ALLEGED ASSAULT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3883, 13 December 1928, Page 2

ALLEGED ASSAULT.

CASE DISMISSED. 1. DEFENDANT ACTED IN SELF DEFENCE. At the local Courthouse this morning before Mr J. L. Stout S.M., A/E. Tongs was* charged that on the 17th day of November, 1928, he did strike Arthur Wallbutton, thereby committing assault. Mr. H. Cooper appeared „ for plaintiff and Mr. M. B. Bergin for defendant.

Mr. Bergin entered a plea of not guilty on behalf of his client. Mr. Cooper outlined the case at some length, and said that trouble had arisen of defendant being remonstrated with by plaintiff over taking his 18-year-old daughter out at night. Arthur Wallbutton, flaxworker, of Union 'Street, Foxton, was the first witness called, and he said he had a daughter named Rona, aged 18 years. He knew defendant ivho was a married man. On the night of the 17th he went home about 10 o’clock and saw defendant and his daughter at the gate. Witness had seen the two together before and had spoken to defendant about going out with his daughter. They had been out together at night on many occasions. When remonstrated with on one occasion defendant said he would smack witness in the eye. Witness told defendant on the night of the 17th that he was no man taking his daughter out when he had a wife and family. Defendant said “if you’re not satisfied take that” and hit witness in the eye. He then knocked witness down and knelt on him and said he would make up for witness having taken him to court on a previous occasion. Witness saw defendant’s lorry about a quarter of a mile down the road. Defendant had used the vehicle to take his daughter out. Witness endeavoured to see the police on the night of the incident but could hot find them. He saw them the next morning. His face was badly marked as a result of the assault. On the night of the Bth December he saw defendant and witness’s daughter at 10.45 p.m. in Futter Street. On the night of the 11th December he also saw them together in the lorry again. Witness’s daughter could not be controlled. TROUBLE IN THE HOME.

To Mr. Bergin: Had spoken to defendant about going out with his daughter on the day he appeared before the court and twice in the street. Defendant came to see witness on one occasion. Had never gone to see Tongs. There was trouble at home at tea time and talk of charitable aid as witness ivas out of work. Did not tell his wife to let the fancy man keep the family. Did not know his wife was sending for defendant. Was standing within a yard or so of the gate on the night of the assault when defendant and his daughter came up Union Street. The street was well lighted. Was knocked down on the bridge crossing the drain. Witness’s wife came out when he was getting up. Had nothing in his hands. The improper conduct had been going on since the girl started Sunday school three years ago. Defendant used to bring the girl home in the lorry. She used to visit defendant’s house. Sometimes the mother and other members of the family accompanied them in the car. Had dealt off defendant ever since he had been in Foxton until last Saturday. Always gave his money to his wife and she paid the bills. Knew she was dealing offdefendant. Knew the police investigated the matter after the complaint was made by witness. During the winter of 1927 his wife got a lot of credit at defendant’s shop. Denied that defendant’s name was never mentioned in reference to improper conduct until he asked for payment of the account. Spoke to defendant in June last.

To Mr. (Cooper: Defendant had been friendly with his daughter ever since the girl went to Sunday school. Defendant was' a teacher at the school. Did not get on well with his wife and she would not .'take any notice of witness if he objected to her dealing with defendant. She got the credit. George Cull, farmer, resident just out of Foxton in evidence stated that he (knew the Wallbutton family well and defendant by sight. He remembered the morning of 18th November. Plaintiff came over to witness’s place. His face was discoloured, his eye blackened and his nose skinned. Plaintiff told witness that defendant had assaulted him the night previously. Had never seen defendant and the girl out together. Constable Bell gave evidence as to plaintiff complaining of being assaulted on the morning of 18th November. His face was marked as if he had been attacked. Witness saw defendant who said plaintiff had attacked him with a hoe and he had thrown him on his back. Defendant would not give a statement as he said that he had been prosecuted as a result of giving a statement to witness before. 'Saw Mrs. Wallbutton and got a statement from her on the Sunday. DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE. A. E. Tongs, grocer, of Foxton, in the box, said he had known plaintiff for several years. On many occasions when there was anything special on at the Army Hall witness had taken the Wallbutton family home to save them walking a long way—considerably over a mile.. Plaintiff had often been present .at thet hall. The first time a

complaint had been made to him was on one occasion when he called at the house with groceries. . Mrs. Wallbutton said her husband had accused her of improper conduct. The ‘first time plaintiff : spoke to witness was when he, asked him for settlelnent of the account for groceries. Plaintiff had never spoken to ivitness since the occasion of the trouble previously. On the night of the assault, the girl called at his shop and asked him to go doAvn to the house as her mother wished to see hint over allegations plaintiff ivas making against him. The girl Avas frightened of her father and witness accompanied her home. When the gate was reached plaintiff rushed out from behind a telegraph pole and used very obscefie language and threats to Avitness and accused him of taking his daughter out. He told witness to get doAvn the b • road as hard as his legs Avould carry him or he Avoukl knock him out ivith a lump of Avood. Plaintiff rushed into his place and returned ivith a hoe and threatened Avitness. Witness grappled Avith him but did not strike him. He Avrenched the hoe from plaintiff’s grasp and threAV it OA r er the fence.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cooper, Avitness said that he arranged to pick the girl up in Futter Street, ivhich he did at 9.45 p.m. He left the lorry some distance from the house as he was afraid the father Avould accuse him of ' taking the girl out in the lorry. A MESSAGE TO DEFENDANT. , Mary Jane Wallbutton, Avife of complainant, said she sent the girl down Avith a message to defendant to come up and see her. It would be 8 o’clock before the girl arrived at the shop. Witness had a reason for sending the message. Was at home Avhen Rona came in and she heard her husband talking to defendant. She saw him rush out with Avhat appeared to be a stick. A little later plaintiff got his coat and left to see the police. Defendant’s evidence Avas true in every respect. Witness ivas submitted to a lengthy cross-examination, by Mr. Cooper in which it ■ ivas disclosed that she did not get on Avell with her husband. The girl had a message to do for her mistress as well as Avitness Avhen in town. \ To S.M., ivitness said she did not see defendant after the occasion and prior to giving a statement to the police. ! Constable Owen stated that on the night of the assault at 10.30 o’clock, defendant imported thetrouble to him outside the Toivn Hall but said' he did not want any trouble over the incident if Wallbutton did not report the matter. His evidence was precisely* the same as ivhat' he told ivitness on the night of the assault. Plaintiff did not report the' matter to witness * ’till the following evening. The S.M., in summing up, said that he could not believe Wallbutton’s evidence that he took no, part£ in the assault, other than ‘ remonstrating with defendant over taking the girl out. He had especially asked Mrs. Wallbutton if she had seen defendant prior to making the statement to. the police to see if the story had been arranged. He did not think this ivas so. Tong’s statement to the police on the night of the alleged assault ivas the same as his evidence and ivas corroborated by Mrs. Wallbutton. Tongs had been the first to inform the police of the affair. Whether there was anything in the allegations in reference to Tongs taking the girl out he could not say, but it Would be better if Tongs kept aivay from the ivliole family. He could not accept Wallbutton’s statement that he had been unprovokingly attacked and had had nothing in his hands at the time. If he attacked Tongs ivith a hoe then he could not complain over the treatment he received. As far as the assault was concerned Wallbutton was the aggressor, not only ivith his tongue but also with the hoe. The evidence showed that Tongs ivas attacked and acted in self defence, and the ease iirnuld he dismissed accordingly.