HERMAN ASSAULTED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 16007, 27 August 1915, Page 5

HERMAN ASSAULTED.

AN OTAHUHU INCIDENT.

COMMENTS OF MAGISTRATE. A STr~Rim,T-BTTii.T man named Angus Norman Austin was charged, before Mr. F. V. Frazer, S.M., at Otahuhu yesterday, with having, on July 21, assaulted an elderly German, Frederick Tilemann, near the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company's office at the saleyards. The defendant admitted having struck the other man, but said he had done so in self-defence. His story was that the informant had made some uncomplimentary remarks about the allies, and Ltd struck the defendant- when the latter had advised him to be quiet and go home. The defendant then struck the informant in order to protect himself from further violence. The informant said that on the day in question he met the defendant outside the Loan Company's office. The defendant used some uncomplimentary language towards him, and challenged him to fight. He pretended not to hear, and' went into the office to transact some business. When he left the office he found the defendant waiting for him round the corner. The defendant called him a German, and then struck him several hlows about the face and body. Some by-standers pulled the defendant off. He himself did not strike the defendant, nor had he then or at any other time given expression to proGerman sympathies. At the time of the assault he was suffering from a sprained wrist, and was not at all desirous of I indulging in hostilities. '•

The magistrate, after hearing further l evidence, said it was impossible to be- j lieve that a peaceable elderly roan would ' be guilty of an unprovoked" attack upon j a sturdy young fellow. The fact that the informant's arm was t»mporarilv ! crippled, made it ill more unlikely. It I appeared to him that the defendant had b"»-n stimulated by national feeling, and i possibly something else, to make an at- i | tack on an old man with whom he had 1 j previously had a disagreement. A Ger- i I man resident, so long as he behaved him- , | self and did not make u?e of provoking . words or conduct, was entitled to the I protection of the law. It was not in I accordance with one's ideas of British fair play to act as defendant had, no I matter how strongly one reprobated the conduct of the German nation. The old man had received an unmerciful " mauling." far in excess of what was justifiable under the plea of self-defence, even ii the necessity for that had been proved. Had the occurrence not happened during war time, the Court would have imposed a very substantial penalty, but one might assume that the defendant's conduct in this instance had been largely impulsive. Ho would be convicted and fined £2, with 6s costs, and an order would be made for the payment to the injured man of half the fine.