DCITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 6304, 26 April 1882, Page 4

DCITY POLICE COURT.

Tuesdat, 25th Apeu,. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., 8.M.) Assault.—John Morrison was charged with having on the 21st inst., at Eglinton near Mornmgton, violently assaulted one Isabella Johnson.—Another information charged him with having assaulted her ou the 24th inst. Accused pleaded not guilty to both charges.— The proseeutrix stated that for about 12 years she had baeu living with the accused. On the day in question (the 21st) he came in and broke a jug on her hea_d, causing a deep wound on her forehead, which bled profusely. Witness was lying in bed at the time. [The accused here showed the wound to his Worship, and the broken water-jug and a pillow-case stained with blood were produced by the police.] Accused was drunk at the time of the assault, and afterwards said he was very sorry for what he had done.—To the accused : 1 was not the worse for drink on that day. The assault was committed some time in the afternoon. The jug was not broken against the bedpost— Dc Maunsell stated that he examined the last witness on the 24th, and found a very severe \yound on the head, apparently inflicted two or three days previously. The wound was very deep, and stretched across the forehead about an inch and a-quarter. It had apparently been inflicted with a blow, and the accused, who had lost a lot of blood, was very weak. She was so weak that he advised her to go to the Hospital.—The accused stated that the informant was lying in a beastly state of intoxication, and asked the accused to get her a drink of water. It was dark at the time, and by accident witness broke the jug against the bedpost or the wall. The informant did not then complain of any wound. —His Worship : lou have not yet shown how the wound was inflicted.—Accused: I can ouly say that it must have been accidentally done; it was not done by my hand.—The accused was then charged with the assault alleged to have been committed on the 24th inst.—The informant i stated that on that day the accused called her into the house and beat her about the head with a frying-pan. [Frying-pan produced.] I 3?or some time witness did not know what took place, and after a while she found that blood was flowing from the wounds on the back of her head. Accused had asked her to make some tea on this occasion, and as she did not do it, being too weak, he struck her on the head, and threatened to murder her that night. —Accused cross-examined the witness with a view to bring out that the wounds had been caused by her falling on a box.—Dr Maunsell was-called, and detailed the nature of the wounds on the back of. the head. One of these, he stated, was bleeding when he visited the prosecutrix. It was quite likely.it had been produced by a blow from the pan produced.—The accused denied the charge, and made a very lamo excuse about the woman falling on the comer of a box.— His Worship : There is no doubt the wound has been inflicted with the instrument produced, and not as the accused seems to try to make out in his defence. The medical evidence seems also to support this view.—Mr Weldon proposed to call evidence as to how the informant had been treated by the accused on former occasions.—His Worshipremarked that he could not take such evidence until he had decided whether he would convict tho accused on the evidence. It was his intention to treat the first case as an aggravated assault.—After a pause, his Worship decided to hear the evidence of Constable Porter.—The latter stated that he was stationed at Mornington, and had known both the informant and the accused for a number of years. Some 15 months ago the former complained to him of the treatment she received at the hands of the accused, but she could not be induced to prosecute. On that occasion she appeared to have received most brutal treatment, for she was much burned and scalded, and in consequence of that treatment she lost one of her eyes." According to her own statement the accused had poured kerosene over her and then set it on fire.—His Worship : Did the accused come from Oamaru?—Mr Weldon: Yes ; your Worship. He was convicted there for assaulting the same woman, and received a sentence of six months' imprisonment, besides which he was bound over to keep the peace for 12 months.—Accused : That is a "false statement.—His Worship : The evidence brought before me to-day is quite sufficient to show that you are a most brutal man. It is almost necessary that such a porson as you should be kept closely confined in, the same manner as a wild beast. You are not fit to be in the society of women. You will be sentenced to gix months' imprisonment with hard labour on each charge, the one sentence to commence on the termination of the other.

PORT CHALMERS.

Tuesday, 25th Apkil.

(Before W. Thomson and J. Mill, Esqs., J.Ps.) DitDNKENNEsa. — John Henderson,. who pleaded guilty to this offeree, was fined sa, with the alternative of 24 hours' imprisonment. Assault at Sea.—Alexander Davidson was charged with assaulting John Bergin on April 21st.—Mr Adams appeared for the complainant, and Mr Solomon for the accused, who pleaded not guilty.—The complainant, who is carpenter of the barque Janet M'Neil, charged the accused, who is chief officer, with assaulting him by striking him on the head while taking him aft, and stated that on the morning in question the defendant went to his room and ordered him out. He went to the cabin door, and the mate called him down. Witness declined to go down, and walked away forward, saying, "If you want me, I am here." The chief officer, with the second and third, then followed him forward, and the mate told him to go aft, or he would take him forcibly. Witness refused to go, being afraid he would be put in irons; the mate and officers, with several of the crew, then seized him by the arms and legs to tako him aft, the second mate taking him round the neck, the mate at the same time striking him heavily on the head some seven or eight times.—ln answer to Mx | Solomon, the witness stated that he neither struck nor kicked the mate while -being carried aft, and that he did not know at the time what he was wanted for, but that afterwards the captain told him it was to hear the entries in the official log read.—Mr Solomon proceeded to read an entry in the log, to which Mr Adams objected, on the "ground that the log was not in evidence, andneither could its contents affect the the case.—By Mr Solomon: Thewhole of the entries in the log were read to me on Friday last, at 10 minutes to 0 in the morning, after the mate assaulted me. I was in the stearage on January 20th. I went in reply to an invitation from the'steerage passengers—ladies. I was afterwards forbidden by the captain to go there except on duty. I did not stand with my arms round the waists of two of the female passengers on the evening of the same day.—-To the Bench : I wish to explain to your Worships that on the evening of January 20th I was standing looking over the side. Two ladies were there, and the captain came up and said, "Do you see any fish ?." I replied ''No, sir," and after looking, in our faces he went away. He afterwards told me I had my arms round the ladies, and I went to him next morning and requested to know if he would prove what he said about my putting my arms round them. To this he replied he could not.—By Mr Solomon: I have always done my duty. The only skeleton key I had in my Possession was an old one I found on board. Tfie captain also read an extract to me on Friday last.—By Mr Adams : The captain read the whole of the entries in the log to me when I was forced up last Friday. None of them were ever read until then.—By the Bench : I never heard the entries read until the ship was coming into port.—The evidence of several witnesses, including Captain Jones, went to prove that the mate did not strike the complainant, who, they averred, kicked and struck as he was being carried aft.—Mr Solomon stated the complainant had proved himself a perfect firebrand during the passage, and Captain Jones had been compelled to exercise all his ingenuity, in order to keep him out of the female quarters. His own witnesses gave evidence entirely against him, and the official log-book showed he was constantly offending. Mr Solomon then asked Captain Jones whether he had at any time received complaints about the carpenter. —Mr Adams objocted to this question heing answered.—The Bench considered the question should be answered.—Mr Adams must object to the Bench hearing any evidence extraneous to the case. His duty was to protect the interests of his client, and certainly he would object to anything being brought out that would unduly influence their Worships. The learned gentleman then proceeded to crossTexainino Captain Jones and tho accused.—After deliberation, the Bench were of opinion that tho charge was not proven, but that at the same time there had been an undue amount of violence used in bringing tho carpenter aft. It would have been better to have treated tho case as one of refusal of duty. Tho case was dismissed, their Worships declining to allow defendant's costs.

Rkfusal ok Dutv,—.Tolm Bei-gin was then charged by Captain Jones with refusing to let go the topgallant halyards on February 20th. —Tho Beucli* considered the charge proved, and ordered the accused to be imprisoned for 14 days.