FARMERS AT VARIANCE

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 283, 3 November 1925, Page 14

FARMERS AT VARIANCE

INCIDENT ENDS IN COURT. INFORMATION DISMISSED. On the information of Leonard 01 liver Strong, farmer of Kopane, Robert Glasgow, also of Kopane and of similar occupation, appeared before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday on a charge that, on October IC, at Kopane ho did assault tho informant by striking him forcibly on tho face and body with his closed fists. Defendant, who was represented by Mr Oram, pleaded not guilty. Mr Grant, who- appeared for informant, said that tho parties lived close to each other and had not been on speaking terms for somo time prior to tho alleged assault. Glasgow, on the day mentioned in tho information, had used very abusivo language 'and had struck him across the face, a general melee ensuing. Strong therein had been knocked to the ground. Evidence to this effect was given by informant, who said that Glasgow had struck him first. Cross-examined by Mr Oram, witness denied that ho had been" ready to hit Glasgow when the latter had hit him. After witness had been assaulted, there had been a good staml-up fight. Ernest Raymond Strong, brother of informant, deposed that he had witnessed the fight. Glasgow had struck the first blow. This closed informant's case, and Mr Oram, addressing the Bench, said that wlnvt had taken place was nothing more than a free fight in which both parties were equally to blame. Bail feeling hail existed between them for a long time, and this was more on the part of Strong than on that of defonda nt. Defendant, in evidence, said that informant had invited him to hit him, but he had not actually done this until Strong had raised his arm. In dismissing tho information, the Magistrate said that Strong had practically admitted that he had given provocation. “If a man docs not want to be hit he should not invite another man to hit him,” concluded His “Worship.

FARMING DISrUTE. ENDS IN FIGHT. Julian Keat, farmer, of Gillespie’s line, appeared before Mr Stout on a charge that, on October 24, he did assault George Frederick Dalefield. Defendant, who was represented by Mr ltutherfurd, pleaded not guilty. Mr Abraham, who appeared for informant, said that the parties were neighbouring farmers, and that there had been ill-feeling between them for some time, although there had never been an open dispute prior to the date in question. On October 24 informant had gone to defendant’s house to got a harrow which was owned by the two in partnership. Defendant had said that he wanted it that day for his own use and a dispute had arisen, ending in a light. Dalefield had a weak heart and was not able to properly defend himself. Informant, in evidence, f aid that defendant had struck him without provocation. For the defence, Mr liutherfurd said that the argument as to who was to have the harrow that day had developed into 'a scuffle wherein one side was as much to blame as the other. Defendant, on oath, said that informant was equally to blame for the occurrence as he was. Witness would not again willingly get into a dispute with informant. The Magistrate dismissed the information as trivial.