ALLEGED ASSAULT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 12377, 10 February 1911, Page 4

ALLEGED ASSAULT.

The remanded case of Walter Devenport (Mr Burnard), who was charged with assaulting Agnes Amy Price- on January 24, was again called on at the Police Court this morning before Mr W. A. Barton, SvM. Accused was also charged with assault causing actual bodily harm. •> Dr Collins said WP examined the woman on January 24, and found that she had had a miscarriage. There were marks on her face, but he did* not notice any about her body. He ordered her to the Hospital. — By Mr Burnard : There was nothing to show whether the marks on her face were caused by A blow or a. fall. Dr. Rigg, house surgeon at the Gisborne Hospital, said when Mrß Price Went to the Hospital suffering from,* miscarriage she had some scratches Arid bruises about her face. There was, a suspicion of a slight bruise on her left groin, but it did not amount to much. Agnes Amy Price stated that she was a married woman. Accused and bis wife stayed at witness' home for five months, and left three days after Christmas. His wife returned tjyo days lateT. Some time later accused went to the house, and had words with witness oyer some furniture. Witness told him he could have the things when he paid for his board. Accused mumbled something, and when asked by witness to speak out he dealt her several blows on the face with his fist, and she. fell.'- to the ground. While there accused kicked her in the stomach. Somebody.assisted her up, and «he went inside feeling Very ill. She could not sleep that night, but walked about all night. She had a miscarriage. By Mr Burnard: Accused come. to Iter house in answer to a letter, asking him to come and take his wife away < (Letter produced.) Witness, in her letter, made use of the expression, "There are more ways of killing a pig; than' on«U*' This, she explained, meant that if Mrs Davenport had more places than; one to go to she wished defendant, to take, her away. Mrs Devenport, however, had expressed her intention of coming back. Regarding accused's action witness asserted that she had given no cause for him to strike her. A Miss Nielson .was sitting on the door step when accused struck her. She did not -strike accused first. Her hands did not scratch accused's face. She thought he scratched himßelf. Witness ad/nitted having onoe previously struck a man. named Sampey. Accused's blows knocked her to; the ground, where he kicked her sufficiently severely to lay her up for a several days. She complained to' the police that same evening, but the sergeant refused to:arrest accused for assault. Witness admitted that she did not then complain of having been kicked. The following day she was examined by. Dr. OoUihs. Minnie Nielsoh, domestic, stated that she saw accused at Mrs Price's house on. the evening of January 24. Accused and Mrs Price were arguing in the kitchen, but she did not hear what was said. When they came round to the front of the house Mrs Price told accused; that if he had anything to say to say it, Accused then struck her a number ol times, in the face. She fell Vto the ground, -where she lay and screamed. Accused told her to get up and he would give her more. Accused went away, and Mrs Price came inside. She did not see accused kick- her. It was duck, and he might have done so. When. she came inside Mrs Price complained of having been kicked. By Mr Burnard: She had been staying with Mrs 'Price a month, but they had never talked about the case at all. _ Mrs Price had only been home from the hospital a week. * She did not go over, as it was not her place to interfere) She did not see Mrs Price strike accused. Detective Connolly deponed that about 5.20 p.m. on January 25, Sergeant Hut* ton and himself arrested accused. When arrested accused stated that he went to Mrs Price's to get his things, when, fine rushed at him, saying if he was anything of a man to put up his hands. In pitting up his hands to protect himself he hit her and she fell to the ground. He picked Mrs Price' up, when she rushed and struck him again, striking him on the face. Accused's face was slightly marked. He denied having kicked the woman, adding that his wife and other* were there and saw it all. Mr Burnard, addressing the Court, submitted that the case for the prosecution did not disclose sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury would convict. Everything, he contended, was against the possibility of the Crowrt being able to prove that the woman was kicked. Failing that a jury would not returned a verdict of guilty. Accused, who is a laborer, stated that on January 24 he received a letter frdin Mrs Price, requesting hin^ to call. Jle did so, and on admitting him she poinded to his clothes bundled up anyhow, and requested him to take them away, He asked his wife if there was anything else, and she stated there was a lamp, sofa, blanket; and cruet. He returrtaa and asked for the other things. Mrs Price replied he was not to take anything more out of the house. He (accused) asked what about the £1 10a Mr Price owed him. Mrs Price repeated that he was not going to get anything else. He left, calling to his wifeto follow. Going out of the front gate M>s Price rushed out and told him to "Stand up to it." As she did so she struck him blows on the lip and eye. He pushed her away, but aid not strike her. She fell a"nd he her up, He did not kick her. AH he did was to protect himself. Cross-examined, accused denied having struck Mrs Price. The markfe on her face must have been caused bv her falling. . J Margaret Devenport, wife of accused, stated that she accompanied her, husband to Mr Price's; Witness asked for the balance of her things, and Mrs Price said she would not get them until they paid their board. The arrangement regarding board was that they (Davenport's) were to provide half the fdod for the house, there being two of them and five of the Prices: Qoin>? out of the gate Mrs Price rushed out and hit accused. In putting his arm up to defend himself, accused knocked Mrs Price over, Accused picked her up, and ahe called to a passer-by. Accused did not kick her.— By Detective Connollys Accused did not strike her in the fa^ft. His Worship, in addressing accused, said he was charged with assault likely to cause actual bodily harm. ' He waa satisfied that the evidence waa not sufficient to warrant sending accused few trial, and that a conviction could not be sustained on the evidence. Accused was thereupon charged with common assault, to which he pleaded not guilty. It was agreed that the evidence in the former case should be taken in this case. His Worship said that although there was not sufficient evidence oh the main charge, there was evidence of common assault. Although the woman might have struck him as he alleged, that would not justify accused for striking the woman as he did. He was satis* fied that accused did strike her, and ih a cowardly manner, considering her condition. Detective Connolly, in reply to his Worship, said there was nothing known against accused. His Worship imposed a fine of &> with costs £2 IB; in default 14 days* imprisonment. Seeing that accused had been 16 days in gaol awaiting ttfftrt (being unable to obtain bail) time waa given in which to find the money.