|Info 6a, John fisher Skipper in NZ||Close info Window|
1871 census Source RG10, Piece 1824, Folio 61, Page 3 Place Hingham, Norfolk Dwelling Hardingham rd , schedule 13 George Fisher head M 42 Dealer Harriet Fisher head M 40 George Fisher 14 Lucy Fisher 13 Susanna Fisher 11 Emma Fisher 9 John Fisher 8 Charles Fisher 4 Eliza Fisher 1
1885/1886 Skipper John Fisher 1893 & 1896 John fisher Skipper, Residence: Opotiki, Occupation: Billiard Marker Annie maud Skipper, Residence: Opotiki, Occupation: Domestic duties 1911 and 1914 Skipper John Fisher, Taneatua, farmer
Supreme Court, 24 march 1890 BANKRUPTCY Bancruptcy closed:- Mr Cave moved for an order to close the bancruprtcy of Jno. fisher Skipper and Sam P. Moody. The bancruptcy took place in 1888, and the assets had been realised. - Order Granted.
|Taranaki Herald, 25 November 1909|
Per Press Association AUCKLAND, Nov. 24.
At the Supreme Court to-day John Fisher Skipper, charged with having on November 25, 1908, stolen twenty heifers, the property of a oo-partership, was found - not guilty and acquited
|Auckland Star, 22nd September 1915|
ALLEGED DETENTION OF SHEEP.
CLAIM AGAINST AUCTIONEERS.
(By Telegraph. —Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, this day.
The case in which John F. Skipper and George A. Sykes, farmers, of Matata, claimed £803.from the Waikato Farmers Auctioneering Company, damages consequent upon the alleged detention by the defendant company of 2,131 sheep reached an advanced stage at the Hamilton Supreme Court yesterday, when the jury gave it decision of eleven issues submitted to it. One of the main point for decision was the value of the sheep on May 8. The jury assessed this at l8s per head, and the deterioration of the animals between May 6 and June 4 at 9p per head. Argument has yet to be taken on certain law points. His Honor intimated that he would hear this at the earliest opportunity. The case, which occupied four days, created considerable interest.
|Te Puke Times, 10 August 1917|
CHARGE OF SEDITION.
AGAINST MR J. F. SKIPPER.
At the Magistrate's Court at Rotorua on Tuesday, before Mr Dyer, S.M., John Fisher Skipper, of Matab, was charged with sedition by publishing a statement likely to interfere with the recruiting of His Majesty's forces. The words alleged to have been used by accused were :-"If I had forty boys I would not allow, them to go to the front"; I advise all joung men not to enlist, and to do all, they 'can against it. All the officers want shooting. The Government is like a monkey up a greasy pole. All the officers are—-, and want shooting. You would think they were Jesus Christ." m ,
Mr Hampson and Mr Hodge appeared for accused, and pleaded not guilty. Senior-Sergt Cummings prosecuted and said accused attended a gathering on July 12th to welcome his son-in-law home from the war., The accused used such language on that occasion as to disgust those present, who would have retired but for respect for the guest of the evening. Prior to. that meeting accused had been to Auckland to meet his son-inlaw, and had used vile language thfere. Probably something that occurred at Auckland had caused him to'use the seditious language as previously he had been a loyal subject and a.generous donor to several funds.' ' David Patty, farmer, Matata, gave evidence that he remembered the welcome home given to Pvt. Duckworth. Accused made a speech, stating he had been to Auckland to welcome his son-in-law, and had not had fair treatment. He used very strong language, adding 'if that's the way they are treating.our sons he would not let one son go if he had forty. .They, the officers and the Government ought to be shot. Accused could be heard all over the hall. Witness, who had three sons, at the front thought the language disgusting,
To Mr Hampson : He knew accused was liberal. Did not know he had contributed more than £5oo to patriotic purposes. It was a grievance with accused that'fife could not go to the front, being over age.' He: had taken charge of his son-in-law's wife and children to allow him to go. Accused said the reception at Auckland was fixed for half-past nine, and no one appeared till, after ten ; that no accommodation had been made for wounded soldiers on the wharf, while Harbour Board, officials and officers were sitting on seats. Accused's whole speech was a complaint that the returned soldiers had been most shabbily treated.
F. J. BurtandT. Wilkins, of Matata, corroborated the. above evidence
T. Parkinson, Chairman of the. Matata Farmers' Union, stated that he had been closely connected with accused in patriotic work. Accused had given something ljke.il to everybody else' shilling" The effect on witness' mind of the speech was that accused was angry with the treatment of returned spldiers, and not that he was disloyal. There was no feeling against accused among farmers since he was charged with the present offence. W. J. Ansell and Lieut. Roberts testified to accused's patriotic work.
A. Duckworth, a private, son-in-law of accused, stated that the wounded soldiers arrived at Auckland at 7 o'clock in the morning,: but did not get, away until 3 o'clock, Their lunch consisted of a cup of tea and a bun.
Accused was not satisfied with their treatment; they had sat down to breakfast, but were shot out of it. Fruit had been given by the residents of Capetown for the soldiers, and it had been sold to them by the stewards for money, Accused's speech had struck witness as being wholly against the treatment of the returned soldiers. To Senior-Sergeant Cummings; When he heard the speech, he did not take any special notice. He; considered it'alright. There was nothing offensive to women; one would-hear worse in Trafalgar Square every day.
On their arrival they had had no time to eat their breakfast, being ordered on deck. Witness had nothing to eat until half-past two. He could have had a bun and a cup of tea, but did not fancy them; accused spoke about seven or eight minutes, apd said nothing unpatriotic or offensiye to anyone.
Mr Hampson, for accused, urged that the intent, purport, and effect of latter's speech was to find fault with the reception of the returned soldiers, and was not meant to hinder or hamper recruiting. Counsel stressed the patriotic feeling shown by accused before and after the war as a proof that he did not mean to hinder recruiting.
His Worship said that accused was an experienced and wellknown man, and what he had said might influence young men to refrain from recruiting. Anything that tended in any way to hinder the work of. His Majesty's forces while the, country was at war, and in the serious state that We now were, was exceedingly, serious. He recognised that accused was angry with what he had seen in Auckland, and would take into consideration the facts brought out in evidence of his patriotic behaviour both before and after his seditious act. His Worship added that he did not think a fine would meet the case. Accused would be sentenced to three months imprisonment. Mr Hampson indicated that he wished to appeal, and leave was granted under a bond of £30.
|The Dominion, 26 September 1917|
THE CASE OF JOHN FISHER SKIPPER CONVICTION APPEALED AGAINST.
The Chief Justice (Sir Eobert Stout), Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Cooper, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Hosking yesterday morning sat as a Full Court to hear an appeal removed from the Supreme Court by Mr. Justice Cooper. The appellant was John Fipher Skipper, who was convicted in the Magistrate's Court at Rotorua of having committed a breach of the War-Regulations by making a statement likely to interfere with recruiting.
He was sentenced to three months imprisonment, but made a general appeal to the Supreme Court against his conviction. This appeal was removed to the Full Court. Mr. J. R, Reed, K.C, and Mr. H. van Staveren appeared yesterday for the.appellant, and Mr. J. AV. Halmond, K-C, Solicitor-General, for the Crown.
Mr. Eeed. said that the appellant, was convicted under that part of the regulations which said: "No person shall publish, or cause or permit, to be published, any statement or matter likely to interfere with the recruiting of His Majesty's Forces.
The evidence given in the Magistrate's Court was that at a, social gathering at Matata (a small settlement in the Bay of Plenty) Skipper used words alleged to be detrimental to recruiting. It was made clear that Skipper was an absolutely loyal man. It there was anything in heredity. Skipper's heredity would teud to make him so. His mother was a sister of Lord John Fisher, and he himself was a direct descendant of Lord. Nelson. The evidence was that he had taken a prominent part in all patriotic movements, and had subscribed something like £500 to patriotic organisations., His district was notable for its recruiting, since it took only one ballot to exhaust the whole of tho First Division there.
He had volunteered three times, but had been rejected on. account of his age — 53. years. He had no sons, but his five daughters had offered their, services as nurses. On the occasion on which he made the utterances that gave rise to the charge against him, he was under the influence of liquor, and also of anger against the military authorities in Auckland at the way in which certain returned soldiers were treated. Among the soldiers in question was the son-inlaw of the appellant, who had given up a good position to go to the front..
Skipper had considered that the men were neglected, and he had assisted them by giving them money and cigarettes. He had gone back to Matuta full of indignation. At the gathering that he attended speeches of welcome were made to his son-in-law. About half-past eleven, after supper, Skipper got on his feet, and, starting quietly enough, soon worked himself up until at the end he made certain remarks which, to say the least, were exceedingly objectionable and painfully free. It would be shown that the only person of military age present was a Maori, who actually enlisted that night. Next day Skipper went out with a, Maori recruiting officer to a pa and addressed the Natives on recruiting. He paid about £5OO worth of debts for Maoris who wished to join the Forces, and the general result was that two coachloads of recruits went of next day.
The questions before tho Court, said Mr Reed, were three.
The first was whether the Military Service Act destroyed the efficacy of the part of the regulations under which the appellant had been convicted; the second, whether, if the Military Service Act had not destroyed the effecacy of that branch, the statements of the appellant were likely to interfere with recruiting; and the third whether the Supreme Court, if it dismissed a general appeal, had power to revise a sentance passed by a Magistrate, The Court heard argument upon the questions, and reserved its decision.
|Evening Post, 1st October 1917|
THE SKIPPER CASE
The decision of the Full Court in th« case, recently heard by it, of John Fisher. Skipper v. Denis Joseph' Cummings, was made known this morning. The case was one, it will be remembered, in which Skipper, a Bay of Plenty settler, appealed against his conviction and sentence of three months imprisonment for having made use of words calculated to interfere with recruiting. The Court intimated that its judgment would be that the appeal would be dismissed and the conviction Affirmed, with costs ammounting to £10. The reasons for the judgment will be delivered later.
Back to TOP|
© JCC Glass
Updated 28th March 2013