RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXII, Issue XXII, 23 November 1867, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, Novembeb 21. [Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., R.M.] ASSAULT. Maria Head was brought up on remand to answer the charge of assaulting her husband. Complainant stated that on Tuesday last defendant was intoxicated, having been in that state sine*. 1 7 o'clock in the morning. Witness remonstrated with her upon the impropriety of her conduct, whereupon she picked up a glass salt-cellar and threw it at her. Fortunately he avoided it, or it would have done him some injury. His wife was a most violent woman, and addicted to drink. The defendant, in excuse, said her husband had irritated her, and she wished to be separated from him. His Worship bound her over to keep the peace towards all her Majesty's subjects for the space of six months — herself in £20, and one surety to an equal amount ; costs being remitted SLY GROG SELLING. Lawson Potts, a storekeeper at tho Hutt, appeared to answer an information charging him with selling a bottle of gin in controversial of the provisions of the Licensing Act Amendment Act, 1854. Mr Izard appeared for defendant. Police-constnblo Brady, being sworn, stated that on the L2th instant ho spoke to a nativo who had just come out of defendant's etore with a kit in his hand containing a bottle of gin, a loaf, and some sugar-stick. Witness took tho native back to the store, and askod for defendant. Tho latter came out of his bedroom, and in his presence, witness asked the native where ho had bought the bottle of spirits. Tho native replied that he had bought it of Mr Potts. Police-Inspector Atchison : Did not the native cay that Mr Potts served him ? Witnoss : Yes. Witness asked the native what ho had paid for it ; and the latter replied 4s 6d, or four shillings and a sixpence. Witness opened tho bottle in presence of defendant, and found it to contain gin. Defendant did not deny selling tho gin, but said it was not fair to ask that question. Cross- examined by Mr Izard : Witness did not sco any tobacco in the kit. He did not examine the native's pockets in order to ascertain whether they contained tobacco. Not more than three or four minutes elapsed between tho time of witness taking possession of the bottle and his opening it. Ho did not press nor threaten tho nativo to answer the question ; tho latter told him readily. He did not seiid tho nativo to tho store. Wiremu Kingi, a native, deposed that ho wont to the defendant's store on tho 12th inst. for the purpose of buying a loaf and some gin. Ho bought a bottle of gin from defendant, for which ho paid 4s 6d. He put the bottle in a basket, and went out of the store, when ho met Brady. He afterwards saw tho bottle opened in Potts's house. The next morning he saw .defendant at his house, when tho latter said to him, " When the trial is going on you will bo on my side. When tho Magistrate asks you where you got tho bottle from, say that you did not get it here, but Bomewhere elso. If ho don't fine me £50, 1 will give you £10; while if you tell the Magistrate you bought the liquor here, you will get nothing, and tho policeman will get tho £25." Cross-examined by Mr Izard : The conversation took place in a privato room of Potfcs's house, whither defendant had taken witness, because his wife and shopman were in the store. Samuel and Potts took him into the room. The conversation was held with Potts and Samuel ; and both offered him the £10. When witness wen' into the shop he did not say that he had been

recommended to take gin, because ho had been ill. Fo did not Bay that Sir George Grey had said that gin wan good for him. This concluded tlio case for the prosecution. Mr Izard, for the defence, contended that the information must fall to the ground in consequence of its being under au Act which was repealed by an Act passed by the Provincial Council last session. His "Worship, with a view to the proper consideration of this objection, adjourned the further hearing of the case till Tuoaday. CIVIL. D. R. Lewers v W. H. Foley— £ls Is 9d. Defendant did not appear, and judgment was recorded against him in default. Same v J. Geary — £12 19s Bd, for goods supplied to defendant's wife when a a single woman. Defendant stated that before he wa9 married, his wife's parents agreed to find the wedding trousseau, of which tho geods in question formed a part ; and his wife had informed him that the other part of the goods were bought by her before marriage for tho use of her parents. He therefore denied his liability. His Worship reserved judgment. FIUDAY, NOVEJIBEK 22. EAPE. John Sennox, a respectable-looking young man, residing at tho Hutt, was placed in the dock to answer the chargo of committing a rapo upon Peti Matiu. a native girl jippurently about 15 er 16 years of ago. Mr Buckley defended the prisoner. Prosccutrix' evidence was to the effect that she lived at the Upper Hutt. She and another native woman entered prisoner's service on tho 15Ui June. He sent her to fetch some water from a puice at a distance from the house ; and while blio was going there, ho followed her, threw her upon the ground, and endeavored to havo carnal connection with her, offering her a £1 if she would consent. She refused, but in spite of her cries, ho succeeded in effecting his object. No one came to her assistance. Cross-examined by Mr Buckley ; Witness said she knew the date on which the ofFence was committed, because it was the same day as that on which the natives went to the Native Lands Court. Tho place whero the water was could not be seen from the house. There wero a great number of people at the house. Prisoner told witness to go for the water in presence of his mother. Witness would swear positively that she did not ask prisoner for £-1 or any sum of money within the last week or two. She did not know whether her husband had done so or not. This occurrence took place at midnight. Sho saw the prisoner's sister Phosbc tho next day, but did not tell her or any one olso what had happened. Witness is not acquainted with prisoner's sister. Hori Paengahuru, stated that one evening, about a fortnight ago, tho prisoner, in witness' house, admitted that he and Billy had " done wroHg." Witness and the other natives present then demanded " utu." Prisoner asked how much ? A relation of Billj's replied £10 ; and this sum was pressed for bub prisoner refused to give it ; finally consenting, however, to pay £4, stating that ho would hand over tho money as soon as he received it from his employer. To this arrangement tho natives agreed, and witness afterwards wont and asked for it, when prisoner refused to pay. Cross-examined by Mr Buckley : If the money had been received by them, tho information might not have been laid. This concluded the case for the prosecution. His Worship committed tho prisoner for trial, admitting him to bail, on his own recognisance for £50, and two sureties in £50 each. CIVIL. D. R. Lowers vJ. Geary— £l2 19s Bd. His Worship gave judgment in this case in favor of plaintiff for the full amount claimed and costs. J. M. Cleland v J. S. Kirwan-— £ll 8s 64. Judgment for plaintiff by consent. E. W. Mills vR. J. Morressey— £lo 133. Dofendanfc pleaded a contra-account j and his Worship, after hearing the evidence, gave judgment for the plaintiff for £5 8s and costs. J. Potherick v H. Leppien— £B. Judgmont for plaintiff for £5 and costs. E. Wilton v Mrs J. Evans— £l 6s 9£d; Judgment for plaintiff by consent. A. S. Easton v 11. 7ickman — 13s 3£d. Judgment for plaintiff by consent.