TROUBLE IN THE CAMP.

Shannon News, 16 May 1924, Page 2

TROUBLE IN THE CAMP.

ASSA€I/r CASE FROM MAI^GAOitK ACTION FOR ASSAULT FAILS. Life at a hydro-electric works camp where large numbers of men congregate, is necessarily fraught -with vicissitudes, and like other places of a similar environment, is suject to its domestic disputes. Trouble at th* Mangaore camp, on the Mangabao hydro-electric works, led two parties into the 'Supreme Court this week when James Thorn, a carpenter, of Arapeti, Shannon sought to recover from G. P. Anderson, an engineer, of Mangaore, Shannon, £I2OO general and £25 special damages for assault alleged to have been committed at the Mangaore Camp on February 12, The case, which commenced on Tuesday, was concluded before His Honour Sir John Sajmond and a jurv of four yesterday. Mr J. A. Scott, (Wellington), appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Ongley represented the defendant.

. The case was heard before a common jury of four:—Messrs George 11. Stiles (foreman). Andrew L. Westmoreland, Henry Mudgway and Geo. Lambert. The plaintiff, in the statement o! claim,. alleged that the defendant had committed an aggravated and unprovoked assault upon him, causing pain and suffering, and necessitating medical attention as well as humiliating the plaintiff before his fellow workers. The assault, th,?. plaintiff claimed was an abuse by defendant of his position of master of the work. The plaintiff was an executive member of .the Workers Union, and it was alleged that defendant .had acted with malice to the Union and its members and against th c plaintiff, and that the assault was intended, to insult the latter in his capacity of Union officer. The defence alleged that thc plaintiff livid at the time of the assault been trespassing upon the property of which' defendant Andorson was in chaigc, and had provoked an assaultby refusing to leave when requested, and by using abusive language to defendant. Plaintiff had created a disturbance and the defendant had removed him to a pathway leading to the road with no. more force than was necessary for the purpose. THE INCIDENT DESCRIBED. In continuation of the evidence for the plaintiff, Hugh Robert Hewson, a carpenter of Mangaore, said he remembered Thom coming to the carpenter's shop on February 12, and while he was talking to witness, Anderson came to thc door. Anderson asked Thorn where he was from, what he was doing there, and what he had been talking about; supplementing the question with a command to ''get off the place.'-' Thom said, "alright I'm going." and Anderson caught hold oi him and gave him a push sufficiently severs to knock the old man down Witness did not hear Thom use abusive language to Anderson. The assault was «uit e unprovoked, as Thom said he was going to leave. Anderson dragged Thom for a distance of 10 or 12 yards.

Frank Raymond, a contractor, employed at the 'Mangaore Camp, stated, in c evidence that h c was'in the carpenter's shop at the same timu that Thorn and llewson weir talking together. Anderson arrived, and after conversing with Thorn for a few moments in a tone which witness did not hear, shouted "get off the place." He then assaulted Thorn, who fell over. . ,

Herbert Henry yfelakc, a" motor driver at the hydro works, described the alleged assault and said in reply to Mr Scott .that he had never previously heard of anyone being "ordered off the Camp site. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. Following Mr Ongley's address, the defendant, George P. Anderson, assistant civil engineer in. charge of the Mangaore hydro works, AVas placed in the box, and in the course of his evidence said that he was responsible for the preservation of order at Mangaore, though Mr Dinnio was the oUicialhead of the throe Camps. Witness was on good terms with the exc"cutivc of the Workers' Union and .with the men, ami had never had cause for friction. On February 12, witness perceived Thorn at the Mangaore Camp talking at the power house to first-one and then another, and when he returned .about ah hour later saw Thorn at the carpenters' shop, still talking to the men. Witness asked plaintiff wiyit lie was doing there. Instead of giving a reasonable answer, plaintiff endeavoured to draw witness into an argument, and his conversation was "slack" or cheeky. Witness conducted him away, and plaintiff resisted. When they got to the corner of the lane, witness told him to get away back to his own Camp (Arapeti). and not to cause further trouble. Plaintiff 1 * then became abusive.

■ His Honour: If you say he was I abusive, I wish to know-what he said. I Witness. I cannot say exactly, but he called me a mongrel, or 'something like that. I turned and told him to get to h out of it. 1 then pushed him and turned him around to face the road. I immediately turned to go back to the office, and did not see Thorn fall. DID HE FALL, OK- ? Continuing, witness said he heard Thohi fall, and when he turned,, the former was sitting on the side of the road. Witness picked him up and told him he had no intention of hurting him. but that he had better go away. As far as witness knew he went. To Mr Scott: Thorn had never to witness' knowledge created a disturbance in the Camp. a Mr Scott: Did you see any man stop his work to talk to- Thorn?—Well 1 cannot swear to any particular men. Did you see Thorn stop any man at all for a quarter of an hour? —He stopped some of them for some minutes, . Who were they?—l cannot say. '

Did Tlion> un'c offensive' language to you?—Yes. What did he say?—l cannot rcmem ber ;rho words. Do you swear he called you a mongrel?—No. *' Did you use violence to Thorn? — No more than to push him, to sliow I was serious. *

Did you see him trip?—No. Percy Roy Thompson,* a carpenter, working at Mangaore, also gave evidence for the defence, and described ' the meeting of Thorn and Anderson on February 12. Anderson did not drag Thorn up the path as had been suggested. Witness hd seen the whols incident from the workshop. Herbert Newcombe, another witness for the defence, witnessed the push .which Anderson had given Thorn. an<! considered it was not sufficient to cause Thorn to fall over, had the latter not turned. THE CASE REVIEWED.

'Doth counsel addressed the jury and then I lis Honour reviewed the salient aspects of the dispute. It was obvious, he said, 'that Anderson had been in charge of the. Manga'ore.Camp and it was quite within his province to order off the premises anyone who was not justifiably there. The assault, His Honour thouglit had not been of the seriousness arid the aggravation which the plaintiff suggested, and rested not upon the question as to "whether Thorn had used abusive language, but whether he.was obeying Anderson's order to leave the Camp, for mere insulting language was not justification for an assault. If the jury found that Thorn had been assaulted unjustifiably, then they would have to consider the question of damages. The statement of claim was. a peculiar one, and contained allegations which, besides being out of place, would lead one to imagine that neither the plaintiff nor his solicitor had animated it, but that it had been drawn by another interested party, who might bring the case on. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT. After a retirement of five minutes, the jury -returned with a verdict for the defendant. "> Judgment was accordingly given for the defendant, with costs according to scale. ■'.*.' - » ■"**. •;