RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume XXXV, Issue 6009, 12 October 1887, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, October 11

(Before Major Keddell, R.M), ABUSIVE LANGUAGE.

William Ross against Matthew Govan. — Several charges had been laid by complainant against defendant. On the case being called on, Mr Guinness, who appeared for plaintiff, said be wished to withdraw the charges, as defendant had apologised and the plaintiff wished in consequence to take no further action. Mr Jones appeared for defendant. — Charges withdrawn.

A THREAT,

Samuel Sharpcastle applied for protection against John Kane, who accused him of stealing some of his iron and threatened to have him imprisoued. Mr Atcheson appeared for plaintiff, Mr Jones for defendant. It appeared that plaintiff is a general dealer, and goes about the town gathering old iron, zinc, and bottles. He denied that he had taken any old iron from Kane's premises.

Watson Mitchell said that he overheard Kane say to Sharpcastle that he would d soon fetch proof to show that he took the iron.

James Brimble heard Kane say that he would nuke Sharpcastle fetch it back. They were talking about iron at the time.

Mr Jones contended that the information was bad, and that the case should be dismissed.

The Magistrate concurred and dismissed the case, the evidence of complainant not bearing out the statement in the information.

ASTAULT,

John James Courtney charged Chas. Seabrnok with having assaulted him on Saturday last. Mr Hannan appeared for informant and Mr Jones for accused. Informant is clerk of works at (he Roman Catholic church, and his counsel statod that owing to the fact of Courtney cirrying out hia duties in the interests of his

employees, relations between him and the I contractors became somewhat strained. These feelings culminated at length in Seabrook assaulting informant on Satur-. day last by striking him four times and nearly knocking him off a walkabout 13ffc high, and without any provocation. John James Courtney said that on Saturday last he was pointing out some defective work to Mr Seabrook, and asked Mr Arnett to come up to look at it, when accused struck him four times, and he would have fallen to the ground 13ft but for Mr Arnett. Seabrook said, "You b y thing, I'll break your neck." Witness said that the wall was out of plumb fire-eighths o.f an inch. He had plumbed the wall.-sin.cc. Several times previously Seabrook threatened to assault him. He waa therefore in bodily fear, and that waß why he wanted'to get him bound over. Complainant was cross-examined by Mr Jones to show that he had been unwarrantably . interfering with the men while at work, and had been warned not to interfere with the work. Complainant denied that he had.given'any provocation whatever, and that Seabrook did not speak to him before he struck him. He denied that Seabrook and Arnett had ever complained to him about interfering with the men. On the 12th May l a st Mr Seabrook said to him, v 11*1 break your b neck ;" and complainant replied that he would make it hot for him. He denied thaft»h"e ever used the expression to Mr Arnett, or that he said that he would make it so hot for them that the job would break them.

Win. Arnett gave his version of the occurrence. He said that Courtney was standing on the wall arguing with Russell, a bricklayer, as to the wall being out of plumb. Witness said, " Never mind, Russell ; I'll rectify it." Courtney would not come off the wall, and Russell threatened to pull him off. Seabrook then came" on the soaffold, arid told Courtney to come off, and at length pulled him off and struck him. He was stopping the work. Witness also asked Courtney to come off the wall. Courtney said he would have all tho work taken down. Courtney left the scaffolding after he was knocked down. Courtney told witness in front of eight or nine laborers that he would make it "warm for you as long as lam here." Ever since he had been a constant source of annoyance and irritation, and was always interfering with the men.

Other evidence was taken, Mr Seabrook being put in the box. The gist of the evidence was that Courtney was always interfering with the work and the men ; that not being a tradesmen himself he would insist upon certain things being done, and he would afterwards order them undone, pulled to pieces, and re-constructed again. He was quite prepared to be kept up to the specifications in the strictest possible manner ; but he objected to being harrassed and interfered with at every step. Mr Courtney had no right to interfere with the 'nen ; if he had any complaints to make he should lay them before Messrs Atnett and Seabrook in writing, and they would be attended to, as they always had been attended to.

Judgment was reserved, and the court then proceeded to deal with the assault case Courtney v. Russell.

The main features of the case were much the same as in the other, and judgment in that case was also reserved.