CHRISTCHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5428, 2 December 1895, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

Monday, Dec. 2. (Before Mr 11. Bowron, J.P., Mr J. Brown, J.P., and Mr J. fi. Brunt, J.P. Drunkenness.— A man who had not been before the Court for this offence was convicted and discharged upon payment of hospital expenses, 32a.— Two other first offenders, a man and a woman, were each fined 5s and costs, in default twenty* four hours' imprisonment.— Margaret Wickham was fined 20s, in default seven day a' imprisonment. ;, Vagba.nct. — Honors Setter pleaded guilty to a charge of having insufficient lawful means of support, and was sen* tenced to one month's imprisonment. (Before Mr S. Beetham, S.M.) Civil Case.— J. Handle v. W. Stokes and — Cormiok, claim £10, damages for asaault. Mr Caygill appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Fisher for the defendants. The plaintiff Handle* stated in his evidence that on Wednesday, Nov. 6, he was at a trotting meet* ing air Plnmpton Park, at which a horse was run by defendants and won. In consequence of information given by plaintiff,/ the owner of the second horße entered a protest and stopped payment of the stakes. The following Monday the defendants came round to the stables at the Eotherfield, and began abusing plaintiff. Cormiok pushed Stokeß againet plaintiff, who was then struck by Stokes. In cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted having told the defendants that if they would give him £1 he would Bay nothing. After the race the owner of. the second horse ' came to him and asked him if he knew anything about defendants' horse. He said he did, and the owner of the second horse took him before a J.P. to make a declaration, and told plaintiff that if he was awarded the stakes he would give him something. Mr Beetham at this atage asked Mr Caygill if he was aware of these facts. Mr Caygill said he was not. His Worship asked if . he was I gbin& on with the case. Mr Caygill eaid i he thought the plaintiff waß entitled to damages for the assault. His Worship said if a criminal prosecution had been brought he might have inflicted a nominal punishment on the defendants. Mr Caygill then said he would not go on with the case any further. Mr Beetham said after the admiaaiona of the plaintiff he would not allow him anything. If he had got a hammering he had deserved it. Judgment would be for. the defendants.