SUPREME COURT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 204, 12 August 1932, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

THE NAPIER SESSIONS WAIPUKURAU ASSAULT FERGUSON FOUND GUILTY The hearing of the charge against John Leslie Ferguson of assaulting Gordon Rae Cowie, at Waipukurau on March 11, was continued yesterday afternoon before His Honour Mr. Justice Ostler. Leslie John O’Connell, baker’s assistant, ’of Waipukurau, who also was an eye-witness to the proceedings outside the hall said that when Captain Cowie was struck, he fell towards the accused. Crown Prosecutor: How far from the accused was Captain Cowie when he fell? Witness.: ■ About five yards. Who was holding accused when tho captain was knocked down?—Donovan. Ferguson is a noted boxer, isn’t ho? —Yes. Do you think Donovan could have held him if he was struggling, us you say he was? —Yes, I think so. Do you know, who struck Captain Cowie ? —No. Norman Robert Brain, labourer of Waipukurau, said he was with the accused 1 when he first exchanged '“pleasantries” with Sergeant Presney. He went on to corroborate the evidence given by previous witnesses regarding' the events leading up to the captain being struck by some person. This completing the Hearing of evidence for the defence, counsel for the accused proceeded to address the jury, stating that an extraordinary phase of the case was the manner in which the police had investigated the matter.

Norman Robert Brain, labourer of Waipukurau, said he was with the accused ■, when he first exchanged '“pleasantries” with Sergeant Presney. He went on to corroborate the evidence given by previous witnesses regarding the events leading up to the captain being struck by some person. This'completing the nearing of evidence for the defence, counsel for the accused proceeded to address the jury, stating that an extraordinary phase of the case was the manner in which the police had investigated the matter. Counsel! wondered why it was not until May 26 that the accused was served with his police papers, when the captain was struck on March 11. MUCH STRONGER CASE. After making reference to the evidence gi.ven by the Crown witnesses, counsel went on to submit that if the Crown had prosecuted Presney instead of Ferguson, a much stronger case would have been made out. The accused had quite frankly admitted that he was not looking for fight, whereas the evident, tended to show that it was Presney that was in the fighting mood. The Crown had endeavoured to place the blame of the blow on to Ferguson, whose excuse was supposed to be that he had intended the blow for Presney, But could it possibly be believed that Ferguson, who was a noted boxer, could have struck at the one man and hit the other? Counsel's explanation of the affaif was that Sergeant Presney had come into town' not for a fish supper, but for a liquid supper, as a. result of which his condition was such that ho was qqick to take offence. It was not thcl duty' of ihe defeheb to form theories as to who had struck Captain , Cowie, but merely to show that the accused had not done-so He: ; could hot have struck the blow, indeed, because htl'was several yards away at the time. “I feel called upon to make a few remarks because the defence has seen : fit to Jcriticise the police in their methods. of investigating' this case,” said the' C,roU ,i n Prosecutor 'in a short address' to the, jury. He added that the defence had hinted that the police had “faked’*’ a case because it had not heen brought to the Court for some two anjFYL half months after the incident. There was a simple explanation for the delay. The captain had been lying dangerously ill in hospital for some four weeks, so that the police must necessarily have delayed their investigations until he was well enough to be questioned. CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE. The suggestion had been made that Sergeant Presney and his friends had been under the influence of drink on March 11. But the Crown Prosecutor pointed, out that there was not a tittle of evidence in support of that question. With regard to the evidence given by the witnesses for the defence, the jury must have noticed how one contradicted the other in the little matters, although in the main their evidence coincided. It was an extraordinary thing that not one of the eiglit or nine witnesses for the defence had seen the blow struck, although they had all been present. Why ? The Crown submitted that it was because they did not want to say who had struck the blow. “Is there anyone of you gentlemen who believes that those witnesses for'the defence failed to see who struck Captain Cowie?” asked the Crown Prosecutor. He submitted that there was no evidence which could give rise to the jury thinking that Presney had struck tne blow. He ventured to believe that if he had done so, however, then no witness for the defence would have hesitated to say that he had seen it administered. In his summing up, His Honour explained the nature of the alleged offence, proceeding to point out that no provocation had been offered by Captain Cowie before he was struck. His Honour thought that from the evidence heard, it seemed perfectly obvious that one side or the other was committing perjury, and it was for the jury to decide which story they would believe. In deciding which witnesses were more likely to be telling the truth. His Honour suggested that the jury should compare th® respective characters of the various persons who had testified. Another way to decide was to consider whether any of the Crown witnesses would be likely to commit deliberate perjury so as to swear away liberty of a citizens, If so, what wouM be their motive?

Tho jury retired at 4 o’clock in the afternoon and returned .at 4.20 o’clock tvith a verdict of guilty. Sentence was deferred.

ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE. SEQUEL TO ACCIDENT. The charge against Arthur John Haslam, fisherman, of Haumoana, of negligently driving a motor van at Napier, on June 20 last, thereby causing the death of William Stanislaus Smyth, was commenced yesterday afternoon, the accused entering a plea of not guily. The hearing of evidence for the Crown was still proceeding when the Court adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning. The following jury was empannelled: —Messrs C. W. Corner (foreman), W. Taylor, H. H. Todd, G. H. Plested, G. S. Breachley, C. F. Edmundson, D. D.

Sutherland, H. J. Hill, W. Stuart, E. H. Luke, H. Elliott and C. Crabbe. The case for the Crown was outlined by the Crown Prosecutor, who told the jury that on. June 25 at about 5.30 o’clock in the evening a Mr Smythe was riding his bicycle home along the Napier-Hastings road. He was not riding on the bitumen and was on his lefthand side of the road. A motor van travelling ’in the same direction ran into him, -causing him such serious injuries that the cyclist died in hospital shortly afterwards. The van, which was an old model vehicle, had only one light in working order, this being a spot-light. The Crown Prosecutor quoted that part of the Motor Vehicles Regulations which laid it down that any driver who drove after sunset without two headlights was guilty of an offence. If the Crown could prove that the accused’s van was equipped with the spotlight as the only lamp in working order, then the jury could quite properly find him guilty of negligence. The Crown admitted that the cyclist was riding a bicycle without a red reflector on the back, but this was no excuse, the prosecutor submitted, for the accused running into the deceased Smythe. Witnesses for the Crown were then called to testify on the lines of tho evidence given by them at the Lower Jourt hearing. Medical evidence was given by Dr. W. D. Fitz Gerald, who attended the deceased after he was struck by the van. To counsel for the accused witness said he detected no signs of tho deceased having been dragged along the ground. In his experience as a motorist, cycles without red reflectors were extremely difiicult to see at night. The hearing was adjourned.