ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE

Patea Mail, Volume IV, Issue 320, 11 May 1878, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE

[We are at all times ready to give expression to every shade of opinion, but in no case do we hold ourselves responsible for the sentiments of our correspondents.]

QUOTING “ DARWIN.” (To the Editor of the Patea Mail.)

Sir, —I have always thought the R.M. Courts were given to us to adjudicate in equity. In the case recently heard before the Carlyle Court, Dixon versus Farr, for assault and battery, I, with many others, fail.to see it so. Public opinion, I opine, does not err much in such cases, and the plaintiff has its sympathy. Was the assault not proven ? And did not the unfortunate’s lights proclaim beyond cavil the battery V Was not the scene of contention and quarrel plaintiff’s as well as defendant’s home ? Surely nothing could be clearer, when the former is immediately sued for board and lodging. And ought not grey hairs to be protected there ? Were not laws devised firstly, and ever since, to help to shield the weak against the strong ? Hard is thy fate unlucky wight. Thou hast again been reminded by other oracles than thy newly made one, that Martyrdom of Alan has not yet ceased, nor this world its cruel lessons ; and Winwood Read will have much yet to answer for, if every perusal of ins erudite work should cost its demonstrative readers eleven guineas or more.—l am, &c., * WAYERLEY. o (To the Editor of the Patea Mail.) Sir, — I must either speak or bust. There is a maxim which says, “Of two evils choose the least.” I don’t like the busting business, so I choose to speak, or rather write, and will feel obliged if you will find space in your columns for my remarks. I gather from your report of. the case Dixon v Farr, which was heard in your R.M. Court, on the 7th instant, that the plaintiff was mulcted in the sum of two pounds. What for ?—because be had been brutally assaulted by defendant—as the pair of black peepers conclusively prove, and to which I see you allude in your paper. There arc many here, besides myself, who are well acquainted with both parties, and therefore felt considerable interest in the result ; and I may add, astonishment, at the decision of the R.M. It is generally supposed that one man assaulting another, commits a breach of

the peace, for which he is amenable to the law ; but the Justices in question have disabused our minds of this erroneous idea, by the decision in this . case. 1 am just writing this to warn yon that the first time I meet a man who is old cnonglt to be my father, and who arouses my anger by quoting Darwin, or in any other way, that I intend to polish him off ; and then, if he should be able to see well enough to find the 11.M. Court, I shall have the further gratification of getting him fined £2, or upwards, as I suppose the fine will’ be in proportion to the close administered. Look out old men and cripples ! —I am, &0., TOMMY. Wavcrlcy, clay 9, 1878. [The abovo case was heard before two Justices of the Peace, and not before Captain Wray, as our correspondents appear to infer— Ed. Mail.]'