RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 274, 17 June 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, June 16. (Before J. Giles, Esq., 8.M.) LARCENY. E Wise, charged with stealing money from a man whose name was not mentioned, was again remanded, as the prosecutor did not appear. Later in the day he was discharged, as it was proved that prosecutor had left Westport. ASSAULT. Nathan Abrahams was charged with assaulting J. Rafferty—The evidence showed that the complainant first threw water over defendant, when the latter knocked his hat off. The defendant further said, that before the row took place, the complainant used filthy and insulting language towards him. The Bench dismissed the case, ' remarking that if defendant was assaulted he seemed to have brought it on himself. VIOLENT ASSAULT. John Hunter was charged, with violently assaulting Catharine Abrahams, on the 8 th instant. Mr. Tyler, appeared for the defendant. Mrs. Abrahams, said—l am the wife of Nathan Abrahams and reside in Molesworth Street. On the night of the Sth of this month Mr. Abrahams was ill, and we went to bed between 8 and 9 o'clock. I was in bed about 20 minutes when Mrs. Carlisle, a neighbour of ours called out to Mr. Abrahams, that there was a drunken man at the door, and that he would not go away. I said I would get up, and I went out with only a petticoat on. When I went out I saw no one, but on turning, to goawayMrs. Carlisle, called out that he was walking round the house. I looked and, saw the defendant who was whistling, and had his hands in his pockets. I told Mrs. Carlisle to tell him that she would go for a policeman if he did not go away, and she did so. The man said, go, I will wait till you come back ; and she went to detective Lambert's house.

I said to defendant, why do you not go ft way, you are making a mistake. Ho said all ho wanted was a and I would do, and at the same time advanced towards me, sis if to strike me ; I backed to avoid him, and Mrs. Carlisle told me to take care for that he had something in his hand, aud directly afterwards I tripped and fell on my back. Ho got hold of ine by the throat, and his kneo or other hand was also on me. I got up on my knee and he commenced dragging me, when Mr. Abrahams camo out to my assistance. There was something in his hand which I thought was a stono. At the same time another man came as well as Mr. Abrahams to my assistance. Defendant then let me go, but subsequently seized me by the petticoat and began dragging me. I had no shoes or stockings on at the time. My husband called to him to let me go, and he did let me go, and began shaping at him. Abrahams called out dont strike me, I'm not able to I have got a bad face. Defendant again attacked me, saying, I will have revenge, and pushed me against a house. Abrahams then called out murder, and said to the people are you going to see a woman murdered ? Another with Abrahams came up then when defendant made a kick at me and I fell down senseless, and remember no more about it.

Cross examined by Mr. Tyler— When I saw the defendant I did not speak to him, Mrs. Carlisle did. I told defendant to go away before he struck me, and said he was making a mistake. Mrs. Carlisle came back first, as I fell before the defendant touched me. Mr. Lambert did not come then, nor was there anyone there but Mrs. Carlisle. When she came back she ran past me calling out police. She did not want to take me away forcibly from the man. I did not go into the house, when Abrahams first came out, because I saw defendant had a knife in his hand, and I was afraid he would strike my husband. Mrs. Carlisle called out and said defendant had a knife in his hand. I did not use language to the man calculated to insult and annoy him. I have seen no doctor but Dr. Worrall. I did not strike any man's hat off the day after, nor did I have a row with my husband. I never in my life had my husband to court. I never offered £2 to any one to get it settled. Defendant, with Mr. Sloan, came to my house last night, and wanted to settle it. I said I had no wish to prosecute him as I supposed he had taken me for the wrong woman, and he said he had. I did not say that the man did strike me.

The Magistrate remarked, that she did not say in evidence that he did strike her. Cross-examination resumed He, defendant, asked what the doctor's hill would be, and I said he had sent in his bill for £lO, but that if it was me I was not able to pay it. I also told him that I was sorry he was locked up so long, and I asked the doctor when he was attending me to get him out. I never offered to settle it, neither did my husband in my hearing. Sloan went out with my husband and defendant remained with me. I know nothing of any agreement taking place for £2O and the doctor's expenses. I was in Dunedin five years on Bell Hill. I never was in any difficulty in my life about any disorderly house. By the Bench—l have had fits since, and previously I never had a fit in my life. This occurred on Monday night, and I was confined to my bed till Saturday. I think defendant was the wnrse for drink at the time, but he was not very drunk for he could walk well.

Mary Carlisle, the wife of William Carlisle, living in Molesworth street, gave similar evidence as to a man coming to her place, though she could not identify the defendant as the one, and attempting to force the door open. She opened the door after some tiineand told him he had made a mistake. He said he had not, and that he intended staying, there all night, and witness said she would go for the police, but he,said, she could do as she liked about that for no one could take him away. He tried to catch her then, and she ran and called to Mr Abrahams for assistance. Sb.3 corro! orated Mrs Abraham's statement as to what occurred subsequently, and saw him as if about to strike her when witness ran away to seek a policeman. On her return she saw defendant holding complainant against Mr Wiguell's house. The next morning she found a butchers knife on the ground where the struggle had taken place.

By the Bench—Mrs Abrahams was carried in senseless after this.

Mr Tyler cross-examined the witness but failed to shake her evidence in the slightest degree as to the facts. She had had some conversation,the previous

night with Mr Cox, who was in Mr Smyth's store, and was telling him how it happened. She did not tell him that she had some difficulty in getting Mrs Abrahams away from the defendant. She had often talked about the matter with Mrs Abrahams since but never said anything about settling it out of court, she could not have done so, for she had never seen anyone to offer to settle it, Mrs Abrahams never offered her £2 to get it settled; Mr Cox told witness he had offered money to get it settled. Mrs Abrahams told witness au offer had been made to have it settled, but Mr Abrahams would not have it.

Dr. "Worrall proved that he had been called in to the complainant after this occurrence, and found her in a very agitated and tremulous state. She complained of being injured in the throat, and on examination he found a red circle round the throat and a few scratches on both sides, right and left. There was also a scratch on her left leg. He ordered her some warm drinks and very soon after that she was seized with vomiting and complained of strong uterine pains. He gave her a composing draught and remained with her until past 12 o'clock, when she became more quiet. Next morning she was but little better, the vomiting continuing. He attended her for a week and she was confined to her bed till the Sunday following the assult. The marks would be caused by hands grasping complainants throat and the other symptoms would be caused through fright, the woman being pregnant. She was for ten days in danger a miscarriage. The symptoms generally were arising more from a nervous shock, than from any actual violence used.

In reply to Mr Tyler, the witness said the complainant was within six or seven weeks of her confinement. Nathan Abrahams, husband of the complainant was examined, but merelycorroborated the evidence already given. In reply to Mr Tyler, witness denied that he had offered to accept £2O in settlement. The parties had several times tried to settle it, but he had refused. He emphatically denied tfiathe struck the prisoner with a stone in the face, or touched him, beyond catching him round the body.

Detective Lambert proved that on the night in question he heard cries of murder, and on going to the spot from where they proceeded, saw Abrahams holding the defendant by the left shoulder. On getting up to where the people were standing he saw some one fall and found that it was Mrs Abrahams , who was insensible. He was under the impression that she had fainted. On enquiring what was the matter, Abrahams said that defendant had been ill-using his (Abrahams') wife, and witness took defendant into custody, and Abrahams subsequently came to the lock-up and signed the charge sheet. In reply to Mr Tyler, witness said that the defendant was drunk at the time, but did not resist at all. There was blood on his face, bat witness did not see that he had black eyes till the next morning. "When witness saw him, defendant said he gave himself up. This closed the case for the prosecution.

The Magistrate would dismiss the charge as laid for assault with intent to commit grievous bodily harm, and it was arranged that it should be taken as a summons case, the evidence as already given to he admitted. Mr Tyler remarked that this case was not so serious as had been made to appear outside that Court. He need not ask his "Worship, as was usual when addressing a jury, to dismiss from his mind all that he might have seen in the press, for his Worship was of course far hetter up in his duties than jurymen were in theirs. He did think it was most unseemly that the press should comment on any case that was about to be brought before a Court, and he specially objected to such hot paragraphs as had appeared in reference to this case particularly. It might be true that a serious assault had been committed, but not of the aggravated character that had been represented, and from the fact that his Worship had dismissed the first information, it was certain that it was not so very serious after all. He then proceeded to analyse the evidence of the "complainant at length, with a view to show that the utmost credence should not be placed in her statement as there were discrepancies in it; that at the most only a trifling assault had been committed, and that the circumstances had been much exaggerated. On the part of the defendant he expressed great sorrow for what he had done, and he had made every attempt to settle the matter, but the money demanded was

too exorbitant. He (Mr Tyler) eontended that if an assault had been committed some provocation must have been given to defendant, and therefore it must only be dealt with as a common assault; and punished in the same way that ordinary assaults were —by the infliction of a moderate money penalty. On behalf of the defendant, he called. Timothy G-allagher, the newly elected member for the district, who said that he had known defendant some time, and he believed him to bo as innocent a man when in a state of drink as any man in the world. He had never known him insult man or woman, drunk or sober, and he was a hardworking honest man. Samuel Gilmer bore testimony to the quiet character of defendant. He had seen him 'drunk once but he never heard him say a cross word to any one. Patrick Smyth had known defendant some time to be a quiet, honest, and hard-working man, and never saw him drunk but on the night when he was taken into custody. The defendant gave a statement of some negociations that had been entered into with the view of settling the matter, and said that the husband of complainant had offered not to press the case if £2O was paid for him into the hands of a party in town. The magistrate after giving his reasons for dismissing the informtition said, that there were circumstances that mitigated the assault in some ■degree, as the good character he had received showed that his conduct on this occasion was contrary to his usual habits, still the facts were such that he did not think would be met by the imposition of a pecuniary penalty. He explained fully his reasons for coming to this conclusion, and sentenced the defendant to two weeks imprisonment with hard labor. ASSAULT. Bridget Hamilton charged her husband, Samuel Hamilton, with having assaulted her on the 15th instant, and further stated in the information that she was in fear of her life. On being called into the box, she said that she did not wish to press the charge, she was in a passion when she laid the informatihn, and was sorry she had done so, she therefore begged, the Bench to allow her to withdraw it. The magistrate allowed her to do so and the case was dismissed. CIVIL CASES. Haskins v. Morris. —Verdict by default for £l6 17s. goods sold. Struthers v Calder.—settled out of court. O'Conor v. Bohan.—Verdict by default for £3 6s. Bd. Morey v. Munro —Mr Tyler for the plaintiff. This was an action to recover the sum of £3 Is, rent due. Defendant admitted the amount, but pleaded a set off to the extent of £3 16s commission, for services rendered in the recovery of £75. Defendant said that on the 7th of December plaintiff came to him and asked him to purchase an acceptance of Mr Frank Fisher's, which had then been dishonored some days. "Witness declined to do this, but at plaintiff's request, undertook to collect it if possible. He saw Mr Fisher, who said that there was a contra account between him and Mr Morey, and that he had purposely allowed the bill to be dishonored. Witness said that to a negotiable document no set off could be pleaded, and he should require the amount to be paid at once. They went to Mr Pitt's office, and it was then discovered that Mr Pitt had a contra against Mr Morey, and on this account the bill would not be paid. He saw Mr Morey, and they subsequently saw Mr Tyler, who advised that a summons should be taken out at once and served on Mr Fisher, as he was that day in the act of leaving, and a verdict was got by default. He now wished to obtain the quantum meruit according to the custom of commission agen!?. In reply to Mr Tyler, Mr Munro said he had not issued a summons or taken any other steps towards the recovery of the money, beyond what he had stated. He saw Morey at ten, Mr Pitt at eleven, and he was constantly employed nearly all day. By the Bench—lt is usual under any circumstances to allow 5 per cent, on the commission money. To Mr Tyler —He considered himself responsible for the attorney's costs in the matter.

Mr Tyler admitted the money had been received.

M. M. Morey being called, swore that he had taken the bill for discount to Mr Munro, and bad offered 2£ discount for it. He denied that he had asked Mr Munro to purchase it and take it at all risks; he simply asked him to discount it. He had known Mr Tyler as long as Mr Munro, and therefore did not need any introduction. Mr Tyler proved that he had no

positive remembrance of Mr Munro being present when Mr Morey gave him the bill, but all the necessary legal stops wero taken and carried out by him (Mr Tyler). He did not consider he had any instructions from Mr Munro in the matter at all, or that the latter was in any way responsible for any costs. Mr Tyler, in reply, contended that no commission could be claimed in such a case, as the defendant really had nothing to do with the recovery of the money in question, but it was got through the agency of a solicitor. The set-off was said to have arisen in December last, but it was not till May, when the amount of rent sued for, was due, that any claim for the commission was made by Mr Munro. The Magistrate considered that Mr Munro's services were at an end when the matter was handed to a solicitor, and that by that means an agent actually abandoned the case. He could not therefore allow the set-off, and would give judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.