RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume III, Issue 790, 16 November 1865, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

THIS HAY. (Before tbe Hon. A. C. Strode, R.M.)

CATTLE TRESPASS. Timothy Hayes, charged with allowing two goats to stray within tbe town limits, was fined 3s per bead and costs. BREACH OF THE LICENSE ORDINANCE. Charles Robertson was charged with neglecting to keep a light burning over the principal entrance of bis licensed bouse, tbe Glasgow Pi© House, from sunset to sunrise on tbe 12tb inst. It appeared that tbe same offence was a frequent occurrence, and tbe defendant was fined 5s and costs William Fidler, of tbe Auld Scotland Hotel, was charged with a similar offence. As it was stated that a candle which bad been left burning, was supposed to have been blown out, and being a first offence, tbe case was dismissed. ASSAULT. Touza v. Hucbrass, a charge of assault. Tb© complainant’s statement was that be, in company with two others, on the evening of tb© i-itli instant, in Maclaggan-street, were conversing together, when tbe defendant came up and asked “If he was in it,” and in reply was told' that “If be bad anything to say, to spit it out.” In tbe course of some further conversation, tb© defendant was told by tbe plaintiff ‘ ‘ That be was useless trash to be aboard a small craft and upon being challenged to repeat these words, the plaintiff did so, when be was struck by tb© defendant a blow in tbe face, which ‘ ‘ made him silly.” Two witnesses supported tbe complainant’s statement. For the defence it was urged that tbe assault bad been brought on by tbe complainant having made use of insulting language to tbe defendant. Tbe Magistrate considered tbe defendant having joined tbe party when he was not wanted, was tbe cause of assault, and fined him 40s and. costs.

.Ellen Doughty v. John Harris, a charge of assault. The complainant stilted that on the 11th instant, she went into the Arcade to make purchases, and in passing the defendant’s shop he assailed her with insulting remarks, of which she took no notice. Upon her return he again abused her, and she asked to be left alone; as she had suffered by him enough already, when he came and struck her a blow on the cheek. A witness named Clarke was called, and he corroborated the complainant’s statement. The defendant’s statement was just the opposite to the foregoing, and he called two witnesses, from whose evidence it appeared that the complainant, without the least provocation, had spat into the defendant’s face : and further used very abusive language towards him. Case dismissed.

The cross action of Harris v. Doughty was withdrawn