THE COURTS-TO-DAY

Evening Star, Issue 15914, 21 September 1915, Page 4

THE COURTS-TO-DAY

MAGISTRATE’S COURT,

(Before H. Y, Widdowson, Esq., S.M.) Judgment for plaintiffs by default was given in the following cases-:—Joanna Cahill v. Henry D. Jacobs, claim £5 Bs, for board and lodging, witn costs (£1 3s 6cl); Charles P. Keen, trading as “ The White Stores,” v. T. M‘Taggart, claim £2O 10s 7d, for goods supplied with costs (£2 14s); Otago Chair Company, Ltd., v. Albert Karsten (Nelson), costs only, 15s; J. B. Taverner and Sou v. J. H. Borton, claim £1 17s 6d, for rent, with costs (ss); Andrew Ramsay v. George Jackson, claim £l3 17s 6d, amount of account stated, with costs (£1 13s 6d) j Otago Hospital and Charitable Aid Board v. John Mitchell (Oamaru), claim £3 15s, maintenance provided for defendant’s daughter, with costs (10s); Henry E. Moss, Ltd., v. Robert Simpson, claim £1 4s 6d, for fruit ordered and delivered, with costs (10s); Otago Chair Company, Ltd., v. Arthur Reade (Havelock), claim £23 11s 6d, for goods supplied, with costs (£2 19s). Claim for Assault.—John’ Perry Gardiner (Mr White) claimed from William Montague Adam (Mr Hanlon) £lO damages for that the defendant, on the 26th day of June, 1915, at the plaintiff’s gate, Burnside, did assault and beat the plaintiff with an iron bar, the plaintiff being thereby prevented from attending to his business for three weeks thereafter, and was compelled to pay £1 Is for medical attention, which sums the plaintiff claimed as special damages.—The plaintiff alleged that defendant entered and interfered with a gate upon plaintiff’s property, and when threatened with forcible removal assaulted plaintiff with an iron bar, a bone in the arm being splintered and a finger badly bruised.—The plaintiff stated that about 10.15 on the night in question ho was riding through Ins gateway when he heard a man call out; “ Shu't that gate.” He got off his horse and said : “ I’ll shut the gate,” thereupon defendant struck him with the bar. He had been obliged to employ a- man for three weeks and a boy for a similar period, as he was unable to do his work. —The defence was that there had been no assault. Adam went to shut the gate with a view to preventing plaintiff’s cattle straying and damaging' his (Adam’s) h&clgo. Gardiner had followed him, calling him names and flourishing a ‘stick. The injuries to Gardiner had resulted from a blow sustained while Adam had been defending himself. There had been bad feeling between the two men, and on one occasion Gardiner had threatened to throw Adam in the creek.—Mr White contended that when a man went along, bearing an iron bar, to interfere with another man’s property when there was bad blood between them he was likely to know what the consequences would be. Adam could have retired before any attack had been made. Gardiner had the right, according to his title, to use the roads.—His Worship said that he could take little notice of the plaintiff’s evidence, which was given in an unsatisfactory manner. Continuing, His Worship said that on the one hand he had been asked to believe that Adam attacked Gardiner in a fiendish manner, and on the other hand that Gardiner came at Adam like a lunatic, waving a big stick. It was unfortunate that Adam was there at all, hut the merits of who was entitled to use the gate had nothing to do with the case. The only points to consider were whether Adam was “looking for trouble,” and he could not say that he was, and whether Adam had used undue force. He did not believe plaintiff had sustained injuries to the extent he had. On the whole, ho was disposed to say that Adam did not intend to strike Gardiner, and onlv inflicted the injuries in self-defence. Judgment would be given for defendant, but, in the circumstances, he would not allow costs.