RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.
Tuesday, August 31. (Before Mr. F. Guinness, R.M.) ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A HORSE. An information which had been laid against Robert Todd for alleged cruelty.to a horse, was adjourned until Tuesday next. A BATCH or ASSAULT CASES. The greater portion of the morning sitting of the Court was occupied,in hearing a number of assault cases and cross actions, in which Mr,* S. Boyle and Mr. Duncan Cameron were alternately plaintiff and defendant. Mr. Donald Cameron and James 0. Boyle occupied similar positions. Mr. S. Boyle conducted the cases on behalf of himself and son, while M.r. Purnell appeared as counsel for the Cameron’s in their varied characters of culprits and victims. As there was a number of informations laid, Mr. Purnell suggested that, for the sake of brevity, the whole should be heard together, but to this Mr. Boyle objected, desiring that each case should be heard separately - This course was adopted; and the first case Samuel Boyle v. I'uncan Cameron was proceeded with, hut subsequently, Mr. Boyle elected t<> adopt the suggestion of Mr. Purnell., Had this not been done, it is impossible to conjecture when the cases would have terminated. The following is a condensation of the evidence taken :
Samuel Boyle sworn, said—l am manager of the Chittenham Station. On Monday, the 23rd instant, my son and I were going over the river on horseback to see if our sheep were all right, when we saw a man with a dog driving sheep. We followed him up to Harts’ gate. When we git'thore Duncan Cameron was at the gate with a mpb of sheep. I refused to allow him to go through the gate, in consequence of his not having given us twenty-four hours’ notice as required by the Sheep Act. After objecting, I allowed him to go through. My son and I were moving out of the gate way to allow the sheep to come through, when Duncan Cameron caught hold of me by the neck, and struck me on the face and head. He struck at me again, when I warded the blows off and struck at defendant. I believe he would have killed me had I not protected myself. We then fell. By Mr. Purnell—Hart’s gate is at the end of our own run. There is a road along the boundary. Mr. Cameron was coming through Hart’s run, on the opposite side of the road. I was objecting to the sheep coming through the gate to get on the road. At this time nothing was said as to where the sheep were going. I assumed they were going to my run. The section opposite the gate belongs to Mr. Wright. Am not aware that Gould and Cameron have the right to graze sheep on that section. Our sheep run there, hut we have no lease of it. Do not know that Gould and Cameron have the right to run sheep on Anderson’s run, adjoining Mr. Wright’s. We consider we have a right to do so. We have had a dog tied up on the high road for some time past. There might have been 1,500 sheep in Mr. Cameron’s mob. The clog was chained it the side of the gate where the sheep were driven through. Mr. Cameron asked me to remove the dog. I objected to do so, upon which defendant attempted to remove the animal. Up to that time no blows were struck Did not rush at Cameron. Had a whip in my hand, but did not strike Cameron with it, nor with a stone.
"Regarding the second assault, plaintiff said—Subsequently I asked Cameron to show his authority for putting the sheep on the run. He objected to do so. We then attempted to drive the sheep to the pound. Duncan Cameron then threw atones at the sheep and at my horse. We left the sheep, and then defendant pulled me off my horse, and afterwards struck me with a stone, which he held in his hand. Begged of Cameron not to strike me. He persisted, and to protect myself, I struck him. After getting a blow or two from mo he left off striking me. By Mr. Purnell'-—The sheep were on Mr. Wright’s land at the time. John -Boyle, sworn, said—l was with my father at Mr. Hart’s gate on the 23rd inst., and saw defendant take my father by the coat collar and strike him several times in the face, saying, “ I’ll do for you now.” Defendant then knocked ray father down on the ground. By Mr. Purnell —I was lying on the ground, and Donald Cameron was on top of me.
By the Bench—We were stopping the sheep coming through. Afterwards we permitted them, and in going through Donald Cameron threw a tin of water over me.
By Mr. Parnell The sheep were coming on our run. There are roads through all sheep runs, and anyone wishing to take sheep through have to give twenty-four hours’ notice. By the Bench—Oannot say whether we •had any right to prevent the sheep coming through. By. Mr. Purnell—Would not be' surprised if the defendant was only going to take the sheep to a public highway. It was not through Mr. Cameron attempting to remove the dog that the scuffle occurred, but through Donald Cameron throwing a tin of dirty water over me. Did not give any provocation ; believe it was through sheer malice. Donald Cameron knocked me off my horse, and while he was striking me my father came to pull him off, when Duncan Cameron committed the assault on my father. • Regarding the second assault, witness said that his father asked him to go home and leave the sheep. Donald and Duncan Cameron then pulled his father off his horse, and struck him with stones. Had left the sheep, and were going home, when this assault occurred.
By Mr. Purnell—Will swear that Mr. Duncan Cameron pulled my father off his horse.
Alexander Boyle, sworn, said—l was present on the 13th inst., when my father seized the sheep to take them to the pound. Saw Cameron’s men throw stones at the horses and dog. Plaintiff then asked me and my brother to go home. Saw Duncan Cameron pull my father off his horse and strike him with a stick and a stone, and afterwards with his fist. By Mr. Purnell—l am sure Duncan Cameron had a stick in his hand. Have pot had any conversation with my father about th@ occurrence.
By the Bench—My father, brother, and myself have had conversations about the Way my father was treated. Por the defence, Mp. Purnell called
Duncan Cameron, who gave evidence as follows— Our firm has obtained permission from Messrs. Anderson and Wright to graze sheep on their sections. On the 23rd, we were driving about 1,800 sheep from Hart’s run. It was a matter of necessity that the sheep should be driven off on that day. On arriving at Hart’s gate, saw- Mr. Boyle and his eldest son on the public road. Saw Mr. Boyle, jun., first. They had a dog chained on the centre of Lyndhurst road. The dog was preventing the passage of the sheep. The two men were obstructing thp passage of the sheep when I asked them to remove, but they refused. Also asked that; the dog might be removed, but, they would not take it away, , They had other dogs, with them. After asking several times, called upon a shepherd named Douglas to hear witness to their refusal to allow us to pass. I told them if they would not remove the dog I would have to do it myself. Went to remove the dog, and unfastened it. Then saw that young Boyle and Donald Cameron had hold of one anothers’ coats. All at once complainant rushed over and caught hold of Donald Cameron by the throat. I caught hold of Boyle, and said—" Oh* no, Boyle, one at
a time is sufficient.” Samuel Boyle had a stick at the time. My object in catching hold of Boyle was to prevent a breach of the peace. He struck me then, and in order to protect myself I put him on the ground, but without any great force. While he was on the ground Boyle asked me not to hit him while he was down, when I told him I did not wish to hit him either while he was down or up. I then left him. Subsequently we got the sheep through the gate and counted them. Wo went to fetch our horses, Complainant said he was going to take the sheep to the pound. The sheep were then on Mr. Wright’s run and some of them on the read, and Boyle then set his dogs fiercely oh to the sheep, and they hunted the animals about terribly. We asked complainant to desist, but he refused. Our shepherd, Douglas, tried to drive the dogs off, and I took stones in my hand to scare away a black dog. I went towards Samuel Boyle. He had a whip and attempted to strike me with it. I caiight the whip in my left hand and tried to disarm him. Dragged the whip from his hand, but did not drag him off the.horse. What the lad has stated is a tissue of falsehoods. Did not have a stick in my hand at the time. Boyle had a stone in his hand and made a mark on my forehead. At the time I was going to strike him, but on his pleading with me not to do so, I desisted. On the second occasion, Mr. Boyle was very much excited, and like a man of unsound mind. The letter put in is permission from Anderson to graze sheep on his land. Mr. Wright’s permission was verbal.
By Mr. Boyle—There were more dogs than two. Heard you call opt not. to strike my sou, as he was suffering from low fever. Hover said to you, “ I’ve got you at last.’’ You asked me not to strike you. Never lifted a stone, only to scare a dog away. I rode forward to you to request you to desist maliciously injuring the sheep. Did not pull you off the horse. After the first scuffle, did not strike you. Re-examined by Mr. Purnell— Saw Douglas put J. C. Boyle down in the tussocks, and asked Douglas to desist, which do did. Donald Cameron, sworn, said—Remember the 23rd August. Was passing through Anderson’s land about 11 or 12 o’clock with some sheep. Saw Mr. Samuel Boyle. He asked me what I was galloping over his run for. I was on Anderson’s land at the time. I replied by asking what he was doing there. He said he would kick my h . I got off my horse in prepara-. tion for anything of that sort. An hour or two after, Mr. Cameron, a shepherd, and myself were driving sheep through a gate. Boyle and his two sons were there. We asked them to clear off the road, but Boyle said he had received no notice. He wanted twenty-four hours notice. We had no necessity to go near his run. When Mr. Cameron was attempting to remove a dog from the road, the son asked the father whether he should allow it, at the same time moving towards us with a stick in his hand. There was a tin of water standing near, and to protect myself I throw the water over J. C. Boyle. He then tried to run me down with the horse. Shortly afterwards John Boyle dismounted and tried to strike me with a stick. I dodged the stick, and quietly put him down. When he was quiet, I allowed him to rise, and he then got hold of a stone to strike me, and I put him down again. The second scuffle occurred a few chains off on the high road. Boyle then tried to get the sheep to the pound. We tried to stop the dogs. Most of the sheep were ewes, heavy in lamb. After the scuffle Samuel Boyle came up, with a stone in his fist, and to protect ourselves I struck him. He was very excited. After the affair was over, there was a large lump on Mr. Cameron’s forehead.
By Mr. Boyle—Did not hear you tell us to come and take the sheep through. Threw the water over your son, and the tin at the horse to keep it off. 5 An'accumulation of evidence of a like character followed, and after counsel had briefly addressed the Bench, his Worship dismissed all the cases with the exception of Duncan Cameron v. J. 0. Boyle, in which the defendant was fined 10s. and costs. KNOCK BEFORE YOU ENTER.'
Ct. , D. Branson v. Harold—Damages LIOO, for trespass to a dwelling house. Mr. Purnell for plaintiff; Mr. O’Reilly for the defence. Mr. Purnell, in opening the case, referred to the law of trespass, and quoted authorities to provetfhat it was not necessary to show that any pecuniary loss or damage had resulted from the trespass, but the fact ot the privacy of a man’s dwelling being entered, was sufficient to. recover substantial damages. Mr. Purnell explained that the action would not have taken this form had the New Zealapd. statute . made provision for a criminal proceeding. He > stated the circumstances out of which the trespass had arisen. The.'daughter of defendant was in Mr. Branson’s employ as nursegirl. She, along with her sister, had been illtreated by her father while at home, and on their going to service he had appropriated the wages of the girls. The one who was at Mr. Branson’s had recently kept a portion of her wages for the purpose of settling an account long outstanding, and which the defendant, although frequently applied to for payment,. had neglected to settle. Defendant had interviewed Mr. Branson subsequently, and demanded the wages of the girl, buc that gentleman knowing the character of the man, had refused to give him any money unless a written order was presented from the girl. Defendant then said the giH was to leave, and Mr. Branson, fearing .that he would go and annoy the girl at his house, warned defendant that if he went on his premises he would prosecute him. Defendant had gone on the premises, and frightened Mrs. Branson and the children, and,hence the action.
James Ireland, sworn, said he was at Mr. Branson’s house on Wednesday last. About noon, a van drove up, and defendant got down, and without knocking entered the house. Defendant had a whip under his arm. Mrs. Branson asked witness to see that defendant took nothing away. The latter asked for a box, and remained' in the house for about a quarter of an hour. Part of the time he was in 'conversation with his daughter. Defendant’s manner was most objectionable, and he alarmed both Mrs. Branson and the children. When the man- got out of the van, Mrs. Branson said, “ Oh, here’s Annie’s father come to take away her luggage.” Defendant went through the rooms. Witness was in the hall. .Defendant spoke in a loud voice, and apparently wished to take away his daughter’s luggage. Mrs. Brangpp aske4 defendant to go and see Mr. Branson, but hp declined, observing that Mr.. Branson was a very nasty map.
By Mr. O’Reilly—Defendant did not use his whip. Did not pay attention to the remarks made by defendant. Mrs. Branson told him that the girl had given a week’s notice, and she was not to go until the week expired.
Mr. Branson gave evidence -to the effect that the girl was in Mrs. Branson’s employ as nurse girl. On one occasion defendant had gone to his office and demanded the girl’s wages, but in consequence of knowing that defendant .was in the habit of retaining thp wffolp r| the girl’s wages whenever lie could obtain them, he (Mr. Branson) refused to give any money to defendant without a written order from the daughter.' Defendant then told witness he had better get a new nurse girl, as his daughter would leave on the Wednesday following. Told the man if he went to 1 my house, I should‘certainly prosecute him. J:J e said I might do so. Warned him not to go to my house or tamper with my servants. When I got home I told if she wished to leave she might do so, and could give us notice
at once, but the/ girl expressed a wish to remain. She"'was’ very.' urgent in her appeals to remain. > Knowing that the man was likely to visit vthe^,.house, I engaged constable Neill to watch the premises.
Annie Harrold .sworn,-'said —1 have been in Mr. Branson’s service for four months, and have no wish to leave. My father has had my wages, and kept them himself. I got 10s. a week. I think Mr. Branson has paid me my wages on three occasions, and my father has had the money. My father has not illtreatod me: Told some one that my father struck me the day before I went” to Mr. Brinson’s. He followed me with a whip once. Told Mrs. Branson on one occasion that I was afraid of rny father. When he came to- Mr. Branson’s house he asked for my box, and spoke in a loud voice. I was much alarmed. He had a whip in his hand. ■ By Mr. O’Reilly—My father often has a whip in his hand. Have complained; of a pain in ray side caused through nursing the baby, and asked Mrs. Branson to get a perambulator, but never asked to go > home. Have given the wages to my father of my own free will. My father told me to give the notice, but I never gave it. If I had given notice the week would have expired on the day he came to the house. My father was not excited when he came. Re-examined by Mr.. Purnell—With money I received on one occasion from Mr. Branson I paid a bill for L2 4s. My father told me it was the last money I should have. 5 > By the; ; Bench My. father 1 never knocked at . the door. Mrs, Branson seemed rather frightened. By Mr. Q’Roilly—My : £ather told me he would come for the box on Wednesday, but I sent word for him not to come. , He never received the message. Constable Neill sworn, said—From information received, from Mr. Branson, I went to Mr. Branson’s house,, and not seeing anything wrong came away again. On returning a short time afterwards, saw Harrold driving away in an express. Told the driver to pull up,’ and oh finding a box, which - had' been taken .froin Mr. Branson’s, remarked to. defendant,that if I had found him on the premises I would' have locked him up. He questioned my ability to do4hat. ..« ••• : - After the defendant had been sworn and made a statement in justification of his action, counsel addressed the Bench, and
His Worship gave judgment. On referring to “ Addison on - Torts,” it was stated that if, after warning, entry was forced, damages were recoverable. Defendant had done this, and when on the premises had been impertinent. His Worship held that no person could legally enter a dwelling without knocking, even if the door were open. It would be an improper thing for' the Court to allow defendant to escape without substantial damages being awarded to the plaintiff. Damages would be given for LlO and costs Lslss. ‘. UNPAID KATES. Wakahui Road Board v.' Claim 11s. 3d., unpaid rates. Judgment for amount and costs 7s. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Quill v. Bastiah. Judgment summons for L 5 Is. Order made fpr payment' and costs within seven days, or fourteen days imprisonment. ‘
Permanent link to this item
Ashburton Guardian, Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 147, 2 September 1880
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 147, 2 September 1880
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.