RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VI, Issue 835, 15 July 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M.), Inciting to a Brach of the Peace. Bromley v. Button. — Mr. Broomfield for the plaintiff. The charge was for using insulting language,- with the intention of committing a breach of the peace. The defendant admitted., the charge, which was committed under very ~ aggravating circumstaviKes.i '. Mr. Bromley had used him very rongly, and had torn his coat. He did use the words mentioned m the information. Mr. Bromley, sworn, stated that on Friday List lie made a distress on the goods of Mr. Upham. The next day he went to the sale-rooms of Messrs Bourke and Smith to seize goods belonging to Upham, when the defendant grossly insulted him by using abusive language. He (witness) never tonched the defendant. There were several witnesses present. Evidence was given confirmatory of the plaintiffs statement. A. Taylor, called, deposed. — That he saw Mr. Bromley collar the defendant's shoulder by which his coat was torn There was a dispute going on. Mr. Bromley pulled Mr. Uplnun and the defendant on each other. The coat was torn. Quite fifty people were present. The charge was dismissed. Assault. Upham v. Brooks. — Mr. Nolan for the plaintiff. This was a charge of assault arising out of a distress warrant levied for rent. • Mr. E. Upham, deposed : On Saturday last he was removing goods from the auction mart of Messrs Bourke and Smith, which he considered was his property. He was holding a chair, when the defendant struck him heavily on the hand with a brass-handled hunt-

ng whip. The chair was mi the cart of the defendant. Defendart did not ask me to remove my hand, w if I did not I should break his arm. 1 You (defendant) apologised to me, but I would not accept it, I did not say, l '£t is all over now ; I was as bad as yov." Unlawful Le/y. Sorry v. U'Re,n : — Mr. Bromfield for the plaintiff ; Mr. Rogan for defendant. This case arose out of a distress warrant, by which the goods of the plaintiff had been levied on. The bailiff had failed to deliver a copy of the warrant, and the landlord was now sued. The Magistrate, and with him Mr. Rogan, were of opinion that by the reading of the Act, a landlord could not be answerable for the laches of his bailiff, who alone must be held reponsible. The information was withdrawn, it having been ruled that proceeding had been taken against the wrong man. J. Meredith, called : Saw the defendant strike Upham, -who was trying to take something off his cart. Both defendants arms appeared to be free. Mr. Bromley called, deposed that he had employed the defendant to remove goods from Messrs. Bourke and Smith's store. He was acting upon authority from Mr. Maud, who holds a power of attorney from Mr. Cooper. On the previous day the same goods were quietly given up by Mr. Upham to himself (witness) and Mr. Maude. Mr. Upham rushed to the cart, and attempted to take the goods off it. The defendant tried to protect the property m his charge, and struck Mr. Upham. Mr. Upham was not drunk, but had taken more than was good for him. Defendant told Mr. Upham to stand off. After the affair was over, Mr. Upham and the defendant rode off m the cart, apparently quite friendly. Mr. Upham, recalled : Never gave up possession of the goods at any time. Mr. Maud called : Mr. Upham handed over the goods to Mr. Bromley to be sold by Messrs. Bourke and Smith. This was m the presence of witness. His Worship decided that the goods having been seized under distress warrant, the plaintiff had no right to force a recovery. The case was dismissed. Upham v. Bromley. — This was a charge of assault, arising out of the same case as the last. Mr^ Nolan, for the plaintiff, withdrew the'Riarge. RESCUE. Bromley v. Upham. — Mr. Bromfield for the complainant. Mr. Nolan for defendant. This was a charge against the defendant for rescuing goodß after tlipy had been seized and taken possession of under a distress warrant. It was the last of the series of cases which had gone before. The charge was not gone into, the plaintiff's solicitor requesting to have it withdrawn.