THE SOUTH DUNEDIN ASSAULT CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2258, 10 June 1897, Page 30

THE SOUTH DUNEDIN ASSAULT CASE.

A case presenting some very unusual features occupied the attention of the bench at the Police Court on the 4bhinat. The presiding justicei were Messrs G. L. Denniston, Thomas Culling, and T. C. de Lacey, J.P.'s. Nicholas Edwards, an employee of the corporation in the gasworks, was charged with assaulting aboot-clicker named Roberb M'Kinlay on May 3, and inflicting upon him grievous bodily harm. Sergeant O'Neill conducted the proceedings on behalf of the police, and Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for the accused. Sergeant O'Neill stated that on the 3rd of May M'Kinlay was visiting some friends at South Dunedin. Accused's wife was also there. When she left, M'Kiolay accompanied her home, and saw her into the house. When he was coming away from the house he met Edwards, who immediately seb upon him and assaulted him, striking him and knocking him down. When he was down lie struck him several more blows, and struck him over the head with some instrument, which prosecutor took to be a bottle. M'Kinlay was so much injured that he had to be taken to the | hospiba'. j The Prosecutor (who appeared In court on crubches, aud who, on the termination of his evidence, was taken to the hospital) said that on the date in question he visited the housa of j a friend named Mrs Hood. He saw Mrs Edwards, wife of accused, and went to her I house with her. He saw her inside, and < when he was leaving he met Edwards, who without any provocation whatever seb upon him,/' sbruck him, and knocked him dovrn, and sbruck him on the head with a bottle. He was rendered insensible, and was taken to the hospital. Cross-examined by Mr Hanlon : Wibne?s was a married man, living with his family snd wife. He was a sober maD, but a prohibition order had been taken out against him. He went to Mrs Hood's house at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. There were only Mrs Hood and Mrs Edwards there. He bad no particular business there. From 8 o'clock to 5 o'clock were his working hours. He did cofe go to work bhat day. He took a holiday. They were merely conversing ab Mrs Hood's. There was drinking going on. He paid for ib. -He spent a shilling in drink. At 6 o'clock he lefb with Mrs Edwards. He • went into her house. He did not hear a knock ab the door. He did nob know what he went to her house for. Mr Edwards did not come into the house while he was there. He did not ,| see him in the kitchen. There was no souffle ' there, and consequently wibneas was not knocked down, and he did nob strike his head agiineb the fender. He never met Edwards till the back door was closed, aud he saw Edwards in the yard. Wibness wenb oub by the back door. Ha did nob know why he did nob go bhrough bhe front door. It was not true that Edwards catne into the house and saw witness and Mrs Edwards J there and thab he then dragged witness bhrough ' the bouse and put him out at the front door. I Witness did nob know thab Edward* had trouble through his wife beiog addicted to diink. Witness never drank with Mrs Edwards before in his life. He had never spoken bo Mrs Edwards bsfore May 3, and had never been in her house before. Had only once ppokeri to Edwards before, and that was 12 months previously. Witness would swear bhab he had never been assaulted before. He did nob know a Mr Norman or a Mr Beach, and he was never assaulted by men of fchoae names for improper behaviour. When wibness wenb home with Mrs Edwards she asked him to come in, not for the purpose of drinking or for any other purpose. Dr Anderson, house surgeon at the hospital, stated thab he examined M'Kinlay when he came to the hospital on the night of the 3rd. He was suffering from two cuts on the head, one of which was Be?ere ; one of the kneecaps was transversely fractured, and a small bone in one of the hands was broken. The injuries were such that if he had not received skilled j medical attention th» result might have endangered his life. He was stiil suffering from the effects of the injuries, and it would be four to six months before he had the full use of his limb. A blow from the bottle would have fractured the knee cap. To Mr Hanlon : A fall backwards on a kitchen fender or grabe could have caused bhe injury, and a fall on a hard substance such as a stone could have fracbured bhekneecip. George M'Leod, John Charles Smith, and George Sparrow also gave evidence. Annie Dahlia Edwards, wife of bhe accused, was then called. Mr Hanlon stated he had a right to object to the wife of the accused being called, bub he would waive, that right, as he wished bo get to the truth of the matter. Witness, being sworn, aaid that M'Kinlay was j in the kitchen when her husband came in. She went out of the room and out by the fronb door, and at thab momenb she heard a scuffle. Thab was all she knew of ib. When she came back M'Kialay was lying in front o£ the house. The young man named Sparrow was with him and helped him into tbe cab. When her husband came into the kitchen he said to him, "What are you doing here?" She heard no more. Witness was only slightly acquainted with M'Kinlay. She met him bh&b day at a house in Macandrew road. He followed her home. To Mr H*nlon : She met him at Mrs Hood's house, and they h»d beer there. She and he came out together. Witness did not invite him. As she opened the door he came in too. She was sitting on the sofa when her husband came in. When her husband had knocked ab the front door twice she went there and asked "Who is' there?" Her husband replied, •' It's only me." She hurried back to the kitchen and told M'Kinlay that it was Edwards. She had previously told him that her husband would be angry, and he replied, " It's all right. There's plenty of time." When Edwards came to the back door she ran out by the front, and as she was going o-it she heard th« scuffle. When M'Kinlay said thab he first met her that day it was not true. Sho v >.cl met him twice '

before. A t her place he wanted her to go for some beer. He was under the influence of drink, but wai not very drunk. She could tell he had some drink. Witness had a slight failing for drink sometime I',1 ', and that was the only cause for a little difference and annoyance between herself and husband. She did not see any empty bottles in the kitchen. M'Kinlayhad never been in her house before. Mr Hanlon submitted that if ever there was a case which should be dismissed, the present was one. In the first place the accused was afflicted with a wife who was inclined to give way to drink, and through that the young children in the family were somewhat neglected. Edwards in the intervals of leisure which his work occasionally afforded him ran over to his home to see that his children were in safety, or that they were being properly nourished and put to their beds. On the night in question Edwards left the gasworks after putting in the 6 30 charge, and ran over to his home. What did he find ? Instead of everything being right, he found the worthless fellow M'Kinlay in his kitchen with his wife, encouraging and inciting her to drink — a man who was himself married, with a wife of unimpeachable character, and a family of young children. That worthless fellow, instead of working for the supnorb of his wife and family, left his work at 12 o'clock in rhe day and sought out other men's wives. He sapalied them wibh drink, although he was a prohibited person himself, iv order that he might stealthily evade the law. Ho goes to a man's house, and while that man was engaged in earning bread for his family he encourages his wife to drink. Everyone knew what was the beginning of the downfall of all women. Drink was tho start of it, and when they gave way to drink they gave way to the further solicitations of those who were effecting their ruin. The court therefore was asked to commit the accused for trial, to suffer all the annoyance, expense, and ignominy of a Supreme Court trial because, when he came home and found a man leading his wife astray, he pitched him into the street — a man who paraded about the block to find weak women on whom he might practise improprieties. He (counsel) ventured to say that the only thing ro be deplored about the whole affair was that M'Ktnlay did nob suffer one-half of the punishment his crimes merited. There was nob even a grand jury, let alone a petty jury, who would bring in a true bill against accused, and be trusted that their Worships - would have no hesitation in j declaring their sense of justice by dismissing the casp. The Chairman of the Bench (Mr Denniston) said : In this case the beach are divided in opinion. There is a majority of two to one. The majority is in favour of a dismissal, and the one who would be inclined to commit prob&bly feels the strength of what Mr Hanlon has said as much as anyone as to the painfulness of the case. The bench as » whole agree that M'Kinlay has come oub of the case as badly as any man could do. He told anything but the truth, the reason probably being that he did not know what took place. However, as tb.e majority of the bench is in favour of a dismissal, I will not go into the merits of the case. The case will be dismissed.