ASSAULT CHARGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5039, 13 October 1926, Page 2

ASSAULT CHARGE.

AN APIARIST STRUCK.

LABOURER BEFORE THE COURT.

A sturdily-built middle-aged man named James Halcrow appeared befoi e Messrs P. E. Brenan and B. Gwilliam, J’s.P. at the Paeroa Police Court yesterday morning to answer the charge of assaulting C- G. Hughes with his clenched fist. Accused pleaded guilty. In outlining the case Constable McClinchy said that Halcrow had been working on a farm for Mr L. E. Cagsrels and was paid off on Saturday. Accused was knocking round Paeroa drinking on Saturday afternoon, and cn Sunday he returned to the 'farm wet through’ and was given a meal and a; bed. On Monday he was seen round drinking again, and later on visited the shed occupied by the Thames Valley Honey Co. on Thames Road and brutally assaulted the complainant. Cecil George Hughes, apiaj’ist, said that on Monday afternoon he was packing and melting down honey at the depot when the accused walked into the shed. Seeing complainant standing with his back to him and speaking to the manager of the company, accused used filthy language a.nd told witness to go and help milk the cowls in the adjoining shed. Witness said he replied that he had nothing to do with' the farm work, and told accused to go away and mind his own business. With that accused made several T.its at him. Ho tried to push accused away but did not attempt to strike him. Accused then struck him on the mouth with liijs, clenched .fist and knocked him into a vat, punching him the while. He rolled oyer and tried to shield himself until the manager appeared and intervened. Accused then picked up a swingle-tree and threatened to kill him. In answer to the Bench complainant said that the accused appeared “half stunned,” but was. not properly drunk.

Arthur Gooding, manager of -the company, gave cororborative evidence of the assault, and swoie that the attack was entirely unprovoked. .He was standing talking to complainant, and heard everything that was said and later assisted to separate the; pair. Defendant had no cause to assault complainant, who had made no attempt to strike ba.ck, other than to push him off.. Witness said that Halcrow was not drunk, but appeared to be in an angry mood. Constable McClinchy said that shortly before 5 o’clock on Monday evening Hughes called at the police station and complained of having been assaulted. He had a deep cut in his lip, was bleeding pro'fusely, and appeared somewhat shaken. Complainant alleged that he had been struck without provocation, and witness visited the shed and arrested accused, who was lying down in a loft on the farm. Accused smelt' of liquo'r and appeared to be very excited.

In reply to 1 the .Bench Halcrow said that he had only hit Hughes in selfdefence.

The Bench said that it was satisfied that’ defendant had assaulted Hughes without provocation. Defendant was convicted and fined £3, in default 14’ days’ hard labour at Thames- Gaol.