A NEIGHBOURS' QUARREL.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLI, Issue 20, 26 January 1906, Page 2

A NEIGHBOURS' QUARREL.

" WHO THROW'D THOSE STORES V"

A BATTLE WITH KEROSENE

TINS.

A neighbours' quarrel occupied tho attention of Messrs 11. Firth nnd T. A. Turnbull, Justices, at the Magistrate's Court this morning. Hannah Dane sought to have Henry Simmonds bound over to keep the peace. The plailntiil alleged that the defendant had assaulted her by striking her with a kerosene tin, and had also used bad language— too bad lb be repeated in Court— to her. The trouble arose *.>lt 9? alleged stone-throwing by tho plaintiff's children at defendant's house. Defendant went outside and asked Mrs Dane '•* Who throw'd those stones ?" Mrs- Dane replied, "Your children." Simmonds said, "No ;it was your children." After an exchange of complimants between the parties, Mrs Dane turned a hoso on Simmonds. At Jhe same time she "clouted" him with a Wfiddy. With the intention to retaliate,'' Simmonds got hold of a kerosene tin, but as his a'dvdrsary kept "bobbing," he could not "land" her with thd tin, so he threw it at the plai|ntiff, injuring her shoulder. Then tho kerossno tin was passed backward and forsPq.rcl n- few times, leaving marks on oacfi (jcposipn, "He said he would cut my head opon with a clothes prop," tho plaintiff told tho Court. " But he didn't do it?" asked the Bench. "No." The Bunch asked the defendant i(f ho had any witnesses to call, and on him replying " Yes, my missis," the Rrfflntifl objected. She had not called a;jy Witnesses, find therefore tho . defendant had no right to call any." I object to his mls&is tteing called.'" exclaimed the plaintiff in an emphatic voice. However, the Bench allowed the "missis " to give evidence, which was on the Jlnes of that given by the defendant. ,^ r typ paid she had been annoyed by stones helpg by . the plaintiff's chjldpeij evei; _)ince Christmas Dny, The defendant had a paper augaiMiag hftl.'flUert' with stones (presumably collected in her house and yard), but the plaintiff strongly protested aigainst these being produced in evidenoa— "Don't take them out ; we don't wa^ ififjili iv this case." The Bench SfiTeed,' Pur.qg v. c hoa-pjjjg pf the case tho proceedings got extremely breezy," each party .oxprej.f.ihg-^in polite terms, of course — the opinion that the other was a most undesirable neighbour. At one stage {■ftS plaintiff became vyjry \7candid, and gavjj the ch>fpndanjt plainly to understand that if lib wag not Umind over to, ko e p tho poace »nd he "started aga^ii," sho would "give him the the biggest hiding ho had over had!" The Bench dismissed the case—and hoped tho parties J-yflWl 1 ! he better neighbours in (|}t_JH.,