SUPREME COURT, HAMILTON

Waikato Times, Volume 96, Issue 15040, 13 September 1922, Page 5

SUPREME COURT, HAMILTON

BLEW UP A BRIDGE

INCIDENT AT KAITIEKE.

FARMER CHARGED WITH MISCHIEF

A well-built man of about 50, with a closely-clipped beard, named Henry Ludwig Hesebeck, was charged before His Honor Mr Justice Stringer and a common jury at Hamilton to-day, with causing mischief by wilfully damaging a bridge to the value of £125, the property of James T. Hunter, at Kaitieke, on July 3. Mr H. T. Gillies represented the Crown, and Mr C. L. MacDiarmid the prisoner. In stating the case for the Crown, Mr Gillies described the case as a most unusual one. Prisoner was the owner of a property adjoining Mr Hunter's at Kaitieke. An agreement was come between the parties ihat they should build a bridge between the two properties. Hesebeck did most of the work, and it was agreed that if pris- 1 oner made a 12ft decking there should be a readjustment of the properties, vesting the bridge in prisoner. / The ' parties fell out before the bridge was

completed, and the 12ft de.cking was never put in, while the bridge was never vested in prisoner. Both parties, however, lived amicably together until the beginning of this year and both used the bridge. Early this year, however, Hesebeck was convicted of cruelty to a cow, Hunter being a witness against him, This seemed to have aroused a good deal of animus in prisoner, who afterwards caused Hunter annoyance In several ways, while he barricaded the bridge and repioved the decking, whiCli Hunter had to replace. Hesebeck eventually st&uck bad times and the Crotvn fore- , closed on his property. - On the evening of July 3 the bridge, on the property was blown up. Within three miilutes of the explosion members of the Hunter family were on the scene, and they saw prisoner in the vicinity of the creek. If the jury found the prisoner had no legal justification or colour of right to blow up the bridge, then they must find him guilty. , Evidence for the Prosecution.

James Stephen Hunter, farmer, of Kaitieke, said" that about eight. years ago he made an agreement with Hesebeck and his partner to build a bridge across the creek, which was on witness' property, he (Hunter) undertaking to transfer a piece of land between the road and the bridge to Hesebeck. The bridge was nearly completed When Hesebeck and his partner quarrelled and the bridge was not completed with a 12ft decking as specified. Hesebeck's partner was his own brother and they were joint owners of the Hesebeck property. Witness was in return to get a permanent right of way over the strip of land on Hesebeck's property. As already stated, the bridge was not completed as specified and the property was not transferred, in February Hesebeck was prosecuted for cruelty to a cow, and witness and his wife were the chief witnesses against him. The next evening Witness found the bridge barricaded with wire* which he cut down and threw into the creek. Hesebeck next tore Up the deck of the bridge, which witness put down again. Prisoner also tore the roof from one of witness's sheds and caused him other annoyance. Witness appealed to the police to prevent Hesebeck doing more damage, but they said this could only be done by witness swearing an information. Witness sought to have prisoner bound over to keep the peace, but withdrew the action in Court on Hesebeck promising to refrain from further molestation. On July 3 the

bridge was blown Up, arid the piles showed that they had been 'bored and sawn through. Answering Mr MacDiafmid, witness Bald that during ode stage of the unfriendliness between them, witness received a letter from Hesebeck warning him not to trespass on his property. Witness on one occasion cut the wires of the boundary fence in order to get a sledge through, as Hesebeck had nailed up the gate. Hilda Hunter, wife of last witness, said she had known prisoner for 18 years. There had been no difference between them until this year. On the evening of July 3 witness heard two explosions and ran down towards the bridge and saw that it had been blown up. She also noticed Hesebeck moving away and called odt, "I suppose you 'have blown up our harness with it," referring to harness which they had missed a short time before; Prior to this the roof had been removed from one of their sheds, a brine tub had been upset, thd bridge had been blocked, the decking removed, and a gate nailed up. case for the Deferice.

For the defence Mr Mac Diarmid said ’ prisoner. did not deny that he destroyed the bridge. He maintained that he built the bridge, that it was his property, and that he had a right to destroy it. If it was proved that the act of destroying the bridge was. done with colour of right, then the Crown case must fail. Legally de-< fendant had no right to destroy ttie bridge, but it could not be said that he destroyed it without colour of right. '"'-Prisoner, in evidence, said he built the bridge entirely with his own money. The reason lie erected it was that Hunter promised to transfer to him about an acre of land which was no use-to Hunter but fitted in with his (prisoner’s) section. The bridge would then have been on prisoner’s property, but the section was never transferred. Hunter had no right to the bridge, and when he (Hesebeck) barricaded the bridge to prevent his cattle wandering, Hunter pulled down the barricades. Answering Mr Gillies, prisoner said he had several times asked Hunter to complete the transfer of the section, but he had not moved in the matter. Prisoner denied that he blew up the bridge to spite Hunter. -The reason he upset the brine tub was that it was his and he had written to liuntcr to return it and he had not done so. The roof of the buggy shed was also his, as he had lent Hunter the iron. Mr Gillies: You arc of German extraction, are you not? —Yes. Mr Mac Diarmid: Is that fair, your Honor? His Honor did not think Mr Gillies should try to incite prejudice against prisoner, who should be tried on his merits. Mr Gillies said he merely mentioned the matter, as Mr Mac Diarmid intended bringing evidence of the man’s character. Several witnesses who have known prisoner over a long period of years, described him as honest, bard-work-ing and straightforward. Verdict of Guilty.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, but Ilis Honor postponed sentence to allow prisoner to find security that the bridge will be rebuilt, or that lie will rebuild it himself, in which case accused will not be sent to prison.