DAMAGES FOR ASSAULT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 79, 14 March 1936, Page 3

DAMAGES FOR ASSAULT

Struck by Daughter’s Suitor WOMAN AWARDED £6O Details of an assault by a young man who struck her above the left eye when she was attempting to prevent a fight, were given in the Napier Magistrate’s Court yesterday to Mr J. Miller, S.M., by Annie Vercoe, a widow, of Napier, who claimed from Albert Bowman, labourer, of Napier, £l5O general and £1 11/6 special damages for injuries received as the result of a blow. Judgment was awarded her for £6o general damages and £1 11/6 special damages, together with costs and other expenses. The plaintiff was represented by Mr S. H. Morrison. Mr C. W. Nash appeared for the defendant. Mrs Vercoe stated in evidence that there had been a lot of arguments at the home arising out ; of quarrels between Bowman and her daughter. On one occasion, she said, Bowman actually “took” to her daughter, who called out, “He’s murdering me.” Royce Vercoe, plaintiff’s son, intervened and told Bowman to get out. Bowman left, but Miss Vercoe brought him back on Boxing night and the night after. “We wanted to send my daughter away for the holidays, to get her away from him, but she wouldn’t go,” she said. Her daughter continued going out with him, and on New Year’s Eve the pair left at lunch time and did not return until 10.30 or 11 o’clock the next day. When she came back to the house, she told her mother that she wanted her clothes, as she was leaving. Bowman was with her at tho time. HIT HER ABOVE THE EYE. “My son RoycS came up from the garden and asked Bowman where he had taken his (Vercoe’s) sister and Bowman turned round and ‘cracked’ him,” said Mrs Vercoe. “I said that there was going to be no fight here, and Bowman turned to me and saitl: ‘lf you don’t get out of the road I’ll crack you.’ I replied that I did not think he would, and caught hold Of the lapels of his coat. He then ‘cracked’ me above the left eye.” After that Mrs Vercoe struck him with a stick she pulled out of the garden, and then Bowman went away with her daughter. As a result of the blow, Mrs Vercoe had suffered from eye trouble and had to receive medical attention. Mr Nash: Is it a fact that you have been telling everyone, down at cricket and so on, what a rascal Bowman was! —“No. I mentioned it only to one girl at cricket.” Medical evidence was given by Dr. G. E. Waterworth to the effect that Mrs Vercoe’s eye injury was consistent with a blow. A woman of her age would probably tqke some time to get over the nervous strain following the circumstances of a blow. She was suffering from haemorrhage of the eye, which was a fairly clear indication of a crack in the skull. Royce Hector Vercoe, son of the plaintiff, corroborated the evidence given by his mother. After asking Bowman where he had taken his sister on New Year’s night, Bowman struck at him and the pair closed. Mrs Vercoe tried to intervene anfl was struck by Bowman. To Mr Nash: He denied that he had an axe in his hand when Bowman and Miss Vercoe turned un at the house. He also denied that he was prepared for a fight with Bowman. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. The case for the defence, said Mr Nash, was a complete denial that Bowman had struck Mrs Vercoe. Bowman stated in evidence that on the day of tho alleged assault Miss Vercoe and he went to the back door of the house, Miss Vercoe intending to get her clothes because she had decided to leave home. Her mother said “she would not give her a stitch to put on.” “Royce was waiting nearby with an axe. I asked him what he was going to do with it and he said he was going to clean me up with it. 1 told him I never came to have an argument.” Vercoe then grabbed Bowman’s shoulders and struck at him, during which Mrs Vercoe chased her daughter out of the gate and returned to where the scuffle was taking place. She broke a stick on Bowman’s head, but he denied that he struck her. Evidence was also given by Kathleen Annie Vercoe, who said that she had decided to leave home because her mother had threatened to cut her throat. So far as she could see, her Inother considered that Bowman was not good enough for her. She corroborated Bowman’s statement that her brother Royce was waiting at home with an axe on the day of the alleged assault. After tho scuffle, Mrs Vercoe ran after witness and threw a stick at her. Bowman never hit Mrs Vercoe, she declared. At this stage the Magistrate intervened, saying that he was satisfied that Bowman had struck Mrs Vercoe The defendnt, he added, must have known, from previous arguments, that trouble might arise if he returned to Mrs Vercoe’a home, on tho day in question. Judgment was given for the sum of £CI 11/6, as detailed above.