The Star. FRIDAY, AUGUST 11, 1876.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 2615, 11 August 1876, Page 2

The Star. FRIDAY, AUGUST 11, 1876.

Thisbe is a very prevalent idea amongst those of the public who drive in vehicles or ride on horses, that they possess the inalienable privilege of knocking down and passing over the bodies of such of Her Majesty's lieges as adopt the humbler method ot progression on foot. The idea is not confined to Christchurch by any means, but it is here carried into practice in as haughty and high-handed a manner as in any part of civilisation — a fact which any one may ascertain for himself, either by observation or experiment, The decision of the Bench in the case of Mr Arthur Story yesterday must have given a rude shock to the for lings of all who entertain the notion , alluded to. That decision is tantamount to a denial of the right, established from time immemorial, of any driver or equestrian to try, condemn and execute on the I spot any person, bo it man, woman or | child, halo or infirm, who does not {jet out of the way. For having ' simply asserted his prerogative as an equestrian, and casually kaocked over a small boy, Story was fined the sum of twenty shillings. It would clearly bo wrong to let such an invasion of the. liberty of horsemen pass wilhout remark. It must be observed first that the illused Arthur did not enforce the extreme penalty by depriving of Hfo tho boy, who had the desperate villainy to oppose his frail person to defendant's lordly career. He did not do this, whether on account of the merciful and humano disposition which lenda grace to his manhood, or because he recalled the fact that he had once been a boy himself, and sported gaily in the way of horsemen, who ht.d never killer! him, wo cannot say. But the fact remains, that Story S showed much clemency, and in the \ place of punishing the youthful miscreant with instant death, merely knocked him insensible, thus giving him a chance of repentance and amendment. Nay, according to his statement, even this mitigated penalty was inflicted contrary to his will, and was the result not of any hardness of heart on his part, but of the hardness of his horse's mouth. And yet, notwithstanding that Story only exercised the prescriptive right of horsemen, as set up by themselves, i that he did so in a lenient and forgiving manner^ and that the trilling pain

or injury inflicted must be attributed rather to his horse's demand for vengeance on an offender than to his—notwithstanding these things, he -was mulcted in the ruinous sum above mentioned. The Bench even went co far as to add to the bitterness of the Draconian decision by making remarks on Story's conduct. He was actually told that, knowing the hardness of his horse's mouth, he had no business to be riding smartly ; through a city, but should have compelled his noble beast into a walki As though cities were not created for the very purpose of affording the well-born, the wealthy, and the high-spirited an opportunity of showing tfyeir disdain of humbler or poorer folk, by bringing the latter into crowds for the purpose of being ridden or driven over, , knocked insensible, kicked, or otherwise damaged accord* ing to the whim of the moment.