UNLAWFULLY TRESPASSING

North Otago Times, Volume CIV, Issue 13666, 7 September 1916, Page 1

UNLAWFULLY TRESPASSING

CASE IN MAGISTRATE'S COURT. DEFENDANT CONVICTED AND PINED. In the Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr J. B. Bartholomew,. S.M., Robert Cairns, Livingstone, proceeded against Alexander Meikle on the charge that, he did unlawfully trespess in the uVUing house of plaintiff and refused to leave after being warned to do so. Mr Ongley appeared for plaintiff and Mr Hjorring for defendant. Mr Ongley briefly outlined the case. Kobert Cairns, miner, Livingstone, Bfiid he Jived about 250 yards from the railway station. Defendant left the race and witness got his place. Subsequently another man's services were dispensed with and witness carried on the work of both men, He remembered the night of July Bth, when O'Brien came to his door about midnight when witness was in bed. Witness opened the door and O'Brien walked into the kitchen, When he turned round in the kitchen defendant was also present. Witness did liot notice anyone else when he opened the door. Witness was offered drink but refused, but subsequently assented upon insistence. An argument was then commenced with reference to talking behind each other's back. Witness was then asked to stop outside -and light. Witness agreed to, and when he got defendant to the door he pushed him outside and closed the door. Defendant forced the door. He had a rifle in his hand which he .placed against' witness' forehead, Witness knocked his hand away, hit him and retired to the back of the house where he obtained' a pot which lie faced defendant with. Witness told defendant to go or he would be hit, He refused, so witness hit him and he rushed outside, Defendant lingered outside his wife's, bedroom and uttered filthy language. Defendant said he would got witness out of his job on the, race at the cost of his life, If defendant did not kill witness, Prater would, O'Brien was in the house and defendant said if witness did not let O'Brien out he would fire through the window, Cross-examined by Mr Hjorring; Witness had worked for defendant. He was on the best of terms with defendant although Meikle endeavoured to blackguard him. Nothing had been done by witness to foster a feeling of bad friendship,' Witness would iiol have opened.! the door if lie had known defendant was there. Defendant had caused' trouble at his home twice befoie, and he knew that defendant was there that night for no good. Defendant told, witniisa that lie had deprived him of his job. o'linen was "quite friendly "will! witness. Defendant''advised witness to obtain the' position.oii-tlio..,i;ai:e. :...,.- . ~. To Mr OiifiJey: "Witiicas, hi-j wife, and O'Brien heard the report ot M rifle outside. When reproved, defendant denied that he had fired a rifle,

Adelaide E. Cairns, wife of plaintiff, remembered the 'occurrence on July Blh, O'Brien and defendant arrived lit the house at HvlO p.m. She heard tho knock and next thing she knew was that the two men were inside. Shortly after witness heard loud talking and a great deal of noise, such as though something had been shattered. Witney heard defendant ordered from the, house several times. Meikle wan then ' heard outside calling for O'Brien to be let out, but they would not open the front door, Meikle then went to witness' window and gave vent to filthy language, Her husband told defendant'to go away and nothing would be said. Witness heard defendant say that if he caught her husband at the race he would "do for him." Her husband was sober, Cross-examined by Mr Hjorring: The men were five or ten minutes in the house before the high words were uttered. Defendant was on friendly terms with her husband, Witness was astonished at the attitude adopted bv defendant. Tho affair lasted about'half an hour.

To Mr Ongley: The ehildreiMvere crying at the time of the quarrel. John Christian, miner, Livingstone, said that plaintiff came to his place on tho night of the quarrel and asked him to Minmunicate with the police. Plaintill was perfectly 'sober and witness questioned liim carefully as to the happening, ' '

Cross-examined by Mr ITjorring: Defendant had worked for « considerable time for witness and be had found him a decent man.

Mr Hjorrmg, j u his opening address submitted'that there was no wilful trespass. The first appearance was an unlawful appearance. Defendant went there as a friend and his visit to Cairns' house was not, with nnv intention of committing an offence and therefore them was no wilful trespass He submitted that the only warning defendant received was one warning because of remarks made by Cairns. Defendant did not refuse to leave wilhin a reasonable time. Mr lljorriug submitted that on the law the evidence was not .sufficient to bring about a conviction. There was not sufficient proven before Hit' court to bring defendant within the wftion. Air IfjoHiwj cited: Lauchlan v. ttiimiiess. 2,n*.Z. Law Recports, M.nn.l Rcgina v. Price/10 N.X. 1.,"w Reports, page 61. .The Magistrate said that Air lljorring had overlooked a certain point j Deftmlant had been put outside and "I'l iv-entered, thereby trespass!,,,, alter he li.vl been warned to leave. ° Alexander Meikle said he remembered 'he night of the fracas in July last Witness lived about seven miles' awav and came in to borrow a pea rillo from Atrlraieer, lie waited till a late hour aiid when he got the rille he was told' that it was all k pieces a«d not fit .for use. Witness owed Cairns f./-, and S. t0 llis ):01 ™ to pay it with U linen, who knocked al the door Uirus called out, asking O'Brien if he fad brought the meal he was supposed to wing. Cairns came lo the door without a light and invito both in in a cordial manner. Witness had Nine whiskv with tom. They were talking for about, r quarter of an hour when O'Brien and plaintiff had a drink. Then an ;,„-,„. meat stalled by plaiutilf saving |„ „V ness that wHiicsm had had '"'!.,.■; knife" into him for n long | jmo. Wiluor,-, turnfd to (jo, mid plaintiff r „ n |„ ;i | ihlft lh( , Kitelien, A') wilness to upeiimp Die door lm saw plaintiff cumin,.- al ' |,j ni with some instrument, Wiliicv, dumped Did ril'le and warded uri the j;n|] iorce of the blow, which sirriunnly in jured witness, cutting hi 3 head ' i( i U | damaging hio eye, WiinesI plaintiff down the and mslied jout and in his pain and heat of the

moment lie used bad language. Plaintiff was using language of a foul type. Witness eventually took O'Brien, who was an old man, to his tent, and then went home. The argument was between O'Brien and plaintiff, and witness was simply looking on. WitrYess ivas thoroughly friendly with plaintiff. Cross-examined by Mr Ongley: Witness did not tell friends 'how he met with the accident, He had told his relatives that he fell down on the ice. His parents were old and he did not wf.nt to bring worry on their heads. Witness was not ashamed of plaintiff. Witness heard Mrs Cairns scream once, I:ut he thought the children were laughing.

Daniel O'Brien said he lived at Livingstone and remembered the Sth of July. He knew defeudant'and plaintiff. He remembered going to-Prater's with defendant for a rifle. They then went In plaintiff's place. Witness knocked at the door and plaintiff opened the door. 'Witness went inside and defen-dant-followed presently. Witness said do plaintiff that he could not guess who I was outside, and defendant appeared in the doorway. Defendant had some whisky, which he offered tp plaintiff. Then an argument started and plaintiff ordered defendant out- of the house.

Cross-examined by Mr Ongley: When witness went into the' house defendant was at the corner of the house, Witness was in the kitchen before defendant came in. Witness did not have a quarrel with defendant. Witness had told the police that he heard a rifle shot. Joseph Prater, Livingstone, said lie remembered defondant' borrowing a pea rifle from.him on the Sth,July. That would be about 10.30 and plaintiff's house, was a quarter of a mile distant.

The .Magistrate, in summing up, said I hat O'Brien was obviously an honest witness. His evidence was the same as that of plaintiff, whilst that of defendant, was different. He was satisfied that plaintiff and O'Brien were telling the truth. On the material points as to what happened at the door and 'who were engaged in the argument the evidence of.O'Brien corroborated that of plaintiff and contradicted that of defendant. The evidence of Prater showed clearly that plaintiff was perfectly sober. An occurrence of that sort arising in an isolated district where no policeman was at hand was a grave offence, and called' for a severe penalty. A fine of £5 would be imposed, with costs (£3 2/-).