AN ALLEGED ASSAULT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8036, 25 January 1906, Page 2

AN ALLEGED ASSAULT.

CONFLICT OF MKDTCAL TKSTIMONY. Before Mr T. Hutchison, S.M., on Wednesday, William Barnard, of Barren Head, was charged, on llie insinuation of Joliu W. Sycamore. Waiw.iliiiho, with having assaulted informaul, mi the Kill] inst., causing actual bodily harm.

Mr Filzherlicrl appeared r,„. |]„. prosecution, Mr Weston dc'.'cn.'ing ii. accused's behalf. At the outset Mr Weston applied to have informant examined bv l)r.< Home and AVnlker, who were in' attendance. After cousiilling his client and Dr Whillon, Mr Filzherbrrl consented.

Mr Filzherbcrt. in outlining the case, saiil information was laid under Section IS I- of Ihe Ad, under wairh „ penalty up to :l years was pvvided. He would adduce evidence I hat on Saturday, Ullh insi., defendant endeavoured to assault Sycamore. Also that two years ago an assault was threatened. He would call evidence with regard to the assault of the 16th inst., and also medical testimony relating to the injuries. He called

Waller Bverelon, manufacturing jeweller, Devon St., who stated that on Ihe night of 1:1 th January, he saw prosecutor and defendant talking together in front of Hovcll's shop. Barnard had his arm drawn back and his hand closed. Sycamore put up his left hand and said, "Now, none of that."

At this stage it was agreed to take the medical testimony. Dr Whitlon gave evidence thai he was consulted by informant on the Kith inst., and found him suffering from a fissure --non-displaced fracture- on the left lower jaw, about an inch and a half from ihe angle, of the jaw. A loose tooth [was also evident at this point There was no bleeding from the mouth. The lobe of Ihe lefl ear was bruised, scratched and bleed, ing, and an area of- about a square inch in extent along the base of Ihe left ear, over the cheek-bone and over the jaw was bruised, swollen and scratched. In his opinion the fracture was caused by some direct force delivered at short range. The stone produced—was capable of producing the injury.

To Mr "Weston : The blow was apparently struck lit the point of the bruise. The fracture was of the first degree—that- is, it was not a displaced fraclure, but showed crepitus (grating). He did not think I hat a decayed tooth would have anything to do with the cause of the fracture. Crepilus might be actually present without the bono being broken right through, He did not think prosecutor could mastieite solid food. If it were shown that he had, would say lie was a most enterprising gentleman, hut would still adhere to his diagnosis. He did not think the crepitus arose from anv oilier cause than the blow, which mis! havi been a severe one delivered a! r'o e range. Had examined Sycamore [luce times. It would take a month f r the bone to join again.

Or "Walker, who, in company witli Dr Home, had examined iufornianl in Court, said he found several small external abrasions, evidently about n week old, in front of the left ear. Below these there was a little yellow and bluish slain. The examination ol the outer surface of the jaw did not re veal any irregularity. 'The teeth ol the lower jaw were in a filthy stale and at the alleged seat of the fraction the teeth were hollow and rotten, and lull of decayed matter. Around thesi there was some swelling, and evident milamniation. Internally there wa> no wound whatever. lie could not make out any sign of I'rneiiirc, and did not think the jaw had been fractured He differed absolutely from J)i \\ billon in his diagnosis of the case.

Cross-examined by Mr Filzhcrberl : From what he had seen and heard he thought Mr .Vhitton's diagnosis was wrong. He could not remember having ever heard of fissure of the jaw hone. Dr Home, in his evidence, slated he agreed entirely with the evidence of Br Walker, and differed from Br AYliitton's diagnosis. To Mr Filzhcrberl : He did not think an examination eight days ago would have altered his diagnosis. He could not conceive a lissiire having been occasioned as described, Mr "Weston asked the S.M. to dis. miss the ease on the strength of the medical testimony. Bodily injury had not been proved, and there could be now no ease to go to a jury.

After some argument Mr Filzhcrberl intimated he would not proceed with the ease, although he had a number of witnesses to call as to the commilling of tuc assault. He had only recently been instructed in the case, and admitted the medical testimony was quite contrary to what he expected. On the face of it he agreed there could be no case for a jury. He would withdraw, and probably take action for common assault. The ease was then dismissed.