NEIGHBOURS QUARREL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1187, 20 December 1913, Page 3

NEIGHBOURS QUARREL.

CAUSED BY STRAYING STOCK.

Straying cows were the primary cause of an assault case which was ventilated before Mr J. W. Poynton, S-M., at yesterday’s sitting of the Magistrate’s Court. The case arose through an information laid by Rachael Rout against H. P. Jahobson, who was charged, with unlawfully assaulting her by striking her and knocking her into a wire fence. The defendant pleaded not guilly. The complainant, Rachael Rout, in evidence, stated that on the morning of the day on which the assault took place,.defendant’s cows got into her aunt’s paddock, and acting under instructions from her aunt, she repaired the fence in order to keep the cows in until her uncle came home and impounded them. The defendant later came to release the cows and cut down the wires she had put up. At the request of her aunt, complainant went and told defendant that he was not to interfere with the cows until her uncle came home. When she told defendant he caught her by the shoulders and ran her into a barbed wire fence, which tore her dress. She then informed the police, and when she returned the cows had gone. Questioned by defendant, witness denied having used obscene language to him. She didn’t knock the wires down. Denied that the defendant said, “Now, be a respectable woman, and stand aside and let the cows out.” Defendant did not use such decent language. He used obscene language to her, casting a reflection on her ancestors. . The cows went in the paddock of their own accord. They were not driven in. Denied that there were more than two women present when defendant arrived. George Hobbs, dealer, stated that he saw Mrs Rout near the fence, and saw Jahobsen run up and catch hold of her and run her into the fence. Complainant called out, and witness went over. She said, “Did you see what he did?” and he said “Yes,” and told her the best thing she could do was to go and see Constable Woods. To defendant; Was five or six chains away when the assault took place. Was not inside the house at the time. May have asked, the matter?” when he went over, but didn’t remember it. The woman was practically speechless when he arrived. A green dress, with a fair-sized, rip in it, was exhibited in the Court, it being alleged by the complainant that the dress produced was the one she was wearing when the assault took place. For the defence, defendant called his daughter, Hilda Jahobsen, who detailed the events leading up to the time her father went to get the cows out of the paddock. When he was taking the staples out of the fence, Mrs Rout came up and called him a “ yahoo” twice. Her father did not say anything, but went up to her and asked her to stand aside and let the cows out. He did not swear at her, nor did he shove her. Complainant then called out

/to Mr Hobbs, and he came over -f and said, “What’s the matter ,f now?” She said, “Did you see him hit me?” and he said, “Yes, it’s best to go and take proceedings.” To defendant: When defendant when to lift Mrs Rout’s dress away from the barbed wire, she said, “Take your dirty hands off my dress.” Complainant hit defendant once. She was very wild. H, P. Jahobsen, the defendant, > said that when he went to get the cows out of the paddock, Mrs Rout came up and told him to leave them alone. She called him a yahoo,” and a “ squarehead,” and stood at the fence to prevent the cows from going out. Witness spoke to her as any respectable man would speak to a woman, and told her if she would not let the cows out he would get Constable Woods to take them out. ' Witness went into the paddock to get the cows, and complainant then called but to Mr Hobbs. The dress produced in Court was not the one worn-by Mrs Rout on that day. The one she was wearing *.■was while, not green. The Magistrate said that in Hobbs the complainant had an independent witness, and he could see no reason why the man should come to the Court and tell a lot of lies. He said he saw defendant push complainant, and be (the Magistrate') thought in doing so he was telling the truth. No doubt both parties were excited, and he was afraid defendant lost his temper. He inflicted a fine of 40s, wilth costs 9s and witness’ expenses 6s.