THE CHRISTCHURCH ASSAULT CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10598, 19 February 1896, Page 2

THE CHRISTCHURCH ASSAULT CASE.

A DOCTOR SENT TO GAOL. (Pjjr United Pbess Association.) Christchukch, February 18. At the Supreme Court to-day the charge against Arthur de Renzi, formerly house eutgeon at the hospital, of assaulting Richard D, Thomas, chairman of tha Hospital Board, go as to cause him actual bodily harm, was concluded. The jury, after a retirement of 55 miautes, f jund tbe accused guilty of common assault. "■ His Honor said ,that the prosecutor was a public officer, and it was in consequence of his discharge of such public duties that tbe attack had been made upon .him. Accused had made application for an appointment, and it ira the duty of the prosecutor to state at a committee meeting any circumstances, in his opinion, bearing on the matter. Assuming that what had been said had been said maliciously accused had a proper retneay. Accused had by false pretences entrapped prosecutor into an office, in which the as«ault hud beeu committed. He (his Honor) wao satisfied that the interview was planned with ths intention of coercing prosacutor into a withdrawal of statements, aud it was open to considerable doubt, whether there was not an intention of punishing him physically if the explanation were not satisfactory. It was quite clear bhat prosecutor desired at once to escape from the pl«ce he had bwn brought into. Ha (hia Hunor) was perfectly satisfied that prosecutor bad been prevented from leaving the office. He was under duress, and unable to carry out hia intention of escaoiag. He (his Honor) was satisfied that Thomas deslined discussion, as he might be expected to do. The story for tha defence—that accusad could have believed that Thomas intended violencg—was iia absurd story. Tbe defence was a discreditable defence, aad, in the casa of ths witness Brown,-was endeavoured to be supported by deliberate perjury. A blow bad been struck deliberately and without a shadow of provocation. The assault was premeditated, and a coOTr&ly outrage on a public man in carrying out bin public duties. This was not a casa which could be met with a fine, and he would senleace scensed to one month's imprisonment, ami a? accnierl was a medical man thu sentence would ba without hard labour.