R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2576, 19 April 1887, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

■ BeforeS. toNSiraM£R,'R.M. ■■ E. Minhbgue v'.VJ. Hoffeins.T 1 - Assault. Mr Beari'appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Bunny for defendant. Mr W. Whitt, on behalf of .'defendant, who was. a German, acted as interpreter. ; All'the witnesses wore ordered out of Court.., E. Minhoguo, being sworn, deposed that he aoted as managor-for Mr Jas. Maoara on tho latter's farm on the Opsin. On the 14th April, .hearing a. pig squealing on the riyer-bod adjoining the farm, hurried down, aud saw. the defendant with his wife and son hunting the pig with three dogs. On remonstrating with them, .'the father and son knocked him down and struck him. They said they did it on account of him striking their dogs. When'he first arrived, they had the throe : dogs worrying the. -pig, which was'standing in the stream close to the' bank... The pig was trying, to get into Mr Maeara's property, but'they would not allow it,. At this time one of its ears was torn, and also one of its legs crippled, and back very'muoh bruised. Owing to the severe injuries the pig had received," it refused to take any food until Sunday. By Mr Bunny': The pig was on Mr Maeara's property when I first Baw' defendants ill-using it. It is several months shice ;Mr Maeara's pigs wandered on to Hoffiens. property. The latter has made complaints about tho pigs being on his property, but that, was towards the latter end of last year. I distinctly told defendant, the pig was the property of Mr Macara.f I neverjaw. dogs used for the purpose of driving pigs: until I.came to .New Zealand; When I.first saw!defendants hunting the pig," I. was hot".•excited noither did I have sticks nor stones in ..•my possession.. • I,don't remember challenging Hoffiens outto fight. I would have been"" a' lunatio to. have done so; seeing .thatiis wife and son, ; who wero with him, were armed with an axe handle arid stones ;>beßidos I had made up my" mind to''take'an action against him for assaulting me without any. proyocaiion. HoffeinS, ■after knocking me .do.wn,,Btruok me with a stick a'oross the head and face. I did not notice any other nigs'on deof pulling the dogs ofif.the pig J'threw a stone at them' whi<Sh ■Mghtaned them away,. Defendant's Bon r :helped him to. knock me down and' toro the front of-my. ■ shirt.:'A lad namod Cooper, employed . on the farm, also, .saw defendants worrying the jig. I can positively' •swear thai this"pig was never on defendant's property before." ; | saw Mrs Honlens'prflyontthepig fiou getting oU'td Mr Maeara's' property.' >....; Mr Beard; Defendant complained , tp me about .the. pigs -straying on ■ to his property, but that, was just before Christmas. I,weut to Dr -Beard and showed'him the bruises I had received.

To His Worship: The pig broke out of the stye whilst! was- absent. from home in Mastarioa. Defendant has a paddook of potatoes pii the opposite. Bide of the stream from Mr Maeara's farm. There is a fence dividing the two properties, but not pig proof. <Jqhn Cooper, a {ad, employed qii Mr Mapara's. farm, said that on the day m question he was out lookmg for some shoep. When down by the river ho saw Hoffien's three dogs ohasing.a pig, He wont down to try and take thorn off, when defendant throatonod to strike him. Ho told him the pig belonged to Mr Maoara';' and he said he was going to take it, down to Mas--terton. On one occasion the pig succeeded in getting on to the bank of Mr Maeara's property, but was driven back again on to tho river bed. Defendants son threatened witn.eß3 with an axe ha ndleifhe interfered; hesaw defendant strike Minhogue twice. By this time the pig had made its escape ou to MrMaoara'Bfarm.Hesavfdefendantget the, dog To'}) to tlje, pig.' Wljeiheffmit saw the pig it was bailed up in a cjois ner and standing in part of the stream, The pig was bruised in several places, By Mr Bunny i Plaintiff was not onraged when he first 'name clown to rescuo-the pig, noji dip; btWen aeouselj. flofflens struoli Mfohogui). with a stick, and before the latter; had timo to retaliate he was thrown down by the fathor and son. ■ Whilst this was going 0141 did not interfore, but, preferred to watch the fun. There is only one dog kept on Maeara's farm' and that is a slieop. dog. Whilst'.the. scufflo was going on Mrs HofQons had tw.o stones iu her hands. She threa-'-tetied once to throw.thein at plaintiff, :but did not do so. . '•'■■'■ ■■'.This closed" tho ovideneo' for -the plaintiff. "' . "' •' ; :,. .• Mj Busily■ contend- that .; jtKp; iyidflncp adduced was not Buffieiqnj I to convict dejenclant..'.' under the oirouriastaiices tlie'def(ijic]afitß only did what anyone else would have; done, by u'siug the dogs to assist them. :The-evidencel brought''forward by, 'plaintiff wjs not; inh'is opinipn,. strong Enough to/' bdpg • '■■g'coimctionf The assault .of a nature, as was of Qqip, wfcp'tl)ou|ht it'yiiifijßJi that h'e did not thfokil wbiw while |<j interfere; eider, ed' the prflsent' , nnnecessary, and would ask tHe'Gourftp, disftdssthe'case. -'" ' '''■"'■ • r' ;

'" fojf the; defepQe, Hans Hoffiens,%n gf defendant, was. first'QalJedV wip, stated that on tbe'rUlb April "he. saw ps pnce'diyidjji'i' Ijis Wim pr.q* pej/ty'froni'ili;';Maeari*s f: oß' |lie Qthe'f side of the river.'" He" tried, "with his father, to dvive the pigs to" the Vpoand, but one' of theju/broke-.:apy',; They tben'setihe dogs 'qn'^em 1 to dnVe/ tljer^ tb'§. piarotiff, tip. came, the'pigs with a; stick.. Ut. ■ time one dog had hold bf-hia plg,by the flair, and the others -were: barkiflgJ aronhoV Plaintiff came down- bed

with two stonos'.in his hands, and went in a threatening manner up to defendant, who watckdhiaopportunity and knocked plaintiff againstJhe bank."■;_....■ Witnesswent-up. andseparated them, when plaintiff'challenged defendant to fight. DidnoQee any.marks on plaintiff, noryet 'hear.himcomplain of having any.---The ■ pig -by this, time' • liad-ru'ii- o'riHd' Mr Maeara's ■property, "The^ig3 : -ha?etrespassed ■ '• ;pfaildoh'lf9r:tte' i^''Wor three ■ ••• r made b<?th. : to:Mrfifeeafa rad.plaintifl!. - Witness •wa&'<ross- , esafflined by Mr ■'■ ' / Beard and reexamined by Mr Bunny, but .nothing, more than the' description of ihej scuffle*.was.eHtftiil^|jfcr' Two • Maori .witnesses were callei;w|jj to the roaming -habits of the pigs, ansP '.' the defendant was-fined £2 and 86a costs. Further, informations against Hans and Wilhelmina Hoffiens were withdrawn. ■;;. Hop.u v Sohrdder.—Claim for rent £lB. The evidence' olicited tho feet that the ront had been paid to plaintiff 'b agent;. His Worship nonsuited the.Blairitiffwithoosts.jGS. Bfß. Hare vAndru.--Claira for 29 18s goods supplied. Defendant pleaded under ago as an excuse why he should not.pay, and eventually offered a ; horse in settlement of-the claim, His Worship adjbnriied the case with the consent of both parties to enable thera to come to a mutual/imderstahding.'