CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9335, 28 January 1892, Page 4

CITY POLICE COURT.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27. (Before Messrs J. Elmer and D. Ferguson J ]>■« 1 Dru.vkenkess.-Foi. this offence Elizabeth Lindsay, an old offender, was sentenced to thiee months imprisonment; Andrew Leckie, who had several previous convictions recorded against him was fined 10s or 48 hours' imprisonment ;™d Margaret Buckingham (19 previous convictions) was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment Cattle Wandering.—Alexander Clark was &Pn°°i the. intormation of the Portobello Road Loard, with allowing several calves to wander on the Hooper's Inlet road.-Mr Holmes » i e M, tt,° psf?u*e J ,on Jwhalf of the road board, man was thrown, and the horse recefvld an injury. The information was laW under a bye law made by the road board, whTcbfixeda penalty of LlO for cattle wandering -Thomas Geary, farm servant, stated that he was riding along the Hooper's Inlet roa.l on December j£ H was Counted on a young to Mr PI v m^ tln S four calves belonging a bye-law providing a penalty for cattle wander^ ing on any road or street under their control There was authority for these proceedings under a section of "The Public Works Act 18$ Amendment Act 1884." If there had C fnnVo «J r "l an/ tlm.? f°r tte rOad board to tak4fc l b^' la' VS>, the J facfcof the Legislature taking the matter in hand over-rode the bye-laws. J* fssummg for a moment that the road any horses or cattle were found wandering on any ro^Cl -^o^th.undflr the firf th£ road board without being in charge of some SAo^T/ °f J he said>»* of cattle °™ not hr nnP ]V "« exceedin S LlO. Now it had of Mr ClSk t K the Prose™tion that the calves ot Mr Uark had been wandering on any roid hn'i' °ff fSOt^ th under the control of tL road' Fnfon liha^ been ,sta T ted that they werewanderDiougnt. If the board wanted to brine a tprf tweJnH m I c™H Q£ ial -undertoM'<To the bend! those m the body of the court could not hear it Alleged Assault at Pine HiLt-Joseph Roh° P I rrM yollf gnnan' AV as c, har«ed with assaulting ft H? e HHI l'r anw d, e-rly man> on Sunday 'as! at line Hill.—Mr Wilkinson appeared for flip complainant, and Mr A. C. Hanlon for the accused, who pleaded not guilty.-Mr Wffldnson c h h o e f cv'dellcc would disclose a most cowardly and dastardly assault, which took place on Sunday last about half-past 3in the afternoon The complainant was an old man, and the accused was a young man of about 24 or 25 On the day m question accused came on to con> Plainant's property. He had previously been Srirff and on-this oc™ont F a5 shaU remonstrated with him. WithZr\ *nfr Il? r jado' the. accused set upon him and inflicted severe injuries. Both his eves were blackened, his held bruised, wd cheek Tht'-;w le 1 1- le , Waf bad]y kicked w^S«e back Their Worships had power under the act not only to inflict a severe penalty, but also to order the accused to find sureties to keep the peace • and he (counsel) would ask the Bench" that if the charS were proved, as no doubt it would be, to mark their disapproval of such conduct by iniposinc the shnir^, enalt?f OWe44 ythe law.-Bobert!rir! shall, settler of Pine Hill, gave evidence that on Sunday last he was on his property, when the accused got.through the fence/ He told Mat he hadjio right there. Accused then commenced to use bad language, after which he set upon wit ness and struck him a number of times When witness was walking away accused kicked him in the small of the back.. Witness was not knocked down, but wa3 staggering on account of the blows. •(; ro,¥- ei £? l. mile4 • Accused said that witness had Witness had no knifem his possession at the time. The day being Sunday he had changed his clothes and had left his knife at home. Witness did n't throw stones at the accused, neither did he strike lum. lie had m his hand a stone weighing about 3ozor 4p Z) but accused had a stone weighingabout 71b. If accused said that he stabbed iTim, or attempted to stab lum, it was not true. He was positive that he had no knife with him that day Ueorge Harvey gave evidence that on Sunday afternoon last he was in the vicinity of the place where the assault was alleged to have taken place. He came on the scene just as the two men were separating. Complainant told him what had occurred, and witness, afterwards meeting the accused, told him it was no credit to him that ™rT "rJ-a^ asf "lted an oW niau. Accused replied Did lie tell you what he did to me?" and witness replying in the negative, he opened his shirt aud showed him a slight wound on the leftside, near the shoulder. The blood appeared to be fresh, and was smeared over the surface of the skiu._ He said that complainant had attempted to stab him Cross-examined : Witness thought that accused was wearing a coat that day, but it was ,opened.-Margaret Marshall, wife of complainant, stated that when her husband came home, and she saw him all bruised, she asked him ' what had occurred. He replied that Throp had assaulted him. He further said that Throp had accused him of attempting to stab him. Witness went to complainants-old clothes and found his knife, in the pocket of his trousers. Crossexamined: Her husband did not tell her to go to his clothes to look for the knife. She did it of Her own accord.—lhis concluded complainant's case—Mr Hanlon stated that their Worships had heard ore side of the case and, like every case, it had two sides. Ihe real facts of the case were that on tnat bunday afternoon accused was endeavouring to catch a wild cow. In order to do so he made a short cut across complainant's property, and was accosted by Marshall on the way. The latter spoke to him, and was very abusive. Eventually iie^took out his penknife and attempted to stab the accused, inflicting a slight wound upon him At this accused struck him several blows. No doubt he lost his temper, but so would any young man if placed in a similar position, and lie(counsel) ventured to say that no one would refrain from striking a man, no matter how old he was, if he attempted to stab him. Accused might have struck him more times than he should have, but that was for their Worships to say. There was not the slightest doubt tnat he receive'! veiy great provocation from the complainant.—Accused then went into the witness box, and deposed that the reason why he struck the complainant was because he attempted to stab him. He produced the coat and vest he was wearing that day, and showed where the knife had penetrated the cloth. He also admitted kicking the accused, but he did so when he saw him stooping down to pick up a stone.-Alexander Ford and William Henderson gave evidence that accused showed them the coat and vest where the knife had penetrated The coat ami vest had not been cut previous to that day.—Mr Elmer said that the bench had decided to dismiss the case.—Mr Wilkinson: Will your Worships state jour reasons?—Mr Elmer •No