A YIQLEST ASSAULT THE CASE OF ANDREW SOOBAZ

Evening Post, Volume LXXVII, Issue 102, 1 May 1909, Page 5

A YIQLEST ASSAULT THE CASE OF ANDREW SOOBAZ

!SSE«;TE*KJ£D:-T0 IMPBSSQNMEN3; AndrewGodbaa, who TOas>taied before Mr. Justice Chapman at Palmenston North in February last, on an iodiefcanent charging him wifcb having assanli* ed Edwacd. Arthur Co%, ao as to cause him aofcwa bodily harm, and also, on a. second count, wiih common assault, came lig before his Honour again this moi-nujg. The jury had found the accused gfuilty of common assault, as they had. not sufficient eiridence, they said' as to who struck the first blow. Hi* J±OBour directed a verdict of "Gkriltv" *\» be entered o» the second count, but postponed sentencing Gotlbaz, reserving ] far the Court of Appeal the question - "better *&> finding of the jury amoimt'.e« fcoi a verdict of "Gsnifey. M Tho Couit of Appeal found it did, and con. mmcd fche eowvictioii. Godbaz came up for sentence this a-iocDing having been out on baa sinew tne trial. He is a cabdriver at Pahnerston North, and Coley, the victim of the assault, is a stobifrfeeper. There' had been trouble between the t*o men oSL 80 ? 0 time ' and ou t** ***&* of th& 23rd August last, Godbaz, aeoompamed by a mate, encountered Colev in tha street. Godbaz attacked him, aad lmocked him down. In the scuffle Golev sustained severe injuries. The medicaL evidence disclosed a fracture of the left cbeek bone, a. black eye, and two bro-' ken ribs. The defence was one of provocation. Coley had been offering to nght any one for a "tenner." The accused had previously pat him into the water trough. The evidence as to the circumstaiKjes of the assault was somcf' what conflicting. •i T , he . I P risone r, who is a otrong, heav-liy-built young man, said this moraine that ifc was his first offence. He askel for probation. His Honour said ifc was not a cas© tor probation. There were certain circumstances favourable to the prisoner, m the previous provocation he had re' ceived. "What I have before me, hc^ ever, said his Honour, "is that you have been convicted of a very violent assault. The jury found grounds for reducing it to common assault, meaning that you did not wilfully assault the man with the intention of prodac™ the very serious injuries that were produced. There were other circamstancea which pufc this case outside the Krafts oi those m which probation should bs allowed You waylaid this man; you deliberately waylaid him with a design of assaulting him. There was another man with you, which means that in, case you got the worst of it there was another to assist you. I cannot overlook that circumstance. There is a> strong suspicion that the man you produced at the trial to give evidence as to the figM was not the man you took with you. Tho jury did not believe it. "In cases of deliberate crimes of violence," continued his Honour, "imprisonment must follow. Where a crime y/as designed and planned beforehand, imprisonment ought to follow. If it does not, the public are likely to get tiie idea that a man can pay his way through this sort 6f thing. I do not intend to allow that." His Honour then sentenced Godbaz to three months' imprisonment, to count Et-om the date of the trial. Godbaz will therefore be imprisoned for only & few weeks.