FARM DISPUTE

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21144, 20 June 1940, Page 5

FARM DISPUTE

NEIGHBOURS AT VARIANCE TROUBLE AIRED IN COURT BENCH AS PEACEMAKER (Special to Times) TE AWAMUTU, Monday Trouble over a farm drain at Pirongia led to the appearance of Frederick Beet in the Magistrate’s Court, Te Awamutu, on a charge of assaulting a neighbour farmer, William Brough, who laid an information against Beet and also asked for sureties of the peace. Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M., was on the Bench. Mr S. S. Preston appeared for Brough and Mr B. Malone for Beet. Mr Preston said that as a result of the failure of Beet to clear a drain Brough’s farm was affected. Brough decided to mention the matter to Beet, and on the morning of May 10 called on the defendant. There was some discussion about the drain, with the result that Beet lost his temper and assaulted Brough, breaking his jaw. Moreover, when defendant’s mother and wife endeavoured to intervene they were struck also. Brough had to receive medical attention and would have to undergo further treatment. Evidence was given by the informant on the lines of counsel’s address, and he added that since the assault he always carried a piece of lead pipe in his pocket when going for the mail, as he was afraid of Beet. Brough admitted to Mr Malone that there was a small amount of seepage from his pig yards to Beet’s farm. The police had been informed of the assault, but after investigation had advised that they would not take action. Heard 15 Chains Away Jeanette Brough, wife of the informant, said that she heard Mr Beet, jun., call out to her husband. To Mr Malone, she said that she was inside her own house about 15 chains away but heard the words mentioned. Medical evidence in the form of a certificate was admitted by consent. Called by Mr Malone, Jane Beet said that when she came on the scene Brough was picking up his hat and going away. She denied that her son had struck her. To the Court witness said that she had not discussed the case with her son. Story of Defendant The defendant said that Brough came to his farm and asked why he had not cleaned out the drain; as told to do by Brough. The latter was excited and waving his arms, about. He then told Brough that if he were going to be nasty about the drain, he would want a concrete shute from the drain to the river to prevent undue erosion. Brough was standing on the verandah and, witness thought, was in a threatening mood. He did not wait to be struck and pushed Brough off the verandah. A scuffle followed, during which he struck Brough. It did not last long and Brough took up his hat and went away. His mother and wife were not present during the scuffle, and he did not assault either of them. The next day the police called and he gave them a statement. Later the police advised that they did not intend to take action. To Mr Preston, Beet said that he was very much provoked. His mother was not present during the scuffle and he did not assault her. Brough did not tell him that his jaw was broken an he did not know till afterwards. He had not offered any apology or compensation. Matter Should Be Settled The magistrate said that defendant had aggravated the case by putting his mother in the box to give an untrue version to save her son. He had no doubt on the matter, and it was only because he did not want to cause any rankling and continuance of the trouble that he would not impose a term of imprisonment, and perhaps monetary penalty would have the samp effect. He suggested that informant should not ask for sureties, and it might be as well if the parties shook hands. Perhaps an adjournment would allow the parties to settle the civil side of the matter. A conviction would probably bar any civil remedy.

Counsel for defendant said that if the offence were proved a conviction should be entered. The defendant was prepared to pay the fine and finish with it.

The magistrate said he would convict and defer penalty till the next sitting of the Court so that settlement might be made.