RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XIV, Issue 4542, 4 December 1889, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before H. A. Strafford, Esq., R.M.) ASSAULT AND BREACH OF THE IMPOUNDING ACT. David Heron, Jun., was oharged on tho information of Franois Waterworth with assaulting his son Thomas Waterworth by striking him on tbe head with his fist on the ,28th November. The defendant was further charged with a breach of the Impounding Aot by rescuing a heifer whioh was in Thomaß Waterworth'a charge, and being driven to the pound. Mr Newton appeared for the complainant, Mr Harvey defending. Francis Waterworth stated that ha found a heifer in his paddook on the Ardgowan on the Nov. 28. The property was seourely fancad with wire and gorse. In answer to Mr Harvey, witness said he had quarrelled with Heron, Sen., and had not spoken to him for some months. Thomas Waterworth said he was inBtruoted by his father to Impound the heifer, and was taking It to the pound at Boundary Creek when he met the defen* dant, who, after making a fevr remarks, struck witness behind tho ear and ohaU lenged him to fight, remarking that he (witness)had tho wrong "beor" to deal with In him. Heron then resoued the heifer. In reply to Mr Harvey, witness said the defendant struck him behind the left ear with his right hand. Archibald Schnaok said ho Baw the defendant go ,up to Thomas Waterworth and place himself in a fighting attitude. He could not Bay whether Heron struck Waterworth or not, but he might havo done so. In reply to Heron, Waterworth said he would speak to his father about it. Heron's brother took possession of tho calf whioh was at this time ia Roodstreet. John Haggle stated that ho saw Heron let out a smack at Thomaa Waterworth, but he could not say with whiah hand the defendant etruok tbe blow. Heron's brother took possession of the heifer. Franciß Falconer also gave evidence to seeing the assault. For the defonoo, David Heron said ho saw the complainant driving a heifer of his father's along Reed-street with a dog. Witness asked Waterworth what he was doing rushing the calf about like that. Witness struck at him with his open hand but did not hit him. Waterworth thea said he would see hla father about it. He further asked witness if he wanted the calf. He replied no ! bo could drive it where he wished, bo long as ho did so quietly. Waterworth rode away and witness soon after luft. In answer to Mr Newton witness said he had no knowledge that Waterworth was driving the calf, until he saw him In the street. Witness did uot rescue the baast or interfere with It In any way. His Worship characterised the oase as one of those cases of larrikioism so prevalent In Oamaru, Ic was absurd that mere boys shonid be allowed to break the law as they thought fit. The fault of Buch a state of things was chiefly due to the oare> lessness of parents, who allowed mere boys to do as they pleased. He did not know who put the defendant up to the deed, but he would have to suffdr for It. The offences were serious, and for illegal rescue a fine of L2, with professional fee 218, witnesses' expenses 9j, and court coßta 7s, would be imposed, in default 14 days' hard labor In tho Oamaru gaol. For the assault a fine of 10s and costs 13a would be imposed.