PAPERSPAST

S.M. COURT.

FRIDAY, NOVEMBERS.

(Before Messrs J. M. King and A.

Warm, Justices.)

ALLEGED THREATENING LANGUAGE.

D. A. Mathesonv, Arthur Morley.— Defendant was charged with using insulting language, and also using threatening language it was asked that he should find recognisances to keep the peace towards complainant. Mr Elliott was for complainant. Defendant said he had a solicitor, but he was not present owing to illness. His solicitor desired him to point out that .the summons was not in order, inasmuch as the language did not constitute the offence complained of.

The case proceeded,

Duncan Alexander Matheson testified as to insulting and threatening language being used. There had been strained relations for four years. Defendant never spoke to him except when he was looking for trouble. He was usually abusive. He (complainant) never voluntarily spoke to defendant. There was reason to apprehend that this conduct would continue. Defendant was excavating on a hillside within two chains of complainant's house, and ho would be able to talk at them from his house. A fence was one cause of dispute, but it was not the original one.

Defendant asked i£ lie had ever done complainant any injury.

Complainant : None ; except the use of this lauguage.

Defendant: Is it not a fact within the past two mouths I salved a boat of yours at some little risk ? Was that an unfriendly act ?

I do net know anything about that

Is the position, of my hoiiao close to yours likely to cause you any other trouble than that mentioned ? Not that I know of.

Ellen Matheson gave evidence that the offence complained of took place in front of the house. She detailed the conversation. Similar language had been used by defendant in her hearing on two occasions previously.

To defendant: She was inside the house at the window when the words were used. Tho window was slightly

open

Miss Matheson also gave evidence,

Defendant went into the box, and denied the evidence of complainant and hi,3 witnesses as to bad or insulting" language. A log placed across the creek which was on thoir boundary turned water against his land, causing attrition. He certainly had promised complainant trouble, because he proposed to consult a solicitor if tho logwere not removed. There had not been a quarrel, but he (defendant) had frequently had cause of complaint, in one instance about a bull at large, which was a danger.

To Mr Elliott—His house, when removed, would be about a chain from Matheson's.

The Court bound.-over Defendant in a bond of £5 to keep the peace, as asked for, for 12 months. He was required to pay costs totalling £1 Bs. RiDJNG GM THE FOOTPATH. Robert Spiers was charged with riding on the footpath, contrary to Town By-law IJ9. Mr Elliott appeared for the Town. Board. He did not ask for a fine. *

Defendaixt pleaded guilty. A conviction was recorded, and he was ordered to pay coats.

Click here to view this newspaper article

This text was automatically generated by a computer. It has not been manually reviewed or corrected and may include errors. You can view the article in its original format or read the entire page.

About the computer-generated text

Optical Character Recognition (OCR) is a process for automatically extracting text from scanned pages. OCR enables searching of large quantities of full-text data, but it is not 100% accurate. The level of accuracy depends on the print quality of the original newspaper and its condition at the time of microfilming. Newspapers with poor quality paper, small print, mixed fonts, multiple column layouts or damaged pages may have poor OCR accuracy.

The page where this item appears has an estimated OCR accuracy of 97.62%.