CHRISTCHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 1168, 15 November 1871, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

This Day. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) Assault. —Charles Post was summoned for having violently assaulted J. A. J. Macgregor, solicitor, and also with having threatened him with further violence; "therefore the complainant is afraid that the said Chas. Post will do him grievous bodily harm, and therefore prays that the said Charles Post may be brought before me, or some other Justices of the Peace for the colony, and required to find sufficient sureties to keep the peace towards me, the complainant." Mr Clarke appeared for the complainant, and Mr Joynt defended. Complainant said that, on liis way to the office yesterday morning, he called in at the Devonshire Arms to read the paper. Whilst doing so, he saw accused come in. Accused accosted him, and said, " Can I speak to you, sir ?" to which he replied, " I have nothing whatever to say to you." Accused then, in an offensive manner, said several times, "Am I to understand that as your answer ?" Complainant replied that it was, and accused then said to the landlord, "Can we have it out here?" Complainant looked up at this in astonishment, when accused struck him on the head with great violence, cutting his hat and marking his face severely. Accused also seized him with a view to further assault him, when he wrenched himself away and struck accused in selfdefence with a whip on the back of the head. The landlord then very properly interfered and separated them. Previous to this day, accused had acted in a violent and threatening manner, and he (complainant) was in some expectation of ill-usage whenever he should meet accused. After the landlord had separated them at the Devonshire Arms, accused said he would have his (complainant's) hearts-blood. From this, and the knowledge that accused was very violent when in drink, he was really afraid of serious personal injury. By Mr Joynt : When accused came into the Devonshire Arms, he was cool, and was not in drink. He appeared, however, to be labouring under some kind of excitement. Mr Joynt: Have you not, some months ago, written a letter to a sister of accused's wife, maligning the latter? Mr Clarke objected to this question, as not being relevant to the case. He submitted that anything which might liavo taken place at a previous time could be no justification for the assault, if the person maligned or affected by it had had time to cool before meeting the offender. Then, again, if complainant had maligned accused's wife, accused had his remedy in another way. Mr Joynt contended that if a person had been injured on the Friday, and had not a chance of seeing the one who had committed the injury until the Tuesday following, the injury would then at least be some extenuation for an assault, if not absolute justification. Bearing upon this, he should say that, although the letter referred to had been written by complainantsome considerable time ago, yet information had not reached accused until a few days ago, and he was labouring under the excitement induced by that letter when he met Mr Macgregor. His Worship, after some consideration, said if Mr Joynt would put his question in a more general manner as to whether complainant had done anything to excite accused's displeasure, it might be allowed. Mr Joynt, addressing complainant, then said: " Have you not written to a Mrs Morrell in England, who is sister to accused's wife, saying that you would not let your wife associate with accused's wife, because she was a person of bad character?" Mr Clarke again objected to this question ; but his Worship allowed it, saying he would ask the question in a more general sense. He would ask complainant whether ho had written to any person, using offensive language towards accused's wife. Complainant said that he had certainly written to Mrs Morrell, to the effect that lie had declined the acquaintance of Mr and Mrs Post for certain reasons, but as it was nine months since he wrote the letter, he could not 'remember all that he said. Mr Lewis, landlord of the Devonshire Arms, was then called, and corroborated complainant's evidence. Mr Joynt declined to cross-examine the witness, and addressed the Bench on behalf of his client. He said he was instructed to express very great regret on the part of accused at the assault, and he could only point to the letter (read) in extenuation of the offence. Mr Post did not receive the letter until Saturday or Sunday last, and naturally it excited him to a very great extent. It was a flagrant insult to lii 3 wife, and it was one of those cases in which there was no legal remedy, or at all events against accused, from whom there was not the remotest chance of recovering any damages. He hoped the Bench would give due consideration to the terms of the letter, together with accused's apology, and accept an assurance that accused had not tho slightest intention of interfering further with complainant. His Worship said the case, as it came before him, was a very simple one. Whatever were the contents of the letter, accused had no right to commit an assault. It was a principle the Bench could not allow to be established for a moment, and although accused's apology went a great deal in his favour, yet after the language used by him subsequent to the assault, left the Bench no option but to grant complainant's application, and bind him (accused) over to j keep the peace for twelve months. This ! would be done by ordering him to give personal recognizances to the amount of £50, and find two other sureties of £25 each.