MAN ASSAULTED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 98, 6 February 1936, Page 6

MAN ASSAULTED

FARMER PLEADS GUILTY.

VICTIM SUFFERS BROKEN LEG.

FRICTION BETWEEN TRUSTEES

The attention of the Ashburton Magistrate’s Court was taken up this morning in the hearing of a case of alleged assault on a farm. Mr A. H- lenn, J.P., and Mr E. C. Bathurst, J.l were on the bench. The case for the Police was conducted by Sergeant I. L. Moore. ~ George Apiti Read, a farmer, residing at Eiffelton, was charged that on January 6, at Lowcliffe, he did assault Walter Robert Keen-, so as to cause him actual bodily harm. Mr G. C. Nicoll appeared lor accused, and Mr O. G. de C. Drury appeared on behalf of Keen. - Dr J. Connor said that about 8 p.m. on the day in question lie saw Keen, whose ankle he X-rayed, an found a fracture. There were bruises on his right upper arm. The injuries were consistent with Keen having fallen or been pushed. The fractured ank e had been in plaster since that date, and it would still take some time before the leg was fit for use. To Mr Nicoll: The fracture was at the lower end of the fibula, the outside of the ankle, and could have been caused by Keen going over on his ankle. The arm bruise was on the inner side, almost in'the arm-pit, and it may have been caused by someone gripping him under the arm-pits. Audrey Muriel Read, widow, residing at Lowcliffe, managing the farm of her late husband, said that accused ana Keen were the trustees in the estate. On January 6, Keen took a load oi coal and coke to her place during the afternoon. Keen offered to take the lunches up to a paddock, returning in about half ail hour. Keen, who was witness’s father, was limping when he came back. Accused followed Keen back to the house. Keen said that acucsed had knocked him about in the paddock, but accused was not present when that was said.

Trustees Did Not Ag^ee. To Mr Nicoll: She had known accused about seven years, and he was a capable and experienced farmer.' He had done a good deal of supervising on the farm lately. The question of the carrying on of the farm was discussed at a conference between herself, the two trustees, and the manager of a mercantile firm shortly after her husband’s death, and it was arranged then that accused should “run and supervise the farm and the estate.” Her father was not a farmer. She knew the trustees did not agree regarding the farm business. She was willing that accused should remain a trustee of tbe estate. W. It. Keen, carrier, residing at Winslow, said lie had been on friendly terms with accused prior to the assault. He had no interest in the farm beyond being a trustee in the estate up to the time of the assault. He did not know where lie stood at the present time. 'On January 6 lie took a load of coal and coke to the farm. Three weeks before that he had a bit of a difference with accused regarding the working of the farm. Accused had told him he should go to the farm and stook for nothing, but witness had refused to do that while he had his own work to look after. Threat by Accused.

Accused had told him he would “have to keep his end up with him (accused).” Accused had then, threatened that if witness went on to the farm and did not work, accused would dump him out of the gate. After delivering the coal and coke, witness had a cup of tea in the house. The lunches were being made tip then, and witness offered to take them down the paddock to two men (Oakley and Kidd). Trevor Stalker, a boy, accompanied witness. The men were heading grass at tJfie time. Witness sat down while they ate, and accused appeared on the scene. Witness said, “Good day, George,” but accused did not answer. He asked the men why they had stopped work. Witness offered to cart the seed from the paddock to the shed, if accused thought it was necessary. The seed was in bags, and it looked as if rain, might fall soon. Accused said, “You’ll get no carting here.” Witness replied that he did not want any. Accused then said that witness _ was interfering too much in the business because he (witness) had made inquiries as to whether a motor truck which had gone off the farm had been paid for. He also told witness that he would not have any say on the farm, and witness replied that he would have a say. Accused said, “Get out of the paddock.” Witness refused to go, and accused then jumped on witness as he sat on the ground, catching him bv the arm and the scruff of the neck and saying, “Get out, or I’ll run you out.” The shirt produced was the one he was weaving when accused caught hold of him. The neck band was torn by accused. Witness was dragged to bis feet, and he was run along for three or four yards. “My Leg is Broken.” He pushed witness forward, and witness’s leg went under him. He heard the bone break. Witness "said, “Cut it out, my leg is broken.” Accused said, “ your leg. I’ll break your neck.” Accused dragged witness for two chains or more after that. Witness appealed to him to desist, and finally said he would report the matter to the police. Accused then grabbed him round the throat and threatened to choke him if he did not swear not to tell the police Witness had to say that he would not tell, and he did not tell, though his wife communicated with the police. Accused was out of his mind with anger then, and if witness had not promised not to tell the police, the consequences might have been serious for him. The only reason for the assault seemed to he that witness would not work on the farm.

After reaching tho house, witness hoarded his truck and accused came on the scene again. He abused witness, and when objection was made, opened the cab door and threatened to pull witness out. Witness showed him his swollen leg, and accused shut the door. To Mr Nicoll: Witness agreed to ac-

cused taking over tlio supervision of the agricultural part of the estate. At the conference with the firm manager accused wanted his supervision put into a document, but the manager would not agree to that. Witness was born on a farm and had worked on one for years. Accused did not have a free hand in the supervision of the farm. Witness was prevented from going on to the farm when he liked. Accused actually did the supervising of the work. Witness had not objected to carting to the farm having been done by another carrier. He considered he was justified in asking if a truck sold from the farm had been paid for. When he offered to take the grass seed to the shed he did not know that the seed was being left in the paddock for certification. He did not say, “Try it on,” when accused told him he would be put out of the paddock, and he did not dare accused to do it. No blows were struck by accused. He did not think the surface of the paddock was more than ordinarily rough. Trevor Morton Stalker, aged 14, residing at Winslow, said he went to the farm with the 'previous witness. He was out in the paddock with the men and Keen when accused appeared. Keen asked him if he wanted the seed carted in. Accused took off his coat, and told Keen he would put him out of the paddock. Witness went on to corroborate the evidence of Keen regarding the assault, and the incident at the truck later on.

John Thomas Oakley, residing at Hororata, said he was in the grass seed paddock, on the occasion in question when accused arrived. As soon at the argument started he went to the tractor and started the engine. He saw accused lift Keen, to his feet, hut the rest of the affair was hidden by the header.

To Mr Nicoll: Accused joked with witness and his companion about stopping work. Hie could not remember any of the conversation that took place between Keen and accused. Constable J. B. It. Myers produced a statement made by accused on the day following the assault. In the statement accused admitted having pushed Keen from the paddock. Keen had tripped and fallen during the pushing.

Accused pleaded guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Bail, which Bad been granted when accused was previously before the Court, was renewed, namely, £SO self and one surety of £SO.