The Sun.
London, England, 1865-01-14 00:00:00

An Affray in the hunting Field.

At the Brighton County Court, yesterday, before Mr. W.
Fulmer, the case of "Peters v. Macdonald" was heard.
Plaintiff is a farmer and dairyman, residing near Brighton,
in the parish of Preston, and defendant is an army captain,
residing at Preston-place, a villa residence, in another part
of the same parish. The case on the part of the plaintiff was
that on a day in the beginning of last November the South-
down foxhounds threw off at Patchem, and the meet being
unusually near Brighton a large number of people assem-
bled. The "field" was between 200 and 300. Plaintiff's
father had a piece of land 'near the Dyke-road sown w

wheat, and he and his father were out watching this when;
land and preventing persons from going over it. While the
were there, defendant, who was on horseback, came from
the high road into the field, and was shouted at by Peters,
sen., to go back. He did not do so, but said he should go over
the land if he pleased; and on Peters, sen., telling him he
shoulde not, he said he would ride over him. At this moment
took hold
jun., came up, and hearing the latter observation
of the defendant's rein. Defendant then hit him
with
hiso hunting whip across the shoulders, breaking -the
whip
and causing the plaintiff such pain that he could not
attend to his business for the day afterwards, and had to
get two bottles of lotion to rub into his back. For. this
assault the action was brought. Mr. Pearce
for the defence, characterised the conduct of the Peters,
(barrister),
father and son, as a "ruffianly and cowardly attack"" eo
the defendant, whom he put into the witness-box to give
his version of the matter. Defendant's account was that he
went into the field, and on hearing Peters shout it was
wheat he at once pulled his horse to a walk. Peters, how-
ever, came up in a very excited state, cursing and swearing
and saying he would " punch his (defendant's) - head."
Defendant waited to give the chance of doing so, and while
Peters was abusing him he felt his bridle reins touched. On
looking down he saw plaintiff had hold of the rein, and he
told him that the horse was a very restive one, and that
therefore he had better leave go. Plaintiff did not do so,
and then he struck him with the whip. He did not tellthe
elder Peters he would ride over him. He said he could do
I so, and so he could. He could have killed him, but he did
that which he did to prevent further mischief and harm.
The Peters did ask his name, but it was very extraordinary
if they did not know him, for he had lived at Preston ten
years. The jury,
ff mentioned
--damages 20s. It was not, of course, me
after a short deliberation, found fortho
plainti
during the hearin
of th
of Brighton, who
g
farmers round B • off their
lands, in
consequrteghton had warned the hunters
e cause, but just at this time the
" warning" was subscribe
of stable manure from a
ilheaed of a dispute with the Town Council
bye-law prohibiting the, re-
movalalso (as stated by him in dto by Peters, whose son had
athat town after 11 a.m. The
poultry
yard. ) shotTh a fox which had preyed
on his father's
courta
Brighton Council has
since repealed the bye-law, the farmers haasvfeorrawithdrawn the
prohibition, and now hunting goes on