GUILTY OF ASSAULT.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 May 1922, Page 2

GUILTY OF ASSAULT.

A SUBSTANTIAL FINE. THE MIDHIRST CASE. After being found guilty by the jury on the previous day of common assault, Edward O’Connor appeared in 1 the Supreme Court, Naw Plymouth, yesterday morning for sentence. O’Conhor’s conviction urose out of *.n incident on the Radnor Road, in the Midhirst district, as the of which an elderly man named -SpecK was admitted to the Stratford Hospital, suffering from injuries after an encounter with accused. Council for the prisoner, Mr. A. Coleman, urged that the provisions of the Offenders’ Probation Act might be extended towards O’Connor. Counsel said his grounds for the request were that the jury had found prisoner guilty of merely common' assault, and also that tney had added a recommendation in this connection, Mr. Coleman referred to the previous good character of O’Connor, and urged that it could not be said he was of a criminal class or that lie had offended previously. There had been a good deal of provocation, and though this could not be pleaded iii extenuation of the offence, counsel thought it might well be taken into consideration in mitigation. There was also the fact of O’Connor’s good war service, and that he was now working a dairy farm, being assisted by the Crown. It would be in the best interests of the State and the prisoner if he was extended probation on terms to be fixed by His Honor. “The j&ry have taken a lenient view of your offence,” said His Honor, in addressing prisoner. “They evidently considered you had extreme provocation, and they have given effect to this by their verdict, and, ef course, by their strong recommendation to mercy'.” Continuing, His Honor said he had no doubt O'Connor had provocation, but in whatever light the circumstances were viewed, the assault was a serious one. In fact he thought it was quite possible O’Connor might have been standing his trial bn a charge of murder, had not the witness Gisborne been there to intervene, for the evidence as to the assault showed that prisoner had lost his head.

His Honor did not think the case was one for probation, but, at the same time, he did not think it was an instance in

which prisoner should be sent to gaol. He thought it was a case in which O’Connor should be fined, and said ho ■had taken into consideration the jury’s recommendation and the fact that evidence of residents on Radnor Road showed O’Connor had been a good neighbor.

“The sentence of the Court,” His Honor said, “is that you are fined £25 and ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution, £36 9s Bd, knd to be imprisoned until such tine and costs are paid, in any case not exceeding six months.’ -

Mr. Coleman, on behalf of O’Connor, asked for time in which to find the money, and His Honor said he would suspend the enforcement of the order for one week. O’Connor was then liberated.