ASSAULT CHARGE

Southland Times, Issue 24882, 23 October 1942, Page 2

ASSAULT CHARGE

SEQUEL TO FRACAS ON RIMU ROAD Evidence was taken in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday in the case in which Harry George Batchelor, of Rimu, was charged with assaulting James Watt, of Rimu, so as to cause bodily harm. The case arose from a fracas on the Rimu road on the evening of September 10, when after a scuffle between the accused and Watt, the latter was admitted to the Southland hospital suffering from a wound in the abdomen. Mr G. J- Reed appeared on behalf of the accused and Senior Detective RThompson conducted the examination of witnesses on behalf of the police. Dr P. G. McLeod, who examined Watt when he was admitted to hospital, said Watt had a small bruise on his right cheek and he had a penetrating wound on the right side of his abdomen. The injury could, he thought, be caused by a prong of the pitchfork produced in Court. The Magistrate (Mr R. C. Abernethy): I take it that the injury was a serious one. The witness: Yes, it could have had serious consequences if it had not been operated on. Lucy Eusebia Taylor, who lives at Rimu, said she knew both the accused and Watt. She had good reason to reI member the evening of September 10. “I saw Watt come through our road gate,” she said. “He collapsed. My sister and I went to assist him. He was in a state of collapse. His face was covered in blood, and his head was full of gorse pricks. We attended to him as well as we could.” Mrs M. J. Watt, wife of James Watt, said she knew there had been bad feeling between the accused and her husband. , . , Mr Reed’s objections to the statement were noted by the Court. . On the evening of the incident her husband went to bring in the cattle, continued Mrs Watt. “The accused, she said, “cam? up to me and called out, ‘Mrs Watt, he is away along to Taylor s. I don’t know whether I have hurt him or not.’ I presumed he meant my husband. The accused then went to his home.” ACCUSED’S STATEMENT Detective-Sergeant J. W. Hill, who interviewed the accused, said the accused desired t<x- explain what took place. He admitted that there had been bad feeling between Watt and himself. The trouble started over a rabbit boundary fence and Watt wanted to fight him on that occasion. Several times when Watt was cycling along the road he swerved towards the accused and tried to run him off the road. On one occasion the accused was passing Watt s place and Watt called out an offensive epithet The accused stated that for 18 months Watt had done everything possible both to annoy and insult him. Describing the incident on September 10, the accused in his statement said that at 5 p.m. he met Watt, who was riding his bicycle. The accused was on his correct side of the road. In his left hand the accused had an axe and under his right arm he had a pitchfork. Watt rode at the accused and ran into the pitchfork. The fork entered Watts body. Watt fell off his bicycle and fell into a gorse hedge. He got up and clinched with the accused, catching him by the throat. The accused struck Watt on the face and Watt fell,' pulling the accused on top of him. Blood flowed and Watt called out: “I’m done You have killed me.” The accused went for assistance, but when he returned, to the spot Watt had gone. He then communicated with the police. The accused pleaded not guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. , . . , In his depositions taken at a special sitting of the Court while he was in hospital, Watt alleged that the accused attacked and injured him with the pitchfork.