RABBITERS IN COURT

Waikato Independent, Volume XXXVI, Issue 3420, 15 February 1936, Page 3

RABBITERS IN COURT

(Continued from Page 5).

The Bench decided that as there was no absolute proof of Ant*-* strong's intent, the second charge would be dismissed. Hugh Fraser, a rabbiter belonging; to Moss's party, said that with Amur strong he went to Matos' depot to see Snell and discuss the trouble over a\ trapping ground. It was contended that Snell had beaten them for the ground. An argument took place but he did not see any scuffling. The defendant, Robert Samuel Armstrong, a rabbiter, of Cambridge ; aged 21, said that three days prior ; ,to the Monday arrangements had been made to go and see a ground ! with Snell, but it was later found . that Snell had been to the ground I himself. This annoyed the defend-* ant who went down to Matos' depot to discuss the matter with Snell. An argument took place and Armstrong: admitted striking the first blow. i Mr Lewis said that under the circumstances he thought the matter could be treated lightly as blows had* been struck owing to provocation. The Bench contended that an, assault had been committed. The had come on to private property with .the intention of causing trouble. Vicasovich and Snelf had given sensible evidence. There ntajf have been provocation but there was no evidence to show deceitfulness on the part of Snell. The Bench convicted Armstrong and sentenced him to two months' imprisonment in Mt. Eden goal. A strong plea was made by Wr Lewis to have the sentence reduced, and he pointed out that Armstrong was a first offender.

After some consideration the Bench decided to reconsider the decision and Armstrong was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence within 12 months, if called upon. He was also ordered to take out a prohibition order. FURTHER ASSAULT CHARGE CASE DISMISSED A charge of assaulting Snell was also brought against Thomas Hugfr Moss, but after hearing the evidence the case was dismissed. Represented by Mr F. Kingsford, Moss pleaded not guilty. The police case was that Moss went to Matos' depot with two of his men and there assaulted Snell. Much of the evidence was similar to that heard in the charge against Armstrong. Jack Vicasovich said that when Moss, Fraser and Armstrong came la the depot in the morning Moss saidthat he had something against witness and would fight him later with the gloves on. When Armstrong struck Snell and they rolled on the ground, Moss wanted to separate them. Witness told him not to and he pulled them apart himself. Moss then caught hold of Snell and twisted his head. Witness contended that Moss was assisting Armstrong whenSnell was sitting on the latter. To Constable Maisey, Vicasovich stated that Moss had not come to the depot in a friendly spirit.

Matos said that 12 months ago Moss had been warned to keep away from the depot.

Charles Snell gave evidence that after the fight with Armstrong, Moss had grabbed him by the head and pushed him against the wall. * The attitude of Moss, Fraser and Armstrong had not been friendly where they came to the depot. Moss had urged Armstrong on to fight hirru There had been trouble over money between witness and Moss, but this had not been discussed until after the fight. To Mr Kingsford, witness stated that he was not banging Armstrong's head on the concrete when Moss interfered. Constable Maisey said that in an interview with the police Moss had stated that he went with his men t» Malos' depot to see fair play. For the Defence Mr Kingsford pointed out that there had been differences between, the two firms. There were different ways of looking at breaches of the peace according to the position of the parties,.concerned, and rabbiters appeared to have their own way of settling affairs. Armstrong had hit Snell and they were involved in a scuffle. Vicasovich had stopped the fight and when the two engaged 'again Moss assisted in dragging Snell off. Mr Kingsford considered the matter was trivial. All the parties were excited and Moss may have used a little more force than necessary. It was contended that had Armstrong been the conqueror there would have been a different view of the affair. Mr Kingsford asked that the Bench dismiss the case as trivial. The Bench stated that the intentions of Moss could not be definitely proved. Snell had stated that he had a firm hold on Armstrong when Moss took his head. Under the circumstances the case would be dismissed.