MAGISTERIAL.

Patea Mail, Volume XI, Issue 67, 23 September 1885, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

PATE A-TUESDAY.

(Before 0. A. Wray, Esq,, R,M.) W. Pote pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness, and was fined 5s and costs.

W. Williams, junr, and M. A. Parker were each find 5s and 2s 6d costs for allowing horses to wander at largo. James Rhodes was charged on the information of J. J. Speight with using abusive and insulting language in a public place, to wit, Bgraont street, Patea, calculated to induce a breach of the peace. Defendant pleaded not guilty. The Sergeant of Police conducted the prosecution. J. J. Speight, sworn, said : I know defendant and recollect the 16th instant. I was standing under the verandah at Mi Adams’ watching his assistant open some cases of goods at about 12 o’clock when defendant came up and said, “ Are you going to shout those drinks you lost ?” I said,No, certainly not.” Ele then said, “ Well, if you don’t, I will ask you for them every time I see you and if that won’t do I’ll hit you a crack on the nose,” and made use of other bad language. I went down to my shop and defendant followed me and made use of very abusive language and challenged me to fight and said, “ I would like to aggravate j'ou till you strike me you whatever. I tried to laugh it off. Messrs Taplin and W. Wilson were in my shop at the time and Mr Taplin said “ We had better clear out or we shall be brought up as witnesses.”

Cross-examined by defendant: Yon made use of all the words in front of Paterson. I shook you for the diinks, but I don’t think you won or I should have shouted for youA. Paterson, sworn, said : I know tin parties to this suit and recollect the 16th instant. Mr Speight was watching me unpack some goods opposite Mr Adams shop. Mr Rhodes came along and asked Speight if he was going, to pay for drinks. Speight said “No.” Rhodes said he would ask him for them till he did. I did not hear Speight make any reply. I did not hear the language used stated in the information.

W. Wilson, sworn, said ; I live at Wheruakura, and recollect the 16 th instant. I was in Speight’s shop on that day with Mr Taplin. I remember the defendant coming to the shop door, and asking Speight if he was going to pay for drinks. Speight laughed, and said no he wasn’t. To the best of my recollection he (defdt) called Speight ah——r, and said he would like to give him a crack on the nose. I have no doubt if Speight had gone out on the pavement he would have struck him.

Cross-examined by defendant: I think you called him a by thing. S. Taplin, sworn, said ; I know the parties to this suit. I remember the 16th. I went into Speight’s shop ; there was no one there. Speight came in very shortly and Mr William Wilson, of Whenuakura, and Rhodes came to the door and asked Speight to pay for the drink he shook him' for. Speight laughed, Rhodes said he considered Speight had lost fairly, and ought to pay for the drinks. Speight took no notice. Rhodes called him an imp, I think. Speight .told him to go away. Rhodes asked him again for the drinks, and said he wanted to give him a crack on the nose.

Cross-examined by defendant : I did not hear you use the words set forth in the information. I think you said by imo. I did not hear you say b——y skunk.

The defendant then stated : 1“ shook ” Speight for drinks and beat him, and as I was passing Speight’s door the following day, Speight called me in and said he wanted his revenge, I went in and put my shilling on the counter, and we “ shook ” for drinks. Speight lost, then he put bis fingers to his nose and said, “ any fool could take a rise out of you and Brown.” I asked him to come and pay for the drinks. He said, “I could knock the snout off both you and Brown any day.” I never used the language set forth in the information. I called him “ a thing,” and “ a fraud,” and “ a chiser ,” but that is not bad language, “ Chiser ” means a bad claim on a diggings. He told me he would withdraw the case, as I apologised to him, and I did not expect to have to defend it, or I would have had witnesses.

His Worship said there was no doubt abusive and insulting language had been used by defendant, and from his own shewing he had had plenty of time to cool down and was not therefore led away by the heat of the moment, lie would be fined 20s, and costs 13s, fourteen days being allowed in which to pay the fine and costs. •The Court then rose.