MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume XXVII, Issue 3643, 13 March 1877, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, March 12.

(Before G. L. Mellish, Eeq, B. M., Dr Deamer, and W. H. Pilliett, EBqs, J.P.'s.) THE POOLEY CASE.

Edward Pooley, one of the English cricketers, arrested on warrant appeared to answer the charge of having violently assaulted Ralph Donkin, on the night of 28th February last. Mr Joynt appeared to prosecute, and Mr Cowlishaw for the accused. The prosecutor called, stated that on the last day of the cricket match" he was in the bar-room of the Commercial, hotel in what was called the billiard-room bar. Accused came to witness and demanded £36 for a bet he pretended to have made with him. Witness said he had nothing at all to do with the bet, as he had " cried off it." Accused came back again and endeavored to compromise the matter; but witness wonld not have anything to do with it, as he considered he had nothing to compromise. Witness with friends went into the passage, and Pooley followed him and used very improper language. He then struck witness over the shoulder of the barman, who had come between them. Charlwood, another of the cricketers, came to witness and asked him to go to the Theatre. Before reaching there Pooley followed them, seized witness by the Bhoulder and turned him round, and again asked him whether he intended to pay the money. Witness said not, and Pooley struck and knocked bim down, and struck him in the face with a large ring he had on one of his fingers. Witness's face was very much cut, and also the back of his head. No provocation was given to Pooley, asd witness only raised bis stick in self defence. Witness was afterwards Carried up to his room at the hotel, and Pooley forced open the door, and again need vile language, when Mr Buck and Mr Radcliffe interfered. Was advised nor to stay at the hotel feat night In crossexamination the witness said that Pooley

bad asked binrfor tbe inoiieyafter the match was over, because he said he had won the be*. Could hot aay that Pooley had asked to refer the matter to any local man. The barman had come from behind tbe bar when he thought there was going tobe a row, and interfered. Witness was struck. Jy Pooley over the barman's shoulder. After this witness was going to the theatre with Mr Charlwood and Mr Buck, when Pooley foilowed him, caught him by the ahoulder, and turned him qnite round, and struck him violently, throwing him down. When he waa down Pooley got on to him and struck him repeatedly in the face. Would swear that hedidnot raise the stick to Pooley _»tU after he was struck. Witness did not know that Pooley's room was next to his. Mr Radcliffe, landlord of the Commercial Hotel, deposed to hearing a row outside the 'hotel that night, and on • eoinsr out saw Pooley throw Donkin down -and strike him several tunes. A gentleman pulled Pooley off Mr Donkin. The latter was afterwards taken up to his room ; his face was marked, and his nose bleeding. Pooley followed up, and stood at Donkin's door, using very strong language. Witness then interfered. It would depend which staircase Pooley went up whether he would have to pass Donkin's room to get to his own. There was no occasion for him to have done so by the stairs he went up at the time. Pooley was cut over the eye, and r blood was issuing from the cut John Bailey called, gave evidence of hearing Pooley speak to Donkin that night about the bet. Heard the latter ask whether he had not told the waiter in Pooley's presence that the bet was oft Pooley called Donkin some very harsh names, and afterwards struck him in the presence of witness. The prosecutor was then taken away by some friends, and witness saw nothing more of the altercation. Joseph Watson, barman at the Commercial Hotel, called, stated that both Donkin and Pooley were lodgers at the hotel. On tbe evening of the 28th February heard the parties having an argument about a bet. Heard Pooley tell Donkin that he was no gentleman and a swindler, and that he would pay the b out before the night was over. This was in the passage, and immediately afterwards seeing there was going to be a row, witness went between them, and Pooley struck Donkin on the side of the cheek, witness also receiving a portion of the blow. Donkin did not strike back, nor did witness hear him use any provoking language. Witness then took hold of Pooley and moved him away. Witness distinctly heard Pooley say that he would pay the b—— out before the night was over. In cross-examination the witness said that he had to use force to move Pooley away. Heard some words used about a bet. Donkin did not give Pooley any provocation so far as witness saw or heard. Thomas Swinton gave evidence of being present that night, and seeing both parties in front of the bar. Heard Pooley say to Donkin," Are you going to pay mc or not ?" Donkin said not, as he had told him before the match that it was a catch bet. Pooley then said " You b shicer," it would not take mc long to take it ont of you." The barman then came round, and took Pooley by the shoulder, and as he was taking him away, Pooley turned round, struck out at Donkin, and said " You h take that." The blow struck Donkin on the cheek, and blood Durst out, and Donkin asked witness to go for .a policeman, and went upstairs, followed by Pooley ; witness then told the landlord of this and he went after them. In cross-examination the witness said he had not rehearsed hia evidence, and came to the Court with the truth. He had not received any money to give his evidence, and considered the question an insult. Mr Buck called, stated-that on that night he went into the Commercial Hotel, ( and heard Pooley and Donkin having some words about a bet The former was using very abusive language, and threatened to knock his head through the door. Pooley afterwards said " I'll have yon now," and struck him. Charlwood came and took Donkin away, and witness went with them. After getting as far as the Lyttelton Times lane, Pooley came up, caught Donkin by the shoulder, turned him round, and struck him three times. Donkin then raised his stick in self defence. Both fell oh the ground; but as the' crowd collected round, . witness could not see what happened very distinctly. Donkin' was led afterwards to his room with his face bleeding, and when they were up stairs Pooley came up and said, "Let mc have him." Mr Radcliffe, who was also present, then interfered, and Pooley said, "I'll have him tomorrow morning." Both parties seemed to be perfectly sober, at least, witness would say that Donkin was. In cross-examination, the witness said he would distinctly swear that Mr Donkin had never struck Pooley before the other had struck him, nor could he say j even tben that he had done so. Mr Cowlishaw said before giving evidence' he would make a few remarks, in the course of which he said his client had only been told after the match that the bet was a " catch bet." Donkin had given Pooley 6 to 1 that he would name the individual scores of each of the Canterbury, team. After the money was won Pooley was then told that the bet was a catch, and that he (Pooley), acting as umpire, the bet. must be oft Smarting under this, his client had certainly struck Donkin, and when. afterwards he went out into the street and again asked for the money, Donkin struck bim three times with his stick after which Pooley knocked him down. Thomas Lakeman, called by Mr Cowlishaw, stated that he heard some angry words between the parties in the hotel that night, and saw Pooley strike the other a slight blow on the cheek. The affair lasted only a few | moments. Afterwards Donkin, Charlwood, | and another went. outside, and Pooley followed them. When he got behind Donkin, Pooley touched him on the arm, and when Donkin turned round, asked him whether he intended paying him that money. Donkin then raised his stick and struck Pooley three times with it, cuttiDg him over the eye, marking him on the forehead, and knocking his hat Pooley then struck him, and the men were separated, Witness took Pooley upstairs to his room, and there he expressed his sorrow to witness that a row had occurred, and he thought Donkin had got more than he deserved. Did not hear Pooley afterwards at Donkin's room use threatening language. He, on the contrary, seemed to be vei y sorry for what had occurred. Pooley, called, stated that Donkin mada a bet of .6 to 1 that he (Pooley) would not name the individual scores of the eighteen. The names were put down, and witness placed the score opposite to each. The paper was then put into an envelope, sealed up, and kept in the office. Afterwards, but before the match, a waiter told witness that Mr Donkin had cried off the bet Witness said it took two men to make a bet, and would take the same number to cry oft Alter the first innings witness saw Donkin, and told him he would let him off the second innings if he would pay for that one. The night in question at the bar he asked Donkin for the money, told him he waa no gentleman to refuse to pay his bets; might have called him a shicer, and being very angry, did certainly strike him. Donkin went away, and witness was told that he had gone out He followed bim and touched him. lightly on the arm, asking him again for the money. Donkin at once turned round, and struck him violently on the face with his stick three times. In self .defence witness had rushed in and knocked him down. Witness only went to Donkin's room afterwards to make it up and have a bottle with him. Would not admit that while there he said he'd have it out of Donkin the following morning. Mr Radcliffe had asked witness not to kick up a row, and he went away quietly. If Donkin bad come to him himself before the match, and told him why he wanted to get off, he would bave let him. In cross examination the witness said that the number he had put. apposite each name waa a duck's egg. Did not think the bet was >, catch one, but . a professional man would know better than to take it. T. 8. Sweet, called, said he had heard the particulars of tho bet, juad did not consider it waa a catch.. .After counsel had retht evidence at length, his Worship said "the weight of evidence on the second assault waa undoubtedly ia favor of com-

plainant ; as to the first of course there did not exist the slighiest doubt. The defendant might possibly have been acting under a sense of irritation at the bet not being paid. Defendant would be fined £5, and he (his Worship) would give him the benefit of that feeling, or the fine would have been very different.

MALiciotrsLY DwrußiKs Pbxvatk Property.—Edward Pooley and Bichard Bramhall appeared to answer the charge of I having maliciously injured private property, I above the value of £5, belonging to RalphDonkin. The same counsel appeared as in the previous ease. Mr Joynt told the Bench that the case was brought under the 51st section of the Malicious Injuries to Property Act for damage done above the value of £5, between the hours of nine o'clock at night and six o'clock the following morning. It was his intention to press for- a committal. The following evidence was taken : —Ralph Donkin, prosecutor, called, stated that after the assault on the night of the 28th, Pooley was standing at witness's door, and said««Til have the b in the morning." Witness was advised not to sleep at the hotel that night in consequence of the threats made. Witness occupied a single bedroom at the hotel, and went away about nine o'clock, immediately after he had washed his face. In witness's room there were clothes hanging up, aod some plana and tracings at one end of it. The whole of the property was in good condition when witness left the room. Saw them all perfect when he went last to wash his face. Saw them a little after 9 o'clock next morning. Found some of the tracings burnt and put into the chamber. The plans and clothes were torn and strewed about the bed. One plan waa wrenched in two. The plans were those of buildings and tracings of surveys, and were useful. The one wrenched in two waa a plan of Lyttelton, showing all the ramifications of the waterworks there. The back of one shirt was torn, two new hats crushed and placed ia the washing basin, a pair of black trousers (new) were torn and put into the chamber utensil. Witness did not know of his own knowledge who did all this work. The value of the clothing witness valued at from £36 to £38, and it would take £60 to replace the plans. They were of that valne to witness, as some of them could not be reproduced without actual survey. Witness saw when he went to his room that the door had been forced open, as the catch had been wrenched and the screws loosened, In cross* examination, witness said three complete suits and other clothes had been injured— some torn lengthways and some across. [Clothes produced, all of which were torn as described. _ The clothes were hanging up behind the door, the shirt was in the drawers, and the plans in the corner of the room when witness left it. Joseph Watson called, stated that he is barman of the Commercial Hotel, and remembered the night in question. There was a disturbance tbat night between Mr Donkin and Pooley. Heard tbe latter threaten Donkin that he was no gentleman and a swindler, and that he wonld take it out of him that night. Saw Pooley before the bar that night, but did not see Bramhali about. In cross-examina-tion, witness said that Pooley gave Donkin a thrashing after this threat was used. Eliza Jane Shannon stated that on the 28th of February she was housemaid at the Commercial Hotel. Heard that there had been a disturbance between Mr Pooley and Mr Donkin. Witness Was in the room occupied by Mr Donkin about half-past ten o'clock that night. The room looked just as usual, and there was nothing lying about burnt or torn. Witness could not say whether Bhe Bbut the door when she left it There was no one about it at the time. Everything in. the room Beemed to be as usual. In crossexamination the witness said there might bave been some clothes on the bed without her noticing them. John Ackerman, waiter at the Commercial, stated that he was walking up and down in front of the hotel between half past ten and ten minutes to eleven o'clock, but nearer to the latter hour. While so engaged witness saw a light in Mr Donkin's room, and went up* stairs to see whether he was cut or hurt. When witness got upstairs he saw Bramhali coming from No 5 (Mr Donkin's room) towards No 6, and Pooley was coming oat of Mr Donkin's room. Could not say whether either carried a candle, as the two gas lamps burning at each ! end of the passage threw a light all along it Witness did not speak to either at that time, nor did they to him. Witness walked j straight into No 5 room and saw clothes all I over the bed, the drawers turned ont, and two hats in the washing basin. There were also some torn clothes on the floor. Witness then went and got a candle and returned to the room. He saw that the clothes lying on the floor were torn, and tbe others on the bed were lying in a heap. Found the tracing produced under a pair of trousers in the night stool, and the hat produced was on the landing on which the candlesticks are placed at night time. Witness locked the door when he came out of the bedroom, and took the key. Pooley was standing at the door of No 6 (his room), and Pooley spoke to him, and asked him who slept in No 7, pointing to No 6 room. Witness replied that No 7 was in the other direction. Pooley then pointed to No 5 room, and asked who slept there, witness said Mr Donkin. Pooley then said, " You tell Mr Donkin from mc that if he sleeps there to-night he will find himself half dead before morning " Next morning about half-past six o'clock or a quarter to seven when witness went upstairs he saw Pooley hammering at Donkin's door. He asked whether ■ Donkin had slept there tbat night, and witness replied not, and opened the door, but before unlocking it, said that some one had been trying,to break open the door. Pooley replied, "I sappose it was some ot our boys, as Donkin wouldn't pay his bet" Bramhali had come and left with the cricketers. When witness went to the room next morning could Bee that some one had attempted to force the door open. In the course of cross-examina-.. tion witness said there was little more than tbe width of a bed between the doors of No 5 and 6 rooms. Bramhali was only a yard. from Pooley when he saw them in the passage. Before calling evidence for the defence, Mr Cowlishaw submitted that there was nothing whatever to connect Bramhali with the offence beyond his having been seen in the passage within a yard from Pooley ; nor had he been seen even speaking to him. Mr Joynt contended that the evidence showed a prima facie case against Bramhali. His Worship said the Bench were not inclined to take the responsibility of disconnecting Bramhali with the offence. Mr Cowlishaw called Thomas Shardalow Sweet, who stated that on the night of the 28th February he wag in company with Bramhali from about a quarter to eight to twenty minutes to eleven. Pooley waa not with them. Witness left Bramhali in Mr Radcliffe's office. Mr Radcliffe was there at the time. Witness was-paying Bramhali for the sale of tbe cards on the ground, and was with him that night* looking for a person who had made np the returns of the match. When witness left Bramhali understood that he had to return to Morton's Hotel. They bad been there once together that night Arthur Whitely, bookmaker, called* stated that he remembered the evening of 28th February. Waa in the company of Pooley from about halfpast Bto half-past 10. After sticking some plaster on Pooley's face after he was cut { they went up town and visited various hotels. When they returned, about half-past 10, they went into the billiard room bar, and after about four or five minutes witness went away and left him there. In crossexamination witness said that it might have been seven or eight yards from Mr Radcliffe's office where he left Pooley. Charles Alexander, billiard marker at the Commercial, stated that be was so employed on- the night of the 28th February. Pooley came into the billiard room about half-past .ten with another gentleman. Pooley sat down near the right*hand table, and remained until after the house was closed. In cross-examination the witness said, as far as he could roughly aay, that Pooley remained in the room a long time that night. He noticed bim particularly in consequence of the' bother. James Hunt called, stated that he saw BraahaU in the bar passage of tha hotel about half-past tea

o'clock that night, and remained'with bim -_ntal eleven o'clock. He seemed to be going up and down stairs selling groups of the cricketers, and wanted witness to buy one. He said tbat he kept the groups upstairs. In cross-examination witness said that Bramhali went upstairs about twice during the time they were together, and remained away about five minutes each time. Saw him outside Mr Radcliffe's office, leaning on the window, but could not say whether he went inside. that Bramhali brought down a group of the Eleven each time he went up. Could not say what took him upstairs. J. W. Morton, proprietor of Morton's Hotel, called, stated that on the last night of tbe match he rembered Bramhali being in his hotel, about ten o'clock. He (Bramhali) was with a coachman at the time, and wanted witness to buy some photographs of the Eleven. Witness did not approve of tlie one he saw, and Bramhali said he 'would bring others if he could find them. He could not say whether the man returned again the aame night, but witness got the photographs the next day. Borne persons came after the hotse waa closed and were spoken to from an upstairs window. This concluded the evidence. "Mr Cowlishaw contended at length that nothing had been shown in any way to connect Bramhali with the offence. Mr Joynt submitted that the evidence of tbe waiter wbo had seen the men not a yard from each other after the offence had been committed, was sufficient to connect them together, and held that it Would be for a jury to draw the inference whether, considering their business relations to eaoh other, Bramhali was merely walking along the passage at the time to his room. His Worship said the Benoh had decided to send the whole case for trial. The evidence having been read over, Branthall said he waß innocent, and knew nothing about the affair. Pooley said he had nothing to say. Both men were fully committed tb take their trial at the next criminal sessions of the Supreme Court. On tbe application of Mr Cowlishaw his Worship said he would fix bail in each oase in two sureties to the amount of £100 each, accused in £200 each. Mr Joynt asked that he might receive notice of the sureties offered. After a short interval the following bail was accepted :— For Pooley—Mr J. Hurst, Rakaia Ferry Hotel, Bakaia Gorge ; Mr W. Haddrell, Market Hotel. For -Bramhali—Mr J. Hurst, and Mr J. O. Sheppard, White Hart Hotel. The men were then liberated.