DAMAGES AWARDED.

Hawera Star, Volume XLIX, 15 August 1929, Page 5

DAMAGES AWARDED.

YOUNG MAN’S ASSAULT. Arising out of ail assault committed on April 15, Edward. Wright, of Hawera, carrier, proceeded against Frank Wilkinson, also of Hawerai, blacksmith’s apprentice, before Mi: J. H. Salmon, S.M., at the Hawera Magistrate’s Court this morning, claiming the sum 0f.£67 18s 6d as damages. Mr P. O’Dea appeared for plaintiff and Mr A. K. North for defendant. The affair was the subject of anj action heard before his Worship on May 8, when plaintiff, proving that an assault had been committeed, was successful in halving defendant bound over to keep the peace. In the present, action plaintiff sought £54 for floss of earnings (nine weeks at £6 a week), £4 4s doctor’s fee, £1 5s X-ray examination, £1 2s 6d massage, ( and £7 7s legal expenses incurred in finding sureties of the peace. As a result of the assault, stated ' plaintiff, he had sustained a broken I arm and other injuries, such having been inflicted by defendant with ‘ a shovel handle ail'd his boots. He had been off work for nine weeks, and when he did return he found that he had to take things easy for a while. His trouble with defendant had extended over a considerable time, and he had been warned not to go to the house. He was keeping company with one of plaintiff’s daughters, and this was the cause of a lot of ill-feeling. On April 15 witness had found him outside the gate, and lie had gone for witness without provocation. He had since made a demand on defendant lor damages, but the latter had refused to pay anything. Cross-examined, witness admitted that there had been trouble between him and his family prior to defendant coming on the scene. It was correct that in a statement made in connection with his wife’s maintenance he had said that his earnings were only £3 a week, but this was made at Ills leanest period of the year.

Addressing his Worship, Mr North said that had plaintiff been reasonable on the matter of damages, the matter would never have gone to court; his attitude, was that he would make defendant, pay through the nose. Defendant had not gone to plaintiff’s house on the night of April 15 with the object of picking a, fight; he had had a perfectly reasonable explanation. Grace Elizabeth Wright, daughter of plaintiff, said that her father was a very violent man and had' had fights with the sons. She was not living at home. On April 14 she had,' given defendant a parcel in Pa tea to give to her mother.

Defendant said that, because plaintiff had forbidden, him to go in the house, he liacTw his tied out on the night of April 15, when he had gone' to deliver the parcel. Plaintiff had conic out and told witness to get out of it. Plaintiff had gone back and obtained a slhovel handle, with which he returned and took to witness. A souffle had ensued, undi witness bad Obtained possession of tile piece of wood. He had given plaintiff a crack with it. He denied that he had' used his boots. To Mr O’ Dea: It was not correct that lie had told counsel that he would not pay any damages. Giving judgment, the magistrate said that he thought it natural for plaintiff, on finding defendant outside the house, to, tell him to get out of it, seeing what had happened on previous occasions* His Worship knew of nothing in law that was sufficient provocation for the grave injuries that defendant inflicted on plaintiff. The former’s story about a single 'blow did not account for the injuries. He was. not going to weigh with nicety the earnings of plaintiff, but lie was not going to allow the legal expenses incurred in finding sureties of the police. Judgment would be for .660 11s 6cl.