R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 61, 8 February 1884, Page 2

R. M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) THURSDAY* ASSAViZCi *■ Eugene Cohen was brought up charged, on the information of T. Cochran, with assault; ing him on the 80th of January* There were two cross-summonses* which were taken at the same time, Mr. DeLautour appeared in support of the charge, and Mr. Brassey for the defence. T. Cochran, who appeared in the box with his lip plastered up, was the complainant in this case, On the night in question he, in company with Dwyer and the defendant, was riding along the road between Kaiteratahi and Ormond. They had been looking at some road contracts, and were returning after a ride of sixty miles. Just after leaving Kaiteratahi, Cohen said he would wrestle a certain man in Ormond. A conversation ensued, during which the defendant offered to wrestle witness for £l. They both got off their horses and stripped for wrestling. Dwyer appointed umpire. Cohen threw witness twice, and then he (witness) threw Cohen three times. The wager was for the two first falls out of three. Cohen complained that Dwyer had decided unfairly, and challenged him to come off his horse and fight. Witness interposed to prevent a row. The defendant took hold of Dwyer’s horse and threatened to pull him off, whereupon Dwyer took his stirrup-leather off and told Cohen that he would protect himself from any violence. Witness then prevailed upon the defendant to get on his horse, and the party rode on. No words of anger had passed between witness and defendant up to that time. On seeing the defendant ride round to the right of Dwyer, and fearing violence, he (witness) spurred in between them, whereupon the defendant commenced to abuse witness in Irish. Defendant asked why Dwyer had pulled off his stirrup-leather. Witness told him it was because he (defendant) was dangerous. Cohen then struck witness a heavy blow on the mouth with the handle of his riding whip. The wound on his lip was the result. His teeth were entirely destroyed, aud his lip was split. They were all riding along at the time. Witness then got off his horse and spat his broken teeth out in his hand. On discovering the great injury he had sustained, he felt in a great passion, and taking up a stone hurled it at Cohen, who was some distance ahead. The stone did not strike Cohen. Witness and Dwyer did not speak to Cohen again. Cross-examined by Mr. Brassey—He did not throw the stone before he was struck. Did not see Dwyer strike Cohen with the stirrup. Witness did not hear Cohen state on the following day, in the presence of his two brothers, that Dwyer had struck him on

the head with the stirrup. Had always been the best of friends with Cohen* , .. , - By the Court—They were all sober, dud only had threo drinks each: It wan aftci' midnight when ihe oacurrflnctt took place. Edward U'Dwyer. called and mnilntf by Mr. DeLautour, and fully corroboraUd the last witness, adding that when Cohen took hold of his horse’s bridle he noticed blood Off the defdhdivnUd face, the result, he believed* of the fall while wrestling. Saw Cohen strike Cochran with the whip. The latter called out that his teeth were smashed, and jumped off his horse and threw a stone at defendant. By Mr. Brassey—Would swear positively that no one had struck Cohen up to the time of the assault.

By Mr. De Lautour—Cohen never complained that the stone had struck him. Constable Pegley gave evidence as to the complainant having called him up at 8.40 a.m. on the day in question, and informed him that Cohen had assaulted him. He saw his lip \Vafe split and examined his mouthj and found his (Cochran’s) teeth knocked Out: He directed complainant how to proceed in laying the information; Mr. De Lautour said that was all the evidence he had to offer; There could be little doubt in the mind of the Court but that a most brutal assault had been committed. If the blow had been on the temple, it must have caused the death of the plaintiff; and the defendant would now have been arraigned on a charge of manslaughter. He felt sure the Court would, by its decision, strongly mark its sense of such ruffianly behaviour. Mr. Brassey said he would prove that his client was only acting in self-defence, and was perfectly justified in the course of action he had taken.

The defendant, E. Cohen, was then called, and examined by Mr. Brassey.—Struck the defendant in self-defence after having received a blow on the forehead from a stone which had been hurled by the plaintiff. Dwyer alsd struck him with the stirrup-iron. (The witness here showed the Court an abrasion on his forehead, which, he alleged, had been caused by the stone which had been thrown at him.) The scar had not been received whilst wrestling. Cross-examined by Mr. DeLautour—Won the wager of £1 by giving the first two falls out of three, but Dwyer ruled against him; The plaintiff wtlß on his horde When he threw the stone. Dwyer struck him (witness) about half-a-mile further up the road. The last two witnesses said they could do as they liked with him, as his horse was knocked up and he could not get away. The defendant's two brothers were next called with a view of proving that the complainant had acknowledged in their presence to having seen Dwyer strike the defendant with the stirrupuron, but failed to substantiate the statement;

In delivering its ddoisidn the Court considered the case clearly proved. A brutal assault had undoubtedly been committed. There was no proof whatever that the stirrug had been used, and the evidence of the brothers only tended to prove that Cochran got between Dwyer and Cohen to prevent arty blows. The stone had only been thrown after the blow with the whip had been given. The assault had been a most brutal one* and, if the blow had taken place higher up, it must have killed. He would inflict the heaviest penalty within the power of the Court—viz., £7, and costs amounting to £2 165.; in default one month; This concluded the business of the day* and the Court adjourned.