FAMILY FEUD AT TARARA.

Clutha Leader, Volume XL, Issue 41, 21 November 1913, Page 5

FAMILY FEUD AT TARARA.

BOW OVER POSTS,

Bef orr Messrs J, Craig ? ani J, Barr, J's.P., at Owaka Court* yestetday,. a family feud was ventilated. The first charge was against Samuel Bailey that he did, on November 10, at Burnt Flat, unlawfully assault Livingstone Rae, He was also charged with assaulting John Rae at the same time and place. His wife, Julia Bailey, was charged with assaulting Livingstone and John Bae. Arising out of the same altercation John Bae was charged with using insulting words to Julia Bailey in a public place, on the Purakauiti stream road, whereby a breach of the peace might have been occasioned. All the charges were dealt with together. Mr R. K. Grigor appeared for the Raes and Mr D. Stewart for the Baileys. All witnesses were ordered out of court. Mr Grigor said it was a somewhat unfortunate quarrel between neighbours, and it was one which could not bo well settled out of court. There had been a good deal Of interference, anil blows had eventuated, and it was best that the court should put the parties right. He thought he could prove that the Raes were in the right. The facts of the case were that the parties were neighbours]* Rae had cut posts on the county roadline, the county council having sold him the right to do so. Bailey, who Was in the habit of making complaints, wrote to the county coun«il that he knew of a man (without stating names) who was taking timber off the county roadline. Bae continued to cut the posts, and 011 November 10 Bailey came along and interfered, and the row started. Mr Grigor wont on to say that Mr Stewart, judging by his interruptions, would probably try to prove that the Raes were not entitled to the timber, but the case was not to he decided on that point; the court would not need to saywho was entitled to tliein. If Rae swore that he had the right to the posts it was prima facie evidence that he had the right as long as it was not proved that 110 had not.

Mr Stewart: A liaudy plea for burglary. _ _ ' Mr G'rigoi 1 : No; we needn't go into the quest-ion -of possession. In fact, the council themselves don't know—they are fightiiig with the Land Board over it. If we are in possession and there is interference, then we have grounds for action, Livingstone R-ae gave evidence as to what happened on November 10. He said.they were proceeding to split posts and take them away, and when in front of Bailey's house Sam Bailey came along with his dray, stopped, and took a hold of the piece of timber which they had sawn off. Witness grasped the other end, and would not allow Bailey to take it. Then Mrs Bailey came along tlio road, and started calling out, "Thieves and robbers! " Mrs Bailey then got her hands on him and started pushing him about. Witness' brother then suggested that both sides shoßld leave the timber uutil authority should b« produced as to who had the right to the timber, but Bailey persisted in using force and wanted the police. His brother went away after Bailey, and his father and old Bailey followed them, and Mrs Bailey and witness followed some distance behind. When they got up on the others he saw blood on John's face, and Sam Bailey said lie had struck first. Bailey started to put some more timber over the fence, when witness interfered and Mrs Bailey ran up and caught him round the throat with both hands. Witness had a whip in his hand, and Mrs Bailey seized it, and while he was attempting to hold it Sam Bailey ran up and struck him 011 both arms. Witness and his brother never used violence, and both of them desired a peaceable settlement.

By Mr Stewart: There had been some ill-feeling between witness' family ami the Baileys for some time, because Bailey blamed witness ami his brother for catching opossums on his ground. He was annoyed about that yet. Bid not know that Bailey had cut the posts ou his own ground and left them there. It was evident that some of the posts had been sawn off by somebody else. By Mr Grigor: If they had taken the law in their own hands they could have thrashed the Baileys out of existence. It was to save that that they hail taken legal action.

Johu Rae, the foregoing witness' brother, gave corroborative evidence. In regard to the affray between him and Sam Bailey before the others caught up 011 them witness declared that Bailey struck first, and then he retaliated. Then Mrs Bailey came on the scene and caught him with both hands by the throat, and after that turned her attention to Livingstone Rae. Witness told her to try and remember that she was a woman, but she took 110 notice. By Mr Stewart: He had not received a written license from the council to cut the timber, but he had been informally notified that he had permission to do so. Alex. Rae, father of John and Livingstone Rae, gave corroborative evidence, and the case for complainants closed. in opening the case for the defence Mr Stewart contended that the posts in dispute were the property of Bailey. The action of the Raes amounted to interference with Bailey's possessions, and that entitled the latter to use force to resist the attempts to seize the posts. Fuither than that, any assault which had been done had decidedly been committed by the Raes, and in addition to this .lohn Rao had used insulting language to Mrs Bailey.

Evidence was given-by Samuel Ikilov, his wife and father to the effect that they had seen in a newspaper report of tho Clutha County Council meeting that Rao had asked for tho right to remove timber. They (the Baileys) had cut this timber, and they thought it wan high time to. protect their property by removing the posts. When m tho act of doing so the Raes turned up and tQjroibly' prevented them, s the *&>ggbta Siitey, vm m§fat stt

a blow, accidentally struck John Rae on ! the nose, but no assault had been com- : mittoil on Living»tone Rae either bv Sam Bailey or his wife. Witnesses also stated that John Rae had used insulting language. After, a retirement the Bench announced that they were of opinion that an assault had been committed by Samuel Bailey against John Rae, and this defendant was fined 10s; but they dismissed the charge against hinv of assaulting Livingstone Rae. The charges against Mrs Bailey were withdrawn by consent. The Bench also considered John Rae guilty of using insulting language, and fined him 10s, Each party was ordered to pay their own costs, and 10s 6d costs were awarded against Livingstone Rae on the dismissed charge. The case concluded at five o'clock, having lasted four and a-half hours.