Magistrate’s Court.

Cromwell Argus, Volume XXXVII, Issue 1988, 14 May 1906, Page 5

Magistrate’s Court.

Thursday, 10th May. L. Harris v. T. Lester.—For assault, and that he may be required to find sureties to keep the peace. L. Harris, sworn, said on Tuesday evening, 24th April, a few minutes before 6 o’clock I left my office and went into the hotel by the front door - to the public sitting room on my way to dinner, and Mr Lester, Mr Heaney and two or three others were in the I made no remark to Lester, but when he saw me he said you are the man who put my name in the paper, and made a rush at me, but was stopped by Mr Heaney. I judged - by his demeanor that he intended an assault. He broke away and made another rush at me, in a more threatening manner. I kept away from him and cautioned him. I have seen him several times since, and have passed him on different occasions since and he has not molested or spoken to me. , . Martin Heaney, on being sworn, said he was in the hotel with three or four others when the disturbance between Lester and Harris took place. Lester rushed at Harris, when we stopped him. We just kept between them. He (Lester) was a bit rough but not bad, and soon got quietened down. I left them there when I went away. He did not think it was much of an assault. i J. McLoughlin, sworn, said that Harris came in by the parlor entrance door, and when Harris was asked by some one to have a drink, Lester said, “ Surely you are not going to shout Cor that old waster,” and made a rush at Harris. I requested Lester to behave himself, and when I went to him Jje quietened down, and said be would

not make a disturbance in the house. Lester did not make any threat in my hearing. Mr Brodrick said the case should never have been brought before the court, and the evidence is that no assault was made, and he would leave the matter in the hands of the Court, and would not call any evidence. The Magistrate stated that it was an assault, and that persons must be protected from being assaulted on going into a public room, and he would convict defendant, but would not make an order to bind him over to keep the peace. He would be fined 10s, and Solicitor’s costs, £1 Is. The witnesses did not claim any expenses. John Fleming v. James and Malcolm Ritchie.—Claim, £4l 14s lOd. Mr Hutton for Plaintiff. Mr Brodrick for defendant. Heard last Court day. His Worship gave judgment for defendant without costs. g|T. Lester v. C. Cederholrn. —Claim, £l7 5s fid. Judgment for £G 13s Bd, with costs. H. C. Russell v. James Ritchie. — Claim, £lO Is 3d. Judgment for Plaintiff, by consent, for £B, and costs.