WAITARA NEWS

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 225, 21 March 1912, Page 8

WAITARA NEWS

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Before Mr. A. Crooke, S.M. CIVIL CASES. Judgment by default was given in tho cases of C. Emery v. E. T. Sampson, claim 15s and costs 17s; H. Adlam v. Walter Terrill, claim £1 13a 9d and costs 8s; C. Emery v. Waring Tothill, £2 lfis and costs 4s; Est. W. P. Snell v. W. Ropia, £6 7s Id and costs £ 1 10s 6d; same v. E. Totara, lis 9d and costs 16s; same v. Punga, £5 9s 4d and costs 28s 6d; C. Emery v. Samuel Bevan, £7 10s and costs 20s Od. Plaintiff also asked for possession of the house, defendant being ordered to quit within one week. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Langman v. W. Terrill, claim £8 9s 6d. Defendant had paid ( £l on account, and agreed to pay £1 per month, which was accepted and judgment entered accordingly. Dunbar v. C. S. Northcott, claim £4 Is (id. Defendant was ordered to pay the amount within one week, in default fourteen days' imprisonment. ASSAULT CASE. Eva Terrill (Mr. Hutchen) proceeded against Horatio Adlam (Mr. Quilliam) on a charge of assault. Defendant pleaded not guilty. It appears that both parj ties are beneficiaries in certain native land at Waihi, a portion of which the Public Trustee granted a right to plaintiff and her brother to use as a right of way gain access to the back portion of the' property, and plaintiff alleged that defendant wrongfully used such, to which she objected, the result being a fracas, out of which the present charge arose. Plaintiff deposed to being one of the owners of certain lands in Waihi, holding an occupation license. Defendant "occupied the section adjoining, which was divided by a road, of which plaintiff had the use. She, had some crop on the road. Defendant drove some cattle over the property, and when remonstrated with, he said he would do so again. He used very vile names in the row which then occurred. Defendant rode her down on horseback. He was driving cattle, which she endeavoured to prevent going along the right of way. Others soon came on the scene, each of them assisting to drive the cattle, and using bad language. Defendant, she alleged, pulled her off her feet by the hair, whilst he was on horseback, also kicking her on the arm. It seemed as if lie was trying to break her neck. To Mr. Quilliam —Her brother, Samuel Marsh, and herself were the only ones who had the use of the right-of-way. She had received a letter from the Public Trustee that her brother or anyone authorised by him had a right to use the right-of-way. It was not the right-of-i way that was now the trouble, it was the language and assault. She had deI termined to prevent defendant using the , right-of-way. Her husband had a stock whip and she had a small split supplejack. It was not a willow about four feet long. Did not strike Adlam, but hit the horse to prevent it riding her down. Her husband did not say anything during this time. Adlam did not ask her husband's permission to take the cows along the right-of-way, nor did he strike Adlafn with the stock-whip. L. George and her husband were struggling. She did not then hit George on the eye and draw blood, but did afterwards hit him on the back. Adlam did not ride up and grasp the stick when she struck George. She used no bad language. She told Adlam on the following morning that her brother Sam had instructed her not to allow him to use the right-of-way. Walter Terrill, husband of plaintiff, corroborated his wife's evidence. To Mr. Quilliam—He denied hitting defendant with the whip; neither he nor his wife were excited; did not say the previous day that -he would punch Adlam's head if he tried to go over the right-of-way. For the defence, 'Horatio Adlam stated that he was one of the beneficiaries of the land at Waihi, and that Samuel Marsh, with his sister (the plaintiff), had the right over the right-of-way, which Sam Marsh gave him permission to use. On the 20th February Walter Terrill told him, in very strong language, not to go •ver the right-of-way, calling him very opprobrious names. On the following day plaintiff and her husband endeavour- ! to stop him using the right-of-way, plaintiff having a big stick and her husband a stock-whip. Both assaulted him. With the assistance of L. George he tried to get the cows across, afterwards getting Messrs Marsh and Skelton to help him. Walter Terrill belaboured him with his whip, and George endeavoured to prevent this. Mrs. Terrill then started to strike George on the back, and he also received a blow on the eye, which bled freely. Witness did not ride over plaintiff, nor did foe hit her or drag her by the hair. To Mr. Hutchen—He did not break down any fences. There were no crops on the right-of-way. There was a crop r i lie adjoining section, but the cows <• :">t destroy it. Most of the scuffle place on the main road. 1 wis George, E. W. Marsh, and G. N. < Skelton corroborated defendant's evidence. ; Without calling further evidence, his Worship said lie was satisfied that complainant and her husband were the aggressors, and if an assault had taken place it was very trivial, and he would dismiss the case, with costs amounting to £2 15s against the complainant. A prohibition order was granted against Thomas Falconer, of Urenui, on the application of the police.