THE TE AROHA ASSAULT CASE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 2640, 13 June 1889, Page 2

THE TE AROHA ASSAULT CASE.

A very' unusual circumstance took place at the Supreme Court yesterday—the compromise of Pi misdemeanour with the approval of the Court and tho Crown Prosecutor. The case was that of Wood, committed for trial from Te Aroha for stabbing a bush-contractor named Hyde with a stick in the face, whereby Hyde has lost the use of one eye, and may lose tho use of both. Tho Grand jury found a true bill against Wood on the second count in the indictment of ' unlawfully wounding;" but it seems Hyde was in no way the prosecutor in the lower Court at Te Aroha, nor did he in any way promote tho criminal proceedings, and only gave ovidence at Te Aroha because he was compelled by subpiena to do so. Meantime, however, he commenced a civil action for £500 damages against Wood, and it now stands set down for trial at the civil session to bo held next week. Yesterday when tho case against Wood was called he pleaded guilty, and when Mr E. Hosketh, who appeared for him, addressed the Court to tho elfcct that Wood had pleaded guilty under his advice, but that he asked His Honour to approve a proposal of compromise which had been made to the injured man (Hyde), and to take such compromise into act in passing sentence. He referred to Dr. Laishley, who appeared for Hyde, as approving of tho proposed compromise. Dr. Laishley then expressed his willingness on behalf of Hyde to agree to the proposed compromise, and stated that it was only fair to Hyde that he should mention that he was in no way a party in promoting tho proceedings either in the lower or the Supremo Court, and he said ho especially mentioned this in view of the reported Now Zealand case of Wilson v. Wilson (3, N.Z., L.R.S.C.) The Crown Prosecutor, under the circumstances, said that he did not oppose on behalf of the Crown. His Honour thereupon stated that as the circumstances showed that the matter really partook mainly of tho character of a personal injury rather than a public wrong, he would, under the circumstances, allow the proposed compromise. Ho sentenced the prisoner to be bound in his own recognisances for £100, to come up for judgment if called upon, which, however, he will not be required to do in the event of the compromise being carried out.