STONES AND POTATOES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16737, 19 May 1922, Page 8

STONES AND POTATOES.

NEIGHBOURS AT VARIANOE, MAGISTRATE DISMISSES CASE. Kerosene tins, hurtling stones and potatoes, the distracting whirr of a handsaw and some uncomplimentary epithets entered into an argument among neighbours that was ventilated at the Magistrate’s Court this morning. Mr WvvCTn Wilson, S.M-, was on the bench. Frederick Risbv Smith (Mr Tt Twyneham) applied for sureties of the peace against Francis Joseph Cotter and his -wife. Florence Mary Cotter (Mr O. S. Thomas). The complaint was founded on events that took place on May 8. Mr Twyneham said that defendant and complainant were neighbours. Defendant's property abutted on tho hack of complainant's. Some time ago an action was brought in the Supreme Court by defendants in this case for an injunction prohibiting their neighbour from using some machinery with which he used to make small wooden articles, such as coat-hangers. This machinery, it had been alleged, was a source of annoyance, and the Court adjourned the case to allow Smith to make certain alterations to abate the nuisance. Complainant in this case had been subject for some time to provoicing behaviour. The trouble ha i become so bad that complainant at times was really airaid to work in his workshop. _ . , . Frederick Risby Smith, residing >t 329, Cambridge Terrace, gave evidence on the lines of counsel’s address. Three or four times a week Mrs Cotter came to the back fence and “ belted away ' with some stick or other. As a result witness had to put up a new fence, eight feet high. The trouble had been brewing for eighteen months. (Sceptical laughter came from the back of the Court at the mention of the new fence.) Witness said that Mrs Cotter was of an “awfully excitable” nature. One dav Mr Cotter came to the fence an! called hiiK “ * dirty damn mongrel ’ and a bounder, and ho said he hoped the saw would cut his head and both his legs off! Cross-examined by Mr Thomas, who mentioned the Supreme Court action n w hich the parties were engaged, witness admitted that he had had to abate the noise from his workshops.

Constable F. J. Irwin said he had seen Cotter in consequence of a complaint. Mrs Cotter admitted throwing stones, but witness did not know whether they were thrown on to the roof. William Arthur Turner said that he was visiting Mr Smith’s place on May S Inst. He heard a banging on the roof, and witness thought it was caused ry stones. The wife of complainant substantiated her husband’s evidence. This was the case for the complainant. Mr Thomas said that the case in the Supreme Court had come to such a state that Mr Justice Herdman had himself gone to see wherein the trouble lay. As far as Mrs Cotter was concerned there were signs that if The matter went much further she would have a breakdown. Francis Joseph Cotter, the defendant, admitted that he bad banged on tho fence for the sole reason to tell Mr Smith to stop the noise he was creating. Witness had on one occasion, thrown a stone, but he had thrown non© since. To Mr Twyneham: Witness had endeavoured to attract Smith’s attention by banging a kerosene tin against a box. “ I deny in toto, the remarks +•*•©*. J v avo thrown stones, ** said witness. He had never used the term mongrel in his life, though he had styled Smith a bounder. Florence Mary Cotter admitted also that she had banged the fence and had on one occasion thrown a stone against the fence- She had thrown a “ spud,” but had been asked by a neighbour why she hadn’t thrown a brick ? To Mr Twyneham : Witness had to keep the doors ana windows barred to shut out the noise. It was fearful 1 She couldn’t possibly go outside ; the noise was .frightful. Mr Thomas said that on the evidence, Smith could not fear bodily harm from Cotter. He asked that no order be made. The Magistrate mentioned the unsatisfactory conflict of evidence. The feelings of the parties had run away with them. Smith had been anno.vir g his neighbours with his machinery and the Supreme Court had ordered hiirr to abate it. The Magistrate said that he was certain the nuisance had not been abated. That much was certain, while the rest was debatable. Sniitn bad larger/ Drought the trouble on bimself, and even if his neighbour? had thrown stones on his workshop roof there was no fear of physical irijurv to himself. The cases would ho dismissed.