ASSAULT CASE

Southland Times, Issue 20949, 5 December 1929, Page 11

ASSAULT CASE

A TUATAPER.E SQUABBLE. * (From Our Correspondent.) The Riverton Court was occupied for a considerable time on Tuesday before Messrs J. Crawford and A. E. Willett, when a common assault action was heard, the complainant being Stephen John Racy, and the accused, John O’Neil Henderson, the alleged assault taking place at Tuatapere on November 25. Mr Prain appeared for complainapt, while accused was represented by Mr G. Reed, who pleaded not guilty. In opening the case, Mr Prain stated thatthe complainant was a farmer residing in the Tuatapere district and the accused had been in his employ. Racy had decided to dismiss Henderson as his work was unsatisr factory, and an assault, which was quite unwarranted, took place, Racy being considerably knocked about and having to be attended by a medical practitioner. The complainant, a Hungarian, stated that accused had been in his employ. When he paid accused off, he deducted three days’ pay, as Henderson was absent for that time. After receiving payment the parties went outside, where accused committed the as'sault, and witness was knocked against a tank stand. He was struck several times, but did not retaliate. He afterwards went to Tuatapere and laid an information for assault.

To Mr Reed: Witness had been married for eight years. He denied that he was a hard man to please, and the dismissal of the other employees on the farm was due to their inefficiency. He was not in the habit of using strong language to people, neither was he cruel to dumb animals. He had never attempted to catch Henderson or anybody else by the throat. The injuries received were the result of accused’s fists, and not caused by falling against the tank stand.

Dr Dodds, Tuatapere, gave evidence as regards injuries received by complainant. There was a wound round and over the right eye about 14 inches long, while there were bruises on the chest. Several blow’s would, in his opinion, be necessary to cause the trouble.

Constable Dowling, Tuatapere, deposed that’ when Racy arrived at the police station he was showing evidence of being roughly handled; his head was bandaged and his jaw was swollen. He said that Henderson was responsible for his condition, and a warrant was issued. Witness interviewed Mrs Racy, but she said she saw nothing of the assault. While at the station accused passed the remark: “I made the mistake by hitting Racy on his own property; it should have happened on the road.” Accused bore no marks of an encounter, but stated that he struck complainant in self defence. Mr Reed said it was a serious charge and the present case was the culmination of a long period of domestic unhappiness in the Racy home. Racy was a jealous man, without cause. The other members of the household had been assaulted by him, and counsel would call evidence to prove that Mrs Racy and her sister had been struck by complainant on more than one occasion. The whole trouble arose over a remark made by complainant as regards his wife. If Henderson struck Raev first, then he should be convicted, but he (counsel) maintained that Racy started the trouble. Jane Racy, wife of complainant, gave evidence to the effect that her husband was hot tempered, and frequently used bad language, while he was exceptionally cruel to dumb animals. When she remonstrated with him for ill-treating the cows he struck her on the chest. Her husband had accused her of unfaithfulness, and she denied the accusation.

To Mr Prain: On Sunday night Henderson had had drink. No liquor was kept at the house and witness was a total abstainer. After the assault her husband refused to allow her to dress the wounds.

Charles McKerrow, Tuatapere, and Anna Lamont gave evidence as to existing conditions in the household, both stating that complainant was a hard man to get on with, and that his wife was badly treated by him. John O’Neill Henderson, the accused, said he was a labourer residing at Tuatapere, and had been working on the farm for about three months. Other employees had been engaged at various times, but they did not remain long. After witness had been paid, and he was quite agreeable to the three days’ pay being deducted from the amount, they both went outside when Racy made use of a disgusting expression, and endeavoured to strike witness. Racy fell in the scuffle which followed, and, in self-de-fence, he had hit Racy twice. Complainant was of a very cruel nature, and witness described the treatment his cattle and dumb animals were subject to on the farm.

To Mr Prain: Witness had drink on the Sundav night, but Mrs Racy did not touch it. Racy had never complained to him about being too friendly with, his wife. He had never used bad language to complainant, and was not in the habit of doing so.

The Justices retired to consider their decision, and upon resuming stated that they found accused was responsible for the trouble. He would be fined £4, and ordered to pay expenses, £1 11/6, to go to complainant, 33/6 to witnesses and t £1 1/solicitor’s fee, a month being allowed to pay.