LEESTON.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7417, 7 December 1889, Page 6

LEESTON.

Friday, December 6. Before R. Beetham, Esq., 8.M., "W. D. Lawrence, and H. J. Hall, Esqrs., J.P.'s.) Assault bt a Boy.—W. Aitken.junr., a boy fourteen years of age, was charged with assaulting another boy eleven years of age, named W. Burt. Both boys belonged to Doyleston. It appeared that the boy Burt took part in thrashing a brother of W.Aitken's, and that in consequence the accused waited for the boy Burt, and gave him a severe chastisement. Dr. Keyworth, called by the police, stated that he was called in to attend the boy Burt, and found him in a very weak state ; he was suffering from severe contusions, the principal one being in the centre of the spine. He was inacomplete state of collapse and almost pulseless, lire Burt, the mother of the boy, D. Bobb, H. Ireland, and W. Reid all gave evidence for the assault. W. Aiken, the accused, admitted the case, and stated that he had provocation. The Bench gave the accused a severe reprimand, and imposed a fine of 10s, with 303 costs.

Drunkenness.—Jas. Connolly, for this offence, was fined 10s and costs. Protection Order, -r Copplestone v Copplestone. This was an application by Mrs CoppJestone for a protection order for her property and children; It appears that A. Copplestone, who for some years carried on a bakery business at Leeston, left his wife and family some three years ago. Since that date Mrs Copplestone has successfully carried on the business and brought up her fsmilj. She now applied to have the property and family protected by the Court in her own name. Order made as prayed for. Civil. Oases.—H. Alington vH. Vlnce, claim £17 13s Bd, on two dishonored promissory notes. Judgment for and with interest reduced from 10 per cent, to 8 per cent. W. Johnston v Eingwood, claim £1 17s. Judgment by default. Jas. H. McPherson vEdwinWhite, claim, £813s, for grass seed. at Iβ 3d per bushel. The plaintiff's case was tha% he sold the seed from balk sample to the defendant, and that he bought it? as inferior seed at a very low price. The defendant stated that he was induced to buy the seed after seeing the sample, but that the bulk delivered was not the same quality of seed. He therefore returned the seed to the plaintiff. Four samples were shown in Court; and the Bench were of the opinion that the whole were very bad; also that the sample was just about as bad as the bulk. Judgment for amount of claim, with coats. Mr Wynn-Williams appeared lor the plaintiff. T.JOurant and Son v McCroskell, claim £13 6s; judgment by default. Same vW. McColl, claim £6; judgment for amount claimed. ■■ •"■ ■■ :