THIS DAY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5518, 19 March 1896, Page 2

THIS DAY.

The hearing of the case was continued at the Magistrate's Court this morning. Mr Wilding addressed the Court for the defence, and called Dr Arthur De Kenzi, who gave his account of the fracas, and stated that just before the blow he advanced towards Mr Thomas, in consequence of the sudden way in which the latter sprang out of his chair. Witness did not jump. It was quite impossible for Mr Harman to have prevented the blow. Previous to the blow being struck, Mr Thomas put himself in what appeared to be a fighting attitude. Brown's evidence in the Supreme Court was correct as regarded witness, stepping up to Mr Thomas. Mr Thomas could not then be said to be leaving the office, as he was not facing the door, but was facing witness. The Crown Prosecutor's question to Brown in the Supreme Court might have been understood to refer to Mr Thomas's finally leaving the office. James Meade Conway, clerk in Mr Harman's office, described what occurred in the office at the time of the assault. The statement made by Mr Thomas in his evidence as to Dr De Eenzi pulling up his sleeves and measuring his distance before striking was false. So were the statements as to Mr Thomas's appealing for protection, complaining of his weak heart before the blow was struck, and to Mr Harinan being on his feet at the time. It was false, too, that Mr Harman could have prevented the blow. When Mr Thomas sprang from his chair, he had: his hands in front of him. He might call it a fighting attitude. It was not witness's fighting attitude. Mr Thomas's attitude might have been either an attacking or a defensive attitude. Brown's evidence in the Supreme Coiirt as to Dr De Eenzi stepping up to Mr Thomas and delivering the blow was correct. To Mr Stringer : Mr Thomas was only prevented from leaving the room by being sbruck, and in no other way. . When Mr Thomas was approaching the door, witness could not say what he was going to do, he sprang from his chair in such an excitable manner. Alfred Reynolds, hair-dresser, corroborated the evidence of the last witness with regard to several of Mr Thomas's statements. When Mr Thomas got up he had his hands in front of Mm. He showed excitement, and advanced towards the door. Eiehard Brown, the accused, said that when Mr Thomas jumped from Ms chair he was not blocking the door, and was in a position to see the actions of both. Mr Thomas had not his hat in his hand and was in what witness or anybody else would call a fighting attitude. Dr De Eenzi and Mr Thomas each advanced a step towards the other. Both were excited. Mr Thomas was not then leaving the office. Mr Thomas did not complain of his weak heart before the blow. .The statements made by Mr Thomias as to Mr Harman being in a standing? attitude, and as to Mr Thomas appealing to Mr Harman, &c, were false. Witness-had always said that " Dr De Eenzi stepped up to Mr Thomas and struck him." Witness still said that he did not make use of the wotds, " As Mr Thomas was leaving the office Dr De Renzi jumped in front of him." No one interfered with Mr Thomas as he was leaving the office. Witness understood Mr Stringer's question to refer to the time when Mr Thomas was leaving the office. To Mr Stringer : Did not understand yoiu 1 question to refer to what took place immediately before the blow was struck. George Hart, chief reporter of the Press, deposed to reporting the case in the Magistrate's Court, and taking full notes of the case. The published report was an exact transcript of his notes. The words "as Mr Thomas was leaving the office Dr De Eenzi jumped in front of Win " were not used by Brown. This closed the case. Mr Beetham said the case was undoubtedly one to go before a jury. The accused would be committed for trial at the next session of the Supreme Court. Bail was allowed as previously.