SILLY OLD MEN ATA DOG TRIAL

NZ Truth, Issue 1199, 22 November 1928, Page 5

SILLY OLD MEN ATA DOG TRIAL

They Weren't Two "tooths, But They Could Talk!

TWO CARDRONA COCKIES "LOST THEIR WOOL"

\/ET, on this particular occasion, it I J was not the jumbuck market or rabbit-skin sales which brought the pair to town — it was something far removed from cockie-commerce. Instead of hiking along to the offices of their respective favorite stockagents, or. to the usual taverns of assembly, both made tracks towards the Supreme ■ Court. ; But not together. Oh, dear, no. Personal feelings were v bit too strained; for that! As a matter of fact, farmers Percy and Richard were anything but friendly. There was none of that entente cordiale which is supposed to characterize the men of the land, nor, it seemed, had there ever existed any such confraternity between these two guards of the golden fleece. When Smith and Wilson arrived at the Dunedin Supreme Court, each was wrapt m the hauteur of estrangement. The reason for their loggerheadedness towards one another, dated back to May 10) the date of the Pembroke dog trials' held, at . Mt. Iron, and, incidentally, the first occasion upon Which Percy and Kichard made each other's acquaintance. Not only did the oourt story of the Smith — Wilson discordancies shatter the traditional cordialities and neighBided His Time borly-love (?) of cockiedom, but it also aimed a blow at the general belief that dog trials served as a sheepmen's "day-out," supplied with a strong and plentiful spirit of camaraderie • to strengthen the bonds of friendship. J Let us tell what it was that brought these two squires of the sheep-pen to take up the warpath of litigation. Well, Percy Smith and Richard Wilson faced each other and Judge MacGregor oVer a little matter of £500. First, as told by Smith, who was introduced and assisted by Lawyer Neill, it was said that the root of their present differences could really be traced back to the erection of a boundary fence about fifteen or sixteen year 3 ago, two years after plaintiff had acquired the run. Just what, at intervals, happened to the fence, or whatever the fence was-responsible for during the ensuing years was by the way. The main point m Smith's story — and h v e made the rails of the witnessbox a convenient substitute for his homestead slip-rails m its telling — was that m March last Wilson was supposed to have insinuated to his (Smith's) son that some couple of dozen head of Wanaka station sheep had been shorn' m Smith's shed. Smith resented any such suggestion that the Wanaka baa-baas had shed their overcoats into his bales, but ne bided his time. . Then came the great event, the Pembroke dog trials, with its chance for Smith to meet his seemingly ill-favor-ed neighbor. Tf we' remember rightly, the proiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM

g (From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Dunedin Representative.) jj § FRIDAY being Cookies' Day. m town according to custom, § 1 there was nothing apparently unusual about Percy jj | Frederick Smith, sheep-farmer, of Oardrona district, and his | 1 neighbor, Richard Wilson,, manager of Wanaka station, being j | seen m Dunedin one recent Friday morning. 1

gTamme was teeming with attractive events,. but Smith, it would appear, lost interest m the "long heads" and whatnots when his son introduced him to their next-door grazier. But they didn't shake hands! . which lapse of social etiquette, ' Lawyer Callan (for defendant) -later gathered m cross-examination, was.due to a certain sans ceremonie practised m the country. ■ , • "Though it might be usual m town, we are not so particular m the country," stated Smith. So, m his first meeting with Wilson, Smith glossed over all superfluous j formalities, and got straight down to business. Would Wilson repeat what he had said to Smith junr. regarding the wrongful shearing of the Wanaka woollies? Wilson would not; m fact, he turned the subject about with a discreet: "I didn't mean you people." r Smith then invited Wilson to discuss the history of the boundary fence, which apparently placid effort at conversation, according to Smith, touched the other's pug-ular nerve, and threw him into the cbnvulsions of a "threatening attitude." Simultaneously, there came into

. Wilson's mind and mouth the idea that Smith was a "liar." Percy retaliated with interest, calling his neighbor a "big fat liar." At this stage of their new and somewhat riotous acquaintance, plaintiff was cutting some, tobacco and Wilson, evidently misinterpreting the other's actions, demanded immediate disarmament as he refused to fight a man who had a knife m hik hand. Smith's response to this was: "If you want a fight, come round the back." Then followed a regular bout »af oral .in -fighting. Wiison, so Smith related, said he would not ' fight witness because he (witness) had a weak heart. Asked by the judge if he were so inflicted, Smith replied: "I've been m a bad state of health, but nothing to prevent me having a fight with a man like Wilson!" Back to his account of the scene at the (log trials, Smith could remember that Wilson had threatened to, take him by the scruff of the neck and hand him over to the police. Plaintiff's challenge to this was evinced by his taking up an attitude which Hnade him a sitting-shot for any such drastic action. However,' there was no fight, verbal

combat surviving the prospects of bloodshed, and conversation was resumed by Smith announcing: "Is it fair to have twenty of cattle using my grass ?" One thing led to another, to use a good old farmyard phrase, and later, when plaintiff was sitting on a bench, he- heard Wilson ask another man named Jimmy Anderson: "What do you think of a neighbor who drives twenty head of cattle on to your property to eat your grass?" Jimmy, it seems, had very definite views upon such infringements, and told Wilson that he I would "put them m the pound." Overhearing their conversation, Smith sprang up from his seat and Wilson pointed to him, saying: "That man is a thief." • Therefore, Percy Smith reckoned neighbor Richard Wilson owed him the sum of £500 as a slight recompense for taking the alleged privilege of uttering slanderous statements. - Wilson's tale was somewhat different, and after his counsel had requested the bench to note a legal point which tended towards a nonsuit on the grounds of no defamation even though the plaintiff's story was accepted by the court, he took the witness-stand. The Judge's Doubt According to Wilson, Smith had been the aggressor from start to finish of their one and only encounter. Smith it was who firs-it called defendant a "liar." . . Smith it was who wanted to fight. . . Smith it was who had followed him around at the dog trials until witness was conI strained to remark: "Look here, Smith-, you've been following me about all the morning looking for trouble and trying to make me commit a breach of the peace. If there is any inure of it I will take you by the ear and you m charge." In fact, Wilson's version of the Httle scene on May 10 put aii entirely different complexion on the whole mutter, and he emphatically denied tiiat he li.'icl called plaintiff "a thief," or said "that man's a thief." Witnesses were called for both sides making quite a big echo of the Pembroke dog trials. His, honor, m summing up to finally give judgment for defendant, remniked that he had conMKlornblo doubt about accepting proof that the words "that man's a thief" were used. It was his unpleasant duty of discharging an opinion of what it appear-, ed to him WUsbn had really meant 'n his reference to stray cattle being on his property. The words imputed no greater offence than civil trespass, Cor which civil remedy would have .beon appropriate. Smith, it .seemed to his honor, had done his best to force . v quarrel. So the two Cardrona wardens of the wool-press loft the court, to return to their respective flocks.