RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 357, 22 September 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, 21st, September. (Before J. Giles Esq., R.M.) P. J. Bruen, was fined 10s., for drunkenness.

Michael Cullen and George Black, were brought up on remand charged with two information's, laid by Henry Christenson ; one with committing a common assault, and the other, being for an assault causing actual bodily harm.

The first witness called was :—Saml. Goodall, senior Constable, stationed at Addisous. He said, on Tuesday evening last about 8 o'clock I heard some one crying out for police, on running out saw Constable Maguire and another man on the road, both went into the Constable's house and I followed, the man was Christenson, the present prosecutor. I asked him what was the matter und it was a few seconds before he could speak. He had some blood marks about the head and he complained of his wrist and back being hurt; he had no hat aud his trowsers were wet and muddy. Maguire and I accompanied the man to the place where he said he had been assaulted and I could perceive marks on the ground of a recent struggle. From something said, I then went into Cullens house not far off, neither of the prisoners were there. The prosecutor described the men who had assaulted him, and by hia description I named the two prisoners. I subsequently received warrants for their arrest.

Cross-examined by Mr. Tyler. The prosecutor said he had been assaulted by two men from behind, and knocked over into a tail race. He said he had been in the hut before that. Constable B. Maguire gave evidence corroborative of that of the last wit-

hess, "with this addition, that before receiving a description of the men, he suspected the defendants, from knowing that Mr. Brown of Westport, had sent up the prosecutor, to work in the defendants claim, and that the defendants would not allow him to do so.

Henry Christenson sworn, said, I am a miner, and the prosecutor, in this case. On Thursday I went up to Addisons Flat, to work a share in the Belfast claim, and reached there about 7 o'clock, and went to the shareholders. I saw Cullen, and in reply to his questions, told him I had come to work Browns share. I then wen" up to the claim, and afterwards returned to the hut, and after having some tea with four men there, I went away, first first asking them the best road. They told me the tramway. When

about 50 yards from the hut, I heard some men come after me, I turned round aud saw two men. Can sware the prisoners were the men. I got a hit under the ear which knocked me down, and then I received a kick just under my left ear. It was Black who struck the first blow. I fell into the race, and when trying to get up saw him picking up stones, and. received several kicks in trying to get out of the drain. Can't say whether Cullen kicked me, but I saw him picking up stones, on getting up I ran away, and gave information to the police. In cross-examination, this witness said, the first person he met after the assault was one, Sullivan, and he might have told him he did not know who had assaulted him. In further cross-examination the witnes's statements became somewhat confused as to his recollection of some points. In reply to a question from the Magistrate, witness said, he was still suffering from the effects of the assault, and was unable to work. Detective Lambert proved that the defendants were identified by the prosecutor in his presence, but there was no one else present except the gaol cook.

Having been cautioned in the usual manner, the prisoners wereaskedifthey had anything to say in their defence. John Black said he knew nothing about it till next morning, when two of the shareholders told him the new mate had got beat. In consequence of having recently broken his leg, he was never out ot his hut at night.

Michael Cullen also said he knew nothing about the affair. Mr Tyler said that the defence was in fact what the prisoners had just stated. They knew nothing about it. After remarking that it was clearly a case of mistaken identity, and that he was in a position to prove an alibi in instauce at least, the learued counsel pointed out the deficiencies of the evidence for the prosecution, as connecting the prisoners with the assault committed. Not only was the evidence of identification given by the prosecution of the slightest and most doubtful character, but evidence as to motive was altogether wanting, it being shown that the complainants dealings with the shareholders immediately before the assault were of a most friendly nature. Unfortunately for Black the only witness who could prove that he was in his own hut at the time of the alleged assault, was his wife, whose evidence was of course inadmissable. Arthur Pollard called for the defence said, he was a miner on Addison's Flat and on Thursday evening was sitting in a hut with Cullen, the prosecutor, and other men named Maginn and M'Donald. Prosecutor had just had tea. There was no quarrelling or disputing. Prosecutor went away, but Cullen remained in the hut. A few minutes after, a noise was heard, and Maginn opened the door to see what it was. Cullen did not leave the hut for twenty minutes or half an hour after the prosecutor.

By the Court, —Had no share or interest in defendants' claim. Francis Maginn, miner, also Bwore to the same effect. Cross-examined, Was a shareol'W in the clai:n. h W. M'Donald another shareholder gave similar testimony. Michael Ryan, miner, said, I saw prosecutor on Thursday evening walking on the tramway, and heard him singing out "jpolice." Was about 15 yards from him when I saw prosecutor running away, and two men after him. Neither of the two prisoners were there. I can sware that. I supposed the prosecutor was struck. I saw a man strike him. It was not one of the prisoners. I am not going to say who the man was who struck him. On being pressed by the Magistrate to answer the question pnt to him, the witness declined to answer that particular question. By the Court, —Aref you afraid of criminating yourself, by answering the question.

Witness, Yes, that is my reason for not answering it. M igistrate, That is a sufficient reason,

Cross-examined. I decline to say who the two men were \* ho ran after the prosecutor. On being pressed the witness said, I do not know the other man, who was with the man who struck prosecutor. This closed the defence.

At the Magistrates desire the prosecutor was recalled, On being asked if ■after hearing all the evidence, he was etill prepared to swear as to the identity of both the prisoners as the men who assaulted him, he replied that he was.

The Magistrate remarked on the conflicting nature of the evidence, particularly as to Cullen. On the face of it, there was no reason why the evidence given en his side Bhould not be believed, yet, though he would not raise any imputations against its truthfullness it must be borne in mind, that in such cases, where the defence consisted of an alibi, a certain degree of suspicion was unavoidable. Regarding Black, there was no evidence to contradict that of the Prosecution, and although as regarded Cullen, he had very great doubts in his own mind as to his being found guilty, he considered it adviseable, to send the whole case to be decided by a jury, the assault committed being one of a serious character, and calculated to interfere with the lawful working of miners in their claims.

The prisoners were accordingly committed to take their trial at the next sittings of the District Court.