ELTHAM.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume L, Issue 9002, 26 January 1906, Page 8

ELTHAM.

(From Our Own Correspondent.) BOWLING. At the Elt-haan bowling green yesterday afternoon Messrs Amoore and Burton defeated Messrs Barnard and Hardy (holders) for the club ferns. ' Great interest ia now being- taken in the championship singes. H» de Launay, . with eight, successive "wins, is at "present leddirig'for this competallabn. • • ■

WEDDING.

A very pretty and popular wedding was celebrated at the Presbyterian Church, Ettham, yesterday afternoon, when Mr E. J. Davidson, th© well-known draper of this town, was wedded to Miss Barbara Boddie, second daughter of Mr and Mrs J. Boddie. After tine ceremony a large number of guests assembled at the'resideuce fcf thfe bride's parents to partate of the wedding breakfast. Mr *and Mrs Davidson departed for Hawera by. the evening train en route for Napier, where the honeymoon will -be spent.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

On Thursday, January 25, before Mr A. Turnbull, S.M., the following cases were takea-: —

An old-age pension of £26 was granted. Davis v. H. Phillips, claim £6 ltts. Mx Crump for plaintiff.. Judgment by default for amount claimed, yrith costs £1 3s 6d. Cole' and Donnelly v. Evans, claim £1 Is. Mr Johratone for plaintiff. Judg•ment> by default for amount claimed, with costs 14s.

Hills v. Birchell, claim £1 8s 6d Mr Crump for plaintiff. Judgment by default for amount claimed, with costs 1 Is. Grump v. Birohell, claim £4 13s lid. Judgment by default, with costs 11s. Davidson v. Larson, claim £6. "Mr Crump for plaintiff. Judgment by default far amount claimed, with costs 28s 6d. John. Stelling was charged, on the information of the police, with" making a bet with an infant, John, Fenton, at Eltham, on 27th December fast, contraay to the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1894. Mr Spence appeared for defendant, and pleaded guilty. He said that the fine should be as low as possible, on account of the expense defendant had been put to in attending • the Court, having come from Mangaweka. A fin© of 10s was' inflicted, with costs £6 13s 2oL

Ernest < Price was charged, on the information of the police, % witih. having assaulted- Isaac Norris on 23rd December last in a public place.— Mr Glaister defended. — Isaac Norris, sworn, stated that on the night of 23rd December he had an argument with defendant in the street xuider Wilkinson's verodah, when defendant rushed him arid struck . and lacked him. Both were under^tfoe influence of drink. Witness was' moire under ihe influence tijan defendant. — John Taylor and Robert Gro->by gave corroborative evidence. — Constable Redican stated that ha saw a crowd of men under Wilkinson's verandah. Norris was leaning up against .the fence with a bad leg. Asked, what was the cause of the gathering, and wag told that Norris. and Price bad been fighting. Price state&l that he had. .been ''nagged at" by Norm, and was forced 4 to fight. Price was sober and capable of

looking after himself. Norrh waa drunk. Had nrjver s^en Price under the influence of drink, ami had found him a peaceable man in any dealings he had had with cfrftndmt. — Ernest Price, defendant, deposed that he was coming out of Sullivan's Hotel and met Xorris. He saw Norris. and asked him why ha (Xorris) had struck at him previously "in Potts' Hotel. Norris wanted to fight him then, but witness refused to figl.t. Norris followed him up. ■and called him names and struck him. He then struck back at Xorris. and they both closed together. He was sobeT at the time. Nor.ris was under the influence :>f drink, but was not ,so drunk that he did not know what he was. doing. — Edgar Wills deposed that he saw Price and ris come out of the Coronation Hotel." He went over to them, and heard Xorn? ask Price "if he was looking for anything." Price said, "No," that he did notwant to fight in- the street. Norris followed him up. and repeatedly asked Pric* 1 to fight. He saw the two .scuffling together. Did not see who struck the firstblow. Witness had had no drink at all; was a teetotaller. — His Worship dismissed the case, remarking that the police should not have interfered, as they did not actually see the disturbance.