RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4248, 31 October 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, October 30. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., R.M.) PROVOKING LANGUAGE. A charge of this nature preferred against Matthew Uriffin by Frederick M. Dunn, was adjourned sine die, in consequence of the nonappearance of the defendant, who has left the province. drunkenness and vagrancy. Hannah Mendoza was sentenced to one months’ imprisonment with hard labor for vagrancy. ASSAULT. Charles White was charged with assaulting B. Cohen on the 26th instant. The defendant appeared in person to defend the ’ case ; Mr. Gordon Allan for the complainant. Mr. Allan : I appear for Mr. Cohen, your Worship, who has been obliged to take a summons out against Mr. White, who is manager of the Permanent Building Society, and I think you will be satisfied when you have heard the evidence in this case that the society is rather one for pulling down than building up. Mr. White ; I think the wrong person has been summoned, your Worship. Mr. Allan says the case is brought against the Managei of the Permanent Building Society. Mr. Kennedy Macdonald is the manager of that society, and he should, therefore, have been summoned instead of me. (Laughter.) Mr. Allan ; Oh, T understand. Then you are not manager of the Permanent Society. The fact is, there are so many of these societies that one is apt to confuse their title*. Mr. ■ White : Yes, and I believe you have certified to most of them. Mr. Allan : I have certified to this one. However, your Worship will see that Cohen had occasion to go to the office of the society of which the defendant is manager, to inquire about some charges made upon some shares belonging to a friend of his, and upon being told the amount he said it was too much ; in fact, he said it amounted almost to robbery. Mr. White fired up at this, and said “ Do you charge ine with being a robberand Cohen answered that he -wished to do nothing of the kind, that he had come to complain of the charges being too great. The defendant then, without further warning, seized Cohen by the collar and pushed him out of the' room with such force as to precipitate him down the steps. It was a wonder his neck was not broken, so that Mr. White ought to think himself lucky that he had not a more'serious charge to answer. However, that a most serious assault had been committed the evidence .would show. He called B. Cohen, who stated : At the request of a friend who resides in the Wairarapa, I asked Mr. White one day, when he passed my shop, how much there was to pay on my friend’s shares. Mr. White promised to let me know, but did not do so, and I had to send my young man up to ascertain-the amount, when Mr. / White told him it was £9 18s. I wrote to my •w friend and told him this, and when he came to town shortly after, he said the amount must be wrong, as it could not possibly amount to more than £6 15s. We went to the office together, and in explaining the items of the account, Mr. White said there was £3 3s. for fines. I told him that that was worse than a pawnbroker’s rate of interest, as, according to my rate of charge as a pawnbroker, the rate would be £2 15s. I said it was robbery. I did hot call Mr. White a robber. I said it was robbery, r Mr. White then said, “ I will kick you down stairs,” and thereupon he pushed me twice, forcing me half way down the stairs, and my hat fed off. I held on as well as I could, or I must have fallen down the whole of the steps. • At this time a person, whom I took to be a friend of Mr. White, came in, but I could not find out what the gentleman’s name was. I was not much hurt, but I was a great deal excited. Cross-examined by defendant : As near as I remember, X have related the events in the order in which they happened. When I came to your office first, I was by myself, and you told me the amount was £9 18s. After I got this information, we left the office together and spoke on friendly terms. The origin of the dispute was my statement that your charges were worse than those of a pawnshop. The second time I came to your office you were absent, and I told your clerk that the charges amounted to robbery. You came in shortly after and ordered me to leave the office, saying, •• If you don’t go out, I'll kick you out.” Mr. White : Then you said a friend of mine came in. Mr. Cohen : I don’t know -that he was a friend of yours. Mr. White : Then what the deuce did you say he was for? (Laughter.) Mr. Cohen ; -I didn’t say so. Mr Whitq.: Wereyouverymuchhurt? Have you called in a doctor 1 Mr. Cohen ; No ; and a good job for you. (Laughter.) •" Mr. White ; You say your hat was damaged. Have you the same hat here ? Mr. Cohen : No ; I am not suing you for damages to the hat This concluded the plaintiff’s case, and the following evidence was called for the defence ; ■ T. H. Mills, a clerk in Mr. White s office, de4fetailcd the circumstances which led to the dispute, and said he heard Mr. Cohen say, after he had been “assisted” downstairs, that he had no intention of calling Mr. White a robber, but the witness was equally as positive that the disclaimer was not offered while the parties were in the room together. Mr. Allan (to the witness) : Do you know anything of the manner of conducting Mr. White’s Society affairs ? - Witness ; No. Mr. Allan : Then you don’t know whether the £3 Bs. was not a very high charge upon £6 155.? , , , Witness ; It is according to the rules of the Society. ~ , , Mr. Allan : Oh, that s according to the rules of the Society, is it ? Mr, White : Yes, Mr, Allan, the rules which were certified by you. (Laughter.) Mr. Allan : But I didn’t certify to them myself. Mr. White ; Then you neglected your duty. Mr. Allan; If you don’t be quiet, sir, we shall have another assault case. _ I shall submit to no more of your interruptions. The witness then went on to say that Mr. White first requested Mr. Cohen to leave the room, and then put his hand on him as lightly as if he were a child, the witness himself standing guard over Mr. Fabian (Mr. Cohen’s friend), to see that he did’nt “ pitch into ” Mr. White. Mr. J. W. Chisholm, builder, stated that ho had-busincss at Mr. White’s office on the day in question, and as he proceeded up the stairs he heard Mr. White say to Mr. Cohen, “ I’ll leam you to call me a robber.” Probably ho said “teach” instead of “leam,” and shortly after these words were uttered Mr. Cohen came over toward the stops rather sharply, stumbling down about two. There were not •more than twelve steps in the flight of stairs, consequently if he tumbled half way down he could not have fallen over more than six steps. He was not hurt at all. Mr. White, addressing the Bench, said the learned advocate for tfie complainant had called the charge an unlawful assault. I am only astonished that he did not call it a brutal and savage attack upon a harmless and inoffensive old gentleman. I used no more force upon Mr. Cohen than I should do in expelling any gentleman who comes to my office and acts as Mr. Cohen did. Before I touched him, I warned him, and asked him to go out of my office. I unhesitatingly say that I did not push or strike him. I simply caught him on the pivot as he was going out of the door, and ho gyrated into the corner and tumbled down. Me admits that he said it was a robbery, but that I vyas not the robber. Well now, according to my logic, if there is a robbery, a priori there must bo a thief—if there was a robbery I am the thief. No doubt, in the ethics of Petticoat Lane, to call a man a thief or a rogue, or a woman a lady, is an hourly occurrence, but I was not brought up in that Arcadia of innocence and fried fish, and I cannot put up with that kind of thing. I was always taught to resent such innocence on the spot. I will not be called a thief. But I

used no violence in putting Mr. Cohen out of my office, and if the learned advocate came to my office and acted in the same way I should put him out in exactly the same manner. Mr. Allan ; The learned advocate for the defence has attacked himself to-day much more than I have done by his excited manner. The Bench has heard the whole case ; how Mr. Cohen went to complain of these charges, and stated that they were tantamount to robbery; but he was careful to explain that he did not call Mr. ‘White a robber. He told Mr. White that pawnbrokers had the reputation of mailing high charges, hut that the charges of Mr. White’s Society exceeded anything he had ever heard of. Then, Mr. White turns round and says, “ I will learn you to call me a robber,” and throws Mr. Cohen down stairs. Mr. White : I altogether deny that., In the most decided language, I say that is false. Mr. Allan ; Well, it was called a gentle push down stairs. And he told the Court he would treat any one else the same way. Mr. White is a great big powerful man, evidently of an irascible temper--a temper of which he seems very proud—and he felt the sting of the charge when Mr. Cohen told him £3 3s. was an exorbitant charge for dues upon £6 155.; that it was even more than.pawnbrokers’ rates. The charge was, no doubt, a tremendous one; and when Mr. Cohen told him of it, this meek and mild lamb, who is so sensitive of his honor, feels his dignity hurt, and vindicates himself by pushing_Mr. Cohen down stairs. The case is one deserving of every reprehension, and I trust the Bench will mark its disapproval of such conduct in a suitable' manner. Mr. Crawford, in delivering the decision of the Bench, said it was greatly to be regretted that the case had come before the Court, as the charge did not amount to very much. The whole thing might have been settled between the parties if they had- shown a spirit in that direction. The principal fault seemed to have been with the defendant taking up the remarks of the plaintiff about “ robber ” and “robbery” as being a, personal matter, whereas it must be evident to anyone who considered for one moment that the term could only apply to the system, the rules of the Society. As the remarks were not applied personally to the defendant there was not the slightest necessity for his losing his temper. Under these circumstances the Bench thought a small fine would be sufficient to give defendant a warning that he must keep his temper, and not push people down stairs, where there was a possibility of seriously injuring them. Defendant would be fined 10s. and costs. CIVIL CASES. J. A. Petberick v. J. White. Claim of £ll 9s. 6d., for work done. The claim arose out of a disagreement between the parties as to whether the plaintiff had agreed to pay 6s. 6d. or 7s. a square for shingling. Ultimately judgment was given for £ll 6s. 6d., the amount paid into Court. Bath v. Ruck. Claim of £l2 6s. 3d., for work done by the plaintiff, who is a carrier. The case was partially gone into hut was adjourned till Monday, for the production of further evidence. Clark v. Pailthorp. Claim of £l3 18s. id,, for goods supplied. Judgment for £8 18s. 4Jd., defendant having satisfied the remainder of the claim. W. Gibson v. G. Harris. Claim of £5 17s. Id., for goods supplied. Judgment for amount and costs. Billow v. Johnson. . Claim of 55., for hire of an express. Plaintiff stated that after being hired by defendant and losing an hour and a half waiting for him, another expressman was employed. Defendant stated that he engaged another, expressman because he found the charge asked, by the plaintiff to be in excess ofthe regulation rates. Judgment for the defendant, with costs, 9s. Blundell Bros. v. Secretary Industrial Permanent Land, Building, and "Investment Society.—Claim £22 ; and New Zealand Times Company v. the’ same—claim £33. These cases were postponed until the 10th proximo, in consequence of summonses not having been served on all the trustees. The Court then adjourned.