LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8680, 24 September 1891, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.-Civil SITTINGS Wednesday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.]

Harry Meyer v. Patrick Gleeson.— This was an action to recover £200 damages for assault. Mr. Brassey appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Campbell for the' defence. Witnesses were ordered out of Court, and Mr. Brassey objected to Mr. Campbell

remaining in Court, as he va3 a witness, but His Honor overruled the objection. Plaintiff had been lessee of the Albion Hotel, of which the defendant was lessor, and the alleged assault occurred when the defendant re-entered possession, and tried to oust tlio plaintiff. The alleged aspaulfc was committed by a man named Russell, a bailiff, as alleged, at Gleeson's instigation, and also by Mr. Gleesoti himself. Mr. Brassey opened tho case at some length, and called the plaintiff who stated tlmt on the 4th of June he was the licensee of the Albion Hotel, having taken it on a transfer from Gleeson to himself, dated 14th March, 1891. Witness said at nino o'clock on the night of the 4th of June, he came into the hotel with a boarder, Mr. Grove. Mr. Durham touched him, and said he wanted to speak to him privately. Durham is sheriff's bailiff, and was in . charge of the stock, goods, and chattels, for the Official 'Assignee. ' Witness followed him into a sittingroom, which had a door leading" into the street, and while in the doorway he was pushed by Mr. Gleeson into the room, who followed him, shut the passage door, locked it, and put the key in his pocket. Witness remarked to Durham that he thought the interview was between him and witness, but Gleeson replied that he had a say in it. Durham said he had a paper for witness from Gleoson, which he offered him, but he refused to take it, saying he would see his solicitor first. Durham told him it was a paper intimating that Gleeson had re-entered, and Gleeson said that was so, rand that witness would have to go out of the side door into the street. Witness replied that ho was not in tho habit of going by the side door. Glees,on then threatened to put him out, and asked Durham to hold open the door, but witness told Gleeson if he laid a finger on him it would be worse for him, but added that as he did not wish to make a scene, that

if ho saw his solicitor, or had a note from him, or tho Official Assignee, that ho was to go out, ho would go. They eventually let him out into tho passage, and ho told all present what had happened. John. Russell, Briefly, and another bailiff were present. On looking into the room opposite the bar, he saw Mr. Campbell and Moss Davis. He spoke to them, and turned to go upstairs, but was pushed back by Gloeson. This was about a quarter to ten. At ten o'clock two boarders asked for rooms, but Gleeson said ho was boss, and threw them out into the street, and turning to witness he said, " None of your nonsense, you get out." He said lie would go out if they brought him a note from the Official Assignee or a sergeant, or constable, to see that he went out under protest. They sent for the sergeant and constable, but could not get them to come in, and witness, by Gleeson's order, was seized by Russell from behind. He struggled to get free, but was tripped up, st ruck in the face, and kicked while he was down, but; ho did not know by whom. It was Russell who struck him. Witness when he got up rushed up the stairs, bub Russell caught his mackintosh and tore nearly half of it away, but witness gob away to a bodroom 011 the second floor, and he was not molested again that night. Ho was con- | siderably bruised by the blows and kicks, i and had given Gleeson no provocation what- j ever, and he remained in possession from Thursday, the 4th, until the following Monday. He denied that on the 4th of June he was 14 days in arrears with his rent. The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Campbell He said one of the two men ejected by Gleeson returned to the hotel and came into the bedroom where witness was. This man gob in by the fire escape, as witness did not want to be left alone, fearing further violence. Ho denied that lie grappled with Russell, or that he threw himself on the floor. Tho lease under which plaintiff held the hotel was pub in, and ho produced a receipt for two Weeks' rent up to the 23rd of May. He swore the rent thero acknowledged was paid up to 23rd of May, although it was dated 7th of May. The two cheques produced were for rent, but he could not say whether they were the last payments or not. They were disdishonourcd, and witness had not paid them sinco. The cheques were for £8 each, and were dated 22nd and 21th of May, and they were put in evidence. Witness, in re *• examination said that Mr. Moss Davis had told Mr. Gleeson that he would see them all right. It was Mr. Davis who found the money to pub witness into the house. John Brierly, bailiff's assistant, who was in possession in the Albion Hotel for the Official Assignee on the 4th of June, employed by Mr. Durham, sheriff's" bailiff, said he went up with John Russell and Mr. Gleeson to take possession of the goods and chattels and stock-in-trade :in tho Albion Hotel on the afternoon of the 3rd. Witness took his instructions from

Mr. Durham, who paid him. On tho evening of the 4th, witness and Mr. Russell requested plaintiff to go out quietly. (His Honor cautioned tho witness that he was not bound to say anything which might criminate himself.) Mr. Campbell said Mr. Gleeson was willing to accept full responsibility for all that was done.) Tlio plaintiff did not go out, but witness was nob instructed to put him out, nor was he aware that anyone else had been so instructed. There was an altercation about ton o'clock in the hull. Thero were nine or ten of plaintiff's friends present, and he told them Gleeson wanted to put him out, but- he would not go. After he made that remark, Russell placed his hand on his shoulder, and said, "Harry, do go out, or there will lie a row ;" 'but plaintiff threw his hand off, and asked, "Are you the b—— to put me out?" and laid hold of Russell. They closed, and Meyer sat down. He did nob think he was pub down, for in fact he pulled Russell on top of him. Ho would swear Meyer was not struck or kicked. Tho witness was cross-examined

by Mr. Campbell, more for the purpose of elaborating his evidence than anything else. Willoughby R. G rove, tho boarder who had returned, to tho house with the plaintiff, generally corroborated plaintiff's evidence as to tlio occurrence in the hal! at the time of tho fracas. In croas-cxamina-tion ho said ho was. a commission agent, but had no place of business, and was indebted for his board when Gleeson took

possession. This closed the plaintiff's case. Mr. Campbell asked whether defendant had a case to answer, as plaintiff's case was mado up of contradictions, two of the witnesses being contradicted by the other ? His Honor said it was desirable that there should bo a defence, for he had no evidence of Mr. Gleeson's right to be in the premises at all. Mr. Campbell then opened defendant's case. The evidence would show, he said, that plaintiff was in possession under lease, and the rent was in arrears more than 14 days, that the rent had nob been paid up to the 23rd of May, only to the 80r,hof April, and that therefore the defendant had the right to eject any person whom ho found 011 tho premises. Tie was in actual possession before the plaintiff returned to the house on tlio night of the 4th of June. On the previous day I possession was taken by the bailiffs for tlio Official Assignee, and 011 the 4th defendant, taking his right of re-entry as lessor, determined to re-enter, and caused a notice to be served on the plaintiff after ho was in actual possession that he had done so. The force used was not sufficient to eject tho plaintiff, and therefore so much force was nob used as the defendant was in law entitled to use. The defendant was called. He identified the signature to tho press copy of the notice served on plaint'ft by Mr. Durham as his. He corroborated the opening statement of counsel as to the rent being arrears, and said that the two cheques in evidence were for rent to the 14th of May. They were dishonoured. They had not bean paid, nor had that rent been paid to him, and 011 the 4th of Juno there were . two weeks rent more than 14 days in arrears. The witness then described what took place on the night of the 4th. Ho explained that when he went j into the sitting-room, attei- Durham and plaintiff, ho shut, the door to keep drunken men out, and after a conversation as to plaintiff going out, he said ho would go out by the front door. They then came into tho hall and plaintiff refused to go out. The witness then narrated the subsequent occurrence," corroborating the evidence

given by the witness Brierly, and he was cross-examined at some length by Mr. Brassey. In answer to His Honor, witness said that he took charge of the bar on the evening of the 3rd at the request of Mr. Durham and Mrs. Gleeson assisted on the 3rd and 4th. Previous to this a barman was in the bar for Mr. Meyer, but witness did not see him at all on the 4th, and the first he had seen of Meyer on that day was between nine and half-past nine at night. Before he came witness had the notice prepared and handed to Mr. Durham. , John Russell, assistant bailiff, gave corroborative evidence as to what

occurred on the night of the 4th, and said after plaintiff pulled him down he got up quicker than witness, and started for the staircase, a.id witness went after him and caught his macintosh by the cape. The piece remained in Wis hand, a\id plaintiff went upstairs; He denied that he tripped up, struck, or kicked the plaintiff, and no one else interfered between them, and witness saw nobody strike or kick him. He was nothing enough on the ground for any one to interfere. In cross-examination witness said he had received no instructions from anyone to put Meyer out, but he asked Meyer to leave quietly, in order that there might not be a row. Wm, George Durham, sheriff's officer, also gave evidence. Mr. Campbell did nob address. the Court, but Mr. JBrassey briefly spoke in support of the plaintiff's case. His Honour gave judgment for the defendant, with costs on the lowest scale.- The Court then rose.

POLICE COURT.—Wednesday. [Before Dr. Giles, 11.M.].

A Little Wanderer.— Robert, Isherwood, a little boy of eleven years of age, was charged with having committed a breach of the Industrial Schools' Act, ISS2, by having been found wandering on: the '2'2nd September, and not having any home or settled place of abode. Sergeant-Major Pratt asked that the lad be committed to the Industrial School. The father had

been badly hurt some time ago, and the little boy was in the habit of sleeping out at night. He understood that the father had some means, and acquiesced in having the boy committed to the Industrial School. Sergeant Emerson gave evidence as to the lad's mode of life. He was in the habit of wandering aboub the streets day and night. The mother was in Napier, she and her husband having separated. Dr. Gilds thought it would be the best thing for the boy to send him to the School. He could not, however, make an order in the absence of the father. The boy was committed to the Industrial School to be brought up in the faith of the Church of England. Maintenance. — Salvador Vas was charged with having failed to provide his child with adequate means of support, such child being under the age of 14 years. Considering the fact that the defendant was only earning 10s a week, and that out of this sum he was already paying 5s a week for another child, Dr. Giles did not think ho would be justified in making an order.