LYTTELTON.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4771, 11 October 1893, Page 3

LYTTELTON.

This Day. . (Before E. Beetham, Esq., E.M.) Alleged Assault. — Robert Morgan was charged, on the information of William Pitcaithley, with committing an assault upon him on Sept. 27. Mr Nalder appeared . for complainant, who is shipping' clerk for Messrs Cuff and Graham at Lyttelton, while defendant was a tally clerk on the railway. Prom the evidence of the complainant it appeared that when some cargo ! was being loaded on board the steamer Jane Douglas a case of tea fell out of the sling and was .smashed; a few words ensued, and defendant blamed < the ship's gear for the accident, and said similar 1 things had fallen' oat hundreds of times, i To this statement complainant replied that defendant waß telling a lie, whereupon defendant struck complainant a severe i blow in the face. The blow was quite I unexpected. William Beecroft, Walter H. Day and Thomas Clarkson deposed that they saw Morgan strike Pitcaithley in the face. Pitcaithley appeared to give no provocation. The evidence of the defendant was to the effect that a case of tea fell out of the sling, and a few words arose about signing the card for it. Complainant said that the man who made up the sling did not know how to do so. Witness replied that the accident was the fault of the ship's gear. Complainant then called him a liar and he (defendant) struck him in the face with the back of his hand. He did so on the impulse of the moment. His Worship said the trouble appeared to have arisen in consequence of one, calling the other a liar. Defendant had done wrong in lifting his hand, b~ut complainant should use a little more moderation in his language. Defendant would be fined 10s and cost of witnesses, complainant to pay his own solicitor. Husband and Wife.— Hannah O'Connor charged her husband, James O'Connor, with failing to provide her and her eight children with proper means of support. After hearing the evidence of both parties his Worship said that from the evidence of the complainant herself it appeared that she had lived with her husband agreeably enough for a number of years, and he advised them to go home and make their troubles up. They had a large family, and it appeared to him they had plenty there to engage their time and attention. There was certainly nothing in which the Court could interfere. Civil Cases.— Trustees of Hargreavea Estate v. S. H. Burke, claim £19 10s, rent due, and also applied for an order for possession of premises. Mr Nalder for plaintiffs. Defendant was ordered to give up possession of the premises within forty-eight hours, to pay lent due and costs of action.— George Veich v. Hugh Lawson Patterson, claim £2 10a. Mr Franks appeared for plaintiff; Mr Nalder for defendant. The evidence of the plaintiff was to the effeot that on Sept. 29 he gave defendant a letter addressed to i his mother which, contained £2 10s. This was to be given to witness* brother when the train arrived in Christchurch. Witness was a porter on the railway and defendant was a gcard. Did not tell Patterson that the letter contained money. The money was made up of two pound notes, and 10s iv silver, and could easily be felt. To Mr Nalder; Did not book the letter because he had not time - to do bo. The letter waß marked " On Service," and he did not mark this out because he had not time. George Hutchison, a stoker, said he was on the 5.15 p.m.. train from Christchurch on Sept. 29, and saw Patterson with a letter in his hand. Saw him put it to hiß ear, and then shake it. William Veich, brother o£ plaintiff, Baid he met the train to get a letter from the guard. Could not see Patterson, although he made enquiries for him. William Williams, a porter on the Christ- ■ church Railway Station: Remembered Patterson coming xvg in the 5.15 p.m. train from Lyttelton on Sept. 29. Patterson, said he had a letter addressed to Mrs Veich. Witness eaid that if no one had called to receive it he (Patterson) had better take it back to Port, as he (witness) would have nothing to do with it, as it contained money. Saw defendant again on the following day, and he said the letter had b^en lost — that he (Patterson) had left it on the wash-hand stand and it had gone astray. This was the case for tbe plaintiff. !M> Nslder called defendant, who deposed that after Williams advised him to take the letter back he went to wash his hands and put the envelope down, but forgot to pick it up again. Caused enquiries to be made, but the letter was not to be found. To his Worship: Only the Railway officials bad access to the

place where he lt-ft the letter. Did not, know the letter contained money. James ABhby, stationmaater at Lyttelton, said Patterson had been in the service for some time. He bore a good charaoter. Guards were not allowed to carry anything unless it was booked. His Worship said there was no.que3tion that so far as the ?038 wa» concerned defendant was not liable; bufe if he came to the conclusion upon thefact.< that defendant had made U6e of the mono 1 ? he would have no hesitation, under tt» good conscience clause of the Act, ia making him (fche defendant) give it bac*. It was a peculiar case, and judgment would be reserved, as he could not help feeling that defendant's charaoter was at otake.