ALLEGED ASSAULT

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 7, Issue 83, 20 June 1944, Page 5

ALLEGED ASSAULT

POLICE CASE DISMISSED INCIDENTS NEAR EDGECUMBE ' CREAM COLLECTOR'S ALLEGATIONS Alleging assault against an Edgecumbe farmer, George Mat»chett, a cream lorry driver, William Bidois, who is employed by the Rangitaiki Plains Dairy Company instituted police pro- • ceed'ings in the Whakatane Court last Friday, when Justices G. A. Brabant any T. J. Cummings dismissed! the, information on the grounds of insufficiency of evidence, and! the fact that the ' charges amounfted to little other than one man's word's against anothers. The defendant who whs represent'ed by Mr Hodgson, of. Opotiki, denied all charges. Bidois in evidence said that on the morning of March 16th last, he -had set out with the lorry and called at Matchett's farm a minute or two •after 8 p.m. His instructions had been to leave the cream uncollected if it were not on. the. stand alter that time. This he had done in Matchett s -case, because there was no - sign of the cans on the stand. Oil othor •.mornings when he had been earlier he. had assisted them to get the milk -out to the. lorry, but this morning he was later than usual and could :jiot afford the time. Complainant's Story The following morning together with an assistant named Akurangi, lie had called at the stand, when -defendant was there with his son. He (witness) had left the oab to go round and help Akurangi, when -without a word of warning Matchett liad struck him with his clenched fist, and worked himself up into .such a temper that witness deemed it best, to get out of. the way. De* ■ fendant had abused and followed him back to the cab striking him on. the head and back. He seemed to be 'off his head.' He (witness) had given him no provocation whatsoever. He had there' upon - turned the lorry round and -gone back to the factory and reported the matter to the manager. Witness continued that he had beeri taken off the run in order to avoid further trouble, but on May 19 he had been transferred back •again to Gow's Road, and this time had been again accosted and abused by defendant, who had threatened to fix him that he would never drive again. Cross-Examined To Mr Hodgson witness denied that he had deliberately left defendant's cream or that he had been ear!ly. His orders were, definitely to leave the cream if a minute past 8 •o'clock. The spare driver, Akurangi, was a slow worker and had to be helped, that was. why'he had gone round til's back to give a hand. He -denied likewise, that he had provoked defendant by saying that his report to the-manager 'hadn't worked.' He had not, got up on the stand beside Mr Matchettt and abused him. He could not explain why Akurangi had refused to come back to the factory with him, or why he had stayed with defendant. William Peter Tyson, assistant head driver to the company, gave • evidence that complainant was actually on the Gow's Road run on May 19. He admitted that he had not Jkept a check to indicate that that was so. Complete Denial The defence was a complete denial and. an allegation rather that. Bidois had been the aggressive party. It was true, that the cream had been left, but equally untrue that defendant had ever struck complainant or used abusive language to him. The story of. the second argument was, it was claimed a complete invention. From the box, defendant said he liad been farming in the Edgecumbe disitrict for the past 14 years. His cream stand was not roofed and in order to avoid leaving the cans ■out in the sun it had been his practice to. bring them out as soon as the lorry was heard on the road. On the 16tli of March, the complain' ant chose to drive right past, though .a glance down the paddock would have shown him that they were bringing the cans to the stand. It seemed that they had been deliberately by-passed. Witness had thereupon rung and complained to the man--ager. Next morning he had gone out with his son to meet the lorry, Which had pulled up at the stand. Witness mounted the stand to help Akurangi load up the cans, when .Bodois had left the driver's seat and come round the rear, climbing the stand beside him. Bidois then proceeded to twit him about his complaint to the manager, telling him that his report hadn't worked, and preceding to use abusive language. Witness had pushed him out of the way, and he had fallen off the stand, saying that he would 'fix him.' He bad then swung the vehicle round

and gone back to the factory. Akurangi had remained on the stand, and later accompanied witness back to his home. Not Seen Since He would swear that he had never seen the driver Bidois from that day to this. Any allegations about a further argument in May was an absolute fabrication. Cross-examined by Sergeant Farrell, he admitted that the root cause of the trouble was due. to Bidois leaving the cream behind. Bidois had quite often helped him get his cream ready up till that date, and he appreciated it. He had pushed Bidois of? the stand because, he was in. the way and abusing him. Mr Hodgson then suggested that there was no case for the defendant to answer and that in view of the paucity of evidence a conviction could not be: eiitered. The police had failed to prove their case, and a glaring fact was their failure to call Akurangi who could have corroborated the case had it been a sound one. Their only reason, could have been their unwillingness to risk a story which would not support Bidois. In dismissing the case, the Justices contended that the evidence was too weak and that there was nothing to support the allegations made by J complainant.