MUTTON BIRDERS’ ROW

Southland Times, Issue 19295, 5 August 1921, Page 4

MUTTON BIRDERS’ ROW

CHARGE OF ASSAULT. During the greater part of yesterday the Magistrate’s Court was occupied in hearing a case arising out of the periodical visit! of the Maoris to the islands off the mainland in search of mutton-birds.

Arthur Wixon, a farmer at Tisbury, proceeded against Matthew Crore, a labourer at Bluff, claiming £lO damages on the ground that on April 15, 1921, the defendant assaulted and beat the plaintiff whereby he became dazed and suffered bodily and physical harm; the plaintiff being in consequence inconvenienced in attending to his work and also being compelled to pay 10/for medical attendance, which sum the plain tiff also claimed as special damages. Mr O’Beirne appeared fo the plaintiff and Mr Eustace Russell for the defendant. The scene of the trouble out of which ths action arose was Poutamu Island, one of the Ti-ti or mutton-bird islands. Ths island is worked by the natives, who elect a supervisor, the latter portioning out ths work. During the time they work nd mutton-birder may trespass on the allotted ground of his neighbours.

The case for the plaintiff was that while he was working on his allotment the defendant came to him and accused him of trespassing on the allotment of a neighbour. Plaintiff denied this and an argument arose. Plaintiff turned to call another muttonbirder to prove that he was not trespassing, and then defendant hit him a blow on the head. He was hit again and defended himself. A fight followed which stopped when the other mutton birder referred to came up. As a result of the injuries received plaintiff was so inconvenienced in his work that his average daily taking of birds, 230 to 270, fell off by about 50 birds. Since then he had suffered continuously from ' headaches, the result of the blow on the i head. The defence contended that the whole thing was trivial. It was also contended that the statement that the blow received on the forehead was given when plaintiff had turned and was off his guard was untrue; and that it was given in the fight which followed. At the beginning it was the impression of defendant and also of the supervisor, plaintiff’s father, that plaintiff was trespassing on the ground of “new chum” mutton birders, whom defendant was looking after. Defendant asked him to get off this ground and plaintiff refused. Defendant went to put him off and plaintiff was struck, but only on the body. Up to the time the two took their coats off to fight defendant did not hit him on the head or face. The defence also brought evidence to show that plaintiff had not been inconvenienced in his work and that six days later he had caught 290 birds in a day. After a considerable amount of evidence had been heard, the Magistrate said there seemed to be a certain amount of feeling in the matter and that a good deal had been made out of very little. Crore was technically beyond his rights when he tackled the plaintiff and he thought Cross was the iiggressor. With regard to the blow on the head, he thought this had been sustained in the after-fight. His Worship said he was satisfied that Wixon was entitled to nominal damages Judgment would be for plaintiff for £2, without costs.