JEALOUS FATHER

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 208, 22 November 1927, Page 1

JEALOUS FATHER

HIS DAUGHTER’S FRIENDS WALKS AND BIBLE LESSONS STICK AS AN ARGUMENT Strained relations, with a thelogical background, found an echo in the Onehunga Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when Charles C. Sandford appeared on a charge of assaulting Melville C. H. Barnett and causing actual bodily harm. Sandford has used a stick to emphasise his opposition to his daughter walking home from B«b>e reading arm-in-arm with Barnett. After hearing the evidence, the magistrate, Mr. J. G. U. Hewitt, persuaded the parties to accept his decision and ordered Sunil ford to come up for sentence when called upon. Mr. A. H. Johnstone, who appear d for Sandford, objected to the cu.v being dealt with summarily. The victim of the assault, aged 34. a farmer and milk vendor, of Te Fapapa, deposed that Miss Sandford. tin defendant's 20-year-old daughter, had visited his house two or three times every week for the past two and ahalf years. On the night of November 3 he and his wife escorted Miss Sandford home. When approaching Sundford’s house Miss Sandford hinted that her father might be watching among the trees, and Barnett went inside the gate to prove the question, when lie promptly received the required confirmation by a blow from t stout piece of wood over the right eye. shouting at the same time to his wife. "Elsie, I'm stunned.” Mrs. Barnett and Miss Sandford then took him to his home a short distance away. BUSINESS RIVALS “Since 1 started opposition to Sandford in the milk business he has not been on good terms witn me, and he objected to his daughter visiting my house.” continued witness. Cross-examined, the witness said that he once slapped landlord on iho lace during a dispute over the milk business. He had been in the nabit of taking Miss Sandford to work every morning in his motor-car, and that she had been practically living at his house for the past two or three years. He was a member of the Biole Students’ Association of America and Miss Sandford had joined the association voluntarily. He did not know that Sandford objected to his daughter’s conduct. Six months ago Sandford had sent her for a holiday with witness and his wife, and had paid JfcllO toward her expenses. Since then the girls’ parents had objected to her having anything to do with the Barnetts, but it had no effect on her. One of the family always saw her home. Sometimes it was his brother, sometimes his wife, and sometimes himself. He was not on familiar terms with Miss Sandford, but admitted walking home with her arm-in-arm. He could not stop Miss Sandford coming to his house, where they read the Bible and discussed questions pertaining thereto. He had hopes of going to America as a missionary and thought Miss Sandford might become a suitable companion for his wife during his absence. Dr. Thomas gave evidence as to the nature of the inch-long wound over Barnett’s eye. He suffered a good deal from shock, but made an uninterrupted recovery. CALLED HIM “A BEAST” Mrs. Barnett Reposed that on hearing the sound of the blow, “I rushed In to pick up my husband. Sandford was walking away.with a big stick in his hand. I tried to grab the stick but he wouldn’t let go. so I called him a •beast/ and hoped he was satisfied.” Cross-examined, Mrs. Barnett said she was not surprised at her husband and Miss Sandford walking arm-in-arm. She had seen them doing it. Mr. Johnstone: Under the trees at the gate would be a convenient spot for saying good-night, don’t you think? Witness: Oh. I don’t know. Mr. Johnstone: Do you see anything wrong in a young girl and a married man parting for the night in such a shady spot? Witness: Sandford could not se<anything wrong, because I was between them. Mary Sanford, aged 20, corroborated the former evidence, and said that she had been going to Barnetts’ House for the past few months against the wishes of her parents. “Father never came to see me home. He wished to avoid Barnett. I was studying the Bible with the Barnetts, but I always told mother who brought me home, even when it was Mr. Barnett.” Mr. Johnstone: Has your father not been jealous of your reputation when you went with Barnett in the motorcar? Witness: Yes. “I think I should not go to Barnet t any more as it has been the cause of so much trouble,” continued witness. Barnett’s brother Ivan deposed that Sandford had told him that he wasn’t going to take this business lying down. “I'll get him. I’ll stop it.” he had said. Witness failed to see anything wrong in his brother walkine arm-in-arm with Miss Sandford. Miss Sandford tvas determined to go to Barnett’s and had said that no one would stop her. Also, that her father’s attitude was unreasonable. The magistrate intimated his willingness to reduce the charge to one of common assault and deal with it summarily. It was, he said, Barnett’s duty to discourage Miss Sandford’s visits, and it was Sandford’s duty to take steps to prevent the situation from developing into something worse, but he was not justified in using a stick. “The circumstances are quite extraordinary and uncommon." said Mr. i Hewitt, “and if the case is left in my hands as at present. I should be indined to record a conviction only.” The court then adjourned to the parties to confer as to whether tn«case should go to a jury or be dep.lt with summarily. They decided to adopt the magistrate’s suggestion, and lie convicted the accused and ordered him to come up for sentence when called on.