RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XX, Issue 3909, 8 May 1877, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, May 4. [Before R. Bootham, Esq.,E.M.] ASSAULT. John Allan, a lad of about 17 years, was brought up on warrant, charged with having assaulted a young man named William Thomas Scott on the night of the Ist instant. The circumstances, as detailed in evidence by the prosecutor and two young men named Hunt and Clark, were as fot lows : — The three men were walking along the beach on the night mentioned, and on passing the back of Mr M'Vay's premises they had some shovelfuls of dirt thrown at them by lads who were heaping up an embankment to keep out the sea water from Mr M'Vay's premises. One of the young men went up to the lads and remonstrated with them. The boys thereupon threw more dirt at the men and used very bad language. Scott took a spade away from one of the boys who was threatening violence with it, and something of a melee ensued. Scott's companion, Clark, had a struggle with the prisoner and both fell Clark undermost. All the youngsters then jumped upon Clark, kicking him all about the body. They were pulled away by the other two young men, and then the prisoner took a stone and threw it at (Scott, knocking the latter down and rendering him insensible. Scott was removed and received medical attention, and the prisoner was taken in charge by the young men Clark and Hunt and conveyed to the lock-up, but as there was no one at that establishment into whose custody the lad could be given, he was allowed to go, and was subsequently arrested on warrant. The father of the prisoner volunteered evidence on behalf of his son. He stated that he witnessed the earlier part of the disturbance, unaware at the time that his son was among the lads working at the rear of Mr M'Vay's premises. The lads were not the first to commence the disturbance. They were not molesting anyone when the young men went up to the boys and got hold of one of them and commenced beating him. In reply to the Bench, the prisoner said that he had plenty of other witnesses, but they were not present ; they were in different places about the town. [The prisoner was evidently speaking with reference to the other lads who had been working witli him on the night in question.] His Worship said that he could not pass over such an offence as that which had been proved against the prisoner. The result of throwing a stone as he had done might have been very serious. He would not inflict a fine, but would order the prisoner to be imprisoned for seven days with hard labor. Had the prisoner been older and better able to understand his responsibilities the sentence would have something more severe than seven days' imprisonment. The prisoner was then removed, his Worship remarking that if the same sort of thing were continued he would not be able to pass it over so leniently. OItSCKNE LANGUAGE. Edward Burgess, another of the young lads engaged in the disturbance on the night of the Ist May, pleaded guilty to having used obscene language on that occasion, and was lined £2, with the alternative of 7 days' imprisonment. [The hue was paid before the Court rose.] St-'AKVK V. GT.ASSON. Claim for £5 for goods supplied. Defendant did not appear. Judgment by default with !)s costs. m'dowell v. w. J. cAVi/roif. Claim for £1 Bs. Defendant did not appear. Judgment by default with 12s costs. BEST V. 11. O. CAULTON. Claim for £3, balance of wages. Plaintill' had been employed as billiard marker at the Masonic Hotel, and was discharged on the 23rd of April, at which time two weeks' wages at 30s per week was due to him. The defence was that the prisoner was drunk three times from the loth of March to the loth of April. On one of those occasions he had to be put to bed, and he had besides insulted a gentleman who was stopping at the hotel. Plaintiff admitted that he had been drunk once, but he denied that he was drunk at the time he was discharged, or that he was discharged because of his being drunk. The cause was that the gentleman whom he (plaintill') was playing with raised a dispute about the game, and that led defendant to dismiss plaintiff Hi:* Worship said that plaintiff admitted he was drunk once, and it was very probable that he had been in that .state more frequently. If a servant was discharged for misconduct, and drunkenness was misconduct, he was not entitled j to recover any wages due to him. The judgment would be for defendant, with 5s costs, to be paid to him by plaintiff. ANJJKKSOX K. MOORMOCJSJ3. Claim for £20, for a black mare alleged to be detained from plaintiff by defendant. On the application of Mr Lascelles (who appeared for plaintiff, but made the application on behalf of the defendant), the case was adjourned to June sth.

GUY V. DYETT. This was an action to recover possession of that portion of the Old Clive Hotel, of which defendant had taken possession. Plaintiff also claimed £5 by way of damages. The case was part heard last Wednesday, and was then adjourned for the production of formal proof that the defendant had made a deed of assignment to trustees, from whom Jeffares purchased the hotel. | Mr Lascelles was for defendant. Mr Guy now deposed that he had made diligent search, but could not find the deed, though he was certain it had been filed in the Supreme Court. J. N. Wilson gave evidence to the effect that lie had prepared a deed of assignment from defendant to Messrs Lyndon and Touet, in trust for the benefit of defendant's creditors. Produced the draft. of the deed. Had no doubt at all that the deed was filed. It included the Citizen Hotel at Old Clive, and all the buildings standing on the same section. Edward Lyndon deposed to taking possession of the property, and also to the sale to Jeffares. The amount was paid in promissory notes. Those notes were duly honored, and the proceeds distributed among defendant's creditors. The annual value of two rooms in the hotel would be about ss. Jeffares occupied the hotel, and continued to be its landlord for two or three years. His Worship reserved judgment. HIGGINS V. TRACY. Claim for £39 5s 2d, partly for £25 cash lent, partly for interest thereon, and partly for goods supplied. Mr Lascelles for defendant. Plaintiff stated that he lent defendant £25 for two days, and as it was not paid then he considered he was entitled to interest. Defendant had not agreed to pay interest. Judgment for £34 17s 7d, with 28s costs. There was no other business before the Court.