MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 7062, 23 August 1894, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Bkfork Mr Booth, S.M.] UNLAWFULLY WOUNDIS(;. The following evidence was taken yesterday afternoon : — Constable Law (continuing bis evidence) said the knife produced would ho likely to make the cut. Complainant appeared to be slightly under the influence of liquor. To Mr Finn : The knife would make a. cut in the hat no matter whether it was "off or on the complainant's head. If the blow had been struck with the knife on the hat when worn by the complainant, it might or might nob have caused a cut in his head, but it would depend whether the hat was removed quickly or otherwise whether marks of blood had been left on the silk. The cut through the hat is not a clean cut through. The last witness gave the hat to him. Saw the hat before he gave it to him. Saw him pick it up from under the ledge of the counter. It was hidden from view. Did not remember seeing Joseph Hart there at nil. The hat was in the same condition now as it was when it was handed to him. Henshaw appeared to hava had one or two drinks and was slightly under the influence of drink. Mr Finn asked the question was the , informant a quarrelsome man and a source u/'JrouMe to the police. SergtV-ftajor, Mo.u-e objected to the question beiDg answered, and his Worship overruled Mr Finu on the point, ou the ground that no question divulging the antecedents of criminals cout^d be asked. The question was allowed to go into the deposition. Mr Finn protested in not being allowed to properly defend a client. Examination continued : Made enquiry as to whether Henshaw assaulted accused from last witness. Had heard that a rough and i tumble had taken place. Did not spread a report th; 1 * c. murderous assault had been committed h\ „ Chiuaman. Heard that Henshaw Men; in: o the shop and took the peanuts wiihor.t, paying for them, also that Henshaw .true 1 ; fh'<i accused. The Chinaman wanth.-; the peanuts back was the cause of the siTuggle. The accused asked Henshaw for pavu. \:t, and he told him that Hooper w&p to y;.y for them. The Chinamen of Gisborne are a quiet and peaceable people, and he was certain they would not commit an assault without provocation. From the evidence collected he was told by two witnesses that a cheese knife was used over Henshaw's head. The last witness aud A. Budd were the persons who gave him the information. He was surprised at the evidence of the last witness in respect to the using of the knife. To the Bench : The police usually made arrests from information received. To Mr Finn : He saw marks on the face of the accused, and that was fche reason he asked him if he had been assaulted. To Sergt.-Major Moore : The conversation he had had with Mr Finn concerning this case was of a private nature. To Mr Finn : Henshaw did not give witness the centre part of the knife. Dr A. L. Heale, sworn, stated : He examined John Henshaw on the 17th instant at his surgery. Found two wounds on the left side of the head — one about an inch, and the other an inch and a-quarter long. Also two lesser wounds, one behind aud the other before the first mentioned two, and a slight abrasion by the left eye. The hair was matted with blood. The abrasion near the left eye might be caused by a, fall, and the wounds on the head he should thiuk by a sharp instrument. The knife produced might cause such a wound. The cuts on the hat did not correspond with the more serious wounds on Henshaw's head. It might correspond with the lesser wound. The felt is cut right through, but the lining is not. The deeper wounds were through the scalp, the other two being mere scratches. The informant lost a fair amount of blood. "Witness bandaged it up. By Mr Finn : The wounds were not dangerous, they were serious. A slight blow with the knife produced would hardly go through the ecalp. If the knife went far enough to touch the head it was strange tha silk lining was not more cut than it was. If the part of the knife produced (the part near the handle) were used by an excited person the wounds that would be caused would be more serious than those inflicted on Henshaw. Anyone using the knife must have used it very lightly to have caused such wounds as were inflicted on informant, and were the knife whole, only slight force would have been used. It would be possible for a person holding the knife, or the handle of it, with his wrist grasped tightly by an opponent struggling to save himself, to iuflict similar wounds on his head. It was hardly probable. The wounds on the head could not, he thought, be produced by that part of the blade of the knile near the handle, as onß wound was a circular one and had probably been inflicted by the point. The two more serious wounds he thought could not be caused by the sharp edge of an iron safe. The informant was a bit stupid from drink. Knew the Chinamen of Gisborne fairly well, and he thought they were a very peaceable people. The two moreserions wounds could not be caused by a blow from either the back or flat side of the blade of the knife. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Finn submitted that there was not a particle of evidence to show that the accused had used the knife at all. There was not a jprima facie case made out against the accused, the duty of which it was for the Crown to establish. If the Bench was satisfied that a prima facie, case had been made out against the accused, he would ask that the case be adjourned until to-morrow morning at ten o'clock. The Court then adjourned. TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. On the Court resuming at 10 o'clock thi morning, Mr Finn said that on the evidence given there was no prima. facie case made out. The information set forth that the accused was charged with unlawfully wounding the complainant. He submitted there was no evidence against the accused. In this case the informant had been wounded, but there was no evidence to show by whom. Even if there was suspicion against the accused, that was not, sufficient to justify a committal. In the case of Regina v. Little, His Honor, Mr Justice Connolly, had made aorne very strong remarks on the practice of committing an accused person upon mere suspicion. He contended that the reason why the witness Hooper had not been called, was because the prosecution knew that his evidence would not be favourable to their case. Proceeding to review the evidence, Mr Finn urged that the failure to remember what took place on the part of the prosecutor was feigued, and that he could have given more evidence had he ao desired — but did not do so, from motives best known to himself. The evidence which had been adduced did not in any way show thafc the accused had assaulted the informant. If the Chhnman had had a knife in his hand, and v;> nucking away at the prosecutor, he vo.n . have received more wounds. ,?h'ei«*>v.as ;i fliserepancy between the evidence oi tV° r r tlic witnesses as to "-tfieVrsting in of th\ .W-Mr Budd having stated that he burst it irf, .and Mr Powne, who stated that the door Vas not burst open, but was held by A<h Lee. The doctor had said that one «.f\lhe wonnds could have been inflicted by tin: R>iift of the knife, and the other with the t°int\ '^ p accused was merely trying to deteutf property, prosecutor having obtaine 1 pean r^s from him and refused to pay for them. An* other material difference was the statement of the witnesses, one of whom stated lhat the prosecutor had his hat on, while the other contradicted this. The accused was creatly provoked, and in his opinion the informant, and not the accused, should be in the dock. If there was any assault, it was committed in self-defence. The Bench might think the defence should have called Ah Lee, Mart'n and Hooper as witnesses. He held that this was a duty which devolved on the police, who were trying to secure a conviction and not for the defence. He submitted tbire had not been a prima facie case made oft. The Bench said at the present stage there <as sufficient evidence to warrant a com<nittal, but as this was civil court day, he would remand the case until to-morrow, when he would hear any defence which might be tendered. The defence was likely to be tolerably strong so far as he could see. Mr Finn said he would not call evidence. He would submit a statement setting forth the reasons for not calling evidence, which he would ask should be embodied in the records of the proceedings, so that the Judge should have full cognUan.ce of the ehcumgtaneea. The court then adjourned.