KNIFE ASSAULT AT WELLINGTON

Northern Advocate, 7 February 1936, Page 6

KNIFE ASSAULT AT WELLINGTON

Accused Guilty; Remanded

For Sentence

[Per Press Association. — Copyright.'] WELLINGTON, This Day,

rpHE TRIAL TOOK PLACE IN THE SUPREME COURT YESTERDAY OF JAMES LOGIE, ALIAS KELLY, AGED 33, A LABOURER, ' WHO WAS CHARGED WITH WOUNDING CHARLES COOKE, ON JANUARY 9 AND 10, WITH INTENT TO DO GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM.

Made a Rush at Accused.

Referring to the occurrence the following morning in Lambton Quay, witness said he had gone at accused in a fighting attitude, and accused said: “For God’s sake, don’t, Charlie!” Witness proceeded to say that he made a rush at accused, and accused made a rush at him, and witness received a wound. Witness had a small pocket-knife in his hand, which probably accused was the only one to see. Mr Macassey: “Have you ever mentioned that before?”

The case arose from an assault, which occurred in Lambton Quay on January 10, when Cooke, a salesman, was allegedly attacked with a knife.

A sensational feature of yester-

day morning’s proceedings was a statement by Cooke that, at the time of the affair in Lambton Quay, he had shaped up to accused with a knife in his hand. Mr Justice Smith held that this new statement introduced a defence of provocation and declared the witness hostile.

Witness; “No. It is only a small knife. I have it h&re.”

“Have you ever suggested this before?” —“No. I thought I might incriminate myself. I was out to protect myself.” Taken by Surprise.

After representations from Mr Macassey, his Honour quoted from witness’s original depositions, and said there was no contradiction, but witness had added something. He thought the Crown had been taken by surprise, and ruled that the element of surprise was a basis of hostility. While witness's demeanour was not actually hostile, his evidence was hostile to the basis of the Crown’s

Mr P. S. K. Macassey, for the Crown, outlined the case on the lines of the story revealed in the lower Court hearing. He then called Cooke, and in his opening question asked him to be frank in his answers, leading counsel for the defence to suggest that Mr Macassey was going very close to cross-examining his own witness. These questions related to his knowledge of a man, who Availed for him on the night of January 9.

case. In reply to further questions, witness said the pocket-knife was closed at the time. In cross-examination, Mr Neal, for accused, questioned witness on his relations with the police, winding up: “Your attitude would be this, that you were practically hiding from the police?” Witness: “Yes.” Mr Neal: “On the evening of January 9, were you concerned in trouble in another part of the city?”—“Yes.” “Was Logie there on that occasion?” —“Yes.” Witness said the squabble was over money. “Did you receive injuries on that occasion?”—“No.” After evidence of street witnesses of the affair, the Crown case closed. Unreliable Witness. Mr Neal said he did not propose to call evidence for the defence. Addressing the jury, Mr Neal said that as far as the alleged assault on January 9 was concerned, Cooke, who had bad eyesight, could not sav definitely who the man was who had assaulted him. Cooke, he said, must have impressed the jury as being an unreliable witness. He had made certain statements to the police, and he had admitted there was bad blood between himself and accused. In these circumstances, counsel contended, the whole of his evidence must be disregarded.

Dealing with the alleged assault in Lambton Quay, Mr Neal submitted that what had happened was that Cooke drew a knife, and that Logie’s action was merely a blow to grip the knife and stop him, and in doing so Cooke was cut.

There was no evidence that there was a knife in the hand of the accus-

ed on that occasion, or that he had used a knife.

In his summing up, his Honour said that this was indeed a- curious case. One man on two successive days was stabbed with a knife, and he did not wish to be very frank about it, and to come before the jury and tell them all that he knew.

Unknown Circumstances.

It was plain, his Honour thought, that there were circumstances existing between Cooke and Logie which had not been brought before the Court. It seemed, however, that they were connected with money matters. It was essential that the jury should realise that it was not trying any dispute between Cooke and Logie with regard to money matters. Civil courts were open to them to settle their dispute in the same way as every other citizen. What the jury had to try was a crime against the public peace, and it could not be in the public interest that creditors should pursue their debtors with knives.

After an hour’s retirement, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty on two counts, of wounding Cooke with intent to do grievous bodily harm on January 9, and assaulting Cooke on January 10 so as to cause actual bodily harm.

The jury recommended leniency. The prisoner was remanded for sentence.