Resident Magistrate's Court.

Southland Times, Issue 4497, 8 December 1882, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court.

« Wednesday, 6th December. (Before Messrs Perkins and Todd, J's.P.) AN OLD DRUNKARD. An old offender named De La Roche, who had already been sentenced as an habitual drunkard, was fined 10s, or in default, 48 hours' imprisonment for the offence. A FATHER'S DUTIES. Charles Wells was charged on remand with failing to comply with an order of the R.M., to contribute 5s a week towards the support of his son now in the Caversham Industrial School. The Bench adjourned the case for a fortnight to allow the defendant to contribute something, as he stated that he had just got a job. A PETTY LITTLE QUARREL. A summons and cross-summons were then heard, the parties to each being John Garmson, Mayor of North InvsrcargiM, and Miss Rouse. Mr Wade appeared for the former, and Mr Finn for the latter. The evidence of Miss' Rouse was first taken, from which it appeared that the witness was proceeding along E'.lea road, on the pyening of the 23rd ult,, when, MrGarmson met her, and without any provo= cation struck her in the face and made her nose bleed ; her first exclamation being, according to her own statement, that she would summons him. The only difference between them, as she alleged, was a conversation about Roman Catholics, which occurred as far back as January. Constable O'Leary deposed t^ seeing Mr Garmson shortly after the assaulf, com." plained of, when he bqr-e marks as if he had been scratched by a woman's nails, his cheeks being sorapad and bleeding on each aide of his nose. Mr Garmson had complained several times prior to this of Miss Rouse's conduct. He said she was continually annoying him, and he was frightened to pass her, and she made use of such abusive language. Mr Garmson was then put in the box and gave his version of the affair, which was that on meeting Miss Rouse on tlu evening in question she spat on Lis face twice, and on Ilis trying to 'put her away she s.cratch.ed 1 "him. He believed Miss Rouse was under the impression that he had procured her dismissal from her last situation. This, however, was not true. He was in constant i'euj; of being assaulted by Miss Rouse, and even his family, stood in like danger. He asked for an order to protect him against the persecution of this woman. Witness exp'ained his not having taken out a summons first by saying that he did not like to bring the case In f jre the Court. Evidence was given by Miss Jacobson. Iff Eeid ancj Mrs l)e Garnljuu}, corroborative

of Mr Garmson's version of the assault; the last-named witness stating that Miss Rouse had told her, a little time ago, that sho would not touch: Mr Garmson on his own grounds, but that whenever she caught him outside she would give it him. The Bench\ultiniately dismissed the case of Rouse v. Garmson, and with regard to the cross- summons, said % thatthe balance of evidence was that Miss Rouse did actually commit the assault, and she would accordingly be fined 10s and costs. The Benpli did not , think t a_ protection order necessary, as if an assault were committed again 1 Miss Rouse could easily be brought before the Court. ; ,