RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6781, 13 February 1884, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, Feartjary 12. (Before Captain Preece, R.M.) ASSATJI/T. John Harris, alias Rose, and wife t. M'Creary, claim of £50, damages for sickness caused and expense incurred owing to an assault committed by defendant upon the female plaintiff, on October 29fch last. Mr Lee for plaintiff, and Mr Lascelles for defendant. The defence denied the assault, and claimed that any damage accruing to the i female plaintiff was caused by her own fault, and that the damages claimed were excessive. After hearing the evidence his Worship reserved judgment until Friday morning. James Forrester Matthews, surgeon, deposed to being called in to attend the female plaintiff on Ootober 29th. She complained of having been assaulted. Witness examined her, and found a fracture of the radius of the left arm. The wrist was also sprained, the muscles of the arm ruptured, and the tendons displaced. Plaintiff had other bruises on her body. Sbe was suffering considerably from the injuries received. Witness sa w plaintiff four times altogether, and finally advised her to go to the hospital. Witness had seen plaintiff recently, and was of opinion that many months must elapse before she would recover the full use of her arm. Edward Menzies, surgeon-superinten-tendent of the Napier hospital, deposed to female plaintiff being admitted to the hospital, and remaining 42 days under treatment. She was suffering from a f rapture of the left arm, about two inches above the wrist. There was much swelling of the arm, and her body was very much bruised. It would be a very long time before plaintiff recovered the full use of her arm, if she ever did so. The cost to plaintiff of her treatment was £6 6s. By Mr Lascellea : If plaintiff had fallen down the steps that would account for the bruises on her body, but ahe would have had to fall down a large number of the steps. Margaret Harris, otherwise Margaret Rose, deposed that she was the wife of John Harris, otherwise Rose. On the 29th of October witness was in the kitohen of her house, using the fire. Defendant wanted the use of the fire, and witness asked him to wait. After a few words defendant caught witness by the back of the neck and threw her out into the back yard, andkioked her while she was down. Witness got up and was entering the kitchen again, and was a second time thrown down by defendant, who knelt upon her chest. He then twisted witness s wrist rouad, and said " Will that satisfy you P " The. pain was very great, and witness screamed out to a '.Miss Bishop. Witness saw Dr Matthews shortly afterwards. Witness had been under surgical, treatment ever. sinee 4he accident, and could not bow use her arm By Mr Laacellea : Witness did not know why she ,waß described as : alias Eose, unless it was that her husband waa known both as Harris and Rose. DefendantwasuanaUya quiet man, and' had lived ia the house for four yean, Defoa-

dani had a saucepan on the stove at the time of the altercation, and complained that the saucepan was not boiling. Witneds did not strike defendant. Annie Bishop deposed to hearing a call for help, and cries of " murder;" and to seeing the defendant in the act of going into the cottage where he resided, as if he were just leaving Mrs Harris, who was lying on the ground. The latter afterwards attempted to go in, and defendant threw her down and knelfc upon her. Plaintiff's arm was much swollen. The witness was cross-examined at con- j siderable length by Mr Lascelles, but : adhered to her statements. _ i This concluded the caso for the plaintiff. Mr Lascellef, in addressing the Bench for hia client, said the case was important because it was one of those rare cases in which damages wore claimed for a common assault. The evidence showed that defendant was a quiet and unoffensivo man, and had lived in the I house with plaintiff for f< ur years with- ' out a quarrel. It was plain that the assault had been provoked. The Court must be satisfied that plaintiffs came into the action with clean hands, and if that were not so the question of damages would be very materially affected. Nathaniel M'Crtary deposed that he lived in the house occupied by the two plaintiffs. On the 27th he was al the fire in the kitchen, cooking. The male plaintiff came out of his room and spoke to his wife about some rice. She pointed to the fire, and did not answer him. He them commenced abusing her, and witnesg continued to stand by the fire. Mr Rose then made some remark about the fire, and Mrs Rose pushed witness's saucepan back on the stove. Witness made a remark, and the female plaintiff struck him. Witness was so astonished by her outrageous conduct that he took her by the shoulders and pushed her outside the door. She fell on her face, but got up and came in with a large lump of coal in one hand, and a pannikin full of water in the other hand, and threw them at witness. There was another scuffle, and she was put out again by witness, who bolted the door. The male plaintiff let his wife in again, and when she came in she said her arm was broken. She then left the house to go to the police. By Mr Lee : Witness did not kneel on plain tiff 'a chest. CIVIL CASES. Jensen v. Coanell, claim £4 7a 6d. Plaintiff had received a cheque for the amount less Is since the summons was served. Judgment for Is and costs £2 6s. — Colonial Treasurer v. Pohuka Hapuka, claim of £2 2s, sheep rates. Mr Pasley, Sheep Inspector, produced authority to sue. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for amount by default, with 19a costs.— Hollis v. CauJton, claim £2 13s 26. Judgment for plaintiff, costs 10s, expenses Is. — Same v. Jones, claim £4 5s 2d. Judgment for amount, with costs 10s, expenses 1. — Hamilton v. Manaena Tini. Judgment debt of £12 lls lOd ; defendant ordered to pay amount in one month or go to prison for 14 days. — Hollia v. Barron, judgment debt of £12 13s 9d : defendant ordered to pay the amount in monthly instalments of £2, in default of any payment to be imprisoned for 14 days. — Hollis v.MeihanaTakiha, claim £7 13s. Mr Lee appeared for defendant, and urged that £4 lls 6d of the amount claimed was wrongly sued for, as it was part of a judgment debt, and the remainder of the claim was disputed. Plaintiff nonsuited without coats.