CHARGE OF ASSAULT

Evening Star, Issue 25473, 2 May 1945, Page 4

CHARGE OF ASSAULT

ROXBURGH INCIDENT SUPREME COURT TRIAL The trial of Maximilian Harlewich on a charge of having at Roxburgh on March 3 assaulted James George "Williamson by threatening to shoot him, was continued yesterday afternoon before Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court. Mr 0. G. Stevens appeared for the accused. Continuing his evidence, James George Williamson, an orchardist, of Coal Creek, said that he laid his hands on accused first at the latter's home. During tho ensuing struggle accused had told witness on more than one occasion to leave the house. AVitness did not actually see accused fire the shots, but after the first shot lie felt the blood running down his face. _ Witness had learned unarmed combat in the Army. Cross-examined, witness said that he was not quite sure when the accused had asked him to'leave the house, but it was after the latter had attempted to strike him with a poker and a chair. Witness had seized, accused's head under his arm, and thus dragged) him from the kitchen to the bedroom, where he had thrown him on the bed, not unduly roughly, however. In throwing accused to the floor twice, witness had dumped him fairly hard. ' Mr Stevens: You said in your evidence that you had been trained in " unarmed combat." Actually, were you not South Island instructor in guerrilla warfare work, with the rank of lieutenant? —Yes. You have lived in the district how long?—Some nine or 10 years. Did you violently assault a man at Omakau on the eve of the Omakau races on January 5 this year?—Yes. Have you assaulted a man, a returned soldier suffering from asthma, in the Commercial Hotel, Cromwell, in the last few months?—Yes. Did you assault a man on the Tapanui racecourse, a man named Bench, or Bennetts?—Yes. Did you assault a man in the Goldfields Hotel, or in the vicinity of it, recently ?—Yes, about two or three years ago. , Did you assault a man a few years ago at Alexandra, and have to pay him damages?—Yes, that was 10 or 12 years ago. Evidence by Dr Gilmour, taken on commission, concerning the injuries revealed when he had examined the accused arid Williamson, was submitted. Evidence was also given by Thomas Alfred Michelle, farmer, of Roxburgh; George William Cairns, Sylvia Ray Williamson, Jeannie May Harris, Robert Clifford Bennetts, and Constable C. J. Crawford, of Roxburgh. At this stage_ the hearing was adjourned until this morning. "HOT GUILTY " VERDICT

The proceedings were continued "before Mr Justice Kennedy in the .Supreme Court this morning. Detective-sergeant James Gibson, in the course of his evidence, said that it was likely that the injury to Williamson's head had been caused by a ricochet of a- pellet from the discharged gun, or even more likely by a portion of material removed from the wall of the building by the discharged pellets. In reply to the Crown Prosecutor, witness described the effects of tho " stranglehold " which it_ had been stated as having been applied by Williamson to the accused. The hold, said ■witness, was a /most deadly one, and 'one? which was barred in wrestling. This concluded the evidence for the prosecution, and Mr Stevens intimated that no evidence would be called on behalf of the accused.

The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) briefly addressing the jury, repeated that he would make no attempt to justify the conduct of Williamson, conduct which seemed to he more worthy of condemnation than that of the accused. Williamson had on his side not only youth, but a considerable degree of science in the handling of another man, and he had used these advantages against another man who possessed neither. Whether the accused had any right whatever to use a firearm to "threaten the other man was another matter, and the Crown submitted that he had not that right. Mr Stevens addressed the jury, and in doing so paid a tribute to the Crown Prosecutor, the police witnesses, and all others connected with the prosecution for the fairness with which they had presented the case. His Honour having summarised the evidence and directed the jury concerning the law in the case, the jury retired at 12.10 p.m., returning at 12.40 with a verdict_ of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged.