RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 1342, 8 January 1879, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

TlMAßU.— Tuesday, Jan. 7th. (Before R. Beetbara, Esq., R.M.) DISTUBBING THE PEACE. Stephen Hoskins and Thom>s Hampsou were separately charged with harm" on the evening of the 61 h inst., at the Club Hotel, Timaru, committed a breach of I he peace. It was agreed (hat the informations Bhould be heard togetlier. Mr Jameson appeared fur the accused Hainpson, and Inspector Pender conducted the case on behalf of the police Thomas Burke, Cunstnble, stationed at Timaru, deposed : When on duty je«ter<lay evening about 9 o'clock. I saw the two accused fighting m the passage between the dining and commercial rooms of the Club Hotel. Mr Parsons, the licensee of the botol, was trying to separate them at the time. I arrested both of them. When on the way to the police-station each blamed the othpr for creating the disturbance. They were both bleeding at the time. I have heard of the actions of both of the accused before ; but do not know of anything aauinst them of my own knowledge. I could not say whether they were eober because they were both very much excited. Alfred Parsons, licensee of the Club Hotel, said : On Monday evening I saw the accused, Hainpson, m the street, and asked him the reason for his coming to my place on a previous day, and kicking up n row. He replied that he had not come for me, but for Hoskins ; and that he meant to come again to my hotel that evening, for the purpose of thrashing Hcskins. In consequence of that I saw one of the sergeants of police, and told him that I thought there would be a row at my place, andaßkedhim to lookout. About nine o'clock that evening Hampßoo, accompanied by another man, came to my hotel and asked to be served with drinks. I refused, baying — " You have come here for the purpose of kicking up a row." He then Bliook his fist m Hoskins' f»ce, and called him all sorts of names. He ►aid — "You had better have it out now, for if you don't, I will kill you when I pet you out of this." He then Btruok Hoskins as the latter was getting up off a chair, and they both Btarted to fight. I cent the barman for a constable, and when the latter arrived I gave Hampson and Hoskins m charge. By Mr Jameson : On last Saturday night, Hampßon came to the hotel m company with three or four others, seeking ' oskins. He came three times after the place had been closed. By the accused, Hampson : I do not remember you telling me on this day week that Hoskinß had greatly insulted you. I did not strike you on Monday night, but I tried to separate, you and Uoskinß. I shifted the things m the room to one side, so that they should t.ot be damaged during the scrimmage. Jonathan Allpress, butcher, said : I was m the Club Hotel on Monday evening, when Hampßon came m looking for Hoskinß. The latter sat quietly on a chair till Hampson said that if, he did not come out of the room, lie would kill him another time. I had seen Hainpson about a week before that, when he told me thnt he was looking for a man, whose name he did not mention. By Inspector Pender: After Hampson •truck Hoskinß they both began to fight. Police Sergeant Haldane deposed : I only know by hearsay that Hampson had threatened to thrash Hoskins. Mr Parsons told me that Hampson was on the rampage, and, as there might be a row, I was to look out. For the defence, the accused, Hampson, called— O'Hsgan, who Btftted : On Monday evening Hampson went into the Club Hotel, at my inritation, to have a drink. Mr Parsons came out into the bar and •aid, "You had better clear out of here. If you have come to kick up a row, I will either send for the police or put yo» out." Hampson then said, pointing to Hoskins, " That is the man who insulted my wife." Parsons remarked, " Oh, if you want that man, I will soon let you have him." We then walked into the room m which Hoskins was, and Parsons cleared all the glasses, tumblers, and other articles out of the way. I said, "Parsons, is there Roing to be fair play ?" and he raplied, " You mind your own business, or Tarn your man." Both men then commenced to fight, and it was only when Parsons saw the conttable that he m any way attempted to separate then. I told Parsons he was liable to the law for allowing the men to fight m his house. Thomas Hampson wished to mate a statement, and being sworn said : On Tuesday week I went down to the railway station, my wife accompanying me. While I had left her for a short time, Hoßkins dime up and insulted her. Directly I heard of it, I went after Hoskins, but I could not get near him, as he went into the Club Hotel. On Monday evening, I was standing near Williams' chemist's shop, when- 1 taw Pawons and

Hoskins, who asked me if I w mW have it out then. I declined, guying thut I hid some t.hir k else to do iust then. About- threequarters of an hour afterwards I wont down to the Club Hotel, and »sked Hoakinu to c me out. Pardons proposed that we should fight m Ih- :0..!m. that was ajiived upon, and afier the ula-Ees and chairs had been removed, we commenced to fight. I may pay that when Parsons was separating us he struck me on the f*ce several times as hard as he could. In giving judgment, llis Worship, addressing JHampaon, eaid : It seems that you delib mteiy made up your mind that tnere «v.< ; to be a row because you had a grievance ! figiinst thin man floski.is, who may or mity I not have insulted y«ur wife. If he di'l insult your wife you bad your ■ remedy iigainst him. According to your own evidence and that of your witnesses, you went. ' to tho public-houn.; with the intention of fighting this man, nncl to kick up a row, which you had no right to do ; and you have rendered yourself liable to a heavy penalty , for attempting to disturb the public peace m I that way. This man Hoskins does not seem Itome to have been m fault at all. He had thia quarrel forced upon him according to your own statement. Certainly, when a man is mado at, m the manner you appear to have made at Hoskins, he is to be excused for i getting hiß blood up and defending himself, and perhaps doing a little more than defending himself. There ure limits to the amount of abuse which any man can stand from another, who, deliberately and with malice aforethoughy, seeks him out. There has been an attemi t made to fix some of the blame on Pursoi'S, but although I have nothine to do I with what he did, 1 take tho opportunity of i saying thut I am exeeeding'y glad to see that he refused to give you drink. It hag frequently been my lot to find fault with the keepers of licensed houses for supplying drink to men when it would have been probably ft wife thing for them 'o refuse to do so ; and I will just give Pursons a meed of praise for the exceeding wise discretion he thowed m not giving you drink. You aro fined 40s, the full fine I can inflict; or m default, 48 hours' imprisonment, for disturbing the peace m the systematic manner you appear to have done. The information againßt Hoskins is dismissed. Hmnpson p*id the fine, Hoskins thanked his Worship, and both withdrew. CIVIL CASKS. Ogilvie and Byera v. Oowburn. — Claim £19 9s 7d. A set off of £28 12 6d was lodged. Mr Hamersleyappenrel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Jameson for the defendant Judmnenfc was given for £13 9s Oil, each party to pay his own costs. Jonas, Hart., and Wildie, v. Reginald Orton. — Claim £46 lls lid, upon a dishonored acceptance. Mr Ja^ie on appeared for the plaintiff. There was n> appearance of the defendant. Judgment for the amount claimed with costs. Thomas Long and James Whitford v. Jatnes Bruce — Claim £15, for work done. Evidence m this case bad been heard on December 24th, and His Worship now gave judgment for £6 10a with costs. Eeid and Gray v. William Fowler— Claim £6 Is. Mr Perry appeared for the plaintiffs, and there wus no appearance of the defendant. Judgment for the amount chained und costs. John Lucy v. New Zealand and Australian Land Company— Claim £20 3s 6d for cutting down 4083 cabbage trees by contract at lid per tree. Mr Hamersley appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Jameson for the defendants, who paid £3 Ss 9d ii.t > Court, and pleaded not indented for the remainder. Judgment wna given for £14 12b 6d, the defendants to pay co»ts of Court. Maurice Fitzgerald v. Michael Maze — Claim £21 for wages. Hr Hnmeraley appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Jameson for defendant. Judgment for £3 15s, each party to pay his own coats. James Kennedy v. Rodger Furlong — Claim £3 for rent of a house. Mr Jameson, who appeared for the plaintiff, explained that the defendant hud paid the amount at'Ler the summons had been issued. Judgment for the amount claimed, with costs. Richard Sandilnnds v. David Jopes — Claim £16 12s, for alterations to a house. Mr Jameson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hamersley for the defendant. Judgm-nt for £7 2a. with costs of Court.