THE COURTS-TO-DAY

Evening Star, Issue 15928, 7 October 1915, Page 6

THE COURTS-TO-DAY

MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (Before H. Y. Widdowson, Esq., S.M.) Judgment was given for tho plaintiffs for the amounts claimed, with costs, in tho following undefended cases:—Thomas Evans v. James Raima (Invercargill), claim £2 Os 9d, for goods supplied (judgment for £1 Os 9d and costs); Guthrie, Bowron, and Co. v. J. G. Paterson (Palmerston), claim £7 19s Bd, on an account stated; D. Christie and Co. v. Percy Dunn (Green Island), claim £2 11s 9d, on an account stated (judgment for £1 17s 9d and costs) ; the Commissioner of Taxes v. Samuel Thomas Bolton, claim £1 7s 6d, income tax due; John W. Dance, as assignee of John Jackson v. Robert Reid (Riversdale), claim £3 12s, for goods supplied (judgment for £5 10s and costs); Young and Anderson v. Henry Joseph Keogh, claim £3 4s Ud, for goods supplied ; Dawson and Co., Ltd. v. Henrietta M'lntosh, claim £3 10s, for goods supplied ; Richard Leckie v. John Jarvis, claim £5 11s, on an account stated (judgment for £5 Is and costs); T: Young and Co. v. Peter Low, claim £5, for clothing supplied; Gaudin and Man- v. L. and G. Wylde (Greymouth), claim £6 4s, on an account stated; George T. K. M’Kenzie v ; Charles Fletcher (Kaitangata), claim 15s, for tea. supplied. Jean Souquet, jun. v. Patrick O’Connell (.Mount Cargill).—Claim £7 10s. on a judgment summons. Mr Irwin appeared for the plaintiff.—The defendant was ordered to pay £1 a week, In default seven days’ imprisonment. CITY POLICE COURT.

(Before H. Y. Widdowson. Esq., S.M.I Drunkenness.—John Finish, who did not, appear, was fined 10s, in default 2d hours’ imprisonment. A Family Quarrel.—Albert Beagle was charged with unlawfully assaulting Maude Beagle. Mr A. S. Adams appeared for the accused.—The complainant said that accused _ was her brother-in-law, and worked in her husband’s bakehouse. The two brothers had an altercation yesterday in the bakehouse. Accused began breaking up a pie machine (his own property), when witness appeared at the window'of a- storeroom some five yards away, and called out to him to “ come out of the bakehouse and stop rowing.” Accused then threw a spanner at her, striking her on the mouth and breaking two teeth. He afterwards threatened to shoot her with a gun which was lying on the kitchen, table. To Mr Adams: The accused had worked in the bakehouse about 15 months. Prior to that he bad worked outside, but 'lived with them, and paid her husband part of his (accused’s) wages. Her father-in-law, husband, and accused worked together for the good of the business. The quarrel was on account of accused wanting to leave his brother and work elsewhere, and on the brother remarking that accused could not have the pie machine the latter had said: “If I cannot hare it you won’t,” and proceeded to smash it with an axe.—Constable Sanders gave evidence of the complaint and arrest. Accused had remarked to him: “ Yes, I did it; a woman like that would make a man commit a crime.”—Mr Adams said that the case was a regrettable one. The accused did not deny throwing the spanner, and, was sorry for his action. Ho had worked for and helped his brother in the business for a considerable time. The complainant had come and interfered while accused was excited over the argument regarding the pi© machine. There was no truth whatever in the statement about the gun. There was one in the house belonging to accused's brother, but it was kept upstairs.—Accused said that he had been in Hew Zealand since January last year. He lived with Iris brother, and had paid him 15s per week hoard and a further 15s per week until a, debt for passage money had been paid off. The relationship between bis brother and himself had been perfectly good. Yesterday he hqd received a note asking him to go and do some work sorting out rabbits,, and the altercation arose through this and the subsequent disputed ownership of the pie machine. The gun spoken of was upstairs at the time. Ho had made no threat to shoot the complainant. To Subinspector Brobcrg : His leaving would have dislocated the business somewhat. Ho had not spoken to Iris sister-in-law for Idmonths, owing to remarks passed by the latter when witness came to live with the family.—Charles John Beagle stated that the general conduct of the accused (his son) was beyond reproach. He was sober and industrious, and had greatly assisted his brother. The trouble arose because of the interference of complainant.—His Worship said that it was a most unfortunate thing to have occurred in a home where the brothers aud father got on so well together, and when the accused had helped his brother so much. It was evident that accused and his sister-in-law did not “hit it.” and no doubt the former committed the assault while in great anger. Tliero was the question of provocation. He saw no danger of a recurrence of the assault, otherwise a ccused would he hound over. In the circumstances he would not inflict a penalty. Accused would be convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called npon within 12 months, and to pay any expenses that complainant may he put to in connection with the assault. He would strongly advise accused not. to go hack to tho home.