THE CHATEAU FRACAS.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13100, 31 January 1936, Page 5

THE CHATEAU FRACAS.

ASSAULT CHARGE PROVEN. full damages for cobbe. .Electric Telegraph—Press Association TAUMARUNUI, January 30. Reserved decision in flavour of the Richard Cobbe, i'ormer ager ot the Chateau Tongariro, was given by Mr R. M. Watson, S.M., to-day, in the case against Edward John Richard Seeker, farmer, of Hastings, in which Mr Cobbe claimed £212 13s 6d for damages for assault.

“I find evidence, ’’ said the Magistrate, “which generally establishes that shortly after midnight on September 8, 193-5, at the Chateau Tonga riro, the plaintiff Cobbe received two blows from defendant’s fist which caused a linear fracture just above the orbital ridge in the left frontal temporal region of plaintiff’s skull.” The defence alleged that defendant never at any time struck a severe blow or blow which could have been responsible for the fracture. The Magistrate said he could not accept this statement to the contrary. There were the defendant’s own admission that, if the plaintiff received the injury during the period of the fracas, such injury could only come from the blows struck by defendant. The defence further alleged that defendant did not strike plaintiff the blow which plaintiff said he received from the side and rear on the left side of the head while looking down the stairway landing. After he had been struck by defendant he had practically nj recollection from then on. The medical evidence said that a concussed person would be hazy as to occurrences leading up to his accident, but it may come back to him alter some time. He would not remember the actual blow. The Magistrate was unable, therefore, to find as a fact on plaintiff’s statement that he received his injuries while looking clown the stairway landing. Tie preferred to accept defendant’s statement that plaintiff’s injuries were* received when plaintiff and defendant were alone in the passage. ‘J his, however, did not amount to a complete or valid defence. THE FIRST BLOW..

Regarding defendants allegation that he acted in self-defence, the Magistrate held the opinion that defendant hit plaintiff first. Before lie received the injury plaintiff pushed defendant out' of the way, but the Magistrate said lie did not believe he tripped defendant as defendant said plaintiff “may’ 1 ’ have clone. The Magistrate considered defendant’s fall largely due to his condition some minutes after having- consumed two generous nips of whisky in rapid succession and having had liquor previously that evening. In his condition defendant would not measure very nicely or indeed have a very exact knowledge or remembrance of where his blows were struck or the weight of force applied by him. When defendant fell on his back he would naturally become angry. On his own statement he sprang up immediately and hit plaintiff two blows which caused the serious injuries received by plaintiff. It was clear from the evidence that shortly actor plaintiff was struck defendant, now serious, felt he had struck plaintiff unjustlv. The Ma gistrate said be believed the evidence of the witness Bailey when he said that defendant apologised to plaintiff for striking him and stood ith his hands at his side to allow plaintiff to strike him. NOTHING IX MITIGATIOX.

Concluding, the Magistrate said he considered defendant hit plaintiff without any necessity for so doing and with an unreasonable degree of force. Provocation was not raised as a defence and he was unable to find from the evidence that there was provocation of such a. nature as to justify or afford mitigation in respect of the assault complained of. The Magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff for the full amount of the claim, namely, £l2 13s 6d hospital and medical expenses, and £2<)G general damages, also Court costs and expenses £25 ,6s 9d.