FINED FOR ASSAULT

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 139, 8 March 1941, Page 13

FINED FOR ASSAULT

Innocent Party Mistaken

For Others

TIMBER MERCHANT BEFORE COURT

Stating that he thought that he had caught a party of larrikins who had been throwing stones on his _ roof, Charles Camperdown Odlin, a timber merchant, Paremata, was convicted in the Magistrates’ Court, Wellington, yesterday on a charge of assulting a youth named Kenneth Vere Shute. He was fined £5, Mr. J. L. Stout, SAI., ordering half the fine to be paid to Shute. A further charge against Odlin of assulting Samuel Francis Chiles was dismissed, the magistrate stating that he was not satisfied that the assault was Chiles stated in evidence that, m company with three boys, he was returning to Wellington by car on January 4 . Tlie party stopped at Para’mata at about 9.39 p.m., as one of the bovs wanted to buy a soft drink. While looking for a shop, Shute went up to a gateway, when accused appeared with a stick and attacked him, saying “I’ll teach you to throw stones.” Chiles intervened, explaining that they were motorists passing through Paramata, whereupon accused attacked him also, severely bruising his arm. To Dr. O. C. Mazengarb, representing Odlin, Chiles admitted receiving a letter from accused wherein he said he accepted Chile’s explanation and tendered an apology, also offering to pay a sum by way of compensation. Dr. Mazengarb: You are not prepared to accept Odlin’s letter?—No. .. You want to issue a writ in the Supreme Court claiming damages?—Well, I don’t think it is a fair thing only getting a thrashing over this affair. Well, what are you wanting?—l have been called here as a witness, but I think I am entitled to some recompense. How much recompense?—£s, £5O, £lOO? —Do I have to answer that? The magistrate: Yes, you should answer that question. Chiles: I left that matter in the bands of my solicitor. Dr. Mazengarb: But tell the Court what compensation you want. Chiles: I would sooner have advice on that matter before I speak. Defendant said in evidence that he had frqeuently been troubled by persons throwing stones on his roof. On the night of January 4, on hearing stones being thrown, he went out to investigate, taking with him a cane and a torch. Seeing the party outside his gateway, and one of the boys actually inside his property, he assumed that these were. the offenders, and so began to use his cane on Shute. The adult member of the party intervened, whereupon he struck him also. The whole thing was a mistake on his part. In convicting defendant'of the charge in connexion with Shute, the magistrate said that the fact that Shute was inside the gateway would appear to indicate that he thought the house might be a shop. Even if accused had made a mistake, there was no reason why he should have made the attack he did. But in connexion with the charge of assulting Chiles, he was not satisfied that the attack was unprovoked, and so that charge would be dismissed. Accused was also ordered to pay costs amounting to 17/8.