FINED £l00

Evening Star, Issue 19787, 10 February 1928, Page 4

FINED £loo

ASSAULT OF ROXBURGH FARMER ORIGINAL OFFENCE AGGRAVATED Found guilty on a charge of causing bodily harm to Henry Bayiey near Roxburgh on October 10 of last year under such circumstances that, had death occurred, he would have been guilty of manslaughter, William M’Kinnel appeared before His Honor Mr Justice Sim this morning for sentence. On behalf of tho prisoner Mr A. C. Hanlon said M'Kinnel had been in the Roxburgh practically all his life. He was a married man with seven of a family, the youngest being only seven months old. All that was previously known against the accused was that he was once fined 40s for assault, but that was not a serious matter, accused throwing a piece of dirty wool at tho rabbit inspector. Rabbit inspectors seemed to be a common enemy of farmers. Accused was a good husband and a good father, and everyone about his place said he was an excellent neighbor. Visitors to the district and people who went shooting had found him a very kindly disposed man. As a result of the conviction there would bo a civil claim for damages against accused, who would also be punished in that way. If accused were sent to gaol it would probably mean that he would lose his farm, which was mortgaged. Learned counsel suggested that a monetary penalty would meet the ends of justice. His Honor said it was a difficult case to deal with. Accused had greatly aggravated tho offence by giving false evidence and by bringing bis son, aged fifteen, and another young man to give false evidence also.

Mr Hanlon; Might I suggest that he was not responsible for that. His Honor: Not responsible for giving false evidence I Mr Hanlon: One knows a great deal about how cases arc worked up. It may be that the accused had no say. His Honor pointed out that accused had made out that Bayley had attacked him. Mr Hanlon; False evidence Ido not try to excuse.

The Crown Prosecutor agreed that the previous conviction of accused was only for a technical assault.

His Honor said that had accused admitted the offence and undertaken to compensate Bayley, he would have had no difficulty in imposing a monetary penalty. But accused had given false evidence and had also brought his son and another young man to give false evidence. That was a serious aggravation of the original offence, and it was a question whether M'Kinnel should get off with a monetary penalty. Ho really thought that accused should undergo a term of imprisonment, but, in view of the facts stated by Mr Hanlon in connection with the farm, that would not be done. With some hesitation he had decided to impose a fine. Accused would be ordered to pay a fine of £IOO. Mr Hanlon gave an undertaking that the fine would bo paid, and His Honor did not fix an alternative.