CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4103, 21 April 1876, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Friday, April 21. (Before A. Mercer, Esq., and Dr Niven. J.P.’s)

Alleged Violent Assault.— J. Thomas was charged, on the information of John Barnes, with unlawfully assaulting and wounding him on April 8, thereby doing mm actual bodily harm. Mr Harris appeared for complainant, Mr Barton for defendant. At Mr Harris’s request all witnesses were ordered out of Court.—ln stating the case Mr Harris, after declaring the facts, said the injuries received by Barnes had been so severe as to render him incapable of carrying out the duties of his office, and for some days after the assault his life was almost despaired of. Barnes had no vindictive feeling or animosity towards the accused, but ho thought so aggravated an assault ought not to be over-looked by himself or the public. In looking after the contractors and others Barnes was bound to use more strictness and severity he liked to. It was a well-known fact that Barnes had a rather ardent temperament, and sometimes expressed himself more strongly than other parties would do. Some hot words had taken place between the parties before the assault; but however that might be, it would not justify the committal of what could not be considered anything more than a brutal assault by both the accused and his son. He called John Bames, Inspector of Works, who said that defendant was carrying out some work for the Corporation. On the morning of Saturday, the Bth inst., witness had been round most of the Corporation works, and about nine o’clock was proceeding along Albany street in his buggy. In Clyde street he saw two carts, a man and a boy being with them, atul filling the carts with stuff belonging to the Corporation from off the street-line. Witness went to them and asked them by whose authority they were taking the stuff. The boy said by his father’s orders. Witness replied that he could take no notice of that they could not take the stuff, and must tip it up again. The boy said he should not tip it up unless his father ordered him to do so. Witness said that if he did not tip it up he should summon him for taking it, and also for something else that he had taken. The boy took the tail-board out of the cart and proceeded to tip it up. He then looked down the street, and witness asked him why he did not tip it up. He replied that his father was coming, and if he ordered him to tip it up he would do so. Accused then came up and said he had an order to take the stuff. He was the first to speak. Such permissions were given by Mr Mirams. Witness had received no orders to give the stuff away. He had previously ordered accused not to take the stuff. When accused told him he had orders to take the stuff witness told him he could take no notice of that, and that he must not remove the stuff, as they wanted it. Accused held up his hands and ordered thee man and the boy to fill the carts and not to take any notice of witness, saying he would stand the consequences. Two or three persons were within hearing at the time. Accused went round to the side of one cart,, and the man and boy began to fill the carts.. Witness then got out of his buggy and: tipped up one of the carts. The boy then rushed at him, striking him in the face four times with his fists and making his mouth bleed. Witness had not up to that time touched either the boy or his father. While the boy was striking him witness heard the father, from behind, say he would knock his (witness’s) brains out. Witness, on. hearing accused’s voice, turned his head and saw accused in the act of striking him with a shovel. The shovel came down on the side of his head. The blow produced and he fell on his right knee. Feeling groat pain he put his hands to his bead and lay down on the ground. He could not see, and while on the ground he felt someone either kickir g or hitting him. He recollected feeling someone helping him to rise, and he said “Oh, for the Lord’s sake take me home.” He remembered nothing further, and did not know how he got home. With the exception of a few gleams of sensibility he remained insensible till Monday afternoon. He lost a considerable quantity of blood from his head and from his arms. When he recovered consciou'ness he found Dr Richardson by his side, and was then informed for the first time of what bad happened. He had no ill-feeling towards the accused. Dr Richardson still attended him.—By Mr Barton: He did not. think there was a man in the world he had! an ill-feeling towards. He never said he would make it very hot for the Thomases. He never used foul language, and never gripped accused by the neck so as to get at the cart to tip it.—S. H. Mirams, City Surv®y®r ’ deposed that the disposal of surplus stuff from street lines was solely within his Province. He had give Mr Barnes instructions to remove the surplus stuff from Clyde street to the Harbor Terrace. He knew the accused well for many years; he had been a contractor under tne Corporation.— Mr Barton complained that accused was described as a laborer in the information. • -Witness stated that Thomas had held some very considerable contracts. He had never given him permission to move the stuff. Ho officer in the employment of the Corporation other than himself had authority to give orders for the disposal of surplus sou from the street. If they did it would be subject to witness’s revision- Witness had been told that a subordinate officer had given permission to accused to remove soil from Clyde street. By Mr Barton ; The Mayor might give permission. At witness’s requestMr Musenne, chief of the daydabot men, .sometime gave permission.—Alex. M'Kemsie,

senior Inspector of Works under the City Corporation, deposed that he never gave £ emission to accused to remove soil from lyde street: He gave him permission to take some from Castle street.—Dr Richardson stated that he was called upon to attend Mr Barnes at his own house on the Bth inst about nine o’clock in the forenoon. Complainant was in an excited state, but unconscious. (Witness explained that he meant by the last remark that he was perfectly satisfied complainant did not know what he was doing, when he resisted all attempts to remove his clothing.) He noticed the hair was covered with blood on the left side of the head. On removing the hair he noticed a contused scalp wound an inch long in one direction by three-quarters in the opposite way. It was not a clean cut, but a contused irregular wound. His pulse was intermittent, and on being put into bed he fell into a comatose state. At that time witness did nothing but dress the wound. Witness again visited him aboutthree hours afterwards. There was then no material change. Witness again visited him in the evening between six and seven

o’clock. Finding that he was still in a comotise state and quite unconscious, witness thought it necessary to extract blood, which he did from the am. Witness tried to administer medicine, but found he could not in consequence of the teeth being clenched. Witness left him then for the night. He repeated his visit about nine o’clock the following morning, and found complainant improved; consciousness had returned, and he was able to answer questions freely. He was able to recognise witness, which he had not been the day before, amining his body witness found that he was suffering in his left groin on alight pressure being brought to bear on it. He also found a discoloration on his left leg. These were the external wounds. It is very unlikely that a wound to the head, such as described, could be inflicted with the fist, if the head was covered. The injury to the groin must h®ve been produced from some external cause. Complainant had received severe injuries.—By the Bench : He should say that it was the comer of the

spade that struck complainant. The latter was suffering more frt ran the wounds to the body than from the w winds to the head.— Andrew Walker, compositor in the Evening Stab Office, recollected’, the day in question. About 9 a.m. he was coming out of the gate of his mother's property when his attention was attracted to the laud talking taking flace between complainant and the accused, te could not distinguish, what they were saying, but he saw complainant tip up the dray. Immediately after th at accused lifted a shovel over complainant's Iread and brought it down. Witness could not say whether the shovel struck complainant, as the cart hid him; but immediately thereafter he saw complainant fall. Witness would be about fifteen or twenty yards off, the cart being between the parties and himself. Complainant’s buggy was on the opposite side of the road. He did not see complainant lay hold of or strike accused in any way. After complainant fell witness went up to him. He was lying on the ground, and saying “Oh, my head." Another person, whose name witness believed to be Bray, came up, and with his assistance witness got complainant on to his feet. Some other persons came up, and complainant was got into his buggy, A man accompanied him in the buggy, another led the horse, and, at his own request, he was conveyed to his home. Afterwards the accused came up to

- —~ ~ witness an 1 two others that were m company with him, and said that Barnes had struck him first. Witness did not see Barnes strike the accused. He did not see accused pick up the shovel. There was a little blood on complainant’s head—it was not flowing. By the Bench: Complainant was quite sensible. He had to be supported when placed in the buggy.—Wm Mullen,anative of the Emerald Isle, was next called. The person who offered to act as interpreter being unable to translate the form of oath from the English language into the Irish, Mr Harris decided to dispense with the services of the witness, which Mr Barton characterised as the wisest 'thing done by the learned counsel that day. Mullen was advised not to return to a court of justice till he admitted his ability to speak English. —Wm. Bragg, carpenter, stated that on the morning in question he heard a disturbance between accused and complainant as to some stuff in two carts in the street. Complainant jumped out of his buggy, pulled the pin out of one of the carts and upset it. Accused picked up a shovel and struck complainant with it. Witness was of opinion that when Thomas lifted up the shovel he intended to throw it on to the cart. It was not until complainant upset the cart that accused struck him. After Bames fell accused punched him with his fist. There was no other mode of punishment inflicted. At th’s time Bames appeared to be in a helpless condition on the ground. Witness called out to Thomas that he would not stand by and see him ill-treat Barnes in that way, and as soon as he went across the accused

■walked away. Accused was eventually got into his buggy and removed to bis own house. Barnes was very violent. He was either very bad or he was making it appear that he was worse than he really was.— Cross-examined : Witness heard no obscene language used before Barnes upset the cart. There was no one else there at the time.— By the Bench ; If complainant swore that accused’s son flew at and struck him, it would be untrue. The boy’s attitude was menacing, but he never struck him.—Reexamined : Barnes never struck Thomas.— This was the case for the prosecution.— The Bench intimated that after carefully watching the evidence they had come to the conclusion that there was no evidence of a felonious intention on Thomas’s part, and recommended that a fresh information be laid, so that the accused might be proceeded against in a summary way.—Mr Barton : I was going to ask your Worships to proceed summarily. It is not necessary to lay afresh information.—Mr u arris said that he was taken somewhat by surprise. The case had taken a graver attitute than the Bench seemed inclined to think.—After

further argument, in which Mr Barton agreed to forego his right to call the defendant in a summary jurisdiction case, aud Mr Harris stated that he had heard it reported that within the last twenty-four hours accused had used threats towards Barnes, the case for the defence was proceeded with.—Mr Barton, in stating the facts he intended to prove, said that immediately Barnes came up to Thomas’s son and the other man with the cart he used most unparliamentary language and upset the dray, catching accused by the throat to get him away from the cart. Immediately after the assault, Thomas sent Dr Van Hemert to examine Barnes, and that gentleman would say that he was of opinion that Barnes had not received injuries much more severe than a man who got the worse of a tight would receive. He submitted in conclusion, that a sfeiall fine ought to meet the case.—Mr Hams wished before witnesses were called to set himself right before the Bench and the public. If the Bench chose to change the course of the proceedings, which he looked upon as a very grave one, they did so entirely on their own responsibility, and he could be no party to it in any way, and he must decline to cross-examine any witnesses called under the changed circumstances of the case. He (the learned counsel) further could not be a party

der a new information, and the Bench must alter the aspect of the case under any powers allowed them entirely on their own responsibility. He declined to allow his client, so long as he was his adviser, to sign any information under a summary course, and he himself declined to cross-examine the witnesses. Never in the course of his experience had he known one Bench to treat an act of this kind as a summary offence, and he absolved from concurring in any action of the kind attempted.—Mr Barton objected to counsel endeavoring to influence the Beach because they dissented from his views. —The Bench said the only thing was that not being legal advisers they did not know what course to take. —Mr Barton said the Bench were perfectly justified in taking the responsibility of dis-

missing the case as being unfit to be sent for trial. The Bench regretted that complainant should refuse to proceed with the case in the amended form; and some punishment should be awarded, 'but they could not compel Barnes to proceed with the case. It would be very strange if the police did not take the case up after the expression of opinion.— Mr Barton said the police would then find themselves in an awkward position. If there was an acquittal by a jury, the police would be dealt with for malicious prosecution.—Dr Niven meant that they should proceed as for common assault. Mr Harris: They would have no power to do so.—Dr. Niven thought differently. — Inspector Mallard pointed out that such a course would deprive complainant of a civil remedy. - Ultimately, the case was adjourned till Tuesday, to enable the Bench to take legal opinion on the position of the case.