TE KUITI MAGISTRATE'S COURT.
TUESDAY, 15th DECEMBER. 1914 Before Mr E. Rawson, S,M.
Liquor .Breach. —B. Ellis, charged with a technical breach of the Act, pleaded gq-ilty, and Was fined 40s and costs.
Assault Charge. —T. W. Rawlinson was charged with having assaulted W. J. Jarass at the borough quarry on November 23rd. Mr Sharpies appeared on behalf of the defendant.
The evidence of complainant was to the effect that witness was employed at the borough crusher and defendant was driver of the road roller. An altercation took place at the quarry concerning a rope and some tools and defendant struck compainsnt on the nose with his fist breaking fa's nose. Complainant picked up a portion of a shovel handle, and tried ro retaliate. Defendant rushed complainant and knocked him down and caught him by the throat. Defendant became unconscious.
Cross-examined by Mr Sharpies witness said he did not remember picking up a piece of limestone though his quary mates said he had done so after he regained consciousness.
Dr Zobel gavs evidence to the effect that James' nose was broken, and the cartilage of his windpipe injured, evidently as the result of being throttled. T. Dix, bcrough foreman, stated he heard the men in question having an altercation but could not repeat the Words. Defendant struck complainant who picked up a stick and struck defendant, on the haad. Cjmplainant fell over a rail and defendant caught hold of him. He did not see defendant with his hand on complainant's throat. Complainant became unconscious for a few seconds. It was the quarry foreman's duty to assist in having the trailer put under the binns. The rope which was missing had been provided for the engine and used as defendant said. Witness heard James refused to help defendant with the trailer. Clarence H. LoT?e, employed at tba quarry, gaV3 evidence as to seeing defendant with a-hold on complainant who was on, tha ground. T. Huxtable, a quarry employee, also gave evidence as to the condition of complainant when hs tvp.s on the ground. Mr Shmrplea. for the defence, staled the bulk of f ha eviienca waull be admitted, but with respect to the provocation there wa3 considerable difference. Ha held it would bo shown there was sufficient provocation to ask that the case should be dismissed.
Defendant in evidence stated complainant had abused him, and railed him a crawler before he struck a blow. Complainant picked up a stick, and as witness rushed him he struck witness on the head with the and witness struck him again on the nose. Witness did not get complainant by the throat.
His Worahip said he was satisfied defendant had received a good deal of provocation in' the first place. However, he thought complainant had received severe treatment in the scuffle on the ground when he became unconscious. Defendant would be fined £2 and costs £3 8s Gd,
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/KCC19141216.2.24
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
King Country Chronicle, Volume VIII, Issue 730, 16 December 1914, Page 5
Word count
Tapeke kupu
483TE KUITI MAGISTRATE'S COURT. King Country Chronicle, Volume VIII, Issue 730, 16 December 1914, Page 5
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Waitomo Investments is the copyright owner for the King Country Chronicle. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Waitomo Investments. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.