RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT Tuesday, June 19th. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M.) OBSCENE LANGUAGE.

Te Aroha News, Volume I, Issue 3, 23 June 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT Tuesday, June 19th. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., R.M.) OBSCENE LANGUAGE.

Elizabeth Hector was charged with having made use of obscene language in Whitaker-strect on Sunday last. Sergt. Emmer^on proved the offence, and the accused was fined 20s and costs, with the alternative of a week's imprisonment. The Magistrate added that he regretted the punishment would fall on the ofFvndei-.' husband in lien of herself, but added that if she were brought up again he would send her to gaol.

ASSAULT. Joseph Read was charged with having violently assaulted J. H. Smith on the evening of Wednesday the 13th inst. Mr (jainpboll appearod Cor the complainant, Mr Cuff, for the defence. lie fore the ea.se was gone into Mr Cvi! said it w.in doubtful whether the Magistrate h.id juiisdiction, us the alleged ,issiult arose out of question of title to pn>pfMty, and he quoted the 185'h clause of 'The Justices of the Peace Act, 1882, in support of his objection. The Magistrate said that Mr Cuff was preniattue in raising the point. If, on Iteming, the facts disclosed a qii-stion of title, then he could not deal with t\\a ease, but must send it for trial to a higher court, lie would pioceed with the ca>e, and if it was found that any question of title aiose it would be competent for Mr CufT to raise (lie objecli >n at any time. The plaintiff. Mid that he was appointed a bailiff for the pnrpos ■ of making <i dis^iesi mi defendant 1 -, pieini, . uid he to >k poss'-ssion on theGih m^t. lie made an inventoi\, ,i eopv of which he jv o to \irs lvead, and the oii^ina 1 he producd. Shoswd nothing except lg tint !ier luuband w,i^ not home. I\a:nt;il' saw defendant on [Sunday, and .i^nin on t e following Wednt^da^. Witi.-'s-, rccehod a letter fiom him in. iking an appointment and in consequence wont to sty defen I mt in the evening of the 13th. lit* call -d at house of the lattei, and vwh asked l<> go in and Like a seat, lie did m> wh mi he an, l del' ndant h<id some conversation, the latter asking witness if Mr. Campbell would take half of the amount due, to which !»■; replied that Mr. Campbell required the whole of it. Defendant, u>ked if Mr. Campbell had any authority to receive the rent, and witness haid he heleived he had. 110 then assk:d witness by whose authority he was appointed bailiff and he icphed by Mi. C unpbjlh. In reply to a question why he annoyed his wife witness said he had not annoyed her without anything father defendant jinr.ped up and knocked witness off the chair on to the floor and when there kicked him on the back. After that he he umed witness up in a corner and kept striking him repeatedly and hit or kicked him in the ribs Witness managed to escape but he was too excited to remember how, as hi.s face was covered with blood as he was greatly injured. By Mr Cuff. — Mr Campbell authorised him to go in as baihtf. He had ho.»rd Mr Campbell was a bankrupt, He did not give Mrs Head a copy of the warrant, he did not know it was necessary. Mrs Head would not allow* him to take an inventor}' but he did so in oue room against her wishes. He did not give her a signed copy of the inventory. Mr Campbell lold him to take an inventory of the good* and remain in possession. Though he did not remain in possession it was an nndei stood thing that he was to be considered in possession. Mrs Head said that she did not believe Mr Campbell had any n*jh: co be sent. Witness thought defeiulaut was to pay the rent, but the l.tter said th it Mr Campbell had no ri^ht to the rent The first assault was a blow on ihe jaw, and wituebt thought he kicked him, witness did not try to hit defendant. He could not do so for he was pinned up He could not have broken his ribs by bending over the sofa. He had had lumbago recently, but no fall that could have fractured hia ribs. He did not believe Head had any ilhvill but uomiimteu the assault in the heat of passion. By the Magistrate — Mrs Head was out of the room all this time. She was m the kitchen and the door was closed. He went to the house that night in cons*. quench of being asked to do so in the letter produced. Defendant did not order him out of tuehou.se but struck him first. John Henry 11. Bond, duly qualified medical practitioner, proved that he had excimund the complainant, and found that he had sustained a fracture of a rib on j the right side, a bruise on tho nipple, a laceration of the ri^ht ear and a biaise | bi hind it, also a laceration of the nose ami considerable swelling; subsequently he discovi^ed that there was tract are of tho nose mid slight displacement. Complainant would not be fil for work for about 30 duya. There would be permanent displacement of the m>e. By Mr Cuff. —A lib might easily be broken in a av-ufiie. lhere was only a slight bruise there. No very great force was required to break a nb. lie saw no definite signs of kicks on the complainant.

Mr Cuff said the defence.Waa that defendant had Been told that MV Campbell, in consequence of having been compelled to make an assignment, was not the proper person to receive the rent. At the interview in question defendant found that complainant v>as i uproperly in possession, and in turning him out jammed him against the sofa, whereby any injuries sustained had been occasioned. He justified the assault on the ground that he only used sufficient to turn the complainant out, Defendant made a statement, saying that on convoy home from his work on Saturday ho iieard from his wife, that Mr Campbell had sent a man to levy a distress during his absence. He made an appointment with Smith intending to pay the money, but oujenquiry he found that the whole transaction was illegal. When Smith came the (defendant) asked him what arrangements he had made with Mr Campbell for him. Smith said Mr Camphell wanted all the money, and he 'as bailiff demanded the whole. Defendant asked him if he was sure he was bailiff, and he said yes, but it was the first time he had been bailiff, and it should be the last. After some conversation about the notice, complainant said he was bailiff then in the house, hut had not Mr Campbells papers with him. Defendant told him that he was sure that he was not bailiff and in the excitement jumped up from his seat seized Smith by the scuff of the neck and rushed him up in the corner of the room, between the sofa and the wall, his nose coming in contact with the wail and causing it to bleed. He then Opened the door and pushed Smith out but he could not say whether he used more force or not than was required, but he had no intention of either maiming or disfiguring complainant.

The Magistrate said that no question of title had arisen. Had such been the cage thau the jurisdiction of the (J>>nrt would have been ousted. On thia occasion plaintiff merely went to discuss the matter and not to take possession. Subsequently, however, without the slightest provocation, a very severe assault was committed through defendant Josinj,' his temper. The only dofibt he had was whether he should not send the defendant for trial to a higher court. If he (Magistrate) dealt with the jrtse it would debar defendant from obtaining any civil redress in the shape of damages.

Mr Campbell said there was no hope of redress that way, and asked the Magistrate to deal with the matter in a summary manner. The Magistrate, after pointing out that complainant had acted most civill. thiou^hout, said that at the tune he were Assaulted he was not in possession at nil, i e;ul defendant a severe lecture on the temper h« had disphncvl and the brutality he h.ul shown. If ho wme to defendant for his trial he would probably get a prolonged term of impiisonment. He would thcrefoie impose on defendant the highest monetary penalty the law would erunt. Defendant would be fined £10, of wnieh o-ie-hcilf woim! he awarded to 'he complainant, an-l costs £1 11s. In default of or' payment defendant to to be impiiMMi'd :n Mount Eden Gaol for one inomh \Tiih iian; labor. One lmlf the fine and the costs to he pniii in 14 days at. d (he balance at \h" ix'>iraiji*n of the 14 -neceedin.i dnys, a Minnt to issue in default of either pay snout.

Civil. Casks. J. Squirrell v. J. tSu.isd ill. — An action to recover Xl 7 84 _> 1 including £11 17s 7<\ on account of Carr» astute, which plaintiff tmd authority to collect Defendant dis- | puled several items in thin latter account. Vir Knight, who wa.s in charge of Mi Carrd bh.iftesbury store, awore that all die articles had been supplied with the < xcoption of a box and so.no biead. A verdict was given for £16, 11s lOd, and ( o-Üb, 21s. P. Faoa v. Kevvi Mokino. — A judgment xuminon*>. Plamtill could not show that defendant hud means to pay, and the case was adjourned. J. Bullock v. Samp.— Mr Cuff for the plaintiff. — ! his win also a judgment numinous. Plaintiff pioved that defendant offered a horde in «mtisfaction, but he rofu'sed to take it. The Magistrate lield that was not sufficient evidence of tho defendant's ability to pay. lie was move particular with Maoris than Europeans, ,us it was quite uot>*ibio that defendant would offer his father's, or his brother's, or his friend's horse. He suggested that the case be withdrawn and a distiestj warrant issued. Mr Cuff accepted the suggestion, and the case \>as withdrawn. IJaskmlle v. G.ur. Mr Cult for pi.iintiJT. Verdict by default W £2 13s 4d, and costs IDs, and professional costs 10s Gd. E. ttuio v. 11. Baskiville. Mr Cuff for plaintiir. A disputed account, plaintiff claiming .£lf> 14s iOcl. Case adjourned (ill next court day, in order to allow defend,int to put in a set nJH. Walker v. 11. Verity. Mr Campbell for plaintiff. Verdict by default for £5 16s and costs. J. O'Neill v. 11. II Adams. Mr Campbell for plaintiff, Mr Cut! for defendant. This was an action to recover the sum of Ji w 23 19d for notice and alleged illegal dismissal, iind wages duo. The sum of £7 10s 9d was paid into court. Plaintiff stated that be had been engaged to work on the t"iiin\vay at 9s per day, and tho engagement was for three months. He worked for two months, but was off about a week in consequence of having a finger broken whilst shifting some iron rails. He sustained this injury through noc having hoops to lift the rails, and being compelled to lift them with his hands. He worked one Sunday, April 29th, as there was pressing work to be done. He claimed -a months wages for bang discharged before the agreed time In cross-examination, plaintiff stid he understood defendant to engage him for three months. Defendant said it would be a three months' job, and did not say it might be a three weeks or ii three months job. Defendant was very kind when he was hurt, and gave him light work that he could do with the injured hand afterwards. Pie also paid the doctor. When ho went for his money he told defendant he should claim a months' wages for being dismissed before the three months were up. The only reason given for dismissal was that they were going to reduce the hands. Defendant, in charge of the Waiorongoinni company for the Piako Council, utterly denied that there was any three months' engagement. He told plaintiff that the job might last three weeks or three months. He paid the doctor's bill whilst plaintiff was hurt, and gave him easy wovk that ho could do with one

hand, such as sorting bolts. Plaintiff was discharged because they were reducing hands, and never made any demand for compensation. The first he knew about it was when he received the summons. After further evidence, a verdict was given for tho amount paid into Court, which was in fact for the defendant. This concluded the bnsinoss, and the Court then adjourned.