THIRD EDITION. CASE WITHDRAWN

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16580, 22 February 1928, Page 11

THIRD EDITION. CASE WITHDRAWN

ASSAULT ALLEGED NEIGHBORS’ DISPUTE “This is the second act in that affair, isn’t it?” asked -Mr. E. O. Levvey. S.M.. when tlie case of David .Mills v. Leonard .1. O’Flaherty, a civil action far aswanil. was called in the court this morning. Mr. Wauchop, who appeared for the plaintiff, agreed that the case had some connection with a previous case heard during the week. The incident which gave rise to the case occurred on January 29, when the plaintiff’s property was burnt. Mr. Wauchop explained to His Worship, that as a result of a reference to the fire in 'the papers, O’Flaherty took a friend named Hansen on a visit to Mill's house, with the object, lie alleged, of making 'trouble with Mills. Counsel staled tliat the parties met on Mills’ property, ami ian assault, was made by Mills on the man Hansen, after which O'Flahertv severely assaulted Mills. The evidence would he similar in the main to- that 'given in the previous case, with the I addition of evidence as to Mills’ condition after O’Flaheriy had “dealt with j him.” j David Mills, the plaintiff, stated that .he had had a haystack Lurneo mirms | the last week in January, witness being ! called out to help fight the tire by 1 O'Flaherty. O’Flaheriy had already shifted some of the bags of grass seed, which the day before had been threshed from the stack, and witness and a man named Boniface shifted the remainder of the bags, which numbered 32. An erroneous account of the. fire appeared in one paper, the value, of the hay being placed at a high figure. Witness had corrected the account, and the correction had been put, in the paper. His Worship: Wan there not some suggestion of an offensive notice of thanks which appeared in one paper? I Mr. Wauchop: lam sorry I have not. j a copy of that advertisement. Mr. Beaufoy, who appeared for the defendant, stated that he would have pleasure in supplying a copy of the advertisement. Tiie copy was handl'd in, and the witness stated that he had had no hand in inserting the notice, which tendered thanks only to Boniface tor his assistance in connect ion with the fire. llis Worship: It, is offensive, isn t it? Witness: Yes. But 1 did not put it in. My step-daughter put it in the paper. Continuing his evidence, witness stated that ho had been asked by O’Flaherty if ho said that he (O’Flaherty) had set the hays tank afire. He had replied that he 1 did not say that, but that someone had burned the stack. After some further argument, witness ordered o’Flaherty and Hansen off the place, and they refused to go. Irritated, witness went over to Hansen, and aimed a blow at him, after which O’Flaherty assaulted him, knocking him down twice and injuring him about, the face and head. Witness’ wife came to lii.s assistmice, and threw a brick al the defendant. Cross-examined, the witness stated that CJFlaherty had been sitting in the car when he (witness') aimed the blow tit, Hansen. He would have suffered the assault in any case, for O’Flaherty had been looking for light ‘‘as he always was.” Closely examined by counsel fur the defendant, the witness detailed several men with whom O’Flaherty had had fights or had fallen out. lie admitted that he had had rows with different men himself, and claimed that lie had been successful, lie had been chased up the road by some men, but he did not claim that lie had had success'in lighting, but in the court, lie did not claim to be a well-known litigant. Regarding the advertisement thanking Mr. Boniface, the witness declared, that his step-claughter had put the notice in the paper. They had discussed the lire, hut he had not inspired the notice, nor did lie know it, was going in until he i saw the paper it appeared in. lie had said, when ho saw it: “This will cause trouble.” He did not, explain to C’Flaherty that lie bad nothing to do with the' notice, or apologise for the implication contained in it, because O’Flaherty gave him no chance. To the court, witness declared that he had no idea what inspired the notice of thanks inscribed by his daughter-in-law. Under further cross-examination Mills said that his first advice of the fire Was when O’Flaherty rang him on the telephone at 1.20. He was certain that the fire had not been going at 11.45, and that defendant had removed no more than six sacks of grass seed from the fire. Counsel: Did not o’Flaherty come to your place for the express purpose of Vindicating himself from the base insinuation that he had burned the stack? Witness: That, and to take a crack at me. Ho-had wot attempted to 1 ' pick up anything to hit o’Flaherty ’ with, he Continued. , Re-examined hv Mr. Wauchop, wit--1 ])e'ss slated that he had not proviousj lv had any litigation concerning a , case of assault. Mrs. Clara Mills, wife of the pre- ' vio'us witness, gave corroborative evi- ‘ jence as to the main details of the alleged assault. > Cross-examined by Mr. Beaufoy, | witness denied that she had been informed of the progress of-the evidence by a friend who passed in and out of the court, from which witnesses were excluded. Counsel elicited the fact that information of the proceedings had been communicated to witnesses outside the court, and shortly ‘ afterwards the ease was withdrawn at the request- of counsel for the ]jl a in - ~ tiff, the magistrate refusing to grant ’ costs to the defendant.