RABBITERS IN COURT

Waikato Independent, Volume XXXVI, Issue 3420, 15 February 1936, Page 5

RABBITERS IN COURT

REHEARING OF CASE.

FURTHER CHARGES MADE Following the case in the Cambridge Magistrate's Court on Tuesday, when Robert Samuel Armstrong was sentenced to two months imprisonment for behaving in a disorderly manner while drunk, an application, was. lodged; on Thursday to have the case reheard. Mr S. Lewis appeared for, Armstrong and after the presiding Justices, Messrs H. Alan : Bell and Edgar James, had granted the recpiest, the rehearing resulted in the case being dismissed. Further charges were then brought forward from the same set of circumstances, as outlined in Tuesday's Independent, Armstrong and Thomas Hugo Moss being charged with assault. Armstrong was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within 12 months and also to take out a prohibition ord,?r. The case against Moss was dismissed. Request for Rehearing

When Mr S. Lewis commenced his application for a rehearing of Armstrong's case, a misunderstanding occurred between counsel and MiBell.

Mr Bell explained that it was entirely at the option of the Bench whether the case would be reheard. Armstrong had been given an opportunity to secure a solicitor prior to the conviction, but this he had not done.

Mr Lewis' took exception to MiBell's remarks, which he said were an indication that the Bench was prejudiced before hearing the evidence.

"I already have the impression that an application would fail," said Mr Lewis.

Mr Bell: No, no, Mr Lewis. Mr Lewis: When your Worship spoke as you did, it made me very uneasy. Mr Bell:'I am not uneasy.

Commencing the application, Mr Lewis pointed out that the meanest so.ul in the land was entitled to justice. Armstrong had been charged under Section 43 of the Police Offences Act in which the maximum fine was £lO or imprisonment for three nionths. He could also have been charged under Section 40 with behaving in a disorderly manner and fined a maximum of £5, with.no option of imprisonment. 'The sentence imposed "of two months' imprisonment had been enough to shock the community, said Mr Lewis. There were two men concerned and one—a youth—was sentenced to two months' imprisonment while the other was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon.

Armstrong had not thought that a penalty of such unusual severity would be inflicted upon him and had not been represented in Court, continued Mr Lewis. Mr Bell: That was his fault.' Mr Lewis: No doubt, but there may have been financial difficulties. Mr Bell: The Cambridge solicitors are not as hard as that.

Constable Maisey said he had no objection to the application. He made it clear that Armstrong had been given an opportunity to secure representation. Even when he appeared in Court on Tuesday without counsel, the constable had offered to delay the Court while a solicitor was secured.

The Bench decided to grant the rehearing and all former proceedings were wiped out. Another Tribunal Suggested

At this stage, Mr Lewis- suggested that the ease be head by another tribunal. He said there was no suggestion of unfairness, but it was only human that the present Justices would be subconsciously influenced by the previous trial. The result would be more satisfactory to 'his client.

Constable Maisey said that the matter was discretionary, but he would like the case to be heard as witnesses were present and - other charges pending. He said the police had every confidence in the present tribunal. The Bench decided to hear the case. Case Dismissed Jack Vicasovich, a rabbiter employed by Matos, stated that he saw defendant at 4.30 p.m. on Monday. He was drunk and did not know what he was talking about. In consequence of Armstrong's behaviour he rang the police. Mr Lewis objected to the evidence as being irrelevant, as the charge concerned behaviour in Anzac Street.

Constable Maisey explained that immediately afterwards Armstrong walked on to the street, and 'the Bench accepted the evidence.

To Mr, Lewis, witness said he knew from the expressions and action of Armstrong that he was drunk. He was rolling around.

Charles F. H. Snell, another employee of Matos, also said that Armstrong was drunk and unsteady on his feet. When Vicasovich rang the police, Armstrong was assisted from the yard by his mate, Fraser. To Mr Lewis, witness said Armstrong did not fall down in the. yard but was staggering around. Constable R. Bowie said he received a ring from Matos' depot that two men were drunk on the premises. With Constable Maisey he made for the scene and saw Armstrong and Fraser staggering along the road arm in arm. The men disappeared around tlie corner and eluded capture. Constable C. H. Maisey corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. The conduct of the men was such as associated with drunkenness. At about 7.30 p.m. he again saw Armstrong riding on the run-ning-board of his brother's car. Witness went to Moss's depot and managed to secure both of them.

Mr Lewis: Were the men annoying anyone? Constable Maisey: I do not know. Mr Lewis: Why don't you know? Constable Maisey: I might be annoying you and not know it. Mr Lewis agreed the Constable Maisey had placed the facts very fairly before the Court. He invited the Bench to dismiss the case. The evidence of the police he accepted, but the evidence of the other witnesses he would place on one; side as being biased. When the police appeared in Anzac Street, the men made away as quickly as possible to avoid .trouble. The action of having their arms around each other could not be called disorderly. Many people in high spirits acted in a similar manner. Mr Lewis considered that there was no case to answer and the case should be dismissed. Evidence was heard from Hugh Fraser and the defendant, after which the Bench decided to dismiss the case.

CHARGES OF ASSAULT ARMSTRONG CONVICTED A charge was then preferred against Armstrong that on February 10 he assaulted Charles Frederick Herman Snell and Jack Vicasovich. Outlining the case, Constable Maisey stated that Armstrong and two other men went to Matos' depot on Monday morning when Snell, who was sitting down wasassaulted by them. Later in the day Armstrong and another man went to the depot, the former armed with a rabbit trap. Owing to Armstrong's threatening manner Vicasovich called the police.

Maisey pointed out that it was not necessary to strike a man to commit assault. Charles F. H. Snell, employed by Matos, said he was at the depot when Armstrong, Fraser and Moss appeared. Armstrong came up to him and used objectionable language. Finally Armstrong struck him above the eye and he retaliated and got the better of the aggressor. Moss then came to Armstrong's assistance.

At about 4.30 p.m. Armstrong and Fraser returned and another argument took place. Armstrong brought out a rabbit trap which had been concealed in his coat and used it in a threatening manner towards Vicasovich, who rang for the police. To Constable Maisey, witness said he had told Armstrong that he would not fight and was sitting down when he was struck. He only fought in self-defence and certainly had the best of affairs. It was then that Moss went to Armstrong's assistance. To Mr Lewis, Snell agreed that there was ill-feeling between the two rabbiting firms owing to disputes over trapping grounds. On the date in question were angry and wrongly accused witness of "putting one across them." He had never been to see the ground under dispute, in company with Armstrong.

Jack Vicasovich said that on Monday he was in charge of Matos' depot and first saw Armstrong, accompanied by Moss and Fraser, at about 11 o'clock in the morning. They commenced arguing with Snell about a ground. After some words Armstrong hit Snell and in retaliation Snell got Armstrong down on the concrete. Witness separated them and when they got up. Armstrong went for Snell again but once mpre Snell had the best of affairs. Moss wanted to separate them but witness told him to keep away. He separated them and then Moss caught hold of Snell and screwed his head.

At about L3O p.m. Armstrong and Fraser returned again and they appeared drunk. Armstrong brought a rabbit trap from under his coat and swung it dangerously in front of witness. He rang the police because he did not want to get hit on the head.

M. Matos, rabbit dealer, said he had no dealings with Moss and twelve months ago had warned him not to come near the place'.;.. If he had been on the premises, Moss and his men would not have come near.

Armstrong and Fraser Were permitted to come to the depot so long as thev were sober.

John Henry Carpenter, a rabbiter, said he was on his bunk on Matos' premises when Armstrong and Fraser came in. He advised them to go home and Armstrong picked up a rabbit trap and went out. Witness said there was a code ot honour among rabbiters, and if this were broken parties were likely to take matters into their own hands. The taking of trapping lands was considered in a serious light.

The Defence

Mr Lewis contended there was a case to answer in the charge of assaulting Snell, but did not consider the case of assaulting Vicasovich had brought forth sufficient evidence. In addition no blows had been struck in the latter charge, which Mr Lewis invited the Bench to dismiss. (Continued on Page 3).