LOSS OF AN EYE

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 285, 29 August 1935, Page 5

LOSS OF AN EYE

Assault Charge Follows

Altercation

ENGINEER SENT FOR TRIAL

A. motor engineer, Richard Edward Barrett, of Wellington, was committed to the Supreme Court by Mr. E. D. Mosley, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court, Wellington, yesterday on a charge of assaulting Lancelot Herbert Lindsay Margoliouth, and causing him actual bodily harm. Accused, who appeared on summons, pleaded not guilty. Margoliouth had to have his right eye removed following SsOvere injury to it. lie alleged that Barrett caused the injury by punching him in the eye during an altercation. Defendant, in a statement to the police, contended that. Margoliouth provoked him and that if the Injury had been caused as complainant alleged it was due solely to Margoliouth’s conduct. Senior-Sergeant. J. Dempsey conducted the case for the police and Barrett was represented by Mr. J. Meltzei. In evidence Margolouth, who until July 25 had a motor garage business in lory Street, portion of which he had sub-let to defendant for a workshop for the last year"; said that on the following day he was initiating the new, proprietors of hie business into the running of it. Bar ret asked him about a hammer which witness had borrowed from him for another man and which had been taken by this third party. Witness offered to replace it to Barrett. Early in the afternoon witness returned to the garage. Barrett was in his workshop and witness reminded him about a block and tackle which lie had lent him. Barrett said he bad returned it. There was an argument, witness calling Barrett a liar. “Barrett then struck me a blow in the eye, knocking me down,” said witness.. “He mt me again when f rose to defend myself. 1 did not at any time show fight.’ Next day witness saw Dr. Hogg, or Seatoun, who advised him to go tq the hospital, where the right eye was re-Crose-examined by Mr. J. Meltzer for defendant, witness said he and Barrett had been on the best of terms until the occurrence. Witnesa remarked that he had gone to a hotel near his business place early on the afternoon of the assault to have a counter lunch. “How many bottles of counter lunch, did you have?”, asked Mr. Meltzer. “Two whiskies." replied witness, who denied that he bad bad other drinks. He was one hundred per cent, sober when he called on Barrett, but he was annoyed to a certain extent about the hammer incident. He admitted that the block and tackle had been lent to Barrett six years ago. and witness had asked for it occasionally. , , ~ “You were looking. for tight, weren't you?” asked My. Meltzer. Witness denied it, and,denied also that he had adopted a threatening attitude and had used filthy language to Barrett, nor did he shape up to him. * Remembered Seeing Stars.

“Did you not catch your eye on the corner of a box on the floor as you fell. “No, I distinctly remember seeing starts.” ■ , , ■ i Witness would not deny that he said to Barrett, “You have caught me at a bad time;'we’ll have this over again.” Dr. W. J. Hope-Robertson gave evidence that he examined Margoliouth at the hospital. Au X-ray of the eye showed a fracture of some of the bones of the eye

socket. Part of the eye was banging out. There were no signs of any abrasion on the ekin of the taco. The patient could not see out of his right eye, which was removed four days later. The injury could have been caused by a blow of a fist. The rupture of an eye was a rare injury to occur from any blow. James Michael Gerard O’Connor, garage proprietor, Tory Street, said he saw Barrett hit Margolonth, the latter falling. Witness did not see Margoliouth strike any obstacle in Lalling. The nian got up ana Barrett made as if to strike him again, but witness intervened, preventing further trouble. Mr. Meltzer submitted that the case was very weak aud that no jury would convict. . Barrett made a statemeut to plainclothes Constable F. Reardon in which be said Margoliouth liad been provocative, insulting and threatening, and had compelled him to strike complainant in self defence. It was solely due to bis own conduct that he was injured. . The magistrate committed defendant lor trial, bail being allowed in the sum of £25 on Barrett’s own recognizance.