Untitled

Temuka Leader, Issue 2308, 21 January 1892, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

■ Tkmuka—Tuesday, Jan. 19th, 1892. | [Before C. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.] j ALLEGED ASSAULT AND OBSCENE LANGUAGE. I Thos. Palmer was charged by James i Russell Bruce with having assaulted him and with using obscene language in a public place. Mr Salmond appeared for Mr Bruce and Mr Hay for Mr Palmer. James Russell Bruce, sworn, deposed : I remember the 11th December. Was in the river beside Mr Palmer’s property between half-past 7 and 9 o’clock on that evening. Mr D. Findlay was with me, and Mr E. Chapman came down shortly afterwards. Mr Findlay and I wore in

the water, when Mr Palmer came up carrying a pick handle and ordered us out of the river. He said I was trespassing. I denied it, and he called me “ a liar.” I also said I did not wish to have a row; if I was trespassing and he could prove it I would apologise, and not go there again. He kept on calling me vile names, and I went on fishing. He walked round me with his horse, and asked me whether I saw the pick handle. I said he had not the pluck to use it.

He asked Mr Findlay to hold his horse, arid ne did so. Palmer got off his horse, took off his hat and coat, and rolled up his sleeves. I said I was not a fighting man, and he should not molest me. When I was bending down to untangle the hooks on my line he struck at me. I bobbed down, and he hit me on the cheek. It was not very hard, but would have been harder had I not dodged. After hitting me he ran. I went after him with the pick handle, and he went away screaming. He ran across the river and then threw stones at me, but did not hit me. He commenced walking

I along the river bank calling me names ; said I was Dr Hayes’ and Mr Aspinall’s flunkey, and that he would polish them off after finishing with me. I told him that after he had done with me ho would not need to meet them. [The witness here wrote the names that the j accused had called him and some i others, but Mr Hay objected to any words except those named in the information being written on the paper, and Mr Salmoud said he was not par-

ticular except with regard to those named]. We were both excited, and he said he would be willing to meet me at Temuka. He did not come. I came out on the Temuka side of the river after he struck me. When he went on to his own laud I did not follow him. Conduct like that described was repeated on Thursday night last when I was-alone, when he rode his horse up against me, and called me names. He has not r offered or

threatened me with violence on other occasions. I don’t know of my own knowledge that Mr Palmer has used violence to any other person. There is a public custom of fishing in these riverbeds without asking leave of anyone. To Mr Hay: I have known Mr Palmer two or three years. This is my first dispute with him. Before this I had asked him whether I could fish in the river on his land, and he said he was not going to allow anyone to do so. He said he had had a lot of lambs worried by dogs. Some time afterwards I went to fish there, but not on his side of the river. I have

no knowledge that the river has encroached so that it is now running on his land. I told him that if he could prove I was fishing on his land I would not go . there. Did not know before I went that he had any land on the Temuka side of the river. The first time I saw Mr Palmer on the riverbed (before the date of the information) he behaved in a manner anything but like that of a gentlemen. On the 11th he opened

the conversation by saying “You are here again.” He said I was trespassing, which I denied, and he called mo a liar. I told him before he molested me to go away home and not molest me. He did not use the pick handle to me, but I would have used it on him if I could have got at him after he struck me. To the Bench; I would not have hit him on the head. To Mr Hay : I did not follow him on to Ills laud. I told my solicitor the words he used to me at the time, and he said those mentioned in the information were sufficient. I used no bad language at the

time. I was quite cool until he struck me. I felt the blow for a week. Tt was on the cheek bone ; one or two noticed that I had been struck. Palmer threw stones, not sand. Could not see the size of the stones. He was safe when he got on to his land. The place where the row took place is at the ripples. On the next occasion when he used vile language to me was at the Oxford Bridge. The question between Mr Palmer and myself is whether I have the right tq fish there

or not. To the Bench: The river is pretty deep in some parts. I kept on the Temuka side. I never went out of the river on to his side. I did not know when I went there on the 11th that he objected to my fishing there. I knew he objected to my fishing just higher up, where there is a big sheet of 1 saw others fishing there. To Mr Hay : 1 had seen advertisement stating that all loafers and crawlers found fishing in water on Mr Palmer’s land

would be prosecuted. D. Findlay, farmer: Was present with Mr Bruce on the 11th December. Saw Mr Palmer come down, Heard him make use of a good deal of bad language. He accused Bruce of stealing the fish'. •-I held his horse and the pick handle. ’ He took off his coat and hat and went into the river, Ping® said )ip did not care to fight, as he was not well- Palmer struck at him on the face somewhere, but I did not see where. Palmer stood in

the river, and Bruce came out and got the nick handle, and Palmer then ran through the river and threw stones. Afterwards.,!. . took his hat and 9oat oyer to Palmer, and let go his horse. I was a looker op. Palmer was in the river when he used the bad language. Bruce was- nearly in the middle of the rlyer. Palmer and me had j a row another night, when I gave him a 1 dressing down. He called ipe “ a T .” - He has attacked ipo a lot of tiiues, but was always " plyil/' ( To Mr Hay ; Ho was civil enough, in J that ho did not Jay hands on mo. When £ I dressed him down he would have laid < lands on mo had 1 not taken care of myself. On the 11th Mr Bruce took the han die c iway from mo before I knew. Don’t s mow wJ'other bp- Bruce is afraid of Iffr a hlimer. Ovuhl uvt hear ail that whs said- '

Chapman came down the riverbed on hearing the altercation. I could not say whether Palmer struck Bruce or not. He struck at him. They were standing face to face at the time. The stones thrown were large ones. It is known among fishermen that Mr Palmer claimed the laud and the fish also. I told him if I had no right to fish there: ho could summons me. I went to the land office in Timaru, and from what I could see the land belonged to no one. Knew he kept some valuable sheep on his Lind sometimes. Did not fish there with a. dog last season.

To Mr Salmond : Could not be quite sure that Mr Bruce was standing up when struck at.

E. Chapman, tailor : On the 11th was fishing about 200 yards above Bruce and Findlay. Heard some high words and came down to see what was the matter. Saw Palmer and Bruce in the water. Palmer was moving to go out on the Temuka side of the river. Bruce took oft’ his things and got the pick handle. Palmer then ran to the other side of the river, and picked up stones and threw at Bruce. The stones went a foot or so over Bruce’s head, and fell into the water, C ould not say their size. Did not see Palmer strike Bruce. Heard Mr Palmer use bad language. Heard him, call Bruce various names. After he went over the river he wanted to fight Bruce. He abused me on another occasion, before Christmas. I was then higher up the river. On that occasion He used very bad language to me. It was all in connection with fishing. Fishermen habitually fish in these riverbeds. Mr Palmer has given notice that he will not allow fishing on his property. We have only had words, Have gone back after he told me not to fish. Told him to summons me. He never struck me. Palmer did not let Bruce get near enough to strike. Both were excited. Did not hear Bruce use any bad language. Mr Hay said the question in the two cases was simply whether the public had a right to fieh on certain property, and whether the language complained of was used in a public place. It was only after Mr Palmer had lost a good deal of pro-

1 party through the fishing that he took up 1 the stand that no one would be allowed 1 to fish on property that had been Crown granted to him. The affair took place on | Mr Palmer’s land, and it could not be 1 said that it was a public place. But even ’ had it taken place on the Crown riverbed he contended that was not a public place as defined by the Act. (Mr Hay quoted sections of the Act in support of his contention, and then J held that in cases where a question of title was raised the court of summary jurisdiction had no jurisdiction. He quoted a case in support of his contention.) T. Palmer, farmer, living near Temuka : The. dispute, between myself and the anglers arose through my having sheep destroyed through them. In October Mr Bruce asked me whether he could fish in , my waterhole, and I said “ Ho.” 1 met him there afterwards and he went away. On the 11th December 1 saw him fishing | there again. Produce certificate to section 23729. At the point where the , dispute took place there is a iimbn of three streams, which makes a ripple. I pointed that out to Messrs Boys and Dyson to survey. The result of that survey shows that that point is on my land, and also chains to the east of it. Was in possession of the land when the course of the river changed. The whole of the ground where the altercation

between myself, Bruce, Findlay, and Chapman occurred on the 11th was on ray own land. Was never above 7or 8 yards on the Temuka side of the river. That would be nearly two chains within my boundary. When I came up to Bruce I said “ You are trespassing here again.” He was abusive to me, and I said I "would have to shift him. He continued abusive, and said if it was not for one thing he would give me the biggest tnrashing I ever had. I did not know they .were there when I went there. I struck at

him to show him that he must go. Do not know whether I hit him. It would not have killed a mosquito. He was standing up when I struck at him, He ran out and got the pick handle, and I

wont out on my side. I tried to get a stone, but could no t, and got hold of some . 1 sand and threw it at him. Bid not front ■ to have my head split open. Afterwards told them to let the horse go, and Mr Findlay brought my clothes over. My horse went home. Have no recollection of the other matter mentioned by Mr Bruce taking place last Thursday night. To Mr Salmond ; Suppose I qajled him names, but 1 do not recollect all. Don’t remember calling ’him the words

mentioned in the Information. It is possible I did call him them. Struck at 4 hini, and I fancy I struck him in the face. Hit him just to make him keep his own place, because he was abusive. It was a method of getting him to leave my property, and for insulting me. Threw the sand at him to stop him coming after me. A pick handle is a dangerous weapon. Have had a row with Mr Findlay. He gave me a thrashing with his fishing rod. I might have called him something. Called Mr Chapman a tailor, fMr Salmond was proceeding to crossexamine as to another matter, but Mr Hay objected, and Hia Worship upheld it.]

Am a rather excitable man I believe, but not_ easily roused unless people turn aoraiucii Am not fund of fighting. The wfiyle trouble was because ‘Siiglera Have ho respodt fhr other'people’s’ p’erty./ ‘ W Jas. Boys, ]iocu&g4 surveyor, Timaru ; IfGoently went over Mr Palmer’s property, Mpde a survey of the locality where the ripples arc, at Mr Palmer’s request. Produce the plan 1 made of it. At that point the whole of the river is on Mr Palmer’s land. Mr Palmer’s boundary is two and a-half chains on the Temuka side Cf tllC ri7er ihere.

A. M. Clark : Know Mr palmer, ap4 Ipave known him fqr some ‘ years? Have always found Mr Palmer a civil, goo 4 neighbor. We have been rivals as regards stock, but hwo always been good friends. Mr Salnioud said he would drop the charge of using obscene language iiu u'-c public place, but he contended that the * question of title raised did not debar the Court from dealing with the charge of assault. - He submitted that under no circumstances could the throwing of stones be justified. It was not only exnWDl ajqlenco, ' b,i|t it ayas violguve, ' '

The Resident Magistrate said he considered the question of title was fatal, r being bona Jidc. If Mr Palmer had merely taken advantage of Mr Bruce being there to give him a thrashing to gratify his spite, he thought the Court would have had jurisdiction. He seemed, however, to have only acted as he did to prevent people going on his property. In any case the penalty would have been only nominal. Complainant did not seem to have gone there to invite a contest, but he appeared to have defied Palmer. Though v* the Words used were very bad, they seemed more abusive than obscene. Under the circumstances he would dismiss the information. Costs were not allowed. CIVIL CASKS.

Thos. McAteer v. J. Matthews—Clain £IG Cm -id for grassing. Mr Salmond for plaintiff and Mr White for defendant. J. Matthews v. Thos.'McAteer —Claim £24 4s lOd, for damage sustained througl loss of sheep. Mr White for plaintiff and Mr Salmond for defendant. The two cases were taken together, the evidence being very lengthy. It appeared that McAteer let the grazing of 127 acres of land to Matthews in July last at the rate of IJd per head per week for sheep. McAteer deposed that he agreed to put put the fence in repair to start with, while Matthews deposed that McAteer agreed to keep the fence in repair the whole time the sheep were in the paddock, and also look after them. He told McAteer that he should expect him to account for the 1 whole of the sheep put in, either dead or alive. Five hundred and thirty-eight sheep were put into the paddock, and after a fortnight the sheep began to get out, and ultimately only 473 sheep were

accounted for, and Matthews sued MeAteer for the value of the missing ones. McAteer said he gave Matthews permission to run two horses in the paddock free; others would bo charged for at the rate of Is per week per head. Matthews said he had permission to run as many horses in the paddock as he liked. John Fraser, a witness, deposed to McAteer’s fences being in bad order, and said it was the custom for the person who rented any grazing to attend to the sheep and see that the fences were in good order. He would not take the paddock himself because the fences were not in good order. IJd per sheep per week was a fair rate at the time. John Elliot corroborated Matthews’s evidence as to the horses, but not as regards the agreement to keep the fences in repair and look after the sheep. Robert Matthews also corroborated his brother’s evidence as regards the horses, and said he heard his brother tell McAteer he should look to him for all the sheep put on his land, eitheir dead or alive. In McAteer v. Matthews, His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for the grazing of 538 sheep for two weeks and the grazing of 265 for six weeks. He disallowed the claim for grazing the horses. In the other case His Worsirp gave judgment for defendant. ’ Mr Salmond was allowed costs in one case, and the question of witnesses’ costs was allowed to stand over. The Court then rose.