FARMERS AT LAW

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 17 January 1935, Page 6

FARMERS AT LAW

Hurleyville Settlers Air Dispute in Patea Court

ARGUMENT ON A BRIDGE ONE BOUND TO KEEP PEACE An argument between, two Hurleyville farmers over the passage of sheep on a bridge on December 3 last was the subject of an action in the Patea Magistrate's Court, to-dav, when Frank Greaves charged a neighbour, Joseph Smitheram, with cruelly illtreating a horse and askc. further that he be bound over in sureties to keep the peace. Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., was on the bench, and Mr. A .K. North conducted the case for the plaintiff, while Mr €r. J. Bayley watched the interests of defendant.

Defendant, on the charge of cruelty to animals, was convicted, and fined £2, with costs £1 3s. On the second charge, he was compelled to enter into a cognisance of £25 and one surety of a like amount. He was allowed 14 days in which the find the surety, and also was ordered to pay solicitors’ fees and witness’s expenses, amounting to £4 2s. Leave was granted to appeal on the charge of a breach of the peace. In outlining the case, Mr. North said that the incident complained of had occurred in the back country, 16 miles from Patea, where conditions were more primitive than existed in tlie town. On the day in question, Greaves had boon driving some packhorses to a wool-shed, and on arrival at the bridge on an unformed road had met Smitheram driving sheep across the bridge. He waited until most of the sheep were over the bridge before proceeding. Smitheram had come up to him, when he started to cross the bridge with the horses and had used abusive language, then hurling a stone at one of the horses, inflicting a wound over one eye. Counsel submitted that Smitheram should be bound over to keep the peace. Frank Greaves, in evidence, said that the only access to the wool shed was through the unfenced road. On the day in question he was leading one pack horse and driving three others, each animal having a load of wool weighing about 200 lbs. On arrival at the gate by the bridge, witness saw Smitheram at the other side of the bridge with a mob of sheep, and he waited until most of the sheep were across the bridge before proceeding. He waited as long as possible until tne horses got restive and commenced kicking each other, and then moved on, there not being more than 20 or 3'o sheep on the bridge. “When Smitlicram saw what was happening he rushed on to the bridge using abusive language and gathering up stones, one of which he threw at a pack horse from a distance of about three yards. Defendant called out that he would do the same to witness unless he. got out of the road. The way Smitheram carried on at the bridge stamped him as a dangerous man, ho declared. Mrs Stanley Smitheram, daughter-in-law of defendant, who was present, asked witness not to drag her into any of “ Smitheram’s filthy court cases." Witness expressed regret that Mrs Smitheram should have been present when the language: was used, and stated that he would not call her as a witness.

In reply to Mr Bayley, plaintiff said that he Had held 800 sheep in the locality where the incident occurred. The bridge was not a dangerous one for the passage of stock. There were not 200 sheep in the race near the bridge when he approached, and they did not scatter in alt directions. There Avas no more than 30 sheep in the race and they did not require holding. To save trouble plaintiff had gone back after defendant had threatened to treat him in the same manner as he had treated the horse. , Mr Bayley: When Smitheram hit the horse with his open hand— Plaintiff: Look here, Mr Bayley, he did not use his open hand, he used a stone, and when later I referred the matter to Stanley Smitheram he said that he was not interested in anything the “old man” had done.

Questioned about a statement which it was alleged had been made by plaintiff, the plaintiff said that he had not accused Smitheram of stealing three of plaintiff’s sheep. To the magistrate plaintiff said that the Avound had been inflicted over one eye, but he was not uoav sure Avhich eve. The cut tvas about half an inch iong and had not bled very profuselyArthur Frisk Slush, an employee of plaintiff, gave corroborative evidence. As Avitness Avas the last person through the gate he had closed it behind him. Smitheram had rushed tOAvards Greaves “with his eyes popping out,” and talking all the time, using abusiA-e language. When defendant threAV the stone it was with ssufficient force as to almost bring the horse down to its knees. To Mr Bayley Avitness said that he did not hear Smitheram call to him to go back. The sheep did not scatter and were too tired to take any notice of the pack horse.

DEFENDANT’S VERSION. Mr. Bayly submitted that there Avas no cause to ans Aver, but the Magistrate disagreed. Counsel claimed that Greaves had gone on to the bridge among the sheep and defendant had ealled out to him to got back, but Grea\es did not u.oa'c, Avbereupon Smitheram because justly annoyed, and had struck the horse with his open hand. Joseph Smitheram -said that he had been on the, road since 5.30 in riie morning and had had a very hard job, being A’erv tired on arrival at the bridge. He detailed his actions in getting the sheep across the bridge, and the manner in Avhich Grea\-es had gone in among the sheep, scattering them in all directions. Greaves had left the gate open, and there were from 150 to 200 sheep o\’er the bridge in the

road race, Avhile the bridge was full of sheep. Plaintiff had done a thing that morning Avliieli Smitheram claimed he had never seen equalled in years. Defendant told Greaves that all he Avanted Avas ordinary road civility, and that no one but a “dirty cur” Avouid tiy to force a passage through oaa'o s and lambs as tightly packed as they Averc. Greaves jerked the rein of the packhorse and attempted to move forward and defendant had struck the horse aa ith his open hand. Greaves, thereupon, had said, “You Avill hear more of this. I will see North about you.” Defendant had replied that he did not care Avhat he did, all he av anted a< as for Greaves io get aAvay from among his sheep. Defendant said that he heard Greaves -say something about “Give-m.e back” and “three sheep,” but the sheep Avere making such a din that he could not be sure of Avhat he said. Cross-examined by Mr. North, defendant admitted that he had been before the court a feAv years ago on an application for sureties of the peace, but the case had boon legally settled. Ho admitted that he Avas a quick-tem-pered person, but “came down” just as quickly. On the morning in question, Smitheram had had a very difficult time, he said. He Avas admittedly very angry Avhen lie saAv AA-hat GreaA-es was doing. Greaves avo.s the only man avlio uses the road avlio Avouid do such a thing as he had done, and every year caused some trouble when packing his avool, chiefly AA’ith the gates. Greavms aauis in the habit of getting annoyed each year, oAving to the number of gates which had to be negotiated. Greaves had been in the habit of removing the gates.