Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS-TODAY., Issue 8029, 4 October 1889
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)
Andrew Rankin v. Henry Corish Bennett. —Claim, LI 2s fid, rates due to the St. Kilda municipality.—Judgment by default. Henry R. Clark v. Robert M’Kenzio.— Claim, Lfi 16s Sd, on a'judgment summons. Mr Thornton appealed for plaintiff.—Both principals were examined at length, after which His Worship said it was quite clear from the evidence that this liability was incurred by fraud, and it was clearly a case for an order. Defendant would be ordered to pay the amount, with costs, by the Ist November, in default ten days’ imprisonment.
George Schluter v. Robert Craig.—Claim, L2 Os 6d, on a judgment summons,—Defendant did not appear.—His Worship made an order for payment by instalments of 5s per Week, in default four days’ imprisonment,
CITY POLICE COURT.
(Before Messrs J. Logan, J. P. Jones, and A. Barr, J.P.s.) Drunkenness.— For this offence John Oillison (twenty-two previous convictions), who was said to be giving the police considerable trouble, was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment. Duncan M‘Keehnie (one previous conviction) was fined 20s, in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. By-law Case.— For allowing horses, etc., to wander at large, James Jackson was fined 5s and costs (7s), while Frederick Eason was fined 2s fid. (Before Messrs J. Logan and J. P. Jones, J.P.s.) Assault. George Albert Tapper was charged by Edwin Alfred Tapper with assaulting him on the 3rd inst. Mr G. Kettle appeared for complainant. Defendant did not appear.—Counsel for plaintiff said that after a dispute between the parties, which had resulted in litigation, a settlement had been arrived at, and the parties were to meet at the Supreme Court yesterday morning, when the assault took place. This was not a common assault, because defendant bad threatened to take plaintiff’s life, and had struck him violently with an umbrella.— Complainant stated that recently he had bad some litigation with his brother, and while they were discussing a settlement in the presence of Messrs Solomon) Husking, Gordon, and Brown, defendant struck him violently on the back ol the head with the bntt-end of an umbrella, cutting his head, and causing blood to flow, In the afternoon defendant called at witness’s place, and kept ringing the ball and causing a great disturbance, He threatened witness’s life, and. abused him to a. great extent. Defendant had called at plaintiff’s house last evening and created a disturbance there. This morning be called at witness’s office, but they did not meet.—Saul Solomon said he was solicitor for plaintiff in the Supreme Court. They had occasion to meet at the Registrar’s office at the Supreme Court yesterday morning. During the discussion of the case defendant whs very excited, and began abusing those present. As they came out of the Court, defendant rushed at complainant, and, batting him on the hat, knocked it off, He then followed complainant, and struck him an extremely violent blow on the head, causing blood to flow. The blow was qbont as violent a one as a man could strike. Defendant seemed in a perfect frenzy. The parties then ran away, and shortly afterwards appeared again, when witness and others managed to pull complainant into Mr Gordon’s office. The blow cqt complainant’s head severely, and might have caused concussion of the brain. Defendant seemed to have been troubled greatly in consequence of the lawsuit, and appeared anxious to have a row wish someone. Complainant bad behaved in an extremely gentlemanly manner, and had not given any provocation.—D. Douglas Macdonald, solicitor for defendant, corroborated the last witness’s evidence, and said that he was speaking to defendant when the latter left him and made a dash, at complainant, bringing his umbrella violently down on his (complainant’s) body. When the parties reappeared a large crowd assembled, and witness tried to soothe defendant, but Could not do so; so ho left him. The cut on Mr Tapper’s head was a severe one, blood flowing freely from the wound. Defendant was very much' excited, and would not listen to witness’s admonitions.— .John H. Hosking, solicitor, saw defendant pursuing plaintiff, and subsequently heard him threatening the latter. William Brown, land and estate agent, gave evidence as to seeing the parties running along the afreet, and to seeing defendant threatening his brother. The proceedings in the Court were very unpleasant, defendant being extremely violent and unreasonable. After the' blow was struck complainant was very much exhausted.— Colin Gordon, Registrar of the Supreme Court, said that fhe evidence given by Messrs Solomon and Brown was substantially corr4ot. Witness managed to get complainant inside his office, and told defendant that he was acting like a madman. Defendant was very insolent and abusive during the time that the parties were in his (witness’s) office. The provocation was all on defendant’s part.—Constable Cruickshatiks said that he was called: to the residence of Mr Gunn, where defendant threatened to do complainant bodily damage. When complainant entered 'his carriage defendant put his fist inside; and shaking It said “I,’ll murder you." He was very vicious in his expressions, and was greatly' excited.—The Bench said that an assault had clearly been proved. Defendant would be fined L2, with costs, in default one month’s imprisonment with hard labor. He would also be bound over to keep the peace for six months, himself in his own recognisance 'tof LlOOabd two sureties of LSO each. '
THE COURTS-TODAY., Issue 8029, 4 October 1889
Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.
Print, save, zoom in and more.