RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 261, 2 June 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, June 1. (Before J. Giles, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Charles Wise was charged with drunkenness, but as lie had been in custody since Saturday, was discharged with a caution. LUNACY. J. Hegarty, on remand, was sent back to aSTelson for medical treatment. ASSAULT. J. Forsyth and A. Adams were charged with having on the 18th inst., unlawfully assaulted one Michael Burke. Mr Tyler appeared for the defendant, and applied for the cases to he heard separately, and the Bench permitted this course. Forsyth's case was first called on. Michael Burke, the complainant, said that he was a miner, residing about ten miles above the Lyell. On the 18th he saw defendant there, and asked him to show their pegs. On being shown them, witness marked off a portion of their surplus ground, and a row arose out of it, defendant striking him and knocking him down, and when down kicking him. A man came to help him up, and was assaulted in addition. Witness, prior to the biows being struck, used no insulting language whatever. | Cross-examined by Mr Tyler: He I often had had a mining dispute, and a fight too, but not since he had been in the Buller. He did not remember having a fight up the river before. He hal no fight about boxes. The name of his -mate was Austrian Jack, and he had been mates with him about six weeks. He'was not a fighting man nor a rowdy in any shape or form. He did not know that his former mates were very glad to see him hammered. He only wanted peace and quietness in bringing this case, and he had no other object in view. Be did not remember telling the constables who went up with him that he had another object in view. At the time of the assault he was not drunk, nor had he had drink for weeks. He was in the act of taking off his shirt to fight when he was struck by the defendant. Austrian Jack, he believed, was chased away by defendant's mates. William Scott, mate of defendant, was called by the Inspector of Police, and proved that a fight had arisen, in which both parties were equally to blame, and that Burke had got the worst of it. He denied most positively that defendant kicked complainant at all. In reply to Mr Tyler, witness denied that he had run after Austrian Jack, complainant's mate, or that he had asaulted him at all. Complainant had the reputation of being a fighting man. John Catich, alias Austrian Jack, gave evidence similar to complainant's in all respects excepting as to the kicking, which he denied.

Mr Tyler submitted that there was no case whatever, as the most that could be made of it was that it was an agreed fight. He contended that the complainant was the aggressor, and that the assault, if any had been committed, was justifiable under the circumstances, and that complainant only got what he deserved. A. Adams proved that when defendant struck complainant, the latter had his shirt off, and was standing up. The reputation of complainant was very bad, and he boasted that he had been a fighting man in Victoria. Constable Pringle proved that on the road up, defendant said that in bringing this case he had another object in view, or he would not have done it. Complainant had the worst reputation that he had ever heard a man have on a creek, up the Buller, from every one witness spoke to about him. The Magistrate was satisfied that it would not be justice to punish the defendant, as he considered both equally to blame; in fact, that if the case had been brought the other way, it would

equally have been borne out. He therefore dismissed the complaint; at the same time, if it had been proved he should have punished the defendant severely, because it was a grave thing for quarrels to arise at such a distance from the police, that might under some circumstances end very seriously. The Inspector of Police, after these remarks from his Worship, would not be able to go on with the other case, which was therefore dismissed. CIVIL CASES. Chine v. JSubridge. An action to recover ,£33 Is Bd'., for goods sold and delivered. It appeared from the evidence that defendant had given a written guarantee for payment of goods supplied to a third party. The defence was, that the guarantee only extended to the goods got on the day it was given. The Magistrate remarked that this was a question of some importance, and he should reserve judgment till the next (this) day.