ASSAULTING A STEP-FATHER.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1585, 21 May 1887, Page 3

ASSAULTING A STEP-FATHER.

At the. Resident Magistrate's Court, Christcburch, on Thursday rooming, 0. M.andC. H. Clark, youßg men, were charged, on information, with having assaulted George Sirett, their step-father, The prosecutor, »n elderly man, stated that he lived at Riccarton, On May 18th be went home and found the brothers removing a chest of drawers wbicb the eldest claimed. Afterwards, in tba bouse, the youngest attacked him without any provocation, pushed him out, and struck hiro about the head. Both of them then beat him, got bim down, and threatened to tie bim up with a rope, but peeing a gentleman coming along on horseback, they let him get up, and he went to the police station. Be was cut, and bled a good deal. In answer to Mr Kippenberger, couneel for tbe defendants, prosecutor sajj he never got drunk, nor was he in the h»bit.of using bad language in the presence ot his wife »ni her family, The defendants and their sister, who was called as a witness, stated that ever siace he bad married thbir mother six or seven , years—the prosecutor had been a perfect I plague in the house. He worked little, but got drunk much, and, when in that condition, he was unbearable. He used very bad language, smashed furniture, and compelled the females to fly ou; of the house. On this occasion he begg'u while the dsfendapts were there,and using most filthy language towards their mother, the youngest defendant put bim out. He showed fight, and in the milk both brothers did give bim » few " clouts." Tbey had previously, when he was mad with drink, tied him up as the only means of restraining him. Mr Beetham said tbe Bench believed that the pro.secutor was an ill-conditioned brute, who had behaved in a beastly, disgusting manner, and who richly deserved what he got. At the same time, the accused ' must bear in mind that the law provided severe penalties for tl>e open u*e of filthy language, especially in the presenoe of females, and they should have appealed to it. They would have been

justified in using- sach force as was necessary to remote their father-in-law, when he came indecent, bnt they had no right to " clout him." Tb-y would be fined one penny pach, and pay their own costs, and in future they must not take the law in their own hands,-—Press.