Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume V, Issue 73, 31 May 1884, Page 3

Feilding R.M. Court

7A ?"a; fWav, May-80th, 1884. (Before H. L. SherwiU, Esq., J.P.) : -'AFFLIOATiON EOK SUBETIES OF THE PEACE. A, ..jWffiam George Boberts, of Feilding, Awasa charged by John Henry Roberts, his brother, of Makino, that the 29thnf May, instant, at 77 Feilding, and on divers other occa*,,:lidnß^hreateri the said John: Henry Boberts in the- words or to the effect following':-^-" I Wow what it'll come tp— lTl have to go to gaol, but when I come out TB go to the gallows for him." . The information further set forth" that complainant was afraid defendant would do him some grievous bodttyjbarm, wherefore the complain"aajft" sought. 'that defendant might be required to find sufficient sureties to -$Jcee£/th'e peace towards him, biit that 6 auch: sureties were not required from any [ hatred, malice, or ill will, but merely for the preservation of his life anel person from iirjury. .. """' ' Mr- Sandilands appeared for complainant, and Ur Staite for defendant, who pleaded as a reason why he should -not be bound over, that he was totally "innocent of the charge. John Henry Boberts deposed : Was a carter, of Feilding ; defendant was his brother; had been working together at -Wairarapa; when he returned home his brother followed him, " and gave him all sorts of annoyance (described). CwJss.^xamined : Had him arrested though he was his own brother ; had not proceeded against him for anything he had said to witness personally ; had been some differences about i prbpefiy ; defendant said if he couldn't gefchls rights by law he would in some <>ther way. "** Defendant had on many occasions assaulted him. E. B. Gichard deposed : Saw defendant on Monday last : he spoke to witness about his property, and said : if he couldn't get his rights by the t «fanrheAvould take the law into his own hands, as he meant to have satisfaction one way or the other. Mrs Louisa Grantham deposed: .Was housekeeper to complainant; ,«befeifdant came to the house and aske 1 her to get the child ready for him to take to Wanganui to see its mother ; said she couldn't without Mr Boberts' permission ; he then used words simi4ftftjqf those quoted in the information. Cross-examined: Defendant didn't say to her he would take the law into his own hands; never saw him >ff*AA> Mr Staite said the defence was, there were disputes between the two brothers about property, and that defendant had been defrauded out of all his rights therein, and that the! words used by defendant about taking ■JJeltiwiihtb his own hands had reference to this matter, and not with any intent to do complainant any harm. . He submitted that there was no cvi-; dence of *rfinfe v a't -to do bodily harm. B. W. Morphy jfleposed: Knew thei defendant; he had been in witness. emplqyjj[f9dtnesß; -'here gave defendant a very good character] ; had never! heard him nse threats towards his, hrotjheryrbut only say that, he .would 1 Have liis rights. - Cross-examined&lt was six or seven! years since he was in witness* employ; ' didn't kndw him'to '-"be Aa very excitable ; many?i v :•'•' ■" ': ■ AY .Defendant, sworn, denied haying .•tlfreatened his brother ; yyhen he said he would; take : the law into his own hands he meant he would seize his share in the property if hev -went to * gaol for it, but had no intention to injure his brother's "person [witness madea long statement about the legal differences about property between , Worahip thought the quarrels spoken about had nothing to do with the matter. There* was no evidence as to th*j charge, and he must there- ; fore dismiss the case, each party to pay his oyjn odsjbs. - ,