Father Alleges that Son Broke Two of His Ribs In Midnight Assault.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18470, 23 May 1928, Page 1

Father Alleges that Son Broke Two of His Ribs In Midnight Assault.

GEORGE EDWIN SHAEKLETON, a bootmaker, aged thirty years, appeared at the Magistrate's Court to-day, before Messrs F. If. Christian, .T.P., and J. B. Borthwick, J.P., charged with assaulting .Tames Shaekleton so as to cause actual bodily harm. Mr Stacey appeared for accused. The Bench convicted accused and fined him 40s and costs.

j Sub-Inspector Fitzpatrick said the ; facts of the case were that accused i went into his father's bedroom at 528. | Hereford Street, about midnight on | May 1.5 and severely l>eat him without ! provocation. Two ribs were broken | and informant's face was badly damI aged. It was a family row of such a j kind that is not often heard in the | Court. I Dr F-. J. Borrie gave evidence that at | midnight on May 15 James Shaekleton was brought to witness’s room. He had contusion on the face on the left side, and two ribs on the left side were broken. ' This injury would be consistent with a hard punch. To Mr Stacey: Ordinary pressure would break the ribs. There was no direct evidence as to how the ribs were broken. The marks on the face could not have been caused .otherwise than I by an attack. Stcry of Alleged Assault. James Shaekleton, an engineer at Addington workshops, said that on the night in question he was in bed. Somewhere after ten o’clock he woke up with someone twisting his wrists. He then received a bang in the face and some short jabs in the ribs. It was his son, the accused, who committed the assault. The room was lighted up at the time. .The police were called in and witness was taken to the doctor. Witness had given no provocation for the assault. He had been at loggerheads with accused for some time and had ordered him out of the house. However, he had refused to go. Witness had been on friendly terms with the remainder of the fapiily. To Mr Stacey; I do' not know my wife is going to sue for a separation. This case is being squared against me and my wife and family will tell lies when they go into the box. Mr Stacey: You are very fond of getting the razor out to threaten your wife.-—What! I strenuously deny it. I never saw the razor at all. How do you account for the fact that your sons looked into the bathroom and found your razor missing, subsequently finding it on the chair in your bedroom?— l don’t know. I am sure that I had no razor. “They Are Lying.” “Your sons spoke to you about the razor?—Not to my knowledge. What do you mean by the statement “Not to my knowledge?”—l mean that I don’t remember the incident. If your sons say that the razor was in your room they are lying?—Yes. What language do you use to your family in the house?—English. Pure English?—Yes. Have you ever referred to vour son as a ?—Yes.. Do yoy. think that is the right way to address your son?—Yes. Under provocation. “Will Not be Browbeaten.” At this stage, witness protested, saying. “ I am not here to be browbeaten by you, Mr Stacey.” The Bench: Be quiet. Answer the questions. To Mr Stacey, witness denied that he used filthy terms to his wife before his son had grappled with him. Mr Stacey: It seems strange that all these statements by your family should be described by you as lies. “ The whole case is a plant,” said witness. “ That is a strange statement to make regarding the family with which you claim to have been on loving terms.” “Used Bad Language.” James Shaekleton, a son of the previous witness, said that his mother had told him that her husband had a razor in his bedroom. The light was out, and witness had some difficulty in finding the cord to pull on the light. Witness asked his father if he had the razor. This was denied by the parent.

Then accused struck his father, who was on the move.

Witness: The probable reason why my brother struck my father was because he called mother a . To Mr Stacey, witness said he was sure that he turned on the light in his father’s room. He was also sure that his father had used the language referred to. He was apprehensive lest his father assaulted his mother when his father had got out of bed. He thought that his brother had grappled with his father in order to take the razor from him. His father was half-drunk. “Assault Justified.” Witness said he considered that the assault of his brother on his father was absolutely justifiable. Counsel: Have you seen your father quarrel with your mother?—No, but I have been told of it by my mother. Unfortunately I have always been out. otherwise this would have happened years ago. To Sub-Inspector Fitzpatrick, witness said that his father had deserved all he got—and more than he got—because of the way he had treated and frightened his wife. Three weeks before the occurrence, his father had sworn at his mother. Witness said that he did not think that his brother had hit his father because the latter had called his mother names, but because he thought that his father was going to assault his mother. Charge Reduced. Mr Stacey said that it was quite obvious that no jury would convict on the evidence so far heard. He asked that the offence be reduced to ordinary common assault. The Bench reduced the charge to one of common assault. Counsel said that it was prima facie evidence from the prosecution viewpoint that the father was going to attack his wife and it was quite justifiable for the sons under the circumstances to protect their mother. The Bench: We quite agree that the young men should protect their mother but not in the way accused has done. Annie Shaekleton, wife of the informant, James Shaekleton, said she saw her husband take the razor out of the bathroom into the bedroom. Witness was very frightened and did not feel like going into the bedroom. The father was a dreadful mart when drunk. He had threatened to clean up the whole family. The father had accused set for some reason. If he would not drink the home would be far happier. To the sub-inspector, witness said that when her two sons returned home in the evening, her husband was quietly asleep. Accused’s Evidence. George Shaekleton, the accused, said that just prior to his having struck his father he asked his brother to look for the razor. It was not in the bathroom so witness asked his father where the razor was that belonged to him (witness). His mother had told him that the father had taken it from the bathroom. “ Father then said, ‘ your mother is a ,’ ” Wtiness then thought that his father was going to tackle his mother so he attacked him. Mr Stacey asked for the dismissal of the case for the general good of the home. The case had cleared the air a good deal. The Bench said that the case was a very difficult one to deal with. There was evidence of provocation but as the father used no force the son was far too aggressive altogether. The three main factors in the case were drink, the razor and bad language. “ We are of the opinion that the son used a little too much force in his attack. However we will take a lenient view of the whole case. Accused will be fined 40s and costs.”