AN ASSAULT IN CHURCH.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10618, 13 March 1896, Page 4

AN ASSAULT IN CHURCH.

At Balclutha on Wednesday, before Mr R. S. Hawkins, S.M., William Francis Tubman was charged with assaulting aud beating Sarah Elizabeth Banning at Owaka on the 3rd February. Mr A C Hanlon (Dunsdif.) appeared for complainant, and Mr D. Reid (Milton) for defendant. Mr Hanlon, in his opening statement, said the parties resided at Owaka. The complainant had taken proceedings on the 10th April last against the dc'fendaut with the view of having him adjudged the putative father of her illegitimate child, hut the case was dismissed. On the 3rd February last Bishop Nevill was holding a baptismal and confirmation service at the church at Ow-*ka, aad informant was present for the purpose of having the child christened. As the congregation was l>iavi,jg the church the parties met in the aisle, whereupon complainant said : " Have a look at your baby; isn't it like you?" The defendant thereupon struck her three severe blows in the face, causing her nose to bleed. Canon Dodd, who was in the vestry, came out and removed the defendant from the church. He (counsel) submitted that if the evidence bore out his statement a severe penalty should be inflicted. It was true, perhap3, that the girl hid beeu guilty of an indiscretion in speaking to defendant *s she did, but still that was no excuse for a big hulking fellow like defendant to strike a defenceless woman with a baby in her arms. Moreover, to be guilty of such conduct in a church was an aggravation of the offence.

Evidence was given by the informaut, also by Arthur James Pennick, Margaret Grace Vial, and Ani.ie M'Kewan.

Mr Reid, for the defence, said defendant admitted he had touched complainant with his open hand, but he did not hurt her, and certainly did not bleed her nose. He (couasell would be able to show that the informant had given the defendant very great provocation. Before the church service on various occasions she had called out and annoyed the defendant about this child, and when she poked the baby in his face iv the church he became very angry and tapped her on the face. There was no doubt the informant had insulted and provoked him beyond endurance, and had brought the trouble on herself.

After evidence had been given by defendant and his father,

His Worship, in giving his decision, said that in the affiliation case there was not sufficient corroborative evidence and the case was dismisied, which was, under the circumstances, simply a nonsuit. In the present case he was satisfied that the defendant did uot merely give complainant a slight tap, as he had stated, but dealt her severe blow-. His conduct was of the grossest kind. The assault was a cowardly and violent one, perpetrated on a girl with a child in her arms. The language which he used, too, although not charged with it, was an agzravation. The defendant might at least have Bhown some forbearance. He would be fined in the maximum penalty. Fined £10 and costs (£4 10s); iv default, two months' imprisonment, with hard labour.