ASSAULT AT HUIROA.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 116, 8 July 1911, Page 7

ASSAULT AT HUIROA.

CAUSED BY SCHOOLBOYS’ QUARREL. At the Court yesteiday, Harriet Ellen Edkin pivctcdcd agauist James Alfrsd Stannrd, .i'aigill<»■ iiim with having assaulted her on Juno 23rd. Mr. Spence appeared for informant, and Mr. Malone for defendant. who pleaded not guilty. Harriot Ellen Edkin, married woman, Huiroa, sworn, said that on June 23rd she was proceeding towards the railway station with Mrs. Derby, when she saw defendant running* aci’bss a paddock.. Defendant naught up with Jimmy Murphy, hit him with his hand, knocked him down, and began to kick him. Witness went up and asked defendant to let the boy up, calling him a dirty cur. Defendant said: “You repeat those words and I’ll give you ail you want.” Witness repeated the worth-, When defendant struck her on the arm with his fist. In the meantime the boy had risen from the ground. He was crying bitterly. Witness called out to Mrs. Derby, who was three or four chains away, asking her if she had soon the blow. She did not know what Mrs. Derby replied. By Mr. Malone: Witness was a sister of George Hills, against whom Stanford had a civil action pending in the Court. The case was common talk at Huiroa. When she saw Stanford striking the boy she did not know why he was doing so. At no part of tne proceedings did she hear Stanford say to her: “Go and wash vour mouth out.” She said nothing to him beyond calling him ajdirty cur., She had no mark on her arm. She did not look, at the time, to see. if there was any. She was quite certain that the blow was not merely a wave of the hand when defendant told her to wash her mouth outJ To the Court: She was quite sure it was an % intentional blow. Defendant was in a groat rage at the'time. Eva Derby, married woman, Huiroa, said she saw Stanford hit Mrs. Edkin, but she , was some distance away, and cpuld not swear to it being a deliberate blow.

By Mr. Malone: She could not hear what Mrs. Edkin said to Stanford, but she heard Mrs. Edkin ask if she had seen the blow, this remark being in a loud voice. She did not hear what Stanford said to Mrs. Edkin. Janies Murphy, twelve years of age, living with his lather at -Huiroa, said that at school on June 23rd he and Dick Stanford (aged fourteen) had a row, blows being exchanged. On the way home from school defendant ran from his house to where witness was. Defendant threw witness down and then kicked him. Witness was on the ground for about two minutes. Stanford said ho would teach witness to hit his kids. Witness corroborated informant’s version .of the giving of the blow. By Mr. Malone: Witness was kicked two or three tiipps. Defendant did not nearly 'tumble over witness while the kicking was going on. When defendant hit Mrs. Edkin he was about three feet from her. Defendant was the only witness for the defence.' He said he caught hold of Murphy! and shook him, in the course of.' which the boy fell down. Murphy promised not to interfere with his boy'again, and that-was the cud of the'(matter. Then,Mrs. Edkin came cloivii »lhcl called him a dirty car and other things. He moved to-' wards her, and. waving his hand towards MfsJ Edkin’ s 'lidnse, told her to go home and wash her mouth out. Just as he raised his hand Mrs. Edkin called 011$. to Mrs. Derby. By Mr. Spence: On one previous occasion witness had been convicted of assault. ‘ To the Court: He absolutely denied attempting to kick the bdjf. No man would kick a’boy. ' Mr. Kenrick, S.M., said he felt sure there bad been an assault, and he thought defendant would have dons better ; if he had admitted that there was an assault of sotne sort. Ho also felt sure it was not a heavy blow. If it had boon the woman would probably have fallen or would have cbmplained of pain in her arm. A man should not hit a woman under any circumstances, and if he (the S.AI.) had it proved to hini that a woman had been bit heavily he would consider the advisability of inflicting a term of imprisonment without the option of a fine. Further, in this case he did not consider the words used by Mrs. Edkin were sufficient to urge as provocation. Defendant would be fined £3, with costs £3 16s.