[mining – trespass to land – assault – false imprisonment]

Graves v. Bonney

Graves v. Reeves

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land

Pedder C.J., 10 September 1840

Source: Hobart Town Courier, 11 September 1840[1]

Before His Honor the Chief Justice, and Messrs. Bell, Briggs, Brown, and Boyes, Esquires, Assessors. …

            This was an action containing three counts; the first, trespass on closes and mines; the second, abstracting coals from the same; the third, a personal assault; the pleas set up were, general issue for the first count; for the second, that the property in closes and mines were defendant’s; and for the third, that the trespass was on the part of the plaintiff, who had no right to the ground, and whose removal was in a gentle and proper manner, and without any violence whatever. The damages sought to be recovered were laid at £1000. It appeared that both parties resided near each other in the district of the Coal River, Richmond; that in the month of May last, Mr. Graves was desirous of renting a coal-mine from Mr. Bonney; accordingly, on the 27th of the month, an agreement was drawn up by Mr. Bonney, and in his own hand-writing, to the following effect:- that Mr. Graves was to pay 1s. per ton, and to quarry such coals as he might require to draw away for the period of ten years, for which payment was to be given every two months. It would appear by this agreement that Mr. Bonney was perfectly willing that this arrangement should be carried into effect, to commence in one month from the date; the spot where the coal vein lay, was the Lowlands, and adjacent to the Coal River. In accordance with this agreement, plaintiff, with a view of commencing operations, proceeded on the 25th June last to the coal-mines, accompanied by his clerk, Mr. Yates, and two servants, with a horse and cart. Upon their arrival, they found that Mr. Bonney was on the spot, who asked them what they wanted, and what they did on his premises; to which Mr. Graves replied, that he came thither in consequence of the agreement that existed between Mr. Bonney and himself relative to his working the coal-mines; this was about five hundred yards from Mr. Bonney’s house. No sooner had Mr. Graves said this, than Mr. Bonney commenced a violent personal assault, and called him an Impostor; he rushed upon him, seized him by the throat and threw him down a steep bank, near the Coal River; he then struck him several blows which forced him into the river. This statement was corroborated by Mr. Yates and the two assigned servants, and who had accompanied Mr. Graves with Mr. Yates for the purpose of working upon the coal mine.

James Clare, a miner in the employ of Mr. Bonney, deposed upon oath to the falsity of the statement made by the foregoing witnesses for Mr. Graves, and that the whole of what Mr. Bonney did, was simply ordering him off the premises, and in non-compliance gently removed him off the same; a push was the very extreme of the violence used on the occasion, and which did him no possible injury.

His Honor in summing up, which he did in a luminous manner, brought before the jury that portion of the evidence relative to the form in which the agreement was made up, and which was worded in rather a dubious manner; I, James Bonney, agree, and so on, without any signature further appearing at the foot; by which it would seem to show that Mr. Bonney had not come to a decision about the lease of the coal-mines in question; and under this impression, when he came into contact with Mr. Graves, had endeavoured to get him off the premises without his being able to commence actual operations.

The jury after retiring about ten minutes, returned a verdict in favour of the plaintiff for the third count, the personal assault. Damages, one farthing. The other two counts were given in favour of the defendant.

Graves v Reeves

This was an alleged trespass; the plaintiff sought to recover damages for a false imprisonment on the 25th July last. The circumstances are as follows:- plaintiff had performed certain work for defendant, for which he was to receive the sum of £25; a promissory note was drawn out by defendant in favour of plaintiff for that amount. It seemed both parties were at the house of a Mr. Preston, in Murray-street, from whence Mr. Reeves alleged that Mr. Graves had surreptitiously taken the note, without first obtaining leave, and in consequence of which he followed him into the street and gave him into the custody of a constable, who conveyed him to Bathurst-street watch-house, where he was confined twenty-four hours; after which he had to appear five hours at the Police-office, to his great annoyance and exposure. (Mr. Graves, in defence of this, said that he considered the note as his own property.) This was the alleged purport of the imprisonment which Mr. Reeves afterwards admitted to have been erroneous, inasmuch as Mr. Graves had earned it by labour done for him; that he acknowledged to the Chief Police Magistrate and to others.

A constable by the name of Richardson deposed to taking Mr. Graves into custody; the charge was forcibly obtaining a bill, or note, the property of Mr. Reeves. At this stage of the case, the counsel for the plaintiff, consented to withdraw the action, and was of course nonsuited.