EXTRAORDINARY ACTION.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 February 1922, Page 7

EXTRAORDINARY ACTION.

WOMAN ALLEGES ASSAULT. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT. A case presenting unusual features came before Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court at Wellington on Tuesday and Wednesday last in the action by Violet Lily May Anderson, of Pahautanui, against Edward Draper, of the same district, for alleged indecent assault, £750 damages being claimed. Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. F. O’Leary for the defendant. The plaintiff ie a married woman, wife of Andrew Anderson. According to the case presented by Mr. Jackson, the offence alleged took place on December 18, 1921. The plaintiff had known Draper when a girl, and her husband had known him as a neighboring farmer. While Anderson and William Draper were milking on the day in question on Draper’s farm, said counsel, Edward Draper and the plaintiff were at the house. Mrs. Anderson went .into the bedroom where Draper was dressing, not knowing that was the case, to look for a needle to mend her little girl’s coat, and there it was alleged that the defendant committed the of : fence alleged. The plaintiff called out, and her husband, coming up from the cowyard, found Draper in a position which led Anderson to take strong action. He struck Draper with a broom. The two men fought round the bedroom and into the kitchen, and through into the backyard. Finally the assistance of a neighbor was secured, and the men were parted. DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE. The defendant stated in evidence that •he had known the plaintiff for .30 years and her husband for 20 years. On December 18 he visited plaintiff’s place, and the plaintiff and her husband accompaied him to his farm, about three miles distant, where the Andersons were going to assist him with milking. Defendant got the cows in, and his brother and Anderson carried on with the milking while he went away and changed his clothes. W'hen in his bedroom Mrs. Anderson entered, and he told her to be careful, as her husband might come into the house. She replied that she would go out and see whether he was coming, and on returning said lie was not coming. She then sat down on the bed, and defendant put his arm | around her. The next moment Anderson came in, and said he would shoot both of them. Defendant did not reply. Anderson went outside, and Mrs. Anderson remarked that her husband would kill her. When Anderson returned he had a broom in his possession, and hit defendant across the head. Mrs. Anderson was struck on the left arm, and the broom broke. Defendant eventually fought his way out to the yard, when a fight ensued for about 15 minutes. John Galloway arrived just as Anderson picked up an axe. Galloway held Anderson while witness took the axe from him. Anderson then went to Gallowway’s house, while defendant helped his brother to finish the milking. Defendant had to go to Porirua for medical treatment as the result of the fight with Anderson, and was ill for a week. Defendant stated that the plaintiff’s evidence was untrue, and that he had not interfered with her.

COMMENTS BY JUDGE. “A ease like this is practically unique,” said the Judge in summing up. ‘"I personally have never seen an action brought for assault under such circumstances as are claimed to have existed in this case, in any Court in New Zealand, nor a report of such a case in any Court anywhere else. That does not affect the fact that plaintiff is entitled to bring this action. The ordinary course to pursue where a woman has been assaulted is to give information to the police. The matter is investigated, and then if there is a case against the accused person proceedings are brought in a criminal court. The injured woman, after’the criminal proceedings have been heard, has a right to bring a civil action, or if a civil action is taken first a criminal action may follow.”

His Honor pointed out that where criminal proceedings were concerned, once information was given to the police the parties had no further interest in the matter, except as witnesses of the Crown. Their interes** were in the direction of telling thi, ruth and nothing else. In a civil action like this, plaintiff and the principal witness, her husband, had an inducement because there was a large sum of money concerned. which would be profit to them if the jury believed the story they told. The ease required the very greatest care and attention from the jury. At the conclusion of the Judge’s summing up, Mr. Jackson said that a similar case had been heard in Wanganui some years ago.

His 'T.onor: Well, I cannot help saying they should not be encouraged. The jury, after retiring for 25 minutes. found that plaintiff had not established her case with sufficient evidence, and therefore they brought in a unanimous verdict for defendant. Judgment was accordingly entered for defendant, with costs op the highest scale, as on a judgment for £750.