Trouble At Manakau Aired In Court

Chronicle (Levin), 10 August 1948, Page 4

Trouble At Manakau Aired In Court

An ' gpplicatjpn for twp Mapris to be bound ovei' to keep the'* peace was heard in the Magistrate's Coprt, Levin, on Friday before Mr.. H. J. Thompson, S.M. The informant was William Leo Bryant, of Manakau, and the two 'defendants were Ciaude Sydney Tawhara and Tua Murray, also of Manakau. For Bryant, Mr. N. M. Thomson claimed that the two defendants riad assduited his client, and stated •ohat the reasoii fpr the application for them to he bound over was that a previous assault had been committed on Bryant's brother. In evidence, Bryant gave details of the alleged assault, claiming that the defendants had attacked him on |the morning of July 25. He had been taking his milk put to the end of a priyate road and h'gd found fc'he gate closed, an unusual ocQUiTence. Qh gettinfjf back into his truck, he had beenstruck on the side of the head. Turning round, he had seen it was Tawhara and then he had been attacked from behind by Murray, who had held him down while Tawhara "pummelled" him. Bryant told the court that he occupied a block of land at Mana- : kau to which access was through a private road. Murray lived on an adjoining piece of land. He also gave details of a previous disturbance, in which he claimed one of his brothers had been hit on the thead with a hammer by Murray. jThe cause of this d sturbance was that Murray had freen building a ifence and had stacked battpns - lacross the right-df-way. in regard Ifco the assault on him, he said that | Tawhara and Murray accused him ;of shooting a dog belongiiig to ' them.

Cross-examinsd by Mr. J- Todd, who appearc-d for defendants, Bry- . mt dehied any knowledge of the iog concerned. He also denied hav,ng bullied or id-treated a child who ilyed at defendants' home. Asked if It wps not a fact that there hud oeen a crank-handle inYolved in the illeged "arnbush," Bryant replied Ln the negativ.e. He Stated that there had not been a crank-handle in the truck, .but admitted that a tvre-lever had bepn invpived. In regard to the flrst assault, he denied that he and his two broth,ers had taken battens from the pile and attacked Murray. John Bryant, a cousin of informant, gave details of certain events leading up to the day the assault on infornianfc occurred. The evidence 'of the two defendants wouid be to some extent a direet c'ohtradicGiqn of the complainunt's evidence, said Mr. Todd in openirig'the defence. It would show that if anyone had been in peril on the" day of July 25, it had fceen the two M^ori§, Qn that day they wculd say that it had been Bryant who had attacked Tawhara, and that Murray had not taken any part in the fight. Bryant had lunged out with a crank-handle. On the other occasion, evidence would be given that Murray had been working on a fence when he had been ordered by informant and his two brothers to open the gate. He had refused and they had seized battens, and attacked him an his son. It was along these lines that defendants ga've their evidence. Tawhara stated that the crankhandle involved was stili in his possessipn and offered to produce it. He said that he had ' approached the truck when Bryant opened the gate and had been attacked by him; Murrsy had been walking down the road -and had seen part of the fight. Cross-examined by Mr. Thomson, Tawhara admitted saying that he. would "fix" Bryant for the alleged scolding of the child. In his evidence, Murray said that he had seen me fight between Tawhara and Bryant. Bryant had been lunging at defendant, first with a stick and then with a crankhandxe. He had taken no part in the fight. Questioned by Mr. Thomson, he said that the gate was usually left open, In dismissing the case, the magistrate, Mr. H. J. Thompson, said that an infbrmation fpr assault had to be proved beyond doubt. Various accounts of the twp fights had been given. Informant's story was that he had been attacked by the younger defendant. Defendants denied this and stated that Bryant had attacked Tawhara. He had to be satisfied that the information was correct. However, he had the gravest suspicions that defendants' story was not entirely correct.' It was quite probable that it had been arranged for the gate to be closed. To defendants, he would say that they would have to 'be extra carfeful in the future.