SUPREME COURT Young Woman Convicted On Charge Of Assault

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27734, 11 August 1955, Page 14

SUPREME COURT Young Woman Convicted On Charge Of Assault

Una Meha, aged 21, a wardsmaid, was found guilty in the Supreme Court yesterday of assaulting Francis Sydney Dixon so as to cause him actual bodfly harm. The jury returned this verdict after a retirement of 55 minutes. Mr Justice Adams remanded Meha in custody for sentence. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr A. W. Brown.) appeared for the Crown, and Mr H. S. Thomas for Meha, who pleaded not guilty to the charge on which she was convicted, and also not guilty to alternative charges of wounding Dixon with intent to do him grievous bodily harm and of common assault.

The hearing began on Tuesday when the, Crown Prosecutor outlined the Crown case to the jury. All the witnesses for the Crown were called yes : terday. * Francis Sydney Dixon said he was 28 and was employed > by a photo grapher. He i et Meha one evening about a month before June 7, and they arranged to go to a dance. When they met later that evening she said it was “all off.” He became annoyed and expressed his resentment at being made a fool of. Between then and June 7, he saw Meha several times “around in the community.” She was aggressive towards him, and they had words on each occasion. Encounter in Street Dixon said he spent the evening of June 7 in town and passed the Mayfair Theatre about 10.15 p.m. He saw Meha’s sister, Frankie, standing near the taxi telephone box in Worcester street, and spoke to They were walking across the street to the north side when he raw Meha and two men coming from the theatre. “A.lmost instantly she noticed her sister and me, and she ran towards me, calling out,” said Dixon. “She flailed her arms at me. making every endeavour to h’ me with her handbag and kick me. I did my best to’restrain her, and push her away.” Dixon then, described subsequent events, saying that eventually he became so exasperated that he struck the accused with his open hand, and she fell to the footpath. Accused followed .him and he was struck with a knife. He forced her to drop the knife. He was bleeding badly, and a woman took his scarf and bound his arm. He went to hospital in a taxi and was there two days. Victim Cross-examined To Mr Thomas, Dixon said he was, fairly certain he had not called Meha a guttersnipe when he met her and her sister leaving their work at the hospital. He and Meha did have an argument, but he did not raise his hands to her. •Mr Thomas: Have you ever been asked to leave various premises in Christchurch because you’ve been pestering girls? Dixon: What has that to do with this case? Have you ever been asked to leave? —One place. But not for the reason you suggest by innuendo. Were you asked by a floor walker to leave the D.1.C.?—1 cah’t see the purpose of this. His Honour: Never mind the purpose. Tell us what happened. Dixon: I had a long talk with a supervisor and I was advised it Would be better if I did not come into the store. Mr Thomas: Was that because you had been' pestering the two girls behind the dry cleaning counter?—No. Because of what certain persons had been implying. Were you interviewed by the police about it?—The police did come and speak to me about it. Have you been asked to keep away from the Central Milk Bar by the manager?—Yes. But because he knows of this case and says it is likely to be bad for his business.

Had you been going to the Samoan Club off and on before June 7?—Yet. I was invited to go there. Were you asked to leave —Yes. Were the police called to remove you?—The uniformed police came there one night and spoke to me about what a man said about me. It was implied that I had been pestering the girls. Did the sergeant tell you to. go?— He invited me, saying it would be better if I did. Who • struck the first blow on the night of June 7?—She* did. Did you say: “If I. wait 12 months I’ll slap you down for this”?—Yes. That was after I hit her and knocked her to the footpath. Supporting evidefice was given by Frances Rewa Douglas, a wardsmaid at the Christchurch Public Hospital, who ’ said that the accused was her sister; by Anthony George Firigo, aged 18, who was at the Mayfair Theatre with Meha and her sister on the evening of June 7; by Derek Matthew Hullett, aged 19, a labourer, who said that Dixon struck the first Blow that evening; by Rosina Louie Woodhouse, a married woman, who bound Dixon’s scarf round his arm to stop the wound from bleeding; by James Joseph Walsh, a police sergeant, whq saw Meha and her sister in Cathedral square after the alleged stabbing and took them back to the scene of the incident; and by Ernest Stanley Tuck, a detective, who read a statement made by Meha. That completed the case for the Crown. No evidence was called by the defence. Connsei for Defence The first charge against Mel)a was that with intent to do grievous bodily harm to Dixon she wounded him, said Mr Thomas. “Intent” was the important word. On the evidence there was nothing whatsoever to show such an intention. Discussing the second charge of assault causing actual bodily harm, Mr Thomas said it had to be admitted that Dixon did receive actual bodily harm, but the Crown must prove that there had been an assault and that the assault caused the bodily harm. O* the third charge they were again faced with inconclusive evidence. Mr Thomas said he V*ad to face 'the possibility that the jury would convMß Vleha. If they were to do so, he asked them to give a strong recommendation to mercy. They had heard the storv and it was a sordid one. Here wan a man who had pestered this girt H* was told from the beginning that she wanted nothing to do with him, but he kept pestering her and called her tte names they had heard given in dence. “Think of the effect of that cu this girl and the effect of what hat been happening to her today. It mafr ruin her life;” said Mr Thoman His Honour summed up and the retired at 5.10 p.m., returning at M p.m. with their verdict of guilty en the second count, that of assault ecus ing actual bodily harm.