Gumdigger and Buyer.

Thames Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 9617, 20 April 1900, Page 4

Gumdigger and Buyer.

iAt the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr, R. S. Bush, S.M.,the cqse of Wm." H. May, gumdigger, of Whangainata, v. Wm. Maitland and Oswald Ashton, gumbuyers, also of Whangainata, claim for damages for assault and removal of gum, was caked on. Mr Clendon appeared for informant, and Mr Harper for. defendants. The charge was that defendants without authority entered '•.informant'a house, assaulted him, and converted to their own use 100 lbs of first-class gum, worth £5; that informant had suffered pain through the assault, had not recovered possession of the gum, and claimed its value (£5), £15 general damages,and r£s special damages.

,„ Wm. H. May, informant, deposed that prior to March 26th he had been selling gum to> defendants, and defendants had been selling stores to him. On the Sunday before. March 26th witness went to Mr Maitland's to see why he had not been sending witness the paper that he had been in the habit of sending. Maitland replied that he had been told that witness would not give him any more gum, and therefore that he (Maitland) would not give witness any stores. Witness had not told anyone that he would not give Maitland any more gum. On March 26th Mr Ashton came to witness' house, whicl~ witness had built himself and lived in. Mr A'shton asked witness what he was going to do. Witness said ho, would pay him the amount owing(£3 4s 6d) in cash when he (witness) sold his gum. Ashton threatened to take it out of witness' hide if witness did not give him th© gum,and also threatened to take the gum. Later on Maitland and Ashton came to the dooi\ They threatened to throw witness in the creek. Maitland shaped up ;to' the: door showing fight.' Witness said: "You can't get any of that out of me." Ashton entered the whare, witness telling him he had no right there" and Ashton then began to lay hold of the gum (about 1001b. worth £5), which was in. a kit and two sugar bags. Ashton laid hold of-, the gum, and witness; caught?,'hold oi Ashton's arms. :,Ashton said'-if witness did not leave go he* would strike' witness on the nose. Maitland rushed in and assaulted witness, knocking him down once or twice, throwing him against the chimney. Ashton was taking the gum away when witness got up, and witness* told him he was taking the law into his 1 own hands. Ashton said they were going to extremes; he would have the gum whatever* it cost him. Witness wrote to Mr Ashton before bringing the action. Witness claimed the value of the gum, special damage® for injuries, and general damages; in all. £25. i Crossi-exa,mined by Mr Harper: Wrote to Ashton on the Saturday and took out the summons on the Monday. Ashton did not strike witness. Ashton weighed the gum.

) To Mr Clendon:. Ashton brought his own weights to weigh the gum. j Symon, a, ;Maori, deposed that when the defendant's Ashton and Maitland visited May's placel for the second .time on March ,26th, Ashton 4a he approached took his coat off. i^They, .(the M/qaris) r ,then knew there waalgoin'g to,-be. trouble,' and,went and stood fifteen paces off. Thede^ fendants spoke to May and seemed to be very angry, and witness heard something of the nature of a threat. May was in his whare. Defendants asked May to give them ;-the gum. May refused. Ashton went towards the whare toi take the: gum, and May prevented him. • Ashtdm came back and Maitland entered and May and Maitland then caught hold of each other. Maitland threw May on the bed. : Maitland partially threw May once, and threw him right down the Second.time.V While' May was on the ground Ashton fo'ok the* gum away. In the first, place,' when :Asfitoh went to^ remove'the, guni,'May' seized "him by the hand. - Ashton' said: -"I'll' hit you'jonthei nose!"/ Witness' considered' tha-jj' what May didrwas right in the ] defence 'of [ his property^ : i Cross-examined';:by i Mr 1 Harper -The #urn was twice weighed ' by: Ashton. May did riot see the-' first weighing! •Witness, 'did' not see' who Actually be 1 gari 1 tha 1 struggle. .''.''•"/ -; '■•'-/' '; Two bthei*''Maoris 1 gave evidence partially- corrbbßra'tive., ' '•>• -"

■, Fpr the' defentie-Mr }3arper called j Oswald'Ashtotf, who that {when witneW sAy:May toget a settlel rmerit, May refused '; to do' business fwith" witness, 1- and' would neither 'pay: for storesi nor sell ' his gum.' '-■Witness .did tell, May that; he would;- "take it out of his' hide," ;but J apologised jfor the remark immediately <■ after.' {Witness when he-went to May's whare, jthe, second time took off his coat■aritfc jthrew it across the-horse;'which ;>he' jalways did. Witness tried' t6>_rea^6ri ■^vith May,''and s'entered ' the-;wha're. ;arid wheii May made a;remairk -about, getting' out of • his' whare,-'witness;wetit; ;out. 1 '!'Mr 'Maitlaind cameJ up; arid May' jnia'de a blow at -Mr' Ma'itlarid, ■ who jtook him by-the leg'arid laid him on the floor. ' That -was' :all the fighting !that was done, and no one washurt. I Witness put his; hand on some gurii, 'and May said-he; should riot take I'it.' [Witness then took-another lot of gttm \ and rweighed with' the scales at '■ the | ioor, calling' a Maori -to witness * • it. I The weighing 'was r;'don&;! after 'the I'fighting was over, May'looking on.

! Cross-examined by !Mr' iClendqn: 'This was not his usual'way of'settling debts, as it .was not often, he had a man like. May to _ deal with. The gum was weighed; rigid; in front of May, at the door, and May's statement 'of the nuriiber ' !of pounds'was accepted. ■ ;, ', ' l His Worship asked whether witness and Maitland went with theintention of taking' the gum whether 1 May"' was' willing or not. ■ ■ ■ ' ■ -.> Witness: "No).' : . In answer to further questions by the Benoh witness, admitted that May had persisted in his refusal to let witness, have the gum. .. . 7 , . (Wm.' Maitland! deposed;' that.; he was standing inside the whare endeavoring' to; reason with "May,' when 1 May; made 1 a'rush at him." Witness closed with .May,-.took.,hold';of him by the leg, and: laid : him;; down.' It was cus-: toma-ry for witness to go-* into the whare when making a settlement, and he was never.ordered';put of it. Cross-examined by Mr Clendon : i May 'timX ->mt»«j 4 p$ vitaWi(%- (

i'ended himself. Witness, told May lie deserved a god ducking in the creek. Witness did not refusp to supply May with any more goods. Did not take May away from another gum-buyer named Strange. -Gave May a start wl:en.he was penniless, and lent him money when he was in Auckland at Christmas.

.Speaking of "settlements," witness said: "A man'runs up a bill. When we go for a settlement we have to pay hint his price, or lose the gum. The c'iggers get a good deal,the best of the deal with 1 the storekeepers. We're paying too much Tor our gum, that's a monte."' Mr Clendon asked whether witness made his profit on good&| supplied or on gum bought. Witness: <ron both and on a hard day's work." Mr Clendon: "Andl don't you get a good margin on your day's work/" Witness: "And do not you get n good margin, Mr Clendon?" Mr Clendon: ""What was your partner doing — 1" Witness:: i"I don't know, I am not my brother's keeper?" After'■ further cross-examination:. Witness: "Now, Mr Clendon', don't you try to make me a liar." Mr Clendon: "No, Mr Maitland, I know you would not tell an untruth."' Witness (referring to .his dealings with gumdiggers): "The doors generally open for me to come in; They generally ask me to have" a cup of tea.' ' Mr Clendon: "Why do you pay to bring the diggersl from Auckland if you are losing money on them?"

Witness: "No, I don't lose money over them. They're good men and they got broke up there and I paid their expenses and saw them home, and I would do so' again." Mr Clendon: "Your heart's too large." Another Maori gave evidence for the defence, and after Messrs Harper and Clendon had addressed the Court, '.-.;'

His Worship said lie could not see what occasion there was for a second visit to the whai-e of the two partners after the visit of one. s They seemed:;to have gone the second time to get the gum if possible. j;He pointed^ but the heavy liability ofdetendanta' action. There was a; case on l-ecord of a man trespassing .on another man's estate to get a day's shooting, for which the owner was awarded £500 damages against the trespasser; the trespasser -in that case did not do any more damage than had been done in the present case. A man's tent was his house. He would not enter into the moral question of whether informant wished to do his duty in settling up. The only course for defendant® was; to have left the* whare and obtain judgment and get the gum by distress warrant. They could not take the law into their own hands and remove the gum forcibly. Even if informant struck, first, he had a. right" to-protect his own property. The Magistrate referred to the mistake of giving j way to temper, and said that the same circumstances might lead to the death of someone. These occurrences should be prevented, especially in out-of-way districts.' He would not say that defendants had acted without,thinking that they had some /moral right on their side, but they were not legally right. He would give judgment for the return of the gum (in lieu thereof payment of ,£5). and for £5 damages', with costs against defendants,, who could take action if,they wished for 1 the settlement of their 1 account £3 4s 6d) against informant. Costs—service of summons £1. •court costa £2 Z% solicitor's fee £1 11s, witnesses' expenses £& 19s, total £9 13s.