A STRANGE CASE.

Waipa Post, Volume XII, Issue 944, 20 May 1920, Page 4

A STRANGE CASE.

OF CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE.

CHARGE AGAINST A FARMER.

An extraordinary case of complete and direct contradiction by witnesses on the one side in an action for assault, was heard before Mr H. A. Young, S.M., at Hamilton, on Monday. The complainant was Thomas David Davis sharemillter, and the respondent, Alfred Newton Dingle, a farmer, of Claudelands. Mr Aston represented claimant and Mr J. H. Luxford appeared for defendant.

Davis said he was engaged as share milker by Dingle, the contract also including the cutting of certain gorse. Dingle disapproved of the way it had been cut. Complainant said he could not do the work again, and asked for payment, but Dingle replied that he (Davis) owed him the oney. Complainant then placed his hand, in a friendly manner, on Dingle’s shoulder, remarking that it was only a fair thing. Dingle’s reply, was to strike him, blacking his eye and making his nose bleed. Cross-examined by Mr Luxford, the complainant denied, as absolutely true/ that he called Dingle a“ liar,” or that he told him he was a old with a Sunday school smile.” He further denied that he hit Dingle first, or that he threatened to thrash Dingle with a stockwhip when he got him to the stockyard. Cross-examined, plaintiff’s son admitted that his father had called the defendant the names mentioned. Mr LuxfoTd described the action as a most outrageous one, as Dingle was in the district. He questioned whether complainant should not be prosecuted for perjury. His Worship said it was an extraordinary case, and Mr Luxford could, if he wished, give information to the police. Mr Luxford: I think I will do so your Worship.