South Eastern Gazette,10 January, 1860.

BEARSTED.—Petty Sessions. Jan. 2.

(Before Admiral Jones Marsham in the chair, E. Burton, Esq., D. Seratton, Esq., C. G. Whittaker, Esq., and Captain Robinson).

Charles Couchman, landlord of the "Roebuck Inn," Harrietsham, was charged with having, on the 26th Dec., assaulted William Tong. The complainant, it appeared, endeavoured to force his way to the parlour of defendant's house. Defendant requested him to leave, and, as he refused, struck him. This was the assault complained of, and for which defendant was lined 5s. and 11s. costs.

Kentish Gazette, Tuesday 2 February 1869.

Harrietsham. An assault case.

At the Maidstone County Court, on Tuesday, the case of John Newman v. Charles Couchman was heard.

It was an action for £50 damages for an assault. Plaintiff is a farmer at Mereworth; defendant keeps the "Roebuck Inn" at Harrietsham.

Mr. T. Goodwin appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. R. Gibson, of Dartford, for defendant.

The evidence given by plaintiff, corroborated by William Constable, butcher, Stone Street, Maidstone, Henry Field, Tollgate keeper, at East Peckham, and George Wire, at the "Rose and Crown," was to be following effect.

On the afternoon of the day of the polling at the Mid Kent election, plaintiff, defendant, and a number of other person's were drinking in the "Rose and Crown" Public House, High Street, Maidstone, Henry Field was raffling with Couchman, the defendant, at the bar for drink. Plaintiff interfered, and told Field to come away and go home, upon which defendant took offence, pushed and struck the plaintiff, and ran into the Tap Room. Plaintive, who appeared to have been sober, stripped for the purpose of fighting it out, and then followed the defendant's into the tap-room. Directly he got into the tap-room defendant struck him twice on the head with an iron spittoon, and knocked him down insensible. Mr. Fry, surgeon, was brought, and plaintiff was under medical treatment for a month. The evidence of Mr. Fry was to the effect that there were two dangerous wounds on plaintiff's head and temple, which appeared as if cut with a knife. One cut was three inches long; the other was an inch and a half. He believed Newman would suffer all his life from the wounds, especially if he had too much to drink. The parties appeared to have been perfect strangers to each other.

Mr. Gibbson cross-examine plaintive and his witness with a view of showing that plaintive commenced the fray, but without effect.

Mr. Gibson, in addressing the jury for the defendant, urged that the blow was struck in self-defence, and called the defendant, who swore that plaintiff struck him in the bar, and he tried to return the blow. He then ran into the tap-room from fear, and he got the spittoon. He told plaintiff that if he struck him (Couchman) he would hit him with the spittoon. Plaintive struck him several times, and knocked him down. He struck plaintive with the spittoon because he thought he was dangerous.

Defendant called a man named Dewry, who stated that newman struck Couchman in the mouth.

At the conclusion of the evidence, his honour said that he was satisfied that defendant was in the wrong. He should not award the full amount of damages.

The verdict will be damages £20, with costs on the higher scale, to be paid into monthly instalments.

East Kent Gazette, Saturday 20 April 1867.

An Unfortunate Plantiff.

James Horton v. Charles Ottaway.

Plaintiff claimed £1. 16s. 6d as the price of a pair of wheels, and the cost of painting a cart.

Plaintiff was unable to state from what day the work was done and the wheels supplied; nor had he got his books with him, or any copy of the bill.

His Honour said he could not see that the plaintiff had substantiate his claim, but as the defendant had engaged Mr. Bathurst, he thought it as well to proceed with the case.

Mr. Bathurst said it appeared that on the second Sunday in July, 1863, a conversation arose between the plaintiff and defendant respecting new wheels for a cart belonging to the latter. Plaintiff was to have the old wheels and some timber that belong to defendant. The tiers of the new wheel were to be of certain dimensions, and if made satisfactorily to defendants, he agreed to pay 10s. in addition; but as the tiers were not more than half inch flat, this was a level deal according to the agreement.

His Honour gave judgement for defendant, with costs for himself and two witnesses, who had come from Harrietsham, a distance of 12 miles.

Same v. William Boorman.

This case had been called on at an earlier period of the sitting, and plaintiff not appearing, defendant's expenses and costs of two witnesses had been allowed, defendant and his friends thereupon leaving the court.

Plaintiff said he was almost within hearing all the time, and asked that the case might be allowed to go on.

Plaintiff, on being sworn, said the defendant purchased some timber, besides other things, and had paid him a sovereign on account, giving his "affidavit" for another. (A laugh.) That's the truth. "Renewed laughter.)

His honour:- The original amount was £3 9s. 6d.; if he has paid you a sovereign, how is it you claim only a balance of 8s.

Plaintiff:- I have allowed him for some work he has done.

Defendant stated that he had a running account with plaintiff, but he never had any bill. He asked plaintiff what he would take to make all straight.

Plaintiff first wanted two pounds, but at length he consented to take a sovereign.

Defendant called Charles Couchman, a farmer, and the landlord of the "Roebuck Inn," at Harrietsham, who said he recollected being present at the conversation between plaintiff and defendant, which took place in his house. Remember defendant agreeing to take £1, and they "threw up hats" to show that the account was settled. Another witness who was in court received a treat from the plaintiff to go with him to defendant's to see that he crossed the account out of his book. (Laughter.)

His Honour gave judgement for the defendant, with costs for himself and two witnesses.