RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume V, Issue 122, 5 March 1881, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thubsdat, March 3, 1881. _ [Befoie the Resident Magistrate.] THHEATKIfING LANGUAGB. Elizabeth Smith laid an information against Eli** Montague for using threatening language toward her on the 19th of February. Mr. Hawkins appeared for the informant, and Mr. Staite for defendant. Eliiabeth Smith deposed : I was on the Square at a quarter to eight on the 19th of February. My husband, son, two men named Tucker and Cleaver, were with me. We were speaking about the mis of a horse, when Mrs. Montague passed i by, and insulted, and took a stone to 1 throw at me. She then used tbe most indecent language toward me. Whenever she gets drink she is always abusive. I have not spoken to ber for two years, and when she abused me I never an* swereo 1 her. To Mr. Staite ; I hare never done anything to provoke the assault. She has given me the greatest provocation during tbe last two years, but I have never answered her. Un the twelfth she tried to strike me, and I protected myself with j my umbrella. j Re-examined : I put up my umbrella to keep her off. | William Smith deposed : On the 19th of February I was standing between tbe two hotels, with my wife and three men. Mrs Montague and ber girl passed, and tbe latter called mv wife names and Mrs. Montague ran out to take up a stone to throw at us. Sbe then went towards the hotel, and then returned and called my wife tbe most npprobrious name 5 ?. Not a soul spoke, and my wife never answered her. I was present on the_ 12th, when she trjen* to assault mv wife. ToiMr. Staite j I do not think the defendant is m her right sense*. My wife nover crave bpr the slightest, provocation that I know of. Mrs. Smith never sent ber a valentine to my knowledge. Sbe has something to do beside sending valentines. .Arthur Tucker deposed : On tbe evening of tbe 19th I was on the street between the two hotels. I heard Mrs. -'ontague call Mrs. Smith a very bad name. I heard nothing more, and saw no stones thrown. I walked on. - - To, Mr. Staite ; Ido not know what tad occurred previously,

Joseph Cleaver deposed : On the night m question I saw Mrs. Smith standing m the street, when Mrs. Montague passed and called her names, and then ran to pick up stones, threatening to smash her face. To Mr. Staite : She did not throw the stone. CROSS-ACTIO.V. — THREATENING I.A^GUAGB. Kliza Montague deposed : I remember the 12th of February, oti that day I saw Mrs *mith m Carroll's Hotel. She bit me with an unbrella and called me names. My husband was present, and told me to go for the police On the 19th she called me names. That was after I called ber names. I had a suspicion that she had sent me a valentine. She had abused me before. We have had no quarrels lately, and we are on very good terms. To Mr Hawkins : I went to the front of the bar. Mrs Smith was there, and I asked her what she had ben saying about me, wheu sbe took up ber umbrella to strike me. I did go towards ber, but not close to ber. Sbe di I n>t hit mv on the bonnet, because it was a bat. Tbe bat did not bleed. I did not e*y it did. I That concluded Mr Staite' s case, and i Mr Hawkin's called James Carroll, who deposed that Mrs Smith and her husband were at his place or business about bricks. Mrs Montague came m, and accused Mrs Smith of having done something. There was no attempt to strike Mrs Smith but Mrs Montague went very close to her. Mrs Smith tried several times to get her to go away, buj as she would not, she raised her umbrella to protect herself, I then put Mrs Montague out. This coucluded the evidence m four cases — which with the consent of Counsel were narrowed into two. j In giving judgment Mr Ward deprecated the bringing of such cases, into Court. He considered the case against Eliza Montague fully proven, and would inflict the substantial penalty of £2 and costs, defendant to be bound over m two I sureties of LlO and herself m LlO to keep the peace for six months. The other cases woud be dismissed, but the Magistrate advised M's Smith to do as she had been doing m the past, and bave nothing to do with the defendant. CIVAL CASES. Mr Staite made an application for the rehearing of the case Berquist v. Wicks, h ar) at last Court d«y, and m which judgment was giwn. Mr Perkins, opposed it, upon th • grounds that although be had received notice of the application, there was nothing whatever inittosay why the appeal was being ! made. He then applied to the clerk of the Court and was inform d that no affidant had been lodged. After considerable argument from counsel on both sides, the hearing of the application was adjourned until next Court day Bank of tfew Ze .land v. W. S. Staite —Claim L 25. Mr Staite defended his own case, and claimed a non-suit on the grounds that the particulars were defective. Mr Perkins for plaintiff contended that the particulars started from tha balancing day appointed by the Government, and as defendant had his bank book >inci> then and raised no objection the defence <»f defendant was not tenable. The Bench held that particulars should have bt-en 1 supplied, but determined to adjourn the case until next Court day to remedy the defect, co>ts against plaintiff. Robert Johnson v. Pete te Awe Awe. — Claim LlO for clothing supplied. Defendant did not put m an appearance aud ! judgment was given m default. I E. Dixon v. Herbert Snow.— The defendant paid the disputed amount, but Mr Hawkins, who appeared for plaintiff, | claimed his professional fee. Judgment I for Ll 4s costs.