BILLIARD ROOM FRACAS. – At the Yass District Court, the other day, Sir Frederick Pottinger, Bart., J.P., and sub-superintendent of the mounted patrol at Burrangong, was defendant in an action for assault. It appears that the complainant, Mr. T.R.Watt, brother of the member for Carcoar, had called him a swindler, or scoundrel, in a billiard-room, and the defendant struck him with a cue, and pushed his head through a window pane. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, one shilling.

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21.
(Before Judge Callaghan)
Watt v. Pottinger.

This was a jury case. It was an action to recover 200 pounds damages for assault. The plaintiff was Mr. Thomas Redfern Watt, a settler in the neighbourhood of Cowra, carrying on the trade of wholesale butcher at Burrangong, and the defendant, Sir Frederick Pottinger, Bart., a magistrate of the territory and sub-superintendent of the mounted patrol.....

****

John Thomas Moran, deposed: I am an auctioneer and commission agent at Burrangong: was in the billiard room at the Great Eastern Hotel in December last, when a dispute occurred between Mr. Watt and Sir F. Pottinger; I was not there when the game commenced with Mr. Cummings; I saw two games played by defendant with Mr. Cohen; I heard there was some betting going on, but saw no money; there was about two dozen of champagne going about while the game proceeded; there were nine or ten persons in the room; I heard plaintiff call Cohen a swindler; Sir F. Pottinger asked if he meant that for him too; Mr. Watt said, “Yes you are a swindler, too; and one of you is a bad as the other; Sir Frederick Pottinger then assaulted Watt with the cue, holding it in both hands; the blows fell on the head; Mr. Watt seemed to be stunned; I jumped upon one of the tables, and tried to get out of the disturbance; there was a scuffle afterwards; Mr. Watt wanted to catch Sir F. Pottinger, but the latter kept him at bay; they then fell together; the scuffle was renewed near a window, and the sash was knocked out.
Cross-examined by Mr. Walsh: They had two scuffles on the floor and one near the window; I had not taken so much of the champagne but that I was able to take Mr. Watt to the druggist to “get him leeched;” it seemed to me at the time that each of the parties appeared to be inclined to take what he got and have done with it; Watt became very much excited after he was struck with the cue....

****

George O’Malley Clarke, who deposed; I reside at Burrangong; remember being in the Great Eastern Hotel billiard-room in December last; was present when there was a game being played by the defendant and Cohen; plaintiff had an interest in the game; I had occasion to notice the plaintiff, and thought his conduct such as was calculated to put any man off his game; he threw a tumbler at a dog, and made objectionable remarks; the marker told him when a match was being played the by-standers should keep quiet; when Sir F. Pottinger was within three or four points of winning the game, and his opponent some fifty or more behind, Mr, Watt went up and said he was playing the wrong ball; he told Cohen he was a -- wretch, a “shooler,” and a -- scoundrel; and turning to Sir F. Pottinger said, “you are both -- scoundrels;” defendant walked down, and said, “What is that you say, Mr. Watt?” Mr. Watt repeated the words, and the defendant then struck him with the cue; I know the words were “-- scoundrels,” or “shoolers;” the moment the one blow was given with the cue, the defendant threw the cue behind him; they then had two or three rounds; they were separated once or twice; plaintiff was much excited; Sir F. Pottinger knocked plaintiff’s head through a window, and knocked away the sash; the row was over in two or three minutes, and defencant left the room.....

****

The defendant was then called, and his evidence was similar to that already reported. He held the cue in both hands when he made the blow at the plaintiff; he could not allow Mr. Watt to call him a scoundrel in a public room without resenting it; the spectators jumped upon the table; he happened to get plaintiff’s head near a window, and took the opportunity to knock his head through it.
The learned advocates on both sides having addressed the jury, the Judge summed up the evidence. The jury retired, and in a few minutes returned into Court with a verdict for plaintiff, damages one shilling.

THE CONDUCT OF SIR FREDERIC POTTINGER. – The following letter, conveying an official reprimand to Sir Frederick Pottinger, one of the police inspectors, on account of charges upon which he was recently found guilty in the District Court at Yass, was, on Tuesday, forwarded from the Colonial Secretary to the Inspector-General of Police:-

Colonial Secretary’s Office.
Sydney , 25 March, 1862

Sir,- I am directed by the Colonial Secretary to inform you that he much regrets to be obliged to address you in reference to the conduct of an officer in the police department which has recently been brought under his notice.
2. In the public newspapers an account has lately appeared of proceedings in the District Court of Yass, in which Sir Frederick Pottinger was defendant, and a verdict was obtained against him for an assault under circumstances which the Colonial Secretary feels bound to say were highly discreditable to that gentleman.
3. In the rules established under the Police Regulation Act, officers, as well as other members of the police force generally, are cautioned against frequenting public-houses, and Mr. Cowper cannot too strongly impress upon them the absolute necessity which exists for the strict observance of this salutary regulation.
4. It is impossible for the community to entertain any respect for or confidence in officials whose conduct is characterised by proceedings such as those which it was proved in evidence disgraced the night when Sir Frederick Pottinger committed the assault of which he was found guilty. To be occupied in gambling and betting during the whole night must unfit those who indulge in such unseemly practices for the efficient performance of their duty.
5. It occasions the Colonial Secretary considerable pain to be under the necessity of aminadverting in such strong terms upon the conduct of an officer he has entertained a high opinion, and who has just been promoted. But, considering the state of the country, more especially at the present crisis, from the large influx of diggers from the neighbouring colony and elsewhere, the officers whose particular duty it is to protect life and property, especially at the gold-fields, cannot be too circumspect in their general behaviour; and the Government will feel called upon to visit with the severest mark of their displeasure those who may be found acting at variance with this principle.
6. Mr. Cowper requests further that you will send a copy of this letter to each superintendent, in order that its purport may be communicated to the officers of the police force. – I have &c. W. ELYARD. – The Inspector-General of Police.