ASSAULT CHARGES

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 31, 6 February 1936, Page 14

ASSAULT CHARGES

ATTACKS WITH KNIFE

POLICE ALLEGATIONS

INCIDENT IN CITY

The trial commenced in the Supreme Court today of James Logic, alias Kelly, a labourer, aged 33, who was charged with wounding Charles Crooke on January 9 and January 10, with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The case arose from a sensational assault | which occurred in Lambton Quay on | January lv, when Charles Crooke, a salesman, was allegedly attacked with a knife. A feature of this morning's proceedings was a statement by Crooke that at the time of the affair in Lambton Quay he had shaped up to the accused with a knife in his hand. Mr. Justice Smith held that this new statement introduced a defence of provocation, and declared the witness hostile. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey appears for the Crown, and Mr. M. Neal for the accused. THE CASE OUTLINED. Opening the case for the Crown, Mr. Macassey said that on the evening of January 9 Crooke was occupying a room at the Columbia Hotel. He went to the pictures that night, and returned to his hotel about 11 o'clock. When he went up to his bedroom he found Logic inside. Logic asked him to come in, but he refused. The accused then .rushed at Crooke, who endeavoured to get away. He was not successful, however, and the accused stabbed him in the back four times. Also there was a long scratch where he used a knife on him in the stomach. Crooke got away from the accused and hid in the hotel. The proprietor found the accused and put him off the premises, but he waited about for some time trying to see Crooke. On the following morning Crooke went to the hospital where he had his wounds dressed. He then went down Lambton Quay, and when he was standing near the entrance to the Kelburn tram the accused approached Crooke again, rushed at him, and struck him on the side of the face, the police alleged, with a knife. Crooke sustained a wound in the neck about lJin long. A witness would say that'the accused was carrying a knife. A small artery was severed, and Crooke bled freely. He was attended to by Dr. Young, who inserted two stitches. The accused was arrested that evening, and when searched he was found to have an unsheathed knife in his possession. The handle was uppermost in his pocket. The accused's explanation was that he used it to pull nails out of his shoes. The detective told him he would be charged with wounding Crooke, and the accused replied that he knew nothing whatever about it. Those, said Mr. Macassey, were the short facts of the case. There was something behind it, but he did not know what it was. However, he thought it was some dispute in regard to money matters. It was not necessary to go into that. No man had the right to assault another man with a knife, and in this case there was no provocation. Crooke was then called to give evidence. IDENTITY OF ATTACKER. Describing the events on the night of January 9, Crooke said that the accused looked like the man who had attacked him. Mr. Macassey: You said in the Lower Court that the accused was the man. ' . Witness: That looks like the man. Why don't you answer the question? —I am answering the question to the best of my ability. My eyesight is very bad, and the light was off when I went into the room. Did he speak to you?— Yes, he said come in. What did you do?—I said no, I won't go in. Why didn't you go in?—l had an idea there would be a row. Then you knew the man?— Well, yes, I did know the man. Please be frank, witness . . . Mr. Neal: I suggest my friend is going very close to cross-examining his own witness. ■ Mr. Macassey: I wish him to be frank, that is all, Sir. Referring to the occurrence on Lambton Quay the following morning, witness said he had gone at the accused in a fighting attitude. The accused, said witness, said, "For God's sake don't. Charlie." Well, tell us what happened?—l made a rush at him and he made a rush at me, and I received a wound. I had a small pocket knife in my hand, which probably he was the only one to see. Have you over mentioned that before? —No, it was only a small knife. I have it here. Have you ever suggested this before? —No, I thought I might incriminate m y se lf_l W as out to protect myself. Mr. Macassey: I suggest to you His Honour: Well, Mr. Macassey, I don't think you can suggest anything. Mr. Macassey (to witness): What were you struck with?—l cannot tell you; no idea. QUESTION OF HOSTILITY. "Well, then, your Honour," said Mr. Macassey, addressing the Bench, "am I enabled to question him? It is quite a different answer to that which is on the depositions. It was never suggested His Honour: I don't think he has actually shown hostility. Reading from the depositions, his Honour said that witness's previous statement was: "I think the accused inflicted the wound, but I have no idea what caused the wound." Mr. Macassey said that he was not referring to that, but to the fact that the witness had not previously said that he had had a knife in his hand when attacked by the accused in Lambton Quay. His Honour said that what the witness said now agreed with what he had said in his depositions, but he had added something. After further argument on the question as to whether or not the witness should be treated as hostile, his Honour said that the suggestion of the witness's previous evidence was that he was a passive recipient of the wound. He now came to the Court with the statement that he had shaped up to this other man. This introduced a defence of provocation which, of course, the Crown should have been aware of. His Honour thought the witness had taken the Crown by surprise. His ruling was that the element of surprise was a basis of hostility. While the witness's demeanour was not actually hostile, his evidence was hostile to the basis of the Crown's case. When his Honour declared the witness hostile, Mr. Neal asked that his objection should be noted. Mr. Macassey (to witness): Did you ever tell the police that you had a knife in your hand and rushed the accused?—No, I did not. FEAR OF INCRIMINATION. The witness was then examined on the subject of his previous statements. He said that his statement in regard to the happenings in Lambton Quay were correct, except that he had not told the police that he had a knife in his hand. The reason why he had not mentioned the pocket knife was "be-

cause he thought he might incriminate himself. The pocket knife, added witness, was closed at the time. HIDING FROM POLICE. Mr. Neal (cross-examining): Did you report this matter to the police? No, I did not. Did the police send for you in connection with it?— Well, the police visited me in the house first. Did. they say anything to the effect that if you did not make a statement certain charges would be made against you?—l was informed that if I did not I would be locked up. Mr Macassey: Who told you?— Detective Campin told me that he said I would have to come to the police station or something to that effect. Mr. Neal: When you got down to the police station what did the police! say to you?— They asked what was • wrong. ' But they did tell you that if you did not give a statement you would be locked up in the police station?— That was in the house. Your attitude would be this, that you were practically hiding from the police? —Yes. On the evening of January 9 were you concerned in trouble in another part of the city?— Yes. Was Logic there on that occasion?— Yes. Will you give us the details of this , previous squabble?—lt was over money.. Did you sustain injuries on that occasion?— No. I put this to you, that the injuries you received on January 9 were received from some third person at the previous squabble?—l said I received them in the hotel. Mr. Macassey (re-examining): You say that the detective told you that if you did not make a statement you would be locked up?—He asked me who had done it, and I said: "I think I you will have an idea." But he told you you would be locked up?— Well, something to that effect. Tell me what he said.—The first thing he asked me was not to leave the premises that night. I gave him that assurance. I ask you, did he tell you that if you did not make a statement you would be locked up?— Well, I put it in a rather crude way perhaps. Then he did not tell you you would be locked up?— Well, no. Further evidence in support of the Crown's case was given by a number of witnesses, several of whom had seen the alleged assault in Lambton Quay. They identified the accused. Mr. Neal later referred to a newspaper report of the affair in Lambton Quay in which a woman was reported to have said she heard one of the men say: "Don't for God's sake do it, Charlie." At the request of Mr. Neal Detective Campin was called .to the witnessbox. He said he knew nothing about that statement except what had appeared in the newspaper report. Mr. Neal:"" So that I may take it that you are unable to. trace the woman that is concerned? Detective Campin: I would not say that, I did not see the lady. But you could 1 live ascertained her address?—Sub-Inspector Carroll, who is at present in Sydney, interviewed that lady. This closed the case for the Crown, and it was then intimated by Mr. Neal that he did not propose to 'call evidence for the defence. FOR THE DEFENCE. Addressing the jury on behalf of the accused, Mr. Neal said that as far as the alleged, assault- on January 9 was concerned Crooke, who had bad eyesight, could not say definitely who the man was who had assaulted him. The witness Crooke, he said, must have impressed the jury as being "a very unreliable witness. He had made certain statements to the police, and he had admitted that there was bad blood between himself and the accused. Under these circumstances counsel contended that the whole of his evidence must be disregarded. Dealing with the alleged assault in Lambton Quay Mr. Neal submitted that what had happened was that Crooke drew the knife, and that Logic's action was merely a blow to grip the knife and stop him. In so doing Crooke was cut. There was no evidence that there was a knife in the hand of the accused on that occasion or that he had used a knife. JUDGE SUMS UP. In his summing-up, Mr. Justice Smith said that this was indeed a curious case. One man on two successive days was stabbed with a knife and he did not wish to be very frank about it and to come before the jury and tell them all that he knew. It was plain, his Honour thought, that there were circumstances existing between Crooke and the accused Logic which had not been brought before the Court. ' It seemed, however, that they were connected with money matters. It was essential that the jury should realise that it was not trying any dispute between Crooke and Logic with regard to money matters. The civil courts were open to them to settle their disputes in the same way as every other citizen. What the jury had to try was a crime against the public peace, and it could not be in the public's interest that creditors should pursue their debtors with knives. The jury was there to see that no man was wrongly conviqted and also to have regard for the pubic peace. His Honour then went on to examine in detail the evidence which had been given. (Proceeding.)