the uansi alternativa. XnXATTZECDXD. J»mei MoOreour «v charged with having left a team of horses no attended and wm ordered to pay expense* incurred, 27* CIVIL OA6XB, R, Pattern y J. J*okmao, claim £2 lie Bd. The amoaat had been paid into Uaart, and judgment was given for 4* eoaUj D. Thomaß v J. Burgeit, claim £10. tfr Crisp for pUiaiiff. Judgment for plaintiff by defanlt. J»s.j Harper r JE. F. Wright, olaim £20. Mr O/lap for palnttff, Mr Poraell for defendant, There was a cross action, Wright v Harper, and it was decided that both oaaea should be heard together. The following evidence was led :— Jm. flarper, qnarrymao, aald that on Jane 20 he went to Wright with an account for damages dono by the latter'a pigs. The defendant threw the bill at witneaaand toll him to go to the d Wltneaa atked him if he had been " maligning my character bedidd my bMk— saying that 7 wti not a work. man." He replied that It waa a fact and oidered wUneia oat of the abed they were m. When he got ootalde witness asked defendant if he was a shoeblack, and if it waa a faot that he waa a bottlewasher. After witness had aaked a few of theae polite questions Wright oame oat with a big atlck. Witness told him that ha wonld " take the law of him " If he struck him. He atrack witness irho •aught hold of the atlok. Witness was then attack and kloked aeveral tlmei. Wltneta had not been able to work alnoe tne occurrence, m conseqaenoe of the Injuries he sustained.— By Mr Porr.ell: Defendant did not attempt to atrlke witness until after witness had been abusive. When the struggle waa going on witness struck defendant on tbe head with the attck taflotlng a oat wbioh bled freely. — Oharlei Hewson aaid that he law tbe coDoluslon of the sctffli. Mr Wricht Wai the aggressor, Harper only defending himself. Had known Harper for some years and had always found him peaoeahl?, his only falling being that of " lifting his elbow" a little too much.— By Mr Purne!!: Witness had had a contraot under Mr Wright, and, saying that he could not ■lake It pay, Mr Wright said the reason was because witness bad men loafing on him and not doing a fair day's wotk. Witneas repeated this conversation, bat he did not know if it gave rise to ill-feeling against Mi Wright on the part of Harper and others of the men. During the aooffla witness saw Harpsr strike Wright a blow on the head with tbe stek. It was not a rsry violent blow, the blood rushed out, but this might have been due to there bain; a knot on the s Ick.— Thomoe McLean, and William Easton, also gave evidence — Mr Purnell opened the ctse for Mr Wright, end called evidence as follows:— B. F. Wright, lime kiln proprietor, satd that on June 26, he waa m his offioe when Harper oame up and bastling up against him, handed m a claim for alleged damage done by witness's pigs. Witness 1 oked on the claim as a bogus one as Harp-r was merely living on sufferance m a shed, having no leasehold or freehold proper y Harper beoame very abusive asking witness if. ho bad not been a boot-black and bottle-washer m America, and ha called witness a liar. Witness ordered him oat of the office, and when he was going out of the door he made use of a very disgusting term Witness thereupon picked up a stick and sv Benin's ensued io which witness struck Harper on the shoulder and kicked him a few times. Harper struck witness on the head, infliotiog a severe cut. From what hid came under witness' observation he was satisfied that the affair had been premedi'ated by some of the men m coqasqasQce of witness ;: having employed •nsjiher oontMotor..— -John Hood dressed a wound on Mr Wright's head on the day of tbe scoffle. ]t wes a straight eat about an inch and a quarter long. — Counsel on both sides having addressed the Court, the Magistrate said that m tbe daim brought by harper he was asked to decide not whether a breach of. the peace had been committed, but whether Htrper was entitled to compensation. There was no doubt Elarpcr had acted m a most oCensiTs manner, and had, according to Wright, used a very disgusting epithet whkh no man could be expeoted to ■offer to be applied to him, and there was no donbt Harper broaght upon himself what followed, as regarded the counter claim, as Wright ohose to take the law into his own banes if he came oat of the combat with a wound he must be prepared to put up with it. Neither parly waa entitled to any pecuniary compensation and he would be nonsuited. [Left sitting ]
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.
Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.
Print, save, zoom in and more.