(Before Messrs Boardman and Colbeck, Justices.)

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 128, 31 May 1888, Page 5

(Before Messrs Boardman and Colbeck, Justices.)

Assault. — Edward Hugh Mann waa, charged with that ho did on the 30th o* May. 1888, at Auckland, unlawfully assault one Hector Alcock.—Mr Napier appeared for tho complainant, and Mr Cotter for tho defendant, who pleaded not guilty.— Hector Alcock, oysterman on the venture, deposed that tho defendant was also an oysterman on the cutter Signet. About 10 a.m. yesterday he was baling out his dingy, when tho defendant said to him, " What were you saying last night?" Witness replied, "Nothing." The defendant then struck him several time 3 violently. Witness bled profusely and had to go to Mr King the chemist's, to have the wounds attended to.—By Mr Cotter: The defendant was his brother-in-law. He did not remember using filthy language tho previous night with regard to the defendant's mother. He had said that defendant frequented bad houses.—William Laing deposed to seeing the assault. Tho complainant's eye was cut, and bled profusely.—Sarah Alcock, wife of the complainant deposed that her brother the defendant, told her after the assault, " You may tell Hector that when I see him I will give him what I gave him this morning. I'll put a face on him." She had never heard her husband call her brother bad names. This concluded the case for the prosecution. —Edward Hugh Mann, the defendant, deposed that yesterday morning when he went home he was told that his brofcher-iiv-law, the informant, had used offensive language to them. Witness went down to see him. They had some words, and at length Alcock called him a liar and witness struck him three times in the face. — Mrs Mann, mother of the last witness, deposed bo tho complainant coming home on the previous evening and using disgusting language with regard to herself and daughter. The man was quiet enough when he was sober. —The Bench were satisfied that the offence had been committed, but under gross provocation. Of course there had been a breach of the law, and they must fine the defendant 5s and costs.