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.
Furner, 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 with
wheat, and he and his father were out watching this wheat
land and preventing persons from going over it. While 'aley
were there, defendant, who was on horseback, tame from
the
sen.,
toigh road into the field, and was shouted at by Peters,
go back. He did not do so, but said he should go over
the land
if ho pleased; and on Peters, sen., telling him he
should not, he said he would ride over him. At this moment
Peters, jun., came u
took hold of the defendant's daand hearing
the latter observation
nat's rein. Defendant then hit him
with his hunting whip across the shoulders, breaking the
whip and causing the sucha pain that he could not
attend to his business for the afterwards, and had to
get two bottles of lotion to rubamorh.ips
Pearce
For this
assault the action was brought.
(barrister),
for the defence, characterised the condactreoef the Peters,
father and son, as a " ruffianly and cowardly
attaek"ter on
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 Peter(' 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 tell the
elder Peters he would ride over him. He said he could do
\
8% and so he could. He could have Idlled him, but he did
that which
The peters did
if they did not
years- The jur .
plaintiff— he did to furthermischief and harm.
ask prevent
know him, for he had lived at Preston ten
dataa 5, after a short deliberation, found for the
during the hFs 20s. It was not, of course, mentioned
g of the
farmers roundsric,h,_ cause' but just at this time the
lands, in consecineLwonf had warned the hunters off their
of Brighton, who had adiaPuth with the Town Council
made a bye-law prohibiting the re-
moval of stable manure from
tothat town after 11 a.m. The
" warning" was subscribed Peters, whose son had
also (as stated by him in court) shot aßfox which had preyed
on his father's poultry yard. Brighton Council has
since repealed the bye-law, the farmers have withdrawn the
prohibition, and now hunting goes on as formerly.