BACKBLOCKS SQUABBLE

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 18 January 1935, Page 9

BACKBLOCKS SQUABBLE

HURLEYVILLE FARMERS AT LAW FRACAS ON A BRIDGE COMMENT BY MAGISTRATE. The ease in which Frank Greaves, a farmer of Hurleyi llle, charged Joseph Smitheram of the same occupation and district, with cruelty to a horse and asking llnu he be bound over to keep the peace was continued in the Pa tea Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., was on tlie bench, while Mr A. K. North appeared toi the plaintiff and Mr G. J. Bayley foi the defence. The ease arose as the result ot’ a dispute on a bridge as to which person had the right of way. The plaintiff' was driving pack horses and Smitheram was driving sheep in the opposite direction. It was alleged in the plaintiff’s case that abusive language had been used by Smitheram, who had hurled a stone at one of the pack horses and had threatened to do the same to Greaves.

The case, which occupied the time of the court for nearly four hours resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. Continuing the ease for the plaintiff in the afternoon, Ivy Margaret Sniitheram, a daughter-in-law oi defendant detailed what she saw on the bridge, her evidence being on similar lines to that of Smitheram. She stated that Greaves had apologised for her presence during the altercation, to which she had replied that she did not want to be dragged into their troubles, as they could fight their own battles. Cross-examined by Mr North, witness said that she had been about half an hour with Smitheram when Greaves appeared. As iar as sue was concerned, she had never had any trouble with Greaves, who had always acted as a gentleman She had heard rumours that gates had been removed from their hinges, and had also heard rumcurs that they had been removed by Greaves. She had heard Smitheiam “go off’’ when mustering, but she had never heard him use the language complained of. She had seen the horse alleged to have been struck, but had not looked for a mark.

Stanley Smitheram. farmer, of Hurlevville isaid that he had been asked by Greaves whether he had told his (witness'! father that he had taken oil a gate on a boundary fence. Greaves had stated further that he had not removed the gate. The magistrate interjected and refused the evidence as irrelevant, as the gate was not concerned in the case. iiii Continuing, witness said lliai ho had seen the horse which was alleged tc. have been injured, and there was no searWitness iold Mr North that tlie .scar of an injury received as long ago as December, would still remain. Greaves had caused witness inconvenience bv leaving gates open, as far back as 1926. “This is a case in which two charges arc taken together." said the mi ßs* s ' trace in delivering judgment. “the first is an information regarding cruelty to a horse, and the second an apphI cation for a surety to keep the peace, | and it is the duty of the Court to find out what happened on the morning of December 3.” Mrs Smitheram was not only an unwilling witness, said the magistrate, but she was also a negative wit ness as, although she knew that a row was going on, she did not know what was saiilTnor did she know what had taken place. Greaves and Rush, on the other hand had given very fair evidence and Rush had even gone to the assistance of Smitheram. He had no hesitation whatever in accepting the version given by Greaves and Rush. Greaves had shown great restraint and reluctance to cause trouble, and this was borne out by his decision to go back when asked to do so by tlie dej fend ant. There was an alleged breach of road etiquette, “but.” asked the 'magistrate, “does this allow a man !to go Oil like a lunatic and use filthy ! language and throw stones? Even assuming that there was a breach oi road etiquette, which I do not admit, the fact did not warrant an attack on a dumb beast with scones. The evidence that the horse had been struck with an open hand was palpably a lie. Smitheram is evidently a very violent tempered man and the sooner he is put under restraint oi some kind the .»<?«.- 1 ter particularly ns this road is the only access to the property and there mav he the possibility of a rccur-

011 fhe charge <>l cruelty to the horse defendant was convicted and lined £2 with £1 3s costs.