GUILTY OF ASSUALT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 99, 7 February 1936, Page 3

GUILTY OF ASSUALT

VERDICT ON TWO CHARGES. WELLINGTON STREET AFFRAY. (Per Press Association.) ' WELLINGTON, February 6. The trial commenced in the Supreme Court to-day of James Logie, alias Kelly, aged 33, a labourer, who was charged with wounding Charles Crooke on January 9 and January 10 with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The ease arose from an assault which occurred in Lambton Quay on January 10. Crooke, a salesman, was allegedly attacked with a knife. A feature of the morning’s proceedings was the statement by Crooke that at the time of the affair in Lambton Quay he had shaped up to the accused with a knife in his hand. His Honor Mr Justice Smith held that this new statement introduced the defence of provocation and declared the witness hostile. Mr Macassey, for the Crown, outlined the case on the lines of the story told in the Lower Court hearing. He then called Crooke, and, in the opening questions, asked him to be frank in his answers. Leading counsel for the defence suggested! that Mr Macassey was going very close to cross-examining his own witness. These questions related to his knowledge of a man who waited for him on the night of January 9. Referring to the occurrence on the following morning in Lambton Quay, witness said he had gone at accused in a - fighting attitude and accused said, “For God’s sake, don’t, Charlie.” Witness proceeded to say he had made a rush at accused, and accused made a rush at him, and witness received a wound. Witness had a small pocket knife in his hand, which probably accused was the only one to see. Mr Macassey: Have you ever mentioned that before? Witness: No. It was only a small knife. I have it here. Mr Macassey: Have you ever suggested this before? Witness: No. I thought I might incriminate myself. I was out to protect myself. “Hostile Evidence.” After representations from Mr Macassey, his Honor quoted from witness’s original depositions, and said there was no contradiction, but witness had added something. He thought that the Crown had been taken by surprise, and ruled that the element of surprise was a basis of hostility. While witness’s demeanour was not actually hostile, his evidence was hostile to the basis of the Crown’s case. In further questions, witness said the pocket knife was closed at the time. In cross-examination, Mr Neal (for accused) questioned witness on his gelations with the police, and saul: “Your attitude would be this: that you were practically hiding from the police.” Witness: Yes. Mr Neal: On the evening of January 9 were you concerned in ■ trouble in another part of the city ? Witness: Yes. Mr Neal: Was Logie there on that occasion ?—Yes. Witness said the trouble was over money. . . Mr Neal: Did you sustain injuries on that occasion? —No. After evidence of street witnesses oi the affair, the Crown case was closed. Mr Neal said he did not propose to call evidence for the defence. Addressing the jury, he said that ' Crooke, who had bad eyesight, could not say definitely who the man was who had assaulted him on Januaiy J. Crooke, he said,, must have impressed the jurv as being a very unreliable witness. He had made certain statements to the police, and he had admitted that there was bad blood between himself and accused. In these circumstances, counsel contended that the whole of his evidence must lie disregarded. In Lambton Quay. Dealing with the alleged assault in Lambton Quay, Mr Neal submitted that what had happened was that Crooke drew a knife, and that Logie s action was merely a blow to grip the knife and stop him. In so doing Crooke was cut. There was no evidence that there was a knife in the hand of accused on that occasion, or that he had used a knife. • In his summing up his Honor said the case was indeed curious. One mail on two successive days was stabbed with a knife, and he did not wish to be very frank about it, and to come before a jury and tell them all that he knew. It was plain, his Honor thought, that there were circumstances existing between Crooke and the accused Logie which lutd not been brought before the court. It seemed, however, that they were connected with money matters. It was essential that the jury should realise that it was not trying any dispute between Crooke and Logic with regard to money matters. The civil courts iveie open to them to settle their disputes in the same way as every other citizen. What the jury had to try was a crime against the public peace, and it could not be in the public’s interest that creditors should pursue their debtors with knives.

After an hour’s retirement the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the two counts of wounding Crooke with intent to do grievous l>odily harm on January 9, and assaulting Crooke on January 10 so as to cause actual bodily harm. The jury recommended leniency. The prisoner was remanded for sentence.