Assaulted Man in a City Street

Manawatu Times, Volume 61, Issue 46, 25 February 1936, Page 8

Assaulted Man in a City Street

YOUNG MAN FINED IN COURT

A frank admission that ho had assaulted James William Nelson on February 11 last in the city was given by John Joseph Lafferty, aged 28, in the Magistrate’s Court before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., when he was charged with the offence yesterday afternoon. Accused, however, contended that he had had provocation because the other man had called him by an offensive name on occasions.

Detective-Sergeant Bickerdike conducted the case for the police, while Mr T. Helling appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. Shoes Were Missing! John William Nelson, a chef, said that on January 23 last he had been at an hotel in tho afternoon and had left about 6 o’clock for Andrew Young street. Witness had continued on his way, when a fair and a dark man had approached him. The latter (identified as accused) had struck him in. the face. Both men had been strangers and no reason had been given for the assault. The only time previously that witness had seen accused had been the same afternoon in the hotel, but no conversation had taken place between them. Witness stated that he had remembered nothing for half an hour after receiving the blow, and his shoes had been missing when he came to his senses. Later they had been returned.

To counsel witness said that he did not recall putting his hand in accused’s pocket one day in June last. He had not seen accused on another occasion and had never called anyone “a scab.” Ho had not called accused a. scab in Main street on the day of the assault, added witness. Recovered the Footwear George Clark, a chimney sweep, testified that he had seen accused after what Nelson had told him. Accused had explained to witness that he had once had words with Nelson before in an hotel and Nelson had threatened to hit him over tho head with a bottle. Asked about the shoes, accused had replied that he would hand them back, and subsequently these had been given to witness, who had returned them to Nelson. Admission of Offence Detective O. Power told how accused had frankly admitted the offence and had made an unsigned statement. In this explanation accused said that he had had previous trouble with Nelson, who had called him a scab—probably because he (accused) had worked at the freezing works during a strike. Accused said that he had met Nelson, told him that he was sick of being called a scab, and had hit .the man twice, then removing his shoes and throwing them on to a roof nearby. Ho had recovered the footwear later. Counsel submitted that the assault had been admitted, but it was a matter of deciding if there had been sufficient provocation. Accused had been sick of being pestered by Nelson and had asked him when ‘‘this scab business was going to stop,” this resulting in Nelson hitting accused across the face with a newspaper, and subsequently being assaulted. Allan W. White gave corroborative evidence in so far as Nelson calling accused by objectional names was concerned. The Magistrate said that there had been no legal provocation. Accused would be fined £5, in default 14 days’ imprisonment. No time was allowed in which to pay tho amount, the Bench commenting that a man under 30 years had no right to hit a man aged 60 years.

A Private Prosecution SHAREMILKER AND FARMER HAVE THEIR DIFFERENCES A fine of £5, with £3 3s costs, was imposed by Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., on Oswald G. Latham, of Kauwhata, when ho was charged with assaulting John Cameron at Newbury on February 7 last. Mr Cullinano apepared for plaintiff and Mr Rodgers for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Counsel for informant explained that the case was a private prosecution for assault. Plaintiff was a farmer, aged (37 years, and had engaged defendant as a sharemilker. Defendant had been well treated but had abused the generous treatment received, it was submitted. On the evening prior to the alleged assault defendant had been told about feeding some calves near a haystack. Plaintiff had gone over to defendant when he had been milking and had asked him who owned the haystack concerned. Defendant had declared that it was his and plaintiff had then left, walking through an engino shed to a concrete path. Defendant, however, had followed and had knocked plaintiff down, then standing over him with fists clenched! Counsel submitted that it had been nothing but a brutal and unprovoked assault. Plaintiff gave evidence in this regard, but cross-examined admitted that there had been friction between the parties. Dr. C. W. Peach testified that plaintiff bore evidence of bruises to his back and these were consistent with what he declared to have happened. The defence was that there had'been constant trouble, and bickering. Defendant stated that plaintiff had asked him to shift the stock, and this was agreed to. Plaintiff had come into the milking shed but defendant had told him he would discuss the matter later. Plaintiff would not leave, however, and defendant nad pushed him out. Plaintiff’s foot had caught in something and he had fallen. Both plaintiff and his wife had then come back to “storm and blast” at him, and he had pushed them both out. The Magistrate decided in favour of plaintiff and imposed a fine. ’ "While the number of marriages in Britain last year was a record, the birth-rate reached the lowest level of any normal year