BROTHERLY LOVE.

Manawatu Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 7924, 18 February 1904, Page 2

BROTHERLY LOVE.

Law and Law at Law.

In the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr Thomson, S.M., the case of Joseph Law v. Edward Law, was heard. The parties are brothers, and live at Shannon.

Mr Cooper appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Innes for defendant.

Plaintiff's counsel stated that the parties were neighbours at Shannon. Plaintiff was manager of a mill, and was in the habit of going across defendant's paddock to get to his employment, thus effecting a considerable saving in the distance to accomplish. On December 10th the parties met in defendant's paddock. Some words ensued; defendant accusing plaintiff of scheming to get a road across his property for the millowner. The altercation ended in defendant striking plaintiff on the head, said Mr Cooper, causing him considerable pain. On January 11th, it was alleged, defendant again violently assaulted plaintiff, breaking three of his ribs and rendering him unable to work. He had had to pay a man to take his place, and also a youth to milk on his property. Plaintiff's actual out-of-pocket expenses amounted to £35 18s 6d and a claim was made for damages to the extent of about ifiCJO.

Cross-examined: plaintiff said there had been some trouble between them on account of fencing, defendant holding that his brother had not done his fair share. That was how the trouble originated. Plaintiff impounded defendant's cattle because they were trespassing, after the first assault,

Mr Innes; Did you do nothing when he struck you ? Did you take it all like a lamb?

Witness: "It's against my principles to hit back, and has been for ten years." He would swear he did not strike defandant in the faoe with a maul.

Defendant gave his version of the affair. On January 11 he said he met his brother on his property, and expressed surprise at plaintiffs " cheek." After they had " abused each other," plaintiff threatened legal proceedings against defendant in connection with some accounts, eto. "Oh that's where your money goes," said defendant. " If you'd spend your money on your wife's and children's backs, instead of putting it into the lawyers' pockets, it would be better for you." (Laughter). "My family's as well dressed as yours," said plaintiff. "No they're not." " You're a liar."

That was the dialogue, according to defendant, and then the trouble began. Dpfanclant denied' attacking plaintiff'ip' the manner alleged, -met' declared, that his brother struckhim, in the face with a maul. They ' clo.se(l together' and fell to tlie ground, defendant eventually finding himself <' or, top," Plaintiff then Wenfc to tl}o mill. A little later defendant heard his hrothe*- was dead, and went down to the mill. On arrival there, said defendant, " I found him sitting down with a plate of plum pudding in lu*s lap.—(Laughter.) Well, I said, you don't look much like a dead man." He admitted that plaintiff was seized with a bad turn shortly after, The Magistrate remarked that it was a pity a case of this kind could not have been settled out of court. Legal proceedings did not tend to improve matters between relatives. However, he supposed action had to be taken at times. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for _240, and costs £9 15s 6d. _ A criminal charge ' against defendant for assault *^as withdrawn' without -ore* ludice. ' *■ '"* • '