RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1531, 13 July 1886, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Gsiuidwi— Monday, July 12,1880.

Before H. C. S. Baddeley, Esq., 8.M., Dr Fish, and Messrs A. fl. Brisco, R. H. Pearpoint, and W. H. Moore, J.P’s. erm oaves. Geraldine Town Board v. Helena, for allowing cattle to wander within the Town.

Mr White appeared for the defendant and asked for an adjournment, as the summons had only been issued late on Saturday. Adjourned till next Court day. T. Mullins v. Q. Wood.

This was a case in which plaintiff sought to obtain an order from the Court for the dilirery of 30 bags of osta which he had stored in defendant's smithy at Wood* bury. It appeared that plaintiff had seized the furniture and goods of the Woodbury Hotel under a bill of sale, and not being able to remove them all on ac* count of not having sufficient express accommodation he hired defendant’s smithy, in which to place the goods in until such time as he could come and fetch them away. After: hearing some evidence Mr White, said ha would endeavor to prove that the bill of sale under which the goods were sold had not been properly prepared, and that, therefore, plaintiff bad no legal right to them. Mr White also stated that be appeared on behalf of the Deputy Assignee in the estate of T. Dooley, lately landlord of the Woodbury Hotel, who had granted the bill of sale, and had since become a bankrupt. Finally it waa decided to adjourn the case far three weeks. ASSAPI*. Thomas Farrell end W. R. D. Lawson were charged oh the information of C. A. Lloyd with assault,(committed on the 30th June last in the Crown Hotel. The two cases were taken together. The. plaintiff slated that on the 30th of June he wont into the Crown Hotel, Geraldine, to see a friend, and had two drinks. As he came out he inet Lawson coning in, who "told him he wished to speak to him. They went into the front parlor, and were followed in by Farrell. Lawson then accused him of saying

certain improper things to a step-daughter ' of his (Lawaon ! s),and Farrell spoke about it at the same time. Farrell said some* thing, and witness said it was not true. Farrell then said, '• What, do you call me a liar I” and struck witness. Lawson

sent Farrell for his step-daughter, who was working la the house, and she stated that witness used the expressions attributed to him. Witness denied using them,

and if he did so he had ho meaning in them, as the expressions wstoconatantly - used in the house. When the girl left-,, the room Farrell locked thedoor, and Lawson then gave him a considerablehammering. The first blow had knocked him stupid, and he did not remember much of what passed afterwards. 'His head was still sore.

Mr White cross-examined the plaintiff at great length,’ but before doing ep cautioned him that npon his. answers would probably lie the foundation of an action for an indecent assault upon a young girl. Plaintiff adhered to hia statement, and appealed to Ooasteble Willoughby aa to whether the language he was alleged to have made use Of was not common in hotels.

Constable Willoughby stated he had beard men and girls chaffing in hotels, but had not heard indecent expressions used with criminal intent.

lo Mr White ; He could not say that plaintiff’s general reputation was bad. He (plaintiff) had sometimes beep-talked about, but he had no accusation to nude against him. For the defence, Mr White called ‘

Thomas Farrell j Who stated that tbe girl had been in his employ in June last 1 as nnrae. On the day after hia sale (Jane 25th) he had foneup-atairu an# ' had aeen plaintiff coming out of hia pri- : vate sitting room. Had asked him what ’ he was doing there, and ha said be was looking for a frisld. Went into the room and saw the girl thora with the children. Asked what Lloyd bad been doing. Tbe girl colored, and he told her she must tell hlm what h* had dooe. The girl then described what look place. Teld her to tell her father and mother. - The girl did not like to do so, aa she was afraid of being whipped. Next day had asked her if ahe Lad told her parents. ’ She said she bad not done ao, and Witness : told her father whst she:had told him tbe same afternoon, In tbe bar of the hotel. Lawson called him into the parlor where Lloyd was, and Lawson asked him (plaintiff) if this statement that the girl had •made was true, Lloyd said it wsa an Untruth. Witness askad him if he meant - to asy he (witnessV wae telling-a lie.’ Plaintiff said “ Yes,” and witness smacked him in the face with bis-open; hand. Lawson said “That will. do, I want to bring down tho girl.”' He went and brought down the girl, and Lloyd denied what ahe said to her face.-. Lawson then gave him aome emacks, but did - not knock him insensible. Plaintiff went outside, and said he would have it oat of them." ■

W. R. D. Lawson, sworn, said he tomem bored being informed byFarroll of something about his dsughtor. He n* the plaintiff two days after at .Farrell’s door. . He treat across and called him into a room end said he woiild like to ask - him about some little matter about bis - step-daughter. Farrell did not follow them in but he (witness) called -him ia and told him Lloyd bad denied what ’ had told him respecting the girl. He asked plaintiff if he wos'd deny it . before Farrell. This plaintiff , didj and Farrell said ; “ What, you pall me a liar .l" ': and than slapped hia face with, his open : hand. Witnasa called h»S down and stopped Farrell and Llqyd’e., , - quarrel. Plaintiff denied the accusation to the girl’s face and then witness struck,:: him. ' •

Plaintiff questioned both tHjr da- ; feadants but failed to elicit any further •ridence in support of bis csss. - ' The girl, Christina Morrison, Was called 1 sod gafa evidence as to the words and actions of plaintiff Mrs Parrel) was also called, but stated she was not in the > sitting room when plaintiff was in. The Bench retired for a few minutes, and then returned, stating that they were quite of one mind that the provocation ' Lawson had sustained was one of the very greatest, and they would, not ' inflict any punishment on him stall; the plaintiff was not entitled to any redress ' whatever. With regard to Farrell, the assault was a very trivial one. Judgment' would be for the defendants, with costs in Lawson’s case.

Tim Court then adjourned till Avgust 2nd.