CHRISTCHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 1992, 24 July 1874, Page 2

CHRISTCHURCH.

This Dat. (Before 0. 0. Bowen, Esq., R.M., and H. P. Murray-Aynsley, Esq.) Vagbancy.—Peter Romuluß, alias Charles Brown, arrested by Sergeant Kennedy, was remanded until Saturday, for medical examination as to the stato of his mind. Dbunk and Cbeating a Distubbance. — James Boswell, arrested by Constable Hughes, for having been drunk and creating a disturbance in the stalls afc tho theatre was fined 20s. Dbunk and Disoedbe£y. — Margaret Allison, a Government immigrant who arrived here about six months ago, and had previously beon convicted for drunkenness, was again brought up on a similar charge. Constable O'Shannessy proved the offence, and a fine of 20s was imposed. Violent Assault.—Harriet Battcock was charged with having violently assaulted her husband, Fredk. Battcock. Mr Joynt appeared for the complainant, and Mr Hawkins appeared for the defence. Mr Joynt stated that since fche complainant and defendant had been living apart, the latter had been conducting herself very badly. Complainant had been living at Papanui, and defendant recently went there, and broke the door, windows and some furniture, and also very seriously assaulted complainant's housekeeper. Defendant had been living wifch a man who was recently charged with having violeutly assaulted her. She was very violent whed in a state of drink, and he must ask the Bench to make such an order as would protect complainant from her violence. Complainant called, said on Monday night he went home, and as soon aB he entered the door defendant aefc upon him, caught him by the throat and said "I've got you now," at the same time striking him several times in fche face. He got away as quickly as he could and came to town in search of the police, but when he returned defendant had gone away. His housekeeper told him during the evening that defendant had come to the house, broken the door, window, and some articles of furniture, and had also assaulted her, tearing a large quantity of hair.out of her head, His housekeeper bore several severe marks of violence, including a cut on the face and a black eyo. By Mr. Hawkins : He had not called his housekeeper because she was ill in bed. He did not strike defendant at all. He did nofc sco defendant assault his housekeeper. A man named Pepperill, who was called for complainant, said he saw defendant go to the houso about six o'clock on tho night of Monday last, and shortly aftor he heard a disturbance and loud cries in the house. Ho went to the spot and saw defendant assaulting complainant's housekeeper in a most savage manner. She was striking her, pulling her about by tho hair of the head, and beating her head violently against the wall of the room. Ho never Baw Buch a violent aßsault, and ho was frightened that defendant would kill the woman. He interfered, bufc defendant was strong and in such a rago that he had fcho greatest difficulty in getting her away. Ho believed thafc defendant would have gono near to killing the woman, if he had not interfered. Ho saw defendant fly at complainant, whon he came to tho houso, and endeavour to maltreat him, during which, she tore his mackintosh. By Mr Hawkins : Complainant's housekeeper never attempted to strike defeudant at all during tho assault. Ho did not soo tho commencement of tho assault. Ho did not see complainant striko defendant when ho came to the houso. Mr Hawkins said, after tho evidenco given by last witness, he scarcoly thought ifc necessary to address tho Bench on behalf of his client, bufc ho might say he was instiuctcd to say that defendant went to tho houso for somo letters complainant had recoived but nofc given to her, and as soon as sho got to the door he struck hor; but, of courso, after tho evidence jusfc given, lie could not roly much upon this tlefenco. Mr Jojnt urgod tho Bench to bind defendant over to keep the poaco. In reply to the Bench, complainant said defendant had not previously been to his houso to kick up a row, but sho had annoyed him at tho placo where ho was employed, and if she did it again ho would mosfc probably loso his situation. Defendant said complainant had annoyed her by circulating reports to tho offecfc thafc sho was nofc his wife. His Worship said if defendant annoyed hor husband again tho Bench would certainly bind hor over to keep tho peace, and of course if jsho did not get theso sureties sho would bo imprisoned. For the present offence she would be fined 20s, or, in default, be imprisoned for 48 hours.