SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

Evening Post, Volume LIX, Issue 127, 30 May 1900, Page 6

SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL SITTINGS.

THIS DAY. (Before His Honour the Chief Justice.) THEFT FROM A DWELLING. Herbert Doughty pleaded Guilty to an indictment charging him with th\s theft of various articles irom liio dwellingbou&e of Lucy Smith, at Masterton, on the 7th May. His Honour remarked that prisoner had previously been guilty of tame minor offences. He would remand him until Friday for enquiries. ASSAULT. William Licius Carey was put on his trial charged with an assault with intent upon William James Robertson, at Featberston, on the 29th March. There was a further count against Carey of doing Robertson actual bodily harm. He was' defended by Mr. Menteath, and pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. D. Robertson was foreman of the jury. The Crown Prosecutor said the assault was a serious one, particularly as it was committed, according to the witnesses, without provocation. There had previously been some slight difference between Carey and Robertson, and that difference no doubt rankled more or leas* in the hearts of both men. On the 29th March, accused was employed as manager of Mr. Toogood's naxnull at Featherston. Robertson, was employed to increase the depth of a well adjacent to •the building. There was too much water in the well when he went to begin work, so he stood at the door of the null talking to another employee. Carey ordered him off the premises, and he went in the direction of the well. On the way there : he was felled by a blow on the right ami, and looking up saw Carey in the act of making another blow at him with an iron wrench. He put up his arm to defend himself, and the blow fell on it and broke it. A third blow struckhim on the leg. One of the employees/ then interfered, and Carey went away. Under cross-examination the prosecu- i tor (Robertson) admitted that in November of last year there was some ill-feel-ing between himself and Carey on account of a strike, and he gave Carey a piece of his mind. He did not threaten him, nor had he threatened him to anyone since or declared that he was going to pick n row with him, and if he could not do it by fair means he would do it by foul. He did not threaten Carey with bis fists just before the assault, or back away* from the mill door with an opened tobac- 1 co knife in one hand while menacing' Carey with the other. For the defence, Mr. Menteath called*! Andrew C. Barry, contractor at the{ mill, who stated that lie met Robertson, the Tuesday before the assault. Robert- I j son declared that he was going to j)ick ! i a row with Carey, and if ho codld not do him by fair means he would do him by foul. Just before the assault he saw Robertson leaning against the doorway of the mill, apparently blocking Carey from getting out. He did not see the assault. Cross-examined witness saidthat after Robertson's threat he told 1 Carey to "Look-out for Robertson," butCarey did not enquire the reason for thecaution. William Davis, labourer at the mill, deposed, that lie saw Robertson backing away from the doorway, Avith Casey fol-' lowing him up. Robertson's right, hand was raised to Carey's face, and in his left, which was at his side, he had a pocket-knife. Robertson put up his fist, and Carey struck at him- with.- the wrench which he had in his hand. Robertson slewed sideways to avoid the blow, which struck him- on the. arm*, and he fell. Oniy one blow was struck. Cross-ex-amined, witness said that when, questioned by the consiaible afterwards he said that ho did not, see anything of the row. That was a -lie. H« had a wife and family, and had been ill, and did not want to interfere. When he heard what Robertson said in the Lower >-ourt he concluded to tell what he knew. (Left sitting.)