RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XX, Issue 3901, 28 April 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, April 27. [Before R. Bectliain, Esq., R. M.] drt:nke>tnt:&s. Samuel Bell was fined 10s for having been drunk and "incapable." ASSAULT. Frank Parker was charged with beating Marion Parker, his wife, and pleaded guilty. The defendant was arrested on warrant, as he did not appear on the previous day to the summons served upon him. The wife, who had been averse to prosecute, appeared on subpoena. She stated that the ill-usage she from time to time received from her husband was due to his getting drunk. Inspector Scully said that the defendant was qxu'te in the habit of ill-treating his wife. Ordered to be bound over to keep the peace for six months, himself in £25, and one surety in the like amount. ABUSIVE AND INSULTING LANGUAGE. Thomas Harvey, police constable, appeared to an information charging him with using abusive and insulting language to Charles Thompson. Mr Lascelles was for defendant. The language complained of was alleged to have been made on the 25th instant, the circumstances being as follows : — The complainant was employed by Mr Jessop to collect his accounts. It appeared that complainant was under the impression that a constable at the Spit was indebted to Mr Jessop for a dozen bottles of beer, and he called at defendant's house to enquire about it. Defendant was not at home, but complainant spoke on the subject to Mrs Harvey. After that defendant met complainant in the street, and the matter was spoken about between them, and subsequently dofeiKlanFfeftlled upon Mr Jessop and was then informjHl there was nothing against him on the books , -&u4Jjhat by some mistake a dozen of beer^ror which cash had been paid by Ryan (formerly a constable at the Spit) had been entered to his, Harvey's, name ; but it was a casli entry. Constable Harvey thereupon remarked that there appeared to be some swindle about the affair, as he never had any beer from Jessop. In consequence of the remarks made by defendant, complainant called upon him, accompanied by Mr Jessop, and it was then that the alleged abusive and insulting language was \ised. Defendant's evidence was to the effect that when complainant called along with Mr Jessop, the former commenced with the exclamation, "What the h — is all this about/" Defendant replied, "You are trying to do me a swindle." Mary Jane Richardson deposed that she overheard complainant say to Harvey, "What the h— is all this about," and Harvey replied, "That's what I want to know." The case occupied a great deal of time, the complainant and Mr Jessop being examined and cross-examined at considerable length upon every point, howI ever remotely connected with the matter of complaint, while the defendant was allowed to extend to great length, withi out interruption, his narrative of all the circumstances of the case, relevant and irrelevant. His Worship said that ho had taken great pains with the case, and had allowed evidence to be given which did not bear very immediately upon the charge, because ho regarded the use of abusive and insulting language by a police constable as a serious matter ; but really it all seemed to lie a storm in a tea-pot. He quite believed the evidence of the witness Richardson as to what took place on the occasion referred to in the information, and if a man began a conversation by referring to the infernal regions, he could nut complain if the talk was continued in the same strain. The information would bo dismissed. GILMOrK V. AVILSOX. This was a claim for £15 11s Bd. Defendant hail served a notice that he desired to have the evidence of Mmself and his wife taken at Dnnedin on the 15th May. The case was therefore adjourned to the 29th May. NEAOLB V. JONES. Claim for £1 3s, being 3s for excessive charges for impounding a cow, and 20s for damages sustained. Mr Lascelles for defendant. Plaintiff explained to the Bench that he brought the present action on principle,

being convinced that defendant had no right to the charge made ; all that could be demanded was 3s. The evidence of plaintiff, of Robert West, of defendant, and of J. Barry having been taken, His Worship said that he did not think the charge of Gs unreasonable, and he would not interfere with it. The judgment would be for defendant. On the application of Mr Lascelles, 14s costs were allowed for the defendant's attendance and mileage ; Mr Barry did not claim any expenses. JEFFARES AND GORDON V. ROBJOHNS. Claim for £70 15s, the balance due on a building contract. Mr Robjohns said he admitted the claim, but Jeffares was suing in the names of himself and Gordon, and the latter had given him (Mr Robjohns) notice not to pay Jeffares. He (defendant) was quite willing to pay the amount sued for, but he wished to be protected against having to pay the sum over again. In reply to the Bench, defendant said that the contract was signed both by Jeffares and Gordon. (Contract produced.) The plaintiff Jeffares said that from what he could hear of it Gordon was going to clear out and leave him (Jeffares) to pay the debts. He (plaintiff) was quite willing to give Mr Robjoens a receipt in the two names, and would undertake to settle with Gordon. His Worship said it seemed clear enough that JefFares and Gordon were partners in the contract and that therefore Jeffares could sue in his own and Gordon's name. He should therefore give judgment for plaintiffs, but he thought it would be well for Mr Robjohns to take a solicitor's opinion on the question, as the judgment of the Court would be no protection to Mr Robjohns, in case it should not be correct. Mr Robjohns asked if the Court would defer giving judgment. His Worship consented to do so until the following (this) morning. There was no other business before the Court.