A'SETTLERS’ QUARREL.

Gisborne Times, 17 October 1908, Page 6

A'SETTLERS’ QUARREL.

CHAItGH ‘OF ASiSAULT

At . the M igistrate’s Court yesterday morning, before Mr. TV. A. Barton, S.M., Daviicl Douglas appeared to. answer a' change of 'having, on October 10, assaulted due John O’Grady. - Mr.., Jt£. Bright .appeared for the informant, ami' defendant was represented by Mr. T. Alston Coleman. Air. Bright outlined the circumstances of the alleged assault, and called ... John O’Grady, the informant, who stated that on October 10 lie left for his home on AYhataupofeo about o p.ni. While driving along with his wife and child an the trap, lie passed defendant, who was on horseback. Defendant cantered after (witness’ trap and on reaching it struck the horse over the 'head, causing it to swerve badly and nearly overturn the tra.p. When witness got command of the horse again lie .go)t out of the trap and walked along to where defendant was, aching him what he struck the ‘horse for._ Defendant .thereupon struck witness three times', knocking him down, exclaiming that he would do the same to any of witness’ family. ' To Mr. Coleman : He had no drink .it all while in town'oil the day of the assault. He was quite positive that defendant’s horse was at a standstill when he .was approaching. After -beintr struck hy defendant, witness used a few words of had language, but not before. Both before and after being knocked down witness flourished Slits when in defendant’s face, and after getting up, ho (witness) kicked defendant on the slim. He could not remember if he (witness) • liad been convioted of assault in 1900, but he had -been convicted of insulting and obscene language several times. „ . . Mary O’Grady, wife of the lnformaait, gave similar evidence as to. the striking of the informant’s mare and, later, of the striking of informant himself by the defendant. Air Coleman having briefly, stated the case for his client, claimed .that the assault was really commenced by informant, and that defendant, while admitting that he knocked informant clown. twicOj did so in gcif-clGicrico, and on account of insulting language used bv informant. David Douglas, defendant, said that, on the afternoon in question ,lie was riding home from town when a trap driven fast by informant overtook ‘him, coming within IS inches of his leg, which he lifted to avoid being struck. (His mare then got out of hand and galloped on, and when passing the informant’s ca*'t again informant tried to • jam him, and he (witness) struck tho mare in the trap over the winkers with a light switch ’lie was carrying. Informant started off after witness, oil--1 iii rr outin m o sib i risulti Mg terms 3 and on coming up with him they had a few words, and informant tried to strike him with a whip and,to force it down his throat. He did strike informant, but was not the aggressor. His Worship considered it clearly proved that defendant had assaulted the informant. There migjlit possibly have been tsome provocation, but not , sufficient in his opinion to -justify the assault. He was ‘aware- that informant was a quarrelsome man, but iiv this case lie thought defeiMlant-was to blame. A fimyef-dST, with £1 12s -.eostfT waif'imposed. *