WOMAN HIT WITH IRON BAR

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 21 February 1935, Page 6

WOMAN HIT WITH IRON BAR

MAN IS SENT TO PRISON.

TERM OF TWO YEARS.

Reformative detention for a period not exceeding two years was the sentenc eimposed in the Christchurch Supreme Court on Tuesday by his-Hon-our Mr Justice Johnston, on James Houston, who at Christmas time struck a woman over the head with an iron bar.

Houston had pleaded guilty to a charge of assault causing actual bodily harm.

Mr R. A. Young said that prisoner was single, 32 years of ago, and was educated at a church school in Dunedin. He had worked as a barman porter but for the six months before his offence he had been out of work. The victim of the assault was a Mrs Foster,' with whom prisoner had been living for three and a-half years. Her husband had left her. Accused befriended her and they became very attached to each other and were saving money with a view to Mrs Foster securing a divorce. Prisoner had a deep affection for her and when she told him she was going to throw him over and go back to her husband he was very much upset. He sought solace in drinking. He became very lonely and missed the companionship of the woman wrom he had befriended when she was destitute. On the evening of December 25 he spent the time drinking and he was told that Foster had said that prisoner had been responsible for breaking up the home. The prisoner, for four hours after midnight, walked round the backyard and alleyway of the hotel in a maudlinstate. He picked up an iron bar and decided to go to the house and settle the argument with Foster. He went to a bedroom and called out “Are you there, Foster?” A figure sprang up, and, thinking it was Foster, prisoner struck a few glancing blows. He Heard, a woman scream and realised that he had struck Mrs Foster.

He then dropped the bar of iron and ran back to the hotel,, and later gave himself up to the police. He had been in gaol since. Counsel asked, in view of the fact that prisoner’s actions were due to drink, and his troubles preying on his mind, that he be dealt with as leniently as possible. His Honour said that prisoner had not previously had 3 conviction recorded against him. Apparently the crime was committed when prisoner was under the influence of liquor. It could be inferred that the crime was not serious, but prisoner might have had to face a much more serious charge. His uncontrolled action might have resulted in murder. His Honour could not let prisoner free again, even if his uncontrolled action had been caused through drink. He would be sentenced to be detained for reformative purposes for a period nof exceeding two years.