THE LIP BITING CASE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CV, Issue 12424, 13 February 1901, Page 3

THE LIP BITING CASE.

THE ASSAILANT BEFORE THE COURT. George Richard Wilson was brought up before. Mr 11. Beetham, S.M., yesterday morning on a charge of having assaulted' Thomas Downey on Feb. 8, so as to cause him actual bodily hr.rm. Mr Donnelly appeared for the accused. Thomas Downey, the assaulted man, whose upper lip was covered with stickingplaster, stated that ho was standing at the corner of Manchester and Oashel Streets on the evening of Feb. 8. Some man he did not know wanted to fight him in corn-se-quence of an argument about horse matters, but the affair, fizzled out. Then just after the accused suddenly rushed at him, seized him by the lip with his teeth, and placed one hand' on his throat and the other on his watch-chain, breaking the bar. Accused bit -the piece of lip right .out before he was pulled away. AVitness was perfectly sober, and gave no provocation. Matthew Riissel and William AlfredHewitt also gave evidence. They stated that Downey had been sober. There, had been some altercation, but nothing to justify the assault. The former witness had picked up the piece of lip. Dr Hall stated that he had sewn the piece of lip in again at the hospital.- He could not say whether the piece had joined. Tho piece hilt-en out was about an inch square. Detective Livingstone stated that when arrested on the present charge the accused said he had been drunk. Mr Donnelly said that the accused could only -admit the offence. He hajl been drunk at. the time. He- was a perfectly respectable young man,*!a. cook, and was deeply disgusted at his* own conduct. Sub-Inspector^Black said there was nothing known' wgainst. the accused. .Mr"-Beetham pointed out to tho accused t'h-3 aggravated nature of the offence, and tfct. rVmikomK-ss was no excuse for such an assault. Ho -had no alternative to inflicting a'severe? penalty, and of course a. line would aiot''meat the case. The sentence wou'.d be one month's imprisonment. TO TII£ .editor. - Sir—The attention of the public has, more than once, been called, in your correspondence columns, to the inadequacy of the' punishment administered by some of our Courts for offences against the person, as compared with the punishment administered for offences against property. A case that- came before the Magistrates Court this morning affords some food for reflection on this subject. The accused was charged with assault. The evidence, showed that the informant was having an altercation in the street with another man when the accused, without the slightest provocation, rushed at the informant, threw an arm round his neck, caught hold of his lip with the teeth, and hung on like a bulldog till he had bitten out a large piece about an inch long, which he spat out on to the footpath. The sole excuse offered was a statement by counsel for the accused that he was drank at the time. The only evidence on this point was that the man was perfectly sober. For this unprovoked, brutal and barbarous assault the accused was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. Had the prisoner robbed tho informant of a pound he would, judging by what has, happened in other cases, have been sent to gaol for three, or, possibly, six months. The question which naturally arises is: Do our Courts consider it more important to protect a man's property than to protect his person? If not, why do they punish the poor unfortunate who, often under the pressure of want, or strong •temptation, commits some offence affecting another man's pocket only, more severely than the brute that- does not stop ;short of personal violence, and, it may be, as in, the above-mentioned case, serious and permanent disfigurement. Unless, I am greatly mistaken, there is a widespread and.growing feeling that offences against.property should be dealt will much less severely,"or else that offences aaginst the person should be punished much more severely than of late has been the practice of some of our Courts. —I am, etc., C.