AN IRATE FATHER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 13951, 6 January 1909, Page 8

AN IRATE FATHER.

TAKAPUNA SHOOTING CASE. ACCUSED CONVICTED AND DISCHARGED. At the Police Court yesterday, before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., the Takapuna farmer, Nicholas Casey, an elderly man, for whom Mr. Cotter appeared, was brought up charged with attempting to murder a neighbouring' farmer, Winkworth Ernest Speck, at Takapuna on December 24 last. Sergeant Hendry prosecuted. . The evidence of the young man Speck was to the effect that he was married. On the evening of the date of the alleged offence he went to accused's house to get some groceries that had been left there for him. He saw Casey near the cowshed in the act of ordering Tom .Kelly, a man in his employ, off the premises. Accused greeted witness in a friendly way. After giving accused a drink of spirits out of a flask witness went up to the house, where he saw Casey's daughter Ethel. He had been speaking to her for live minutes when accused came up and said to witness, "Haven't you a wife?" On witness replying in the affirmative, Casey said, " Then you'd better go home to her." Accused then wanted to fight witness, and called him a "dirty sneak." He throw off his coat and tried to hit witness (several times. The girl brought out a bottle of milk, for which witness- was waiting, anil accused took it from her and flung it through a window. Casey then kicked the girl twice, and was going to kick her again when witness gave him a push, and the girl ran away. Accused called to her , to come back, saying that if he caught her he would " do for her, ' and adding, "If I can't catch you I'll catch Speck.' He then made a few ineffectual smacks at witness, and finally threw the groceries at him. Witness picked these up, and went quietly home. Later in the evening witness was at his home, half-way through his tea, when accused came to the door and said, '' Com out Speck. I want to speak to you." He walked seven or eight paces from the house with accused, and then said to him, " This is far enough. What have you got to say." Accused did not reply, but walked further away towards the gate. Witness wife called from the doorway, Come back, he says he will put a bullet through you." On hearing her say that, witness drooped on the ground. Accused then fired at him, the shot going over him. Witness, who was not struck by the shot, called out to Casey, "What is the game?" and rushed into the house. In cross-examination by Mr. Cotter witness said that he went to Casey's house about once a fortnight for his groceries. He had not asked accused's permission for his groceries to be left there. Accused never distinctly warned him not to come on to his property. Accused had frequently called him a sneak during a period of about a month, but had afterwards .apologised for doing so. A WIFE'S WARNING. '

Gertrude Soeck, wife of the last witness, stated that on Casey calling her husband out of the house she heard accused say, " I'll put a bullet into him." Speck did not hear him, being slightly deaf. Witness then sang out to warn her husband and ran back into the porch. She heard a loud report., thought her husband was shot, and screamed. She did not see in which direction the gun was fired. About an ' hour later two _ of Casey's daughters came to find out if Speck was realty shot. On January 2 witness found the wad out of a gun cartridge at the side of her house, and near where Speck had been standing on the night of the shooting. ! Ethel Caeev, 16 years of age, daughter | of the accused, stated that at her father's house on the evening of the occurrence accused was very angry on' finding Speck with her, and told him not to come to the i place again. Speck only laughed, and her I father then struck him. Witness said that I she had no recollection of herself being struck or hurt by anyone. Later that night as witness and her sister Alice were going to bed accused came in. He spoke to her sister, but. witness did not hear what was said. Her father seemed very excited. He must have gone out again, as he was not in the ; house next day. Alice Casey, an elder sister of the last witness, stated that when her father came in on the night concerned, in an excited state, he said he had fired off his gun to frighten Speck, adding that he had told him several times to keep away, and that he had taken no notice. Detective McMahon deposed to searching accused's room and finding a box of cartridges and three bullets. The cartridges were of the same pattern as the shells he afterwards found in accused's gun that had been handed to the De\bnport constable. Constable Eccles testified to accused coming to him at Devonport at 11.30 p.m. on December 24. He was very excited, and witness thought he had delirium tremens. Casey said he wanted to give himself up. On being asked what for, accused reolied, " I shot over a man's head tonight to frighten him. I told him two or three times to keep away from my ' kids' (meaning girls) and he would not. I have been drinking for two or three days. I don't think I hurt him, but you had better come out and see how he is." Accused added that Speck was the man. To Mr. Cotter : Casey bore a. very good character. He was occasionally addicted to drink.

Mr. Cotter applied for a reduction of the charge to one of common assault, and asked that accused, who had without doubt fired off the gun, should be bound over to come up for sentence when called upon. Casey would also consent to a prohibition order being issued against him. CASEY'S VERSION OF THE AFFAIR. His Worship decided to take the evidence of accused. The latter was called, and stated that Speck had been making too free with his daughters. He told him three or four times not to come to his place. Witness declared emphatically that he did not fire at Speck, but above his head. There was nothing between witness and Speck other than the latter's visits ft witness' house when the girl Ethel was about.

To Sergeant Hendry : He did not try to fight Speck nor did he kick his daughter, as Speck had stated. His object in taking the gun to Speck's house was to frighten him, and make him keep away. He was very angry, thinking his daughter had gone to Speck's house, but he had cooled down by the time he arrived there. He did not say he would put a bullet into Speck. After witness had fired into the air Speck stooped down. Witness did )jot think he had hit him ; the gun was pointed in a different direction altogether. His Worship said that he was quite satisfied that no jury would be justified in convicting the accused of attempted murder, or in concluding that in firing the gun. the accused intended to hurt or injure Speck. He was satisfied too that the principal witness for the prosecution, Speck, had not told the whole truth. The explanation given by accused was probably correct. One could not but admire a man who was prepared to go pretty far in defence of his daughter's honour. As a parent the accused had been incensed that after repeated warnings Speck should have persisted in visiting hie daughter. His Worship thought the evidence proved a technical assault, and pointed out that a man had no right to take the law into his own hands and fire a weapon in another man's presenco in order to frighten him. His Worship consented to the charge being reduced to one of common assault, to which Mr. Cotter, on behalf of accused, pleaded guilty.