ASSAULT PROVED
MAHINAPUA CREEK DISPUTE. DEFENDANT FINED 10/- AND COSTS Occupying about three hours, the case, arising out of the dispute at Mahinapua C r eek last month, wag concluded in the Magistrate A Court at Hokitika yesterday afternoon. In his action, Frederick Howard (Mr Murdoch) proceeded against William Uriah Holley (Air Brosnan), charging him with assault. Defendant was fined 10s 'and costs. A further charge of using obscene language was withdrawn. Robert .Spoor said he was about three chains away on his own trench early on the Friday morning, and saw plaintiff row alongside defendant’s trench, about eight feet out. His evidence regarding the rod and the throwing of stones was similar to that of previous witnesses for the defence. Ho was of the opinion that Howard w ?nt Across purposely to frighten the whitebait. He heard him say that he was not going to sit on his trench and watch defendant catch whitebait.' Had defendant intended assault he could have done so quite easily. He was also of the opinion that defendant's brother, who gave evidence for plaintiff, was not in the position to have seen exactly what happened. Mr Murdoch closely questioned witness as to conversations upon the case between defendant nud witness. George, Kelly gave evidence along the same lines as previous witnesses for the defence. Mr Brosnan: There’s some trouble 'among the fishermen, I think?—Yes. About some catching whitebait, and others none?—Yes. Sergeant w. -J. King, .Inspector of Fisheries, in reply to questions by Mr Murdoch, said there were two routes Howard could have taken, to go to the stand when he went for the heifer, and witness said that on the same tide as the day in question, lie would have taken the. same route as plaintiff. Witness was cross examined tat length by Air Brosnan. You received a complaint before concerning tlie same parties?—Yes. You did not warn Howard then? — No. 1 •' | l*i
Are you a friend of Howard’s ?—Yes. Then thait accounts for it. —I am a friend of Holley’s too, X hope.
Mr JJrosnan said that the evidence of the stones did not disclose any attempt at assault, rather were they cast in the course of usual work. Howard had not been struck, white the fact that he stated he had keen threatened with the rod, which was 18ft. long, proved that he must have been witnin 18ft, not 35ft. away as claimed by plaintiff. Mr Brosnan sard the charge had evidently been brought as the result of a spirit of vindictiveness and petty spile. Tlie witnesses for the defence had been cross-examined regarding collaboration prior to the hearing, but the witnesses for plaintiff were word perfect, which spoke volumes, while the hesitating manner of those for the defence, showed that their evidence had been straightforward. Mr Murdoch said that on the question 'of evidence, the Spoor brothers asked the Bench to believe that they had not talked over the charge .prior to the case, and he asked the B'ench to disbelieve them. A complaint had been made to tin© police by defendant, who also added a threat, showing the nature of defendant. The gesture of assault was present, and he was sure that they were within their rights in coming before this Court for protection. He did not for one minute think that defendant’s version of the throwing or stones could be believed. He held that assault had been proved. The Magistrate said the evidence was very conflicting and it was thrown on him to draw a common sense inference from the evidence before him. AH the witnesses for plaintiff fewear that stones were thrown at plaintiff. The defence wias that they were thrown to divert the fish. Defendant admitted telling Howard to ,“get out.” The Bench considered that the stones were thrown, knowing that tile boat would be hit, and Holly 'was therefore guilty of an assault. There appeared to be some ill feeling, and there was tire fact that Holley had the better trench. Howard hadl been within his right in rowing his boat down the stream.
Defendant was fined 10s and costs €4 Is, in default seven days.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19321118.2.4
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Hokitika Guardian, 18 November 1932, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
691ASSAULT PROVED Hokitika Guardian, 18 November 1932, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
The Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd is the copyright owner for the Hokitika Guardian. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.