RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT, CAMBRIDGE. Yesterday.—(Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., R.M.) Murderous Assault.

Waikato Times, Volume XVI, Issue 1363, 26 March 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT, CAMBRIDGE. Yesterday. — (Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., R.M.) Murderous Assault.

Piwiki, the native who committed a ! serious assault on the half-caste Wallace was brought up, charged on remand with the above offence. The police reported that, although Wallace had been certified to be out of danger, he was still very weak, and unable to attend the Court. Under these circumstances, they asked for a further remand. Mr Beale who appeared for prisoner, acquiesced in the application, which was granted for eight days. Abusive Language, j Charles 0. Montrose was charged on j the information of John Edgar, with having, while in Duke-street Cambridge, on the evening of the 16th, used language towards him calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. Mr Beale appeared for prosecution ; defendant conducted his own case. Defendant acknowledged having called prosecutor a d liar on the date mentioned, considering that he had valid grounds for doing so. He had no wish to do prosecutor any harm, and, if the Court considered it worth while, ho was quite willing to be bound over in his own or whatever other recognisances were necessary to keep the peace. Further explanation having been made, the Court direc^d that a plea of "not guilty" should be recorded. The following evidence was taken :—: — J. H. Johnston, who described himself as a newspaper reporter, in the employment of defendant, deposed that on the evening mentioned in the information, he left the Duke of Cambridge Hotel about 10 o'clock, in company with defendant. In Duke - street they met prosecutor, when he (defendant) accosted him and asked him a question, the purport of which he could not recollect. Prosecutor made a reply, to which defendant retorted by calling him a d liar. His recollection of what transpired was that the words made use of were d liar, and not b liar. Seeing something like a wrangle was about to take place, witness passed on up the street, leaving prosecutor and defendant to settle their grievances. On defendant again rejoining witness, he asked him (witness) if he had heard what he called prosecutor, and on being answered in the affirmative, defendant asked what he would have done if he had called him such a name. Witness replied, "I should have knocked you down." The street at the time was partly deserted, nobody but a few Maoris being about. The prosecutor, a reporter, presently employed on defendant's paper, deposed that on the evening referred to he met defendant in company with the previous witness, while in Dukestreet, near to the Duke of Cambrido Hotel. Defendant accosted him by taking hold of him by the arm roughly, and asking him a question, and being answered defendant called him a b liar. He was quite sure he used the word b — and not d •. In catching hold of his arm defendant pulled witness round. A few minntea afterwards defendant again accosted him, and in reply to what was then said) defendant told, witness to ask his overseer. Witness replied he did not know the overseer, and on being further remonstrated with by defendant, explained that what lie ment was he did not recognise the overseer. To Defendant : I am under notice to leave your employment. I will swear you made use of the word b . I was not following you and Johnston through the town. When I left you on the first occasion you went away in one direction and I passed on in the other. I went towards the bridge, and did not return to go home until I thought I had allowed time for you to get out of the road. When I met you the second time you and Johnston were still together. You were standing talking, and I tried to pass on unobserved between you and the fence. As a matter of fact I did know G-rigg, your overseer, but what I meant to convey to you was that I did not rocognise him. You charged me with having absented myself from my duties, and I told you it was false, I had not done so. The Court : It would seem that there ia a pretty free interchange of idea amongst you. The employer calls the servant a liar, and the servant charges the master quite freely with falsehood. The business seeina to be carried on in a pretty lively fashion. (Laughter.) Cross-examination continued : I recollect attending a Farmers' Club meeting. I did not mislead you on that occasion. I left the meeting because I thought it was my duty to do so. The meeting resolved itself into a committee on finance, and one member said he thought I should not remain ; another thought I should ; and at last they concluded that I might remain on the understating I was to take no notes for publication. On that proposal* being made to me I left the meeting. I had repeated dealings with Grigg, but I did not consider I was bound to recognise him as my overseer. For the defence defendant called his overseer, who proved that he had reason to doubt prosecutor's veracity. He (prosecutor) was sent to report a cricket match on one occasion, and although witness went on three separate occasions, he did not find prosecutor there. He concluded from that fact he had been neglecting his duty. To Mr Beale : Prosecutor might have been on the ground in the intervals, but certainly he did not remain there throughout the whole of the match, as he ought to have done. Defendant, sworn, deposed that the occurrence referred to in Duke-street took placo at about; 10 o'clock. It waa quite dark at the time. The Court : And you thought you might use dark language. (Laughter). Witness : I did lay my hands on prosecutor when I met him. I did it in the way of kindness, and for the purpose of arresting his attention. I asked him what he had been doing that day, and having reason to doubt the truth of his reply, I called him a d liar. The Bench said that the case ought to

have been settled out of Court. That course would have been much better for both aides. Case dismissed, each party to pay hi* own costs.