ASSAULT CHARGE FAILS

Taranaki Daily News, 21 January 1933, Page 3

ASSAULT CHARGE FAILS

TROUBLE IN OKAU DISTRICT

CASE AGAINST SCHOOL TEACHER.

HEARING IN WAITARA COURT.

COMPLAINANT’S STORY DOUBTED.

“I am not satisfied with O’Sullivan’s evidence, for he appeared to be fencing the whole way through,” said Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., in the Waitara Court yesterday when dismissing an assault charge against Cyril Gordon Calvert, school teacher, Okau. Thomas William Reginald O’Sullivan, farm hand, Mount Messenger, was the complainant and the alleged assault arose over unfounded stories concerning Calvert that were recently circulated in the Mount Messenger locality. Constable H. Huntley conducted the case for the police and Mr. A. A. Bennett appeared for the defendant. O’Sullivan said he was riding his motor-cycle along Okau Road during the morning of November 29 when Calvert stopped him and accused him of spread-' ing stories about him. O’Sullivan denied the allegation. He asked that Calvert confront him with evidence. At the time he was sitting on the machine with his arms folded. He was struck behind the right ear “with something very hard.” The magistrate: “Do you suggest it was something other than a fist that hit you?”—“I don’t know. I was dazed; it was something very hard.” . < '

1 O’Sullivan said he and the machine collapsed in the road. Before he could rise, he was kicked on the left side and two ribs were injured. When O’Sullivan got to his feet Calvert was “sparring round the road” and, although O’Sullivan tried to ward-him off and obtain some reason for the attack, Calvert struck him again on' the face. More blows were received as O’Sullivan endeavoured to escape. He had never given any reason for such treatment and had always spoken to Calvert RESPONSIBILITY DENIED. O’Sullivan declared it was after 9.30 a.m. when he rode down the road. He had not been close enough to Calvert to speak in the past three months. O’Sullivan acknowledged that rumours lowering Calvert’s morality and character would damage Calvert’s position as sole teacher at the Okau School if they reached the ears of the children’s, parents. Neither he nor his family was responsible for such rumours. A list of names of persons acknowledged to be prominent citizens of the district was then submitted and O’Sullivan said they were honest people. Counsel explained they testified to Calvert’s good character and to the fact that the rumours had appeared to emanate from the O’Sullivans.

O’Sullivan. did <not admit that it was on account of such rumours that Calvert stopped him. He did not say cheekily and defiantly, “What about it?” when confronted with the allegations nor did he accept responsibility.: for his own ut r . terances and those of his family. Calvert did not ask him to “put up his fists” after Calvert had failed to .obtain any satisfaction. O’Sullivan was not impudent In his opinion, Calvert attacked him without any provocation.

Counsel: “But that means that Calvert, a man of good character and a teacher in charge of a school, is, in your opinion, just a madman?”—“l don’t think he was responsible for his actions when he started.”

“But this was before it started?”—“l did not provoke him in any way at all.”

O’Sullivan did not tell Isaac Johnson or Constable Huntley that he would like to fight Calvert again, this time in the presence of a third party. He admitted that he and . his sister had gone to the school next day in company with Isaac Johnson to collect the machine. His sister had not called out “you’re a dirty mongrel” and similar abuse' to Calvert •in the hearing of the' children. She had called Calvert • a “cowardly brute to hit him (O’Sullivan) when he was on the bike?” •• .. . . • JOHNSON’S . STATEMENT. . Mr. Bennett handed O’Sullivan a statement from Johnson and it was admitted that it varied in a number of places from O’Sullivan’s version of the matter given in court. O’Sullivan said he knew nothing of the rumours. He did not know whether he would accept the statements of the other party concerned in them regarding their falsity. He was not sure whether Johnson was truthful. The rumours plight have been true; on the other hand they might not. He did not really have any ill-feeling for Calvert; he could not be bothered to speak, that was all. He'and his family had never been concerned in local squabbles. He knew nothing of any letter from Calvert in his official position as secretary of the tennis club, to his brother, nor did he know of any trouble over a section adjoining the tennis courts. He had joined the Tongaporutu Tennis-Club because he believed he would have a better game of tennis there. ; Questioned by the magistrate, O Sullivan said he believed that the denial of the rumour as signed by the other person connected, was true. Two or three minutes had elapsed from the time he was stopped until he was struck. He had never heard of the rumours until they were shown him in court. Constable H. Huntley stated that he had visited the Okau School two hours after the incident was alleged to have taken place, O’Sullivan accompanying him after laying a complaint. Calvert said nothing in O’Sullivan’s presence. The constable was taken to Calverts room, where the question of the rumours was mentioned, Calvert saying that O’Sullivan had been responsible for them. O’Sullivan had lumps on the back of his head, jaw and cheek and had been bleeding from the mouth. He complained ' of pains in his side. In the con-stable’s-opinion all the lumps could have been caused by fists and he thought the ribs could have been hurt when O’Sullivan fell. Mr. Bennett contended that O Sullivan was discredited by his demeanour in the box. His story was entirely uncorroborated and he could have said anything. Calvert was a young man well respected in the district and counsel had six testimonials from prominent citizens, while two people had come from the district to give evidence in his behalf. RUMOURS IN DISTRICT. The trouble had originated with an official letter from the tennis club to an O’Sullivan over 12 months ago, continued Mr. Bennett. Then a rumour spread through the district that Calvert had gone out of his way to get a girl intoxicated; soon another and worse rumour followed. Both were untrue and, in each instance, they were believed to have originated with the O’Sullivans. Calvert had endeavoured to “nip it in the bud”; he determined to see O’Sullivan to ask him to disclaim the tales. Instead, counsel alleged, O’Sullivan accepted full responsibility and said, “what about it?” Calvert had then acted rashly —he asked O’Sullivan to put up his hands. O’Sullivan did not do so, and Calvert pulled him off the machine and -attempted to thrash him. For a man in

Calvert’s position, the affair was a worrying one. Calvert explained in evidence that he had been elected secretary of the Ahititi Tennis Club and he had been instructed to write to O’Sullivan’s brother regarding land adjoining the courts. There had been trouble over the land previously and Mr. Jk Keller, of the Public Works Department, had been called up. The letter was written regarding an undertaking given by O’Sullivan’s brother. Afterwards it seemed that the O’Sullivans regarded the letter as a personal affront and would hardL speak to Calvert

About two months before the alleged assault, Calvert said, he heard the first rumour, that he had given a girl whisky when returning from a dance. Calvert thought it better to leave the matter to die from lack of foundation, but the story annoyed -him. Then came another and worse story. Both appeared to have emanated from the O’Sullivans so Calvert decided to ask Thomas O’Sullivan for an explanation. The children were sent into school on the morning in question and Calvert stopped O’Sullivan on the road. O’Sullivan was defiant and impudent; he accepted responsibility for the rumours but made no attempt to retract them or admit their falsity. LOSING TEMPER ADMITTED. “At that stage I admit I lost my temper,” said Calvert. “I pulled him off the cycle. He did not fall on the road but recovered and was facing me. I punched him several times. He retaliated and the fight moved down the road, where Corbett saw us. O’Sullivan then made-off up the road. An hour later Calvert stated, O’Sullivan, his sister and a young man named Isaac Johnson came down the road, three abreast. Calvert was playing with the children and Miss O’Sullivan called out that the police would be down.in'a few minutes, “you dirty mongrel.” Calvert sent .the children into school as the language was not fit for them to hear, and he walked over to the gate, where Miss O’Sullivan continued her abuse. The O’Sullivans then rode off and Constable Huntley later interviewed him. To Constable Huntley, Calvert said he had had it fr«Ci good authority that the rumours came from the' O’Sullivans. He gave O’Sullivan every i chance to repudiate that. He was in a reasonable frame of mind until : O’Sullivan’s attitude angered him. Corbett was the only eyewitness and he must have seen O’Sullivan fighting back. • To the magistrate Calvert said it had not occurred to him to call the school committee together to explain that the rumours were false. O’Sullivan’s ribs could have been injured during the fight for he punched him on the body. L. R, Jones, J.P., farmer; holder of many public positions in the district, said he had known Calvert for a number of years and knew him to be a cleanliving man. He was not quarrelsome in any way and was not the man who Would commit an assault without exceptional provocation. Oscar C. Petersen, chairman of the Ahititi School Committee, corroborated this evidence. He had been told that the rumours came from the O’Sullivan family and he believed it. “The matter depends for decision on the evidence of O’Sullivan on the one hand , and Calvert on the other,” said the magistrate in dismissing the case. “I have to gather from the evidence' heard, and what I believe of that evidence, as to . whether Calvert madly knocked O’Sullivan down oh the road without reason, or whether he was provoked to an unreasonable extent. While it is true, that these rumours mentioned must have existed, the proper; course was to have taken action for slander. But such rumours cause very great resentment on the part of the people concerned and I have it from Calvert that O’SuUivan was given every chance to deny responsibility. Apparently he did nbt do so. I am satisfied that there was the most complete provocation and, much as I regret that such an incident should ever have occurred, I would not be justified in entering a conviction.”/