CHATEAU TONGARIRO INCIDENT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIX, 30 January 1936, Page 7

CHATEAU TONGARIRO INCIDENT

DAMAGES FOR ALLEGED ASSAULT FULL AMOUNT CLAIMED AWARDED RESERVED DECISION OF MAGIS- j „ TRATE [By Telegraph—Press Association! TAUMARIJNUI, This Day. Giving reserved decision to-day for the plaintiff) Richard Cobbe, former manager of the Chateau Tongariro, in the< case against Edward John Richard Seeker,'farmer, Hastings, in a claim for £212 13s 6d damages for assault, the Magistrate, Mr R. M. Watson, said “I find that the evidence generally establishes that shortly after midnight on Bth. September, 1935, at the Chateau " Tongariro plaintiff Cobbe received two blows from defendant’s fist which caused a linear fracture just above the orfitalridge in the left fronto temporal region of plaintiff’s skull, and bruising of plaintiff’s brain.” The defence alleged that defendant never at any time struck a severe blow or blows which could have been responsible for the fracture. The Magistrate said he could not accept this statement. To the contrary there were defendant’s own admissions that if plaintiff , received injury, during the period of' the fracas such injury could only come from blows struck by defendant. The defence further alleged that defendant did not strike plaintiff the blow which plaintiff says he received from the side and rear on the left side of his head while looking down the stairway landing. After he was struck by defendant he had practically no recollection from then on. Medical evidence said a concussed person would be hazv as to occurrences leading up to his accident, hut it may come back to him after some time, and he would not remember the actual blow? : .-The Magistrate was unable, Therefore, to find as a fact on plaintiff’s statement that he received his injuries while looking down the stairway landing. He preferred to accept defendant s statement that plaintiff’s injuries were ~; received when plaintiff and defendant were- alone in the passage. This, however, did not amount to a complete or, valid defence. . . Regarding defendant’s allegation that lie acted in self-defence, the Magistrate held j-the opinion that defendant hit plaintiff first. Before he received his injury plaintiff pushed defendant out of the way; but the Magistrate said he did not believe he tripped defendant, as defendant said plaintiff “may” have done. , The Magistrate considered that defendant’s fall was largely due to his >•• condition some minutes after having consumed two generous nips of whisky in rapid succession, and having had liquor previously that evening. In his condition defendant would not measure very .nicely or indeed have a very exact knowledge or remembrance of where his blows were struck or the weight of force applied by him. When defendant fell on his hack he would naturally become angry. On his own statement he sprang up immediately and hit plaintiff the two blows which caused the serious in-.,. juries received by plaintiff. It was clear from the evidence that shortly after plaintiff was struck defendant felt_he ... , had struck plaintiff unjustly. Tlie Magistrate said he believed the evidence by witness Bailey when he said defendant apologised to plaintiff for striking him and' stood with his hands at his sides to allow plaintiff to strike him. » * ; Concluding, the Magistrate-said he considered defendant hit plaintijf without any necessity for so doing and with an unreasonable degree of force. Pmvocation was not raised as a defence, and lie was unable to find from evidence that there was provocation of such a nature as to 'justify or afford mitigation in respect of the assault complained of. / The Magistrate gave judgment- for. the - full amount of the claim £l2 13s od, , hospital and medical expenses, and £2OO general damages, also Court costs and.. expenses £25 6s 9d. /' .... ? ?