THREE GUILTY OF ASSAULT

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 26970, 20 February 1953, Page 10

THREE GUILTY OF ASSAULT

HAMILTON TRIAL ENDS ACCUSED REMANDED FOR SENTENCE (New Zealand Press Association) HAMILTON, February 19. Verdicts of guilty on nine of the 12 counts of assault preferred against two brothers and their sister were returned by a jury after a retirement of four and a half hours in the Supreme Court at Hamilton today. The accused, Thomas Melling. aged 40, an insurance agent, of Hamilton, Joseph Melling, aged 45, an insurance agent, of Huntly, and Margaret Townsend, aged 43, married. of Huntly, jointly or separately faced 12 charges connected with an alleged assault on Kenneth Weeber at Tirau on October 8.

Mr Justice Adams remanded all three in custody for sentence.

When the trial was resumed this morning Detective-Sergeant H. Lilley said that when Joseph Melling was interviewed, he said he did not want to say anything about the allegations. He told him that his brother had been having domestic trouble for a number of years, and he had kept out of it up to the present. Detective-Sergeant Lilley said Mrs Townsend admitted she was the woman Margaret concerned in Weeber’s statements. All three accused were charged. The following day Thomas Melling told him “Joe and Margaret” had nothing to do with the whole matter. Melling said Weeber had been beaten up when he tried to wreck the car. The rope had been placed round his neck to prevent him running away and falling in the lake. Melling gave the witness a rope from a car he was loading when the police saw him. A flask, which smelled as if it had contained brandy, and three other pieces of rope were in the car. There was also a piece of rubber tubing which smelt strongly of petrol. Melling later gave him boxing gloves from a shed at the rear of Joseph Melling’sXhome in Huntly. To Mr A. L. Hassall, for Mrs Townsend, the witness said that Weeber had not changed his story in respect of Mrs Townsend. The razor blade produced had not been tested for finger prints.

Dr. E. E. Willoughby, of Huntly, said he examined Weeber at 2 a.m. oiy October 9. Weeber was generally distressed and agitated. He described Weeber’s injuries and said they were consistent with the story given him by Weeber.

To Mr Johnson, for the male accused, the witness said that Weeber had suffered no serious physical injury. To Mr Hassall, the witness said that on October 8. Mrs Townsend had been convalescing from injuries suffered in a motor accident in August. She would °u October 8 be generally not well. She would be nervous and unstable, and possibly subject to headaches and dizzy spells. Dr. W._ R. Fea. of Hamilton, said he examined Weeber on October 9, and saw him again the following day. An X-ray revealed that he had a probable fracture of a rib. No Evidence for Defence The defence called no evidence. Mr Johnson, addressing the jury, submitted that Weeber’s story was a series of improbabilities and some impossibilities. Thomas Melling’s actions, according to the evidence, showed that the “beating up” of Weeber had not been premeditated. Mr Hassall, in his address, said that the very presence of Mrs Townsend m the party indicated its purpose to bring .Weeber to his mother so she could talk some sense into him about his association, real or imagined by Thomas Melling, with Melling’s wife. Cn Weeber’s own evidence, he said. Townsend must be acquitted. For the Crown. Mr M. K. Sandford said that Weeber had not been shaken when he was giving his evidence. Mr Sandford said that in most of the charges in which she was involved Townsend’s action had been limited to active encouragement, but this made he’’ equally guilty. Summing up. his Honour said the fact that one of the accused was a woman who might not have been well at the time of the alleged offences must not be allowed to influence the jury. It was not necessary to prove that the alleged offences were premeditated. His Honour said it frequently happened * that people were held guiltv of crimes committed by other hands.

In considering Townsend’s part in the alleged offences, the jury might consider what the action of a“ reasonable decent - woman would have been from stage to stage.

It was irrelevant to the case whether Weeber had been guilty of immoral conduct with Thomas Melling’s wife, his Honour added. An extraordinary fact about the statement was that nowhere in it was there an admission of adultery, he said. In considering the charge that the accused had intended to do grievous bodily harm, the jury must consider whether the accused had actually intended to castrate Weeber, or whether their action had been a gigantic bluff.