JAW BROKEN ON THE FOOTBALL FIELD

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7292, 23 November 1910, Page 1

JAW BROKEN ON THE FOOTBALL FIELD

DUIIIO CiLCIIUI’S INJURIES

PROMINENT PLAYER CHARGED WITH ASSAULT

ARTHUR WILSON ON TRIAL

A common jury of twelve "had the duty devolved upon them in the Supreme Court yesterday of saying whether Arthur Wilson, cooper, of Wellington, was responsible or not for a broken jaw sustained by Duilio Calcinai, engineer, during tho progress of a football match at tho Athletic Park last season between the Poneke and Athletic teams. Accused, represented by Mr T. M. Wilford, was charged with having assaulted Calcinai so as to cause him actual bodily harm and with having assaulted him. His Honor the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, presided, the jury comprising Messrs Hilbcrd Anderson (fore, man), Ernest Stanley Garrett, Edwin Lewis, Philip Watt, George Henry White, Alexander Leo,. Nathaniel Manhire, Arthur George Barnett, John Carswell, Charles Downey, John Tease, Goorgo WTTUam Clough. Some time was occupied in empanelling the jury, Mr T. Neave, prosecuting on behalf of tho Crown, ordering fifteen to "stand aside/' and counsel for the defence challenging. A SIMPLE MATTER. Mr Neave explained that tho issue of fact in the case was a simple one. During the course of a football match last season between Athletic and Poneke teams at tho Athletic Park a blow was struck by a player, allegedly Wilson, with the result that a Poneke player named Calcinai had his jaw .broken. Prior to this a brother of accused, while being collared, received an apparently accidental blow from Calrinai, with the result that he was hurt. Accused, itwas alleged, wont up to his. brother and remarked; “Show me tile cow that don© it and I will smash liirtiHe then attempted to strike Calcinai, without effect, but later in the game was alleged to have approachel Calcinai and struck him a blow, breaking his jaw. A POSITIVE WITNESS. . Duilio Calcinai, the injured man, said that he did not know what causer! the first injury to Wilson's brother. He remembered some person attempting to strike him. It was one of the Wilson's—three of whom were playing for the side —but he could not say which one it was. He received the blow' which broke his jaw while he was walking up the‘field, being, struck partly from behind. The blow turned him round, and lie .then saw Arthur Wilson near him, .Witness had done nothing to provoke accused. Wilson had. accused him of hitting others.

To Mr "Wilford; He was positive it ■was Arthur Wilson who had struck him, and nothing any person said could convince him otherwise. The man who struck him was not in front of him.

If W. Wilson, owns 'up, and fifteen or sixteen other witnesses' say that he struck you, will you still say positively that it was Arthur Wilson who struck you ?—Yea. Witness said he had been struck - at previously, by on© of the Wilsons.' but h© did not know which one.

Mr Wilford: Before you were struck did you knock a Wilson unconscious oh the field?—No, X do not remember touching the maji, but I remember him falling down and seeing him on the ground. Did, you cause his fall?—I swear I did not cause his fall. THE LINE OF DEFENCE.

Some discussion her© took place' between Mr Wilford- and His Honor regarding the former's fine of crossexamination. Mr Wilford said he proposed to, show that not only did W. Wilson break Calcinai's jaw, but that ho had cause, having been knocked' down unconscious by Calcinai, Hia Honor: If W. Wilson is tried for assault'that should not be any defence. It is utterly irrelevant to this case. Mr Wilford; The whole point is, did Arthur Wilson or W. Wilson strike him.

His Honor: It has nothing io do with what this'man did to W. Wilson. If on© man was struck by another he hud no business whatever to strike him back. That .is an offence, that is a crime. Mr Wilford: Lam' not concerned with any crime regarding W. Wilson.

His Honor further remarked that h© would toll the jury, whether W, Wilson was struck by Calcinai or not, that that was not the point for them to determine. Mr Wilford then asked witness whether h© had knocked a player named McDonald down that day. COMMENT BY HIS HONOE.

His Honor interposed. The object of the thing was perfectly clear to anyone who knew anything about a criminal procedure. Counsel wanted to ask the jury not to decide whether Arthur Wilson struck Calcinai or not, but to say whether the latter had been acting roughly with other players. Mr Wilford: I propose to test his credit as fto whether he did touch McDonald. Witness, when asked, said he had not done so. It was a lie. NOW—AND THEN'.

r "The game is so different now to wliot it was then —as your Honor sees by this •case/' remarked Mr Wilford shortly afterwards in reply to an interrogation by his Honor concerning the meaning of the word "pack”—the forwards. His Honor said that in his time the clubs in which men played roughly would never have been allowed to play anyone else. That was the control they had over the game. Mr Wilford said he understood that in America teams went out in relays and with armour on-to play football.

His Honor: The result is that the number of deaths on tho football held has rise.ji to such an extent that in several of the Universities they have prohibited football. Mr Wilford: The fact is known that more men die in beds than .anywhere else. , FOE THE PROSECUTION;

Charles Sinter, full-back for the Ponete team, stated that In his opinion Arthur

Wilson had struck Galcinai, there being nobody near tho latter at tho time. D. McKenzie, time-keeper at tho Athletic Bark for the match under notice, deposed that accused had struck Galcinai and that when he did so W. Wilson was holding Galcinai. John Galcinai, who took his brother’s placo in tho field, stated that on the lineout, when play had been resumed, prisoner said: “Here is his little cousin looking for it now; if ho wants it he’ll soon get it.” Other witnesses called for tho prosecution were A. F, Wiren, M. Irwin Mitchinson, James Tilyard, James D. McGee., J. S. Gilligan, Donald Mclntyre, Arthur Herbert Taylor, George Archibald Deare, and Dr Pigeon, With tho exception of the doctor, these witnesses swore that prisoner had struck Galcinai, but there was some discrepancy in thoir evidence as to the position of tho men when the incident occurred and also as to whether Galcinai was being held by another of the Wilson’s when the blow was struck. This closed tho case for the prosecution. ACCUSED IN THE BOX. Prisoner, giving evidence on his own behalf, said he had been a member of tho Athletic Club for ten years, and had represented New Zealand many times on the football field. He was captain of the Athletic team on the day iu question. At the start of tho second spell he saw Galcinai deliberately strike his brother William iu tho face, stunning him. Witness made no remark whatever at tho time. He did not say “Show me the cow who done this and I’ll smash him.” Ho never used words like that, and tried his best to keep order. When his brother came to, the game went on and Galcinai was struck. Ho did not see Galcinai struck, nor did he strike him. He never laid hands on Galcinai except in tho ordinary way in football.

Witness denied saying to Calcinate brother: “Here's his little cousin looking for it now; if he wants it he'll soon get it." Mr Wilford: How far were you off Calcinai when he was struck?—About seven or eight yards. You've been under this charge for a long time, and you tell the jury solemnly that it was not you who struck the blow? —Yes. I do. To Mr Neave; He saw a deliberate blow struck which sent his brother to the ground. He made no remark to anybody about it. Is it not the fact that some members of your team persuaded you to leave off 3'our search for Calcinai?—No. .✓ His Honor: Did you know what Calcinai went off the ground .for? —I wasn't sure at the time. Mr Neave; Did you have any conversation after the match abpTft the incident? —Yes. 'Dozens of people came up and asked’me . what had happened.. - v- OF NO VALUE. Harold Gerard: was the next witness. Mr Wilford: Did you sec Calcinai strike anybody? .• ■ *■ i .His Houor: I have told you you cannot go. into that. , That is no defence to the charge. Mr Wilford:, I must bow to whatever your Honor rules. His Honor: It is no defence to the charge that Calcinai struck another man. Tho whole question is whether prisoner struck Calcinai. Mr Wilford stated that his justification for his attitude was that Mr Neave, in opening, said that if Calcinai had struck anybody it had ..not been done deliberately. His Honor Counsel make statements which are sometimes irrelevant. That is not tho point at alb It is simply raising an issue which is not for the jury. . Mr Wilford: It is for your Honor to ©ay.

His Honor: Don't you sec that? Mr Wilford: No, ' I cannot, your Honor. :

His Honor : Then you should see it. Hr Wilford: lam sorry I cannot. I shall not want you now, Mr Gerard.

Benjamin Sutherland, who said he was absolutely- impartial, and who was a spectator from outside the park, said lie was certain- that it was W. Wilson who had inflicted the injury which caused Calcinai to leave the field, . BBOTHEBLY LOVE.

Sims Wilson, brother of accused, said prisoner did not strike Calcinai. Do you know who did it?—Yes, I do.

William« Wilson, carpenter, the other brother of accused, said he had been struck by Calcinai over the left eye in the match and knocked out. # It was pot an accident. H© saw Calcinai struck and knocked out. Mr Wilford : Did accused do it?—No,

You swear that positively?—Yes. Mr Neave: You know that your brother did not strike that blow. Have you seen the police I—l1 —I have - seen many policemen. I don't know what that has to do with it.

You didn't deem it necessary?—No. You knew, that your brother was being unjustly accused, and you did not see fit to inform the police 'what you knew. — No, I knew that there was a case coming off, and I knew he could then prove Ms Innocence. .

Did you not know that there was another way in which you could have done dti?—Certainly, but I had been legally advised not to do anything. Mr Neave: Then you are in possession of the means of proring conclusively your brother's innocence?—Yes.

You do not see fit to adopt those means?—No.

Mr Noave; Thank you. Other evidence was given for the defence by Charles Reid, Herbert Adams, Cyril Styles, Edward O’Farrell, Sidney Owen Jones, .Maurice Philip Pool©, Francis Eller, and Bernard Gallagher, who all ©wore that it was not accused who struck-the blow but one of his brothers. \ incent E. Meredith, a sol© selector of the Wellington 'Rugby Union, said accused was regarded as a particularly, clean player on the field. H© was looked upon as a man who never lost control of himself even under trying circumstances.

This concluded the case for the defence. , at , th , is fita S e tos adjourned unnl 10 o clock to-day, when counsel will address the jury. *