AN ASSAULT

Taranaki Daily News, 19 May 1922, Page 3

AN ASSAULT

ACCUSED BEFORE COURT. THE MIDHIRST INCIDENT. GUILTY OF COMMON ASSAULT. Yesterday the Supreme Court at New Plymouth concluded the hearing of the charge against Edward. O’Connor, a man of about 30 years of age, who was indicted in connection with a serious assault on an elderly man named George S. .Speck, at Midhirst, on March 14 last. The case was conducted by the Crown Prosecutor (Mr. C. H. Weston), and O’Connor was defended by Mr. A. Coleman. Further evidence for the Crown was given by J. R. Kelly, M. Davis, H. F. Taylor, residents on the Radnor Road, where the assault was alleged to have occurred, and F. W. Belk, nephew of Speck. One witness, cross-examined, said it was possible Speck’s injuries may have been caused by his falling on the stumps which remained on the ground after the clearing of the undergrowth. Constable C. Chesnutt, stationed at Stratford, related a conversation he had when he arrested O’Connor. Accused said: “I chased him with the fork, but I did not stick him with it. I gave him a lift on the earhole. He got on my nerves.” O’Connor added that he was sorry he had done it. On the afternoon of the occurrence, previous to the assault, O’Connor met witness in Stratford and complained that Speck had planted himself at his (O’Connor’s) gate, and was making himself a nuisance.

At the request of the Crown Prosecutor, the evidence of Sergeant Dale, of Stratford, was taken in regard to the prosecution of Speck in 1917 for having no means of support. The sergeant said on that occasion Speck had merely been takeh into custody for his own good, as he was not looking after himself. He had received complaints about Speck, but on investigation generally found the fault was on the other side. This concluded the evidence for the prosecution. THE DEFENCE.

Mr. Coleman said the defence was a denial of the assault, under the circumstances detailed by the Crown. He thought that from the evidence which would be called the jury would have no difficulty in understanding that the relations between the two parties were the reverse of friendly. The defence would be that the unprovoked aggressor was Speck, and the injuries from which he suffered were in the main self-in-flicted, though, of course, accidentally. Accused, giving evidence, said he was assisted by the Government on to his farm, being) a returned soldier with 4 years 51 days’ service. He had never been in any trouble before. Ever since Speck had camped near his place there had been trouble between them. When Speck first pitched his camp he had a habit of walking into the house without saying a word and sitting down on the bed. He had to chase him off the farm on many occasions, and generally picked up anything handy to threaten Speck, but never hit him. Speck acted very childishly, end witness had tried to have him removed. He had made in-

sulting remarks about witness and his mother. O’Connor detailed a long series of Speck’s actions, and said that up to the time of the incident under review he had not laid hands on him. On the day he returned from Stratford he went to Speck’s camp to see if he could find some poison, believing Speck hod poisoned his cat and dog. Speck denied having any poison, and threw himself down in fits of temper. He also threatened witness with a saw. He then hit Speck with his fist, but did not know; if the blow knocked him down, as he did not wait to see. He proceeded home and started milking. Speck came to the gate and started calling put. Witness picked up a fork and chased him away from the gate. He could see that Speck was bleeding from the head. Speck went down the road, and witness did not see him again until the lower Court.

Other evidence was given by A. Bowman, factory manager, Radnor Road, James Marriner, firewood cutter, formerly of Radnor Road, and A. R. Askew, farmer, Radnor Road. THE SUMMING-UP. In the course of summing up, His Honor said the case derived its importance from the fact that there was a temptation for the jury to ignore the law’, but he urged that if juries were to find for accused persons out of sympathy, it would be the end of law and order. They should disregard every consideration except the question as to whether or not accused committed the assault. If juries thought an accused person was guilty, but that the case was one for leniency, they could add a rider to that effect, and in such instances their recommendations were invariably given effect to.

His Honor proceeded to review the evidence in the present case, remarking on the nature of Speck’s injuries, and the fact that he was in hospital for eleven days. If the Crown had not satisfied them beyond all doubt that accused had committed an assault the evidence at least called for an explanation as to how the injuries were received, and it then became a question of which explanation satisfied them. Apparently from his statements, Speck was deficient, but the jury should judge from the general body of evidence as to what actually occurred. Osborne was the only witness who could help them, as none of the others had seen the assault. The strongest evidence of all was Speck’s injuries, and it was also on record that Osborne saw O’Connor puli Speck over and kick him. His story was inconsistent with that told by Speck and O’Connor, but they had not to consider who told the complete story right through, but as to whether the evidence satisfied them that accused committed the assault. In the present case there could be onlj’ one excuse—namely, self-defence—and the law allowed a man to use sufficient violence against anothr to protect himself. The law was so jealous of that right, however, that once a man had sufficiently protected himself he was not entitled to pursue the aggressor. The defence was a denial of assault, and set up that O’Connor struck speck in self-protection and to prevent him using a saw. Was this the effect that could be gathered from the evidence? If the jury thought an assault had been committed, His Honor asked them to say to what degree. The jury retired at a quarter to five They returned shortly before six o’clock to enquire whether the injury to the eye only could be regarded as causing actual bodily harm. His Honpr_s»id Se. tfwvmht j£. th« him

were of opinion that this constituted the only assault it could not be regarded as grievous bodily harm, but'rather as common assault. The jury returned in a few minutes with a verdict of guilty of common assault, adding a strong recommendation to mercy. In a rider they expressed the opinion that man Speck should be placed under proper control. His Honor said he would deal with O’Connor this morning, but intimated that he need not be detained in custody, providing he gave an undertaking to be present. On O’Connor giving the assurance that he would be present as required, he was allowed to go, and will appear this morning.