RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume VI, Issue 1819, 31 October 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. CBeforo W. Fhaseb, Esq., U.M..) VAGEANT ANIMALS. George Fisher was charged with having committed a breach of Section 43, Part 1, of Borough of Thames, by allowing one horse to wander at largo in Grey-s'reet, Thames, on the 2?th inst. (Impounded.) Defendant pleaded guilty, and was fined 2s 6d and costs. James Morrow was charged with a breach of section 43 of Bye-law No. 1, by allowing three cows to wander at large in Willoughby-street, Thames, on the 28th. (Impounded) Defendant pleaded guilty, but said the cows had escaped three times and been impounded within three days. Fined 7s 6d. v ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. Peter Jack was charged with using abusive and insulting language in a public place, to wit, on the Prince Imperial claim, Thames, with intent to provoke a breach cf the peace. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. Tyler appeared for complainant, Clara Ashton ; Mr. Macdonald for defendant. Mr. Tyler stated the circumstances of the case, from which it appeared that defendant and complainant's husband had had an altercation about an allotment on which Ashton was living, owned by defendant. Jack then made use of language towards complainant (who was present), ' which Mr. Tyler repeated, but which is totally unfit for publication. Mr. Macdonald said they admitted having used the language complained of. There being another case—a crossaction —brought by defendant against complainant and others, His Worship decided to hear the evidence in both cases at the same time. Clara Ashton deposed—That she was the wife of Thoma3 Ashton, residing oa land above the Imperial shaft. .Remembered Tuesday afternoon, when Mr. Jack was on the ground pegging eff the allotment upon which witness resided. He said, " I am pegging you off again, Ashton," and asked her husband whether he was going to pay the rent. Ashton said he was not prepared to pay it, as he had no money. (Witness then described the scene which had occurred.) Ashton then accused defendant of insulting his wife during his absence, when defendant called her (witness) most fearful names, and on her coming out to repudiate the fearful stigma which had been cast upon her he called her names afresh, and referred to another woman, Mrs. Wilson, who then came up and Jack attempted to strike her with an axe, when Mr. Wilson took the axe and struck Jack with his hand. Mr. Macdonald cross • examined the witness at considerable length. Witness said the defendant was either lifting the axe to strike the peg or the woman. Did not remember taking up a stone and striking Jack —she was too much upset to remember. Mary Ann Wilson was examined as to the language used \j defendant, and her evidence was corroborative of that given previously. She did not - strike, defendant, but merely shook her finger at him, and said sue would make him prove his words —that she was (a very improper person) The quarrel srose out of certain liberties taken by Jack with herself and Mrs. Ashton. Henry Wilson, husband of last witness, was next examined as to the disturbance. He had gone up to Ashton's place without having known there was any disturbance there. Witness saw Jack there and asked him how he dared call his (witness*) wife a w , and that he should be made to pay for it. Witness' wife coming up at the time, defendant repeated the words and attempted to strike.her with an axe. Witness just saved his wife's life by grasping the axe as it was descend- ! ing, and striking Jack with the hand at liberty. He had laid no information for the murderous attempt at an assault. He might bring one. (Witness then repeated a string of fearful obscenities alleged to have been used by defendant, which were perfectly horrible). i

(During this witness' cross-examination be admonished Mr. Macdonald to confine himself strictly' to questions bearing immediately on the point at issue : stating that he should leave the " dock," if this course 'were not adhered to. He also rebuked the learned counsel for what he (the witness) conceived to be an unseemly levity in his demeanor.) John Ashton, husband of Clara Ashton, deposed to the language alleged to have been used by defendant.

A number of other witnesses were examined.

ALLEGED ASSAULT,

Henry Wilson, Mary Wilson, and Clara Ashton were severally charged with having assaulted Peter Jack.

Mr. Tyler gave an outline of a dramatic scene in which Peter Jack would appear to have attempted a most sanguinary assault upon one of the parties charged with assaulting him (Jack); but just as the axe (instrument with which the blow was to be dealt) was descending, the husband of the lady providentially arrived on the spot: and, clutching the descending weapon in one hand, smote Jack with the other. This, Mr. Tyler said, was the only assault committed, and reminded the Court that a husband could plead justification in such a case, No evidence was called for plaintiff. Mr. Macdonald addressed the Court to show that an assault had been committed upon Jack by the ladies. In the first case the defendant was fined 40s and costs, £5 12s; the second was dismissed.