RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 1235, 4 September 1878, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TIMARU— TOEBDAT. SEPTEMBER, 3. (Before B. Woollcombe, Esq., E.M.) ■WIFB DESBHTION. Charles Tbompeon, who was brought up on remand, from Oamaru, charged with tho above offence, was dismissed, owing to the non-appearance of the prosecutriz. ASSAULT. Jatnoi Metherell wag charged on information, with having committed an assault on Alexander Sutherland, on the 26ih of August last, near Sutherland eta' ion. The defendant pleaded guilty. His Worship said he would like to hear some evidence, as to the nature of the assault. "Alexander Sutherland : I am a farmer, and was working with my brother m a piddock, when Metherell came oor.iss from his own Onute called me bad names, and threatened w knock my brains out. I walked away, and he followed mi", and struck me m the fiu-e ■with hia fljt. The blood fell down on >»y boot?, and I (rent to a policeman, and washed myself m his presence. I then came into town find laid the information. Cross-examined by the defendant: You say that I came straight from my own house? Witness : I do. Defendant : But I say I did not. His Worship: You must not go on that way. If jou have any questions to ask, ask them. You will have an opportunity of making a statement afterwards. Defendant : I evas slxchiins away from the ■house, your Worship, and he swears that I •came straight. Hia Worship : That has nothing at all to to do with it. \Ve')l take it for granted you came crooked. You must confine yourself to asking questions. Defendant to witness: Did I not ask you question* outside on the mad ? Witness : I did not hear what you said. Defendant : Didn't I ask you how would a bit of lamb or bit of goose go. Witness : I don't know what you asked me, I was too far away. Defendant : Didn't I ask you who stole Richard Hoare's hamos. Witness : I did not hear you say so. I heard something about a gooso, but don't know what it was. Defendant: Oh, yon heard something about a goose. Look at that your Worship. His Worship : Now I can't tolerate this. Have yon any more questions to ask ? " Defendant : Didn't I ask you who stolethe posts. Witness} No you did not.

; I Defendant : Didn't you call me a most disi I gusling name, that I could not menti.'ii m the ■ Court. WitneßS : No I did not. i After these questions having been several times rcpe-ited, the defendant closed his exan.itihtion, and stated that he did not walk straight from the house; I hat he stood outside on tho road and asked the question* abo'e mentioned ; that the pro-culor called him a disgusting name, after which he went into tho padlock and wnlked beside the pmscutor, who shofk a fork he held m his hand at him, and called him a lunatic. He (tho defendant) then struck him. Mr Huiner.-Oey who appeared for the prosecutor, hope I his Worship would inflict such a penally as wmld deter the defendant from relenting such conduct. Tho adini'sion of the defendant showed that he was from the beginning most insulting. He asked questions about- hi'i>bs, geese, mid hens. Defendant : No, not hens ; geese.Mr Humersley : And a post. Defendant: Posts, posts; I said posts, and not. a pii.st. His Worship: Hold your tongue, he is talking to me. Mr Hamersley then continued his address, pointing out the seriousness of the offence and hopcrl his Worship would inflict such punishment as wouM prevent tho defendant from repeating tuch breaches of the law. His Worship said that from the defendant's own admission he used language which m- | einuated that the prosecutor had been guilty j of theft, and struck him besides. Such eon- ! duct, could not be tolerated, and he would Cno the defendant £o and costs. CIVIL CASB3. Gerlyo and White v. H. Shears— Claim, £1 10a, goods supplied. Judgment by default, for the amount and costs. Ogilvio find Byers v. J. Thomson — Claim, £24, dishonored promissory ncto. Judgment for tho amount and costn. T. G. Cork v. Geo-ge Todd— Claim, £13, judgment Fummons. Tho defendant stated that lie was m constant employment at £i per week, and whb willing to pay £1 per week. His Worship ordered tho defendant to pay at the rat? of £2 per week or m default, ono months' imprisonment with hard labor. R. Pelvin v. J. Lukey— Claim, £7 11s 9d. Mr Hamersley appoared for tho plaintiff, ond Mr Jameson for the defendant. In this case the plaintiff 1 , who is a farmer living near Tiinnru, sued the defendant, who is a carter living m Timaru, for the above sum being the price of booio outs. It appeared from tho evideneo, tlmt the plaintiff sold to tho defendant 120 bushels of oats at 3s 3d per bushel, of which only 70 bushels wore delivered und the defendant refused to pay as tho plaintiff did not fulfil his contract. Mr Hamersley urged that that wns no dofonce. If the defendant fell, that he was at a loss m not receiving the full quantity of oats which ho purchased, his proper way to obtain redress wns to enter a cross-action aguinst tbe plaintiff. Mr Jameson submitted thit tho law on tho subject wus different. It was a ca?e m which the plaintiff had contracted to deliver 120 bushels of oats to the defendant, and he could not set up his right to sue for a portion of it until the whole contract had been fulfilled. After considerable argument on both sides, his Worship held Mr Hamers'ey's view of tho caso, ami gave judgment for the plaintiff for £7 5s lid, wiih costs. Tho Court then ndjourned.