MERCER.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 5, Issue 179, 2 June 1916, Page 2

MERCER.

"NIGGEK " THE L)U(J. AMUSING COUKT CASE. At the Magistrate's Court, Merc?r on Wednesday,' Stanley Can.pbell Sycamore, a carter, employed by the All-B iii->h Shipping Company, wms c'lurceri before Mr l"\ v V t'razer, S. M., "ith having asssul'eJ Alfred Hnnre, boardinahouse keeLier, at Meicer, on 'lie Uth May, and further, vvilh having U3fd obscene hrißuage. Mr Oliphant, of Auckland, represented the complainant i'i respect / to the chirge of assMUlf, nnd Constable Ucran prusecited on beh*lf of th? police on the sreond charge. Mr Stanton, of Auckland, defended.

By agreement of both Counsel the chaTfjes were heard together, defendant ol'ading not guilty. ConapUiuant deDo3cd thut defendant went (o his boardirnihousr, desnite his remonstrance, and took "Nigger,'' a dog, oil' the chain, igno ing his request that nc should not let it iooae, as he hud lent it ti Bonie friends from Wanganui. After he (complainant) had «uoken to him to the foregoing elite', defendant struck him. He could not retaliate as both his hands were injured.

By ths Magistrate: After ho was assaulted defenda it made the remark, "1 have been waiting to get it on to you." It waa after both of them had left the ground adjoining the boardigbouse, where be was assaulted, that defendant used the language complained of, and ad'JcA that he, complainant, had stolen a £1 note and clothes of hi 9 Ju9t previous to the assault be had taken ths dog from the roac*, and had chained it up in his yard to lend it to a boarder. Defendant wa-i sjber when he assaulted him.

Uy Constible Horan: The bad language wes used near Mr Gallery's residenc.

By Mr Stanton: He was not aware that defendant was about the street when hs to3k the dog, nor would be have approached him in reference thereto had he been there. When he handed the dug ti defendant once it was understood that he was to return it and not to keep it. What he had mentioned to a certain person about that tirxo was that he had lent th j dog to defendant. He was not a witness to a rat killing episode that tuok placs on the morning ot the assault whsn defendant used the dog to kill some rats.

By Mr Stanton: He would nut cc prepared to contradict a witness who would say tbat when defendant entered the boardingfcouse yard ten minutes attar the dog was chained up he (complainant) ran away. At th? time of the argument defendant only had one arm free, toe dog being under his other arm. He (complainant") made no attempt to take the dog from him or to strike him or to ciy for help. Bray, a railway Dorter, who had since left lor "the front," gave him (complainant) the doj. When he told a Mr Childs that the dog belonged to a young fellow who was being married, he was unaware tbat the defendant was being married. Mrs Hoare, wife of complainant, gave corroborative evidence, and addrd that after witnessing the occurrence through a window she went outside and heard defendant call her hubsaud a thief, to which she took exception and denied it. She also overheard defendant say that h 3 would "fix" her husband up.

By Mr Stanton: She did struck defendant's face.

Samuel Kobert Wright, grocer's assistant, gave evidence aB to hearing defendant use bad language towards complafnant. The next witness, Fredrick James Freebourne, manager tur Messrs Glass Bros., butchers, was asked by Mr Oliphant to explain the reason of defendant's dismissa from Messrs Glass Bros, employment, but Mr Stanton objected to the question, and the Magistrate ruled that it was not admissublc. Witness then gave corroborative cvidenc?, and in outlining the injuries sustained by complainant as a result of the assault said he had a nasty bruise on the face, was bleeding from an ear and had two or three teeth knocked loose.

By the Magistrate: He had heard different opinions expressed aa to the rightful ownership of the dog, but ai he was not concarned therewith he did not take particular notice of the conversations. He boarded at complainant's house. Constable Horan deposed as to the injuries he noticed on complainant's face when on the evening ot the day on which rti2 assault occurred complainant came to him to lay the information. Stanley Campbell Sycamore, defendant, stated that he was a bacon curer by trade but had been working for two months lor the AH-Btit-ish Shipping Company. He first saw complainant on thu morning of the assault after he (defendant) let two rata loose from a rat trap for the dog to kill. Complainant then asked for a loan of the dog, but did not take it. Later, however, when witness was working on tha wharf he heard his dog "howling," aid on making an investigation found that it was not where he had left it near the truck and close to his coat, but was tied up with a chain in complainant's yard. He immediately let the dog looae, and complainant came ud and using un objectionable word ordered him to leave the dog in the yard, as he was going to lend it to a man from Wanganui. Witness picked the due; up and put it under his arm, with the result that complainant immediately rushed at him. He warded him off and complainant made another rush at him, wh'ch he similarly avoided. Complainant Baid that Bray, who had owned the dog, had left it in his ' (compainant's) charge He called complainant a thief for taking blankets out of a box in his ledAom at the complainant's boardicghooV'. Complainant's wife came from out of the bnardinghouse and smacked him on the face. Since the shooting season cummenced saveral parties had claimed the dog. He never used any bad language. "It was the sort ol stuff he barred." Complainant and he, after leaving the yard, parted company about trlf-wpy across the road. During hla possession of the dog, extending over five months, it. had only been awav from his home one whole day. He came into possession if the dog as the result of it having distemper.

Complainant bad it at the time and told witness "to tske Niafer away and if it was no good td destroy it." When witness lelt tfci district to be married be left the jwg with friends, and it used W"£6* to the boardinphous.-. and complainant u-ed to drive it m*v He again took possession at it on his retirn to Mercer, b'am Wright, one of the witnesses, claimed the deg, but complainant never did. Bray left the dog to the "boys" at the botirdinghouse. By the police: He called the complainant a tbiet when he was on the bearding bouse property. He did not converse with Wright at Gallery's confer. A Mr de Thierry and a Mr Armstrong, were only a chain away; working timber on the wharf, when the argument took place. Wright and he never met between the gate and the turntable on the wharf. „ By Mr Oliphant: Complainant said to him after he (defendant) had warded bim off that he would make him pay for it. Complainant tiied to snatch the dog from him io the backyard.

George Hamilton de Thierry, head carpenter for the Railway Department, gave evidence tbat corroborated with defendant's version n respect of the backyard affray, with the exception that he did rot know whether defendant closed his band or not. He never beard defendant use any objectionable words, although be was in a position to bear them it they had been used. He was a spectator of the whole proceedings, but he was not interested as be was a stranger In the township. Complainant rushed at defendant in such a way that if be had struck him he would have "knocked bis head off."

By Mr Olmhant: .He considered complainant bad bia eye blackened by rushing on to defendant's outstretched arm.

By the polic": He corld rot swear that defendant did not use the words as mpgester l . Harry Child?, timber worker, repeated a ronversaticn that be had bad with complainant when he was a boarder at bis (complainant's) bouse to the eii'ect tbat complainant told him that the dog belimored to a young fellow who had gone away to be married.

Thomas Edward Hallett, secretary to tbe Waikato Kiver Board and proprietor of the All-British Shipping Company, bore testimony to defendant's good character. He had been in witness's employment fcr three months and lived next door to him, and on no occasion bad be beard him swear.

In summing up, His Worship said tbat tbe assault arose out of the dispute over the dog, which defendnot might bave thought was going to be violently taken away. He (the Magistrate) did not thmk tbe damage was only done by one blow. The assault did not call for a heavy fine, but nevertheless there was no justification lor striking the blows. Defendant would be convicted and fined £1 on that charge, End in resreet to the second charge, as the language was only used during a set.file, when go ladies were present, tie would be convicted and discharged, but ordered to pay 5s witnesses' expense.". Defendant was also ordered to pay the solicitor's fee of £1 Is.