MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXIII, Issue 7563, 30 May 1885, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Friday, May 29, (Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness and Obscene Language. —Walter Hartnell was convicted of having been drunk and disorderly at Woolston on the previous night, and also of having used obscene language. The present was his third offence for drunkenness, and he had before been convicted of obscene language. The former offence evidently led to the latter, for when on the way to the lock-up —about a mile from the spot where he was .arrested for drunkenness—he filled the air with oaths and abuse towards constable Johnston who apprehended him. He was fined £l, and sentenced to seven days’ hard labour without the option of a fine, Peter Romulus. —This old man, who last year was frequently before the Court under the “ no lawful visible means of support” clause of the Vagrant Act, reappeared this interning. In August last he was committed to the Old Men’s Home, but it would seem that he had left this institution, as the previous night he had called at the Police Station and said he had no place to rest. The police had no option but to bring him up as a vagrant. Inspector Sullen said he understood that the old man would not stop in the Old Men’s Home as soon as he got sufficiently well to leave it. His Worship remarked that the accused, an old man of seventy, was hardly a fit subject for gaol, and remanded the case to the following day, to see what could be done. Assault and Counter Assault. — Joseph, Charles and Samuel Nicholla (father and sons) were accused of assaulting Jane Park, at Burnham, on May 21, and in a cross-action Samuel Park and Jane Park (husband and wife) were accused of assaulting Samuel Nicholls. Mr Holmes appeared for Park, and Mr Stringer for Nicholls. The parties were neighbours at Burnham, and it appeared there had been a good deal of bad feeling between them. Some little time ago Nicholls had pounded i Park’s cows, and there was a sort of k “border land” between their properties, ownership of which was disputed. Mrs a private grievance of her own; under the impression that her character had been maligned by some member of the Nicbolls household. These remarks will make it clear that opportunity was all that was wanted to bring about an open rupture. Opportunity came on Thursday, a week ago, when Nicholls’ cows, after grazing on the “border land” for some time cross over the road, and took up their quarters near Park’s house. Samuel Nicholls went in the evening to enquire for the missing cattle, and the accounts of what took place subsequently were various. There seemed no doubt, however, that when Samuel was going to drive off the cattle he encountered Mrs Park, who demurred to his doing so unless damages were paid. The demurrer appears to have been more forcible than words, and Mrs Park and Samuel Nicholls came to blows. Then the other two of the Nicholls and Mr Park came on the scene and there was a general engagement. Mrs Park’s story was as follows ; Samuel Nicholls came for the cows. I told him he '' could not take them unless he paid ! damages. He would not go. I went to push him. He put out his foot and threw me down. I picked up a bit of stone or brickbat and hit him on the head. (Mr Holmes : I am very glad of it.) Laughter. Witness : Then he called out that I had cut his head open, and the two other Nicholls came up, Charles Nicholls struck me, and I yelled out. My husband came up, and when he saw Charles Nicholls hit me he said, “ Charlie, I won’t stand that.” C. Nicholls hit my. husband, and then my husband struck him. (Mr Holmes Didn't your husband hit him before ? Witness : No. Mr Holmes : Then he ought to have •done. Mr Stringer : My learned friend is -very blood-thirsty this morning.) The witness went on to say that after some more fighting, during which it appeared -she had almost proved more than a match ’ for the two young Nicholls, the cows 1 were driven off. Mr Joseph Nicholls, senr, did not appear to have taken i any active part in the melde. Samuel Nicholls (who had his head bandaged) I gave his version of the affair. He said when he went over to Park’s place to get the cattle he saw Park, who said, “There are the cows, go and take them.” ■ Ee went to do so, and Mrs Park came up and said he was not to have the cows without paying for the damage. Without any provocation she picked up a stone and struck him on the head and face. She held him by the throat and hammered Mm all over the head till he was blinded and sickened. He could not stop her and could not run away. Mr Holmes removed the bandage from the witness’ head to show that the injuries he complained of were not serious. Mrs Park at the same time insisted on baring her arm in order to show a bruise that Samuel had given her. The evidence of the other parties in the action was taken, and also that of Dr Thomas, who had seen Mrs Park and examined the bruises, which he found on the neck, arms, and legs. Dr Preston, who had attended the injured Nicholls was not present, and Mr Stringer availed himself of his opponent’s surgeon to pronounce on the nature of Samuel’s injuries. Dr Thomas having made an examination, and the delicate little matter of the fee having been settled amicably, he said there were four marks of abrasions on Samuel Nicholls’ head and face. TTia Worship, in giving judgment, said it was impossible for him to say which party was most to blame. Mr Holmes interjected that there could be no doubt that Nicholls’ cows were trespassing. His Worship went lon to say that no doubt if the cows could give evidence there would be some chance of getting ah unbiassed account of what took place. As the matter stood, he would ■dismiss both informations, and order all the parties, except Mr Nicholls, senr., to be •bound over to keep the peace. Civil Cases. —Walters v. Schultz, claim £IOO, value of certain furniture, or its return. This case had been adjourned, at reof the plaintiff, in order to secure the of a witness. Since then plainwithdrawn the action. Mr Stringer for further costs. Mr Gresson, who Mr Weston, plaintiff’s solicitor, «Bted that, as Mr Stringer had had two

days’ notice of the withdrawal, he need not have attended the Court this day, and could not claim further costs. Mr Stringer argued that, as the case had been opened and evidence taken, it was not competent for plaintiff to withdraw the action. There were only two courses that could be followed in such.a case—either a nonsuit, or judgment for defendant. His Worship agreed with Mr Stringer, and Mr Gresson preferring a nonsuit, plaintiff was nonsuited with costs.—ln Mason, Struthers and Co. v. Kearney and Crane, judgment was given by default us against Kearney for the amount claimed, .£sl 17s lOd. The following cases were adjourned to the dates stated: —Klingenstein v. Hutchinson, to June 1 5 Johnston, Wood and Co- v. King, and Banks v. Jacobsen, to June 2; Toomer Bros. v. Nutt, to June 12.

ASHBURTON. Friday, May 29. (Before H. C. S. Baddeley, Esq., E.M.) Civil Cases.— Wilding, Caygill and Lewis v. J. Mager, claim £2l 4s ; judgment summons. An order was made for payment, by monthly instalments of £2, or two months’ imprisonment in default. —Perriman v. Tully, claim £lO. Judgment for amount by default, with costs.— Purnell v. Monro, claim £3 6s 6d. Judgment summons. Defendant did not appear, but an order was made for payment within a week, or three weeks’ imprisonment in default.—Upper Ashburton Road Board v. Wilkinson, claim £2 15s lOd, for rates. As the summons had been served on the wrong J. Wilkinson, the case was withdrawn. —Jepson v. Graham, claim £1 10s. This case was settled by the payment of £1 into Court, with expenses. —Jebaon v, Ede, claim £5 19s. There was a set-off, consisting of the price of some horse feed, and £2 on the price of a hack. After hearing the case, the Magistrate gave judgment fox the full amount, with costs. —Shaw v. Honeywood, claim £3 7s 6d. This case arose out of the one that was heard last week, in which defendant figured .as the barman who had jilted a barmaid. The suit was now to recover cost of the girl’s board and lodging at plaintiff’s house, where she had been taken in at the request of defendant. Honeywood did not appear, and judgment for the amount was given, with costs. His Worship also granted immediate execution.