A FLAGSTAFF PICNIC.

Evening Star, Issue 12819, 9 December 1907, Page 4

A FLAGSTAFF PICNIC.

. ALLEGED ASSAULT AND TRESPASS. (Before Nlr IT. Y. Widdowson, S3L, in the Magistrate’s Court this morning the adjourned action of Beniamin Rudd v. , Edward H. Fountain, claim £lO damages ' . 1 ) y trespass and assault, was heard. ; Mr W. C. Macgrcgor appeared for plaintiff, and Mr L. T. Barnard acted on behalf of tho defendant. Mr Macgrcgor said that on October 9 Rudd was walking over his property at , Flagstaff when he came upon a parly of picnickers who had lit a tiro near a nice . native tree. Rudd remonstrated with the , man who seemed in charge of the party, and received a. blow in the eye, which was • blackened. Tho assailant held Rudd down , until tho other members got through the , fence. Xludd had been confined to bed for , several days as a result of the injuries, and had to engage medical aid. Kudd fotind i n| d that liis assailant’s name was Foun- | tain, and he instituted these proceedings . against him. Benjamin Rudd gave evidence. He said • that ho had tilled ids property for twenty- ■ two years. He detailed the circumstances ; °f the assault, and said that Fountain blackened his (Rudd’s) eye, dumped him on a heap of stones, and hurt his arm. Ho was frequently annoyed by trespassers, i and he denied having attacked Fountain. —To Mr Burnard ; The number of trespassers averaged 100 a week. In tho course of one vear He Hud counted 16,000 trespassers on his property. Ho denied that lie hud ever “ rushed “ a trespasser before giving warning, The tITS--1 passers always “rushed” him. Once he did attack a party of picnickers with a . pitchfork, but it was to protect himself. He once fired at a man who insulted him. “ I told him to run, gentlemen, and he mo run. That’s on my own, gentlemen, and tho shot was fired at a range beyond danger.” Ho denied having cut another man’s head with a billhook. Regarding tho present case of trespassing, he absolutely denied having thrown scalding tea on the defendant. He never had thrown boiling tea over - girls or others. Whero could lie cret honing ten,? The people kept their tea. Such stories were raised jusi for mischief. Henry Hutchins, plaintiff’s neighbor, gave evidence respecting the condition of the plaintiff on the dav the alleged assault took place. Plaintiff‘looked as if 170 had been knocked about, and had a lot of blood on him. Plaintiff always got excited when people trespassed, and it had become a craze with him. Under such circumstances plaintiff seemed to forgot himself altogether. Mr Burnard : It is difficult to get to , Flagstaff without trespassing on plaintiff’s property. Mr Burnard said that plaintiff was well known throughout Dunedin. He had been a source of terror for manv years to people who desired to visit Flagstaff. He had really become a menace to’the safety ■ of tho public. Counsel then detailed the CircomstancGS of the alleged assault The , pmty thought that they wore camped outside of liuddis property, arxl were trinto avoid meeting Rudd, Eclwp.rJ 14. !• ountnin deposed a.sto fT oing i on a picnic to Flagstaff on October 9. with his wife and family and friends. Thov formed a kind of shelter with a nm over a fence, near a cabbage tree. The “party were reading when they wore suddenly startled by a loud yell and the nppeaiof a man like a maniac, who cried • “ I’ll ] and you. ’ The man was Rudd, who held a billy of tea in his hand. Defendant thought that Timid would throw it, and he knocked Dm billy out of his hand with a book. Rudd rushed at defendant’s throat M itncss naturally defended himself, and hit Rudd in the eye. Rudd snapped at defendant’s face with his teeth bit his hands, spat in his face, tried to kick him on a dangerous place, and acted like a maniac-like a mad dog! After evidence had been given by Wm. Ait ken, Mrs Clicesoman, and Rupert Fountam. and_ argument by contending counsel heard. His Worship said that if appeared to him that there was no necess'tv for anyone who wished to go- to Flagstaff to PP i,* Hur!ris land. person had a right per so to go through another-man’s land. No doubt people made a common uso of other people’s land, but they were I subject to prosecution if they did. In this case, where tho land lav right in the track k> the top of Flagstaff,'it would be well if Rudd put notices at the lower end of his property as well as at the other end. The points to consider were; (1) The trespass, (2) the assault. With regard to the assault, from tho cross-examination of defendant and the witness Hutchins, it was quite clear that Rudd became very frantic, and behaved more or less like a maniac.’ His Worship was satisfied he had behaved in that way on ■ this occasion, and thus brought trouble on himself. The injury Rudd sustained from the assault was not as great us Rudd represented it to be. ■.There was no doubt that he was struck' ; and received a black eye, but ho was satis! ; tied that Fountain was justified in using ; reasonable force to repel Rudd’s threatened i attack. As to trespass, there was no doubt that Fountain’s party had trespassed, and they must have known they were trespassers on someone’s land. His Worship reviewed the items of damages claimed, and said he had no evidence that the broad leaf tree was damaged, as stated by tho plaintiff. He was also satisfied that the track through the fence had been made by other trespassers. On consideration of all the case, he would give judgment for plaintiff i ’}