MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVII, Issue XLVII, 20 April 1912, Page 1

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr J. S. Evans, S.M.)

ALLEGED THEFT OF A RING

Angus McKay appeared on remand to answer a. charge of the alleged theft of a ring from- Margaret Hewitt. The case was before the Court last week, when, after hearing evidence, the case was remanded in order to give accused an

opportunity of obtaining evidence fm.n his camp-mates as to the loss of the ring. Sergeant Mullany .said inquiries had been made to obtain evidence on accused's behalf ; and the man's camp mates had sent statement to the effectthat accused had complained of the loss of the ring. The Magistrate said it was a case in which perhaps a jury might hesitate u* convict He was not altogether satisfied about the accused's story, but thera was a possibility of a doubt, and'accused would have the benefit of it. On accused promising to give a proiiiisary note, payable on demand for the ■valii** of the ring—£5 10s —he would discharge the accused. ALLEGED ASSAULT.

Herbert Charles \Kate laid an info.'nu tion against Edward Alfred Forman foi alleged assault on the Port Roqa on Tuesday, April 9, by attempting to strike him with his fist.

Mr Maginnity appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Mr Hayes appeared for imformant, and called

Herbert Charles Kate, labourer, sworn, stated that he was a son-inlaw of Mr Pauling, at whose house he Itv.ecr. Ho was employed working on the breastwork at the Port, and on Tuesday, 9tfi April, while proceeding to his work, he met accused near the Gasworks when Forman came up to him and atempted to strike him, which witness dodged. Accused said to him. "How about now?" referring to something which had happened oh Easter Monday. Witness said he did not have time to fight, and went on to his work. Accused took off his. coat and rolled up his sleeves; but on witness refusing to fight he put on hie coat and called him "a dirty cur," as he walked away. Accused had previously challenged him 1 to fight. To Mr Maginnity : He was not frightend to n<?ht. He had seen accused on Sunday, but did not speak to him. Accused was there to see his child. Mr Pauling had ordered Forman out of the house for causing a disturbance. On Monday accused came round to see Mrs Pauling, and witness told him to wait on the kerbing. and accused turned round and said he would please himself about that. He his hand on accused's shoulder to push him off, but accused stepped off and did not need any pushing. Witness was in charge of the house. On Tuesday he went to work ss usual, and he. swore he did not touch accused with his dinner kit when he passed him. He knew an order had been made allowing Forman to see hia child. He remembered, accused saying : "We have had enough of this : we will have it out." He had not Viken every opportunity to aggravate Forman since the recent Court case.

Arthur Joseph Hayden, labourer, said he worked, with Gate. He remembered th©v morning of 9th April, and saw the accused ' and complainant together near the, gasworks. When he got up to them he saw Forman make a hit at Gate, who dodged the blow. Accused then took off -his coat and asked witness and his companions to see fair play. Gate s»id he did not have time to. fight, as he had to get to work. Forman then put on his coat and Went up to Gate, and as he walked away called him a "dirty cur." Cato did nothing to aggravate Forman so far as ho >\<vv aware. He did not see Oatp hit Forman with his dinner kit. Archibald Buchanan, labourer, -working on the railway at the Port with the informant,' corroborated the last witness' statement, and also stated that Cate had asked him to get off his bicycle when he caught up to them on the Port road. Cross-examined by Mr. Maginriity : Both Cate and Forman called one another "duty curs." There were no blows struck at all besides the first one struck >by Forman at Cate. This was the: case for the prosecution. Mr. Maginnity asked whether there was a case to answer.

The Magistrate said a prima facie case had been .made out. :

Mr. Maginnity then called Valentine Herbert Barr, medical practitioner, who remembered examining the accused on the 6th, and found him suffering from a contusion of the muscles of the left thigh, probably caused by a blow from some blunt instrument. The wound would be consistent with a blow struck: with a luncheon kit containing a bottle, of tea.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hayes: Hundreds of other similar instruments might have caused the contusion. He thought the date on which he examined the'accused' was Tuesday, 6th. »To Mr. Maginnity : It was on Tuesday evening, the 9th. not the 6th, when he examined accused. , Defendant was then.put in the detailed the circumstances arising out'of his Roing to Mrs Pauling's to see his wife, when Cate said she was not in. Witness said he would wait where hewas on the doorstep, but Gate said he must not wait there, and remarked : "If' you don't get off I'll put my fist through your head." He had met with insults and threats every time he had gone • to, Pauling's. He had told Mrs Pauiinjr on the previous day that he would call and see his child. He had said nothing of a provocative nature to Cate on the* Monday. He did "ot ask complainant to go to the Post Office and have a fight. On the day of the alleged assault he waswalked down the Port to meet the Pateena when he met Gate near the Gasworks, who theroupon struck him a blow on the left thigh with a kit he was carrying. Previous to this he had Tibt spoken a word to Cate. The blow seemed to stun him for the minute, and ho said to Cate, "You appear to be look insr for trouble." Cate replied: 'You can have plenty of it,' at the same time again swinging his kit round at him, which lie dodged. Witness then took off his coat and put up his left arm to protect himself in anticipation of another blow from the kit. He had made no> blow at Cate previous to this. He did not strike Cat'e at all. In cross-examination by Mr. Hayes, defendant stuck to his statement. He did. not want to fight Cate at any time, and anything said to the contrary would not be true. Mr. Evans said there was a direct conflict of evidence as to what occurred on Tuesday. He did not accept defendant's story, as it was nuite inconsistent with the' witnesses called 'by the complainant. An assault had been proved. It appeared to bo the outcome of a paltry squabble: but defendant must learn to* face his difficulties in a. proper'manner. He d : d not think, however, that it was a case for a penalty, but defendant would be convicted of assault and ordered to pay costs, amounting to £1 69,