RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume VI, Issue 1846, 2 December 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY. ("Before W. Feaseb, Esq., B.LJ'.) ASSAULT.

Richard Scliofiekl was charged with having unlawfully assaulted one John Graham, on the 30th ultimo, by clutching his throat'and throwing him down.

Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Maodonald for plaintiff; Mr Tyler for defendant.

Witnesses were ordered to leave the Court.

Mr Macdonald detailed the circumstances of the case, from which it appeared that the parties were both shareholders in a tribute, that a slight altercation had arisen respecting plaintiff's right to ba there, that he was requested to go and refused, whereupon the assault took place.

John Graham deposed that he was a miner, and lived in Albert street. Had been employed lately in the Inverness tribute, in which he had an interest with his son. Schofiold also had an interest. Had been in it since July. Had had one or two crushings and witness had his share. The assault took place in the chamber of the lower drive on Monday morning, at about eight o'clock. Warner and Grubb were present. Witness wat at work. Defendant came in and asked him what right he had to fee there, and why he did not send another man in his place. Witness said he had as much right to be there as lie had. Defendant then caugh* him by the throat, and wrenched the pick out of hia hand. He also used abusive language, calling witness a b old b , and a b loafer. Had been interfered with by defendant before, but had been allowed to work peaceably for the last three weeks. Had given no cause for the assault.

Cross-examined by Mr Tyler. I purchased the share in the Inverness some time in July from my son. I first went to work Schoiield's interest, he being in the Waikato. I told Schofield prior to the dividend that I. had bought the full share. I claimed to have an interest in the tribute on the morning the assault took place. Defendant said I had no right to be there. I said I had He wanted to put me out, and I was determined to stop, and do still. I expected the assault to take place a fortnight before. I expected it because of defendant's threatening attitude towards myself.

—— „• By Mr Macdonald: Up to the last fortnight my son and self had a full share between us, and then I took the whole share. Schofield paid me my share in the last dividend.

Mr Tyler referred the Court to the 77th section of the Justice of the Peace Act, which provided that when any question arose between the paities as to the title of land tenements or hereditaments, interest therein or accruing from, the jurisdiction of the Court was ousted. i?r»m the evidence already given there was no doubt that the dispute between the parties in the present action arose out of the title of the plaintiff to be in the Inverness as a shareholder.

Mr Macdonald said it was not sufficient that defendant should make the assault under cover of a right which he assumed in order to avert the consequences of such an assault. The question for the Court to consider was, did the defendant believe that plaintiff was invading his rights, and did he only so conduct himself as was necessary for their protection.

His Worship said it mattered not whether defendant believed so or not: the question of title having arisen, power was taken out of his hands.

Mr Macdonald said the Ceurt must be satisfied that defendant had not taken advantage of the law in this respect to commit an assault with the assurance that he could not be brought to Court. It appeared that the plaintiff's right to the share had been acknowledged, since he ,had received his share of the last dividend from the defendant.

His Worship said it appeared from Mr Macdonald's statement in opening the case that the assault arose out of a dispute about the title. It also appeared from the evidence? of plaintiff that he had expected the assault would take place before. He (His Worship) should infer that it arose out of the manner in which the share had been manipulated by plaintiff and sod. The case was dismissed Mr Tylerapplied for costs, which were allowed, amounting to £116s. PERMITTING- A HOBSE TO WAEBER.

Eichard Nicholls was charged with having commited a breach of the 28lh section of Bye-law No. 3, by allowing ono horse to wander at large in Grey street, Shortland, on the 26th ultimo.

Defendant pleaded guilty, and was fined 2s 6dand costs.

The Court then adjourned.