CHARGES OF ASSAULT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10114, 8 October 1910, Page 3

CHARGES OF ASSAULT.

OUTCOME OF A VISIT TO CAR-

TERTON

In the Magistrate's 'Jourt at Masterton yesterday, before Mr L. G. Reid, S.M., Thomas. Holland mas charged, on two separate information", with having assaulted Harry Sewell and Arthur Jones. Robert Hole was charged, on two informations, with assaulting the same informants.

Mr 0. H. Cullen appeared for the prosecution, and Mr P. L. Hollings for the defendant.

Mr Hollings suggested that the four charges be taken together. Mr Cullen pointed out that the offences took place on dilfei-ent dates. He objected to the whole of the charges being taken together. His Worship decided to take the first two charges, i.e., those preferred by Sewell, as they appeared to refer to the one date. Mr Cullen outlined the circumstances of the case, and stated that the informations were laid under section 192 of the Justices of the Peace Act.

Harry Sewell, labourer, deposed that on the evening of Saturday, September 24th, he hired a vehicle from the defendants. He paid for it, and said he was going to Carterton. The defendant Hole asked that they come back before eleven or twelve o'clock. Hole stated in a jocular sort of way, "Don't get drunk." Witness and Arthur Jones proceeded to Carterton. They returned about 11.30, and went to a house in Essex Street. They left the horse standing in the vehicle a few yards away. When they returned, the horse and vehicle were gone. Witness searched Worksop Road, Bannister Street. Columb'a Road, and several other streets, but could not find the horse. He went to the stable in Dixon Street" about 1 o'clock in the morning, but it was closed On Sunday morning, about 7 | o'clock, witness got up and made another search for the vehicle. He then went home and had breakfast. After breakfast witness went to the' stables, and, after two or three visits, saw Mr Hole at his house behind the stables. Hole asked what had become of the gig Before witness had time to explain, Hole rushed out and kicked him, and afterwards rushed him into a fence and struck him in the face with his open hand. Hole called him a "skunk." Witness ran into the road and Hole followed, him and rushed him into the fence. Be afterwards caught witness by the neck, pulled him into the stable, put him in a horse stall and started punching him. He also used very bad language He then started pulling witness out, but witness resisted. Holland then caught hold of him and said, "Come on." They pulled bim into a feed room, and Hole said, "Lock the door and let's shut him up." Hole pushed witness's nose with his open hand, and said he would put it back on to his forehead. He then said, "We'll put the into the water trough." They pulled him out, but did not put him into the trough. They asked him to pull his clothes off, and said they would send him home naked, hole then took him into the office and compelled him to sign an 1 0 U. for £2. He said if he did not sign it he would put him somewhere where the crows would not damage him for a week or two. Witness was nineteen years of age, and had been treated for a weak heart When he went home, his face was bleeding, and his mother bathed it. He was afraid that he would be ducked in the horse trough. Witness v had left a coat in the gig, and Hole had promised to let him have it, if it was found, on the payment of £2. .

In cross-examination, witness admitted that his correct name was Thomas Harry Sewell, .and that he had served a month in Wellington gaol. He knew "Artie" Jones very well, and had been knocking about with him. He knew that Jones had served a term in gaol. They went to Carterton about 8 30, and spent their time in drinking beer. They left Carterton about 10 o'clock, and returned with three bottle* of beer. They consumed one of the bottle 3 of beer 'on the road home. Witness was being charged by the police with furiously driving the lorse at Carterton, and with ill-treating the animal. They had two bottles of beer on their return to Masterton, and took it to a house in Essex Street. Witness did not know why they went to the house. He did not know the occupants. He did not go inside, but remained on the verandah While he was there, the horse, which was only a few yards away, cleared out. Witness did not hear the horse go. He did not go inside the house, although he spoke to a young lady occupant near the gate. Witness did not go to the front of the stable, because the back door was closed, Witness went to Hole's house next day to enquire about his coat. Hole ordered him off the premises, and witness left, whereupon Hole kicked him, rushed him into a fence and struck him, Witness did not go to the police station after being assaulted, but went home, got his face bathed, and laid down. Witness did not admit to Hole that he had knocked the horse about. Hole said, "I'll make you pay for this." He signed a document offering to pay £2 for the damage done to the horse, so that he could get out of the stable. The defendant Holland only helped to pull witness about, but did not assault him. There were other people in the stable. Witness was telling Arthur Millar what happened in the stable, when, Holland and a man named Petherick passed on Tuesday evening. Witness did not hear Miller advise him to get a doctor to certify that his ribs were injured, so as to "put their pot on." Re-examined by Mr Cullen: Witness did not think the horse was damaged. He had since seen it in work.

Elizabeth Sewell, mother of the informant Kewell, deposed that her

ton came ''home on the Sunday morning' in a very exhausted condition. His face was bleeding, and he appeared to be thoroughly done up. His clothes were also covered in dirt and muck. The boy, who was physically weak, was sobbing. Witness went to see Holland, who said that Hole had been annoyed at being kept up. Witness asked what the tow was about Holland said there wag nothing much wrong, and that no harm had been done to the buggy. Under cross-examination, witness stated that her son came home between twelve and one o'clock on Sunday morning Witnes* had warned him not to keep company with "Artie" Jones, tier son went out on Sunday morning about nine o'clock. As far as witness knew he did not go out before that hour.

By the Bench: Her son looked as though he had had drink when he came home early on Sunday morning. He was not drank, and his face was not injured then Hannah Hizabeth Kiel berg, daughter of the last witness, gave corroborative evidence concerning the interview with Holland after the alleged assault. William JMcHattie, upholsterer's apprentice, deposed to having seen Hole.pusning Sewell across the street Into the stable on the Sunday afternoon. Witness would not have liked to have been handled in the same way that fee well was handled /Witness did not see Hole strike or kick Sewell

This was the :case for the prosecution. »

Mr Pollings, in outlining the defence, stated that the evidence of fewell was the concoction of a diseased imagination, and was unsupported by either circumstances or facts, Ihe case was trivial and trumped up. and should be dismissed. Robert Hole, one of the defendants, deposed that he was a livery-stable keeper, and on September 24th let out a vehicle to Jones and b'ewell I his was about 7 30 o'clock in the evening. 'i hey said they would be home at 10 o'clock. Witness said he would give them until 11 o'clock, but if they returned after that hour they would have to pay extra. In consequence of what witness heard from a Mr Wood about 11 o'clock, witness went out to search for his vehicle, but could not find it. A man named Conrick brought the horse and vehicle to the stable about 12 o'clock. The horse showed sign of having been driven to death and galloped. J t also showed signs of foundering, having sustained a chill. Witness stayed with the horse until about 1.30 o'clock, rubbing it and endeavouring to restore circulation. Neither Sewell nor Jones came to the stable that night, 'ihere was a rug in the vehicle when it was taken away, but it. was not there when it was returned There was no coat in the vehicle. About 3 o'clock on Sunday afternoon Sewell went to witness's house and asked what the row was about over the gig. Witness asked why the gig was not returend, and Sewell said he had returned it. Witness said Conrick had brought it back Sewell then asked for his coat, which he said was left in the gig, and witness said it was not there Sewell called witness a "liar." Witness ordered him off the premise?, and Sewell said he could not put him off. Witness then pushed him off. Ihere was a bit of a scuffle, and they got on to the road. Witness did not strike Sewell. When on the road, Sewell again asked for his coat. Witness told him to go into the stable and see if it was there. They went together, hut the coat could not be found, fc'ewell then said he was sorry for what he had said and done. Witness said the horse was knocked about and would not be fit for work for about a week. Sewell said he would pay for the damage if witness would say no more about it. Witness said the horse was damaged to the extent of about £2, and asked Sewell for the money. Sewell said he had no money, but signed an order for the, amount. -Sewell signed the order without being forced; Witness denied having threatened to put Sewell in a horse trough, or threatened to strip him of his clothes He admitted having pushed Fewell out of the chaff room.

Thomas Holland gave corroborative evidence concerning the hiring of the vehicle He saw the horse on the following day, and found it in a verybad way. , It appeared to have been over-driveri. The horse was easy to drive, and had previously been driven by ladies. Sewell came to the stable about neon en Sunday, and asked if the trap and horse were back. Witness replied that it was. Sewell returned again in the afternoon, and asked for his coat. Witness said he knew, nothing about it, as Hole had received the horse on its return. Sewell then went over to Hole's house. Un his return with Hole, he looked through the stable for his . coat. Witness then ordered him out of the stable and put his hand on his shoulder. He did not strike Sewell or otherwise assault him. Under cross-examination, witness denied that he had been guilty of asfaulting other people. The horse had not been driven on the day following its return to the stable. Mr Cullen stated that, after conferring with his client, he had decided to ask leave- to withdraw the information. tie felt that it was useless to proceed further. His Worship said he considered Mr Cullen was pursuing a wise course. Mr Hollings askei that the case bs dismissed on its merits. His Worship said lie had no option but to dismiss the information, if it were asked for. The case was thereupon dismissed, with 10s 6d costs against the informant.

The informations laid by Arthur Jones were withdrawn.