From Western Post, 9th March 1861: Windeyer report continued: Mrs CARTER v Mrs DIGGINGS - Assault Jane CARTER: I live with my husband at Devil's Hhole, and my information is true. On the day named I hit the defendant's little girl, and I suppose she went and told her mother. By the Bench: My daughter was out gathering mushrooms, and home with a scratched arm. She told me something and I took and gave defendant's daughter a slap on the back; Mrs DIGGINS then came and jumped over the counter at me, gave me a slap on the face and pulled my hair. She held a cleaver over my head. Her husband is a butcher, and not at home. Cross-examined by Mr BRODRIBB: I am a little injured; feel it now; I beat the child because Mrs DIGGINS never will chastise her children; cannot swear whether I used a strap or not, had one in my hand at the time. Mr BRODRIBB appealed too such members of the Bench as might be fathers, urging that defendant was justified in hitting out in defence of her offspring. Their worships coincided and dismissed the case. DUNGATE v TUCKER The plaintiff, whose wrath against his fair opponent had scarcely subsided when he entered the court, complained of a black eye inflicted by Mrs TUCKER. He said he had called as he was wont, at the defendant's house for a nobbler, and while seated, caught the child up on his knee and was playing with him, when defendant came up and abruptly demanded the child, giving him a blow on the face. By the Bench: Are you much hurt? Plaintiff: Yes I am. I have a black eye, and you can see it if you look, sir; it has been done a week now. Cross examined by Mr. BRODRIBB: Master Ernest was en dishabille; I am in the habit of playing with him dressed or undressed; he did not scream; defendant struck me, and then took him from me; I had not time to give him up before receiving the blow; it is the first black eye I have ever had from a woman; I went away without my nobbler. The Deputy Postmaster and another witness, called by plaintiff, gave testimony , varying comewhat from his own, whereupon Mr BRODRIBB addressed the Bench and gallantly brought his client out of trouble again, maintaining that Mrs TUCKER had a right to defend her darling. TUCKER v JACKSON This was an application under the Tentants' Act for a warrant to eject the defendant from a farm of fifteen acres at Waratah alleged to be held from Mr TUCKER as tenant at will. Mrssrs BRODRIBB and CLARK (for TEMPLETON) appeared for the plaintiff. Mr JAMES for the defence. Stephen TUCKER deposed that he rented some land, of which the land in question was a part, from Mr SUTTOR. That defendant is in possession, and that he demanded possession from him before laying the information. He never let the land to defendant on any agreement. Put him in possession about September, 1859. By the Bench: There is a shell of a hut on the ground. I lease the land from SUTTOR, and pay him an annual rent for it. I have received permission to mine on the land. Cross-examined by Mr JAMES: I have never received or demanded any rent. He went there as my overseer. He was to receive no salary. Employed to receive miner's rights and to look after everything, for which he was permitted to erect a mill, and was to have half-share proceeds of any land that was cultivated. There has never been a settlement between us. I wrote to him demanding a settlement, and at same time told him if he required a settlement to call at my residence. Mr JAMES declined to call evidence for the defence, contending that the case for plaintiff was not made out. Mr BRODRIBB replied. The Bench, after deliberating, directed the order to issue. Warrant to lie in the office eight day. Mr JAMES gave notice of intention to give security to abide action of ejectment. ***END*** Annette Piper Please note: Every effort has been to transcribe the above information correctly, however errors may have inadvertently been made. Spelling of surnames/places as appears in original.