ASSAULT AT KIHIKIHI.

Waipa Post, Volume XIX, Issue 1054, 12 February 1921, Page 5

ASSAULT AT KIHIKIHI.

SEQUEL BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE.

INFORMATION DISMISSED. Several well-known people of Kihikihi figured in the Te Awamutu Magistrate’s Court on Thursday- last before Mr H. A. Young, S.M., when Charles Thomson, a Kihikihi livery stablekeeper, was the complainant in an action which he brought against Percy Bloxham, a wheelwright’s employee (also of Kihikihi) for assault. Mr J. A. Hawkins represented the complainant, while the interests of the defendant were watched over by Mr C. G. Downes. Case for Prosecution.

Counsel, in his opening statement, said that complainant, who had been working on his coach on the 26th January, at Kihikihi, about 4.30 p.m., went to the hotel close by and had a glass of beer. Dawson, who was in the hotel at the time left and Thomson came out shortly afterwards. He had only gone a few paces when he met defendant, Bloxham. The latter asked complainant for the loan of two horses to get some wood. Thomson replied, “ You know you already owe £4 which has been owing for three or four years. Better pay that account first.” He also told- Blox-

ham he owed money for coachhire and suggested that he should get the money from defendant’s employer (Thomas Wilson). Bloxham resentea this, and struck Thomson, knocking him down. As a result the force of the blow knocked one of his teeth out besides causing cuts on the left sideof his head. Owing to the nature k>f the injuries he was confined to his bed for three or four days, and was medically attended to. When he came round he found himself at the blacksmith’s shop (near where the alleged offence took place) and later returned to his stables. Later he complained to the police of the assault and went home.

The case was that there was no provocation, and that Thomson, who had livrfcl at Kihikihi all his life, was generally looked upon as an “inoffensive man.”

Fra,ncis Clough Blundell, medical practitioner, Te Awamutu, gave evidence as to the nature of the injuries received, which included a small cut at the back of the head.

By Mr Hawkins, a punch, as alleged, would in his opinion cause the injuries complained of. Those to the head were probably done by Thomson striking something. Cross-examined by Mr Downes: Thomson did not appear to have been drinking. The Complainant’s Story.

Complainant, in evidence, stated that after a drink at the hotel on the day mentioned, Dawson came out ahead of him. Bloxham, who was working outside Wilson’s (the blacksmith’s adjoining the hotel), asked him for the hire of a pair of horses to cart, some wood. Witness replied that he could not unless he (Bloxham) paid an account of £4 which had been owing for a year or two. He also mentioned that Bloxham had promised to pay something on account for the past six months, but had paid nothing. “Then,” continued witness, “I received a smack in the face and fell among sojne harrows and iron.” He could not liiow many blows were struck. Witness said he was dazed, but managed to go up to the stables, and Wilson (tame there soon afterwards and paid a £4 cheque for Bloxham’s account. About 5|.30 p.m. he went to the Kihikihi Police Station, and complained to Constable Mahoney of the occurrence. He then went home to bed. Next morning he could not get up, the pain being “fairly hot.”

Asked by counsel, if anything was said to give occasion for Bloxham to strike him, Thomson replied: “Nothing at all.” Mr Downes then closely questioned Thomson as to the number of drinks he had (both at Te Awamutu and Kihikihi) that day, when witness said three or four but only one at Kihikihi. “Are you sure,” persisted counsel who said he could bring forward witnesses to .swear that he was “beastly drunk”, on that day. Witness denied that he was in such a condition.

As to how many were in the hotel, Thomson said there were twlo or three, one being Potter. Counsel then asked where Dawson was when he got out of the hotel, to which Thomson replied: “About two chains.” He did not see anybody else in the street at the time. How far were you from the hotel when you met Bloxham? About five or ten yards.

What was he doing?—Repairing a vehicle near the edge of the footpath. Do you remember asking for payment of the account? —Yes.

What words did you use? —I simply asked him to pay the account.

Did not say “What about that account?” —I do hot think I used those words.

Do you remember rushing into the smithy and saying where is that ? —No.

Do you remember Wlison saying: “Get up Charlie?” —I don’t remember. Replying to Mr Downes to a suggestion that the knock-out had “ sobered him.” Thomson said: ,"I was not drunk, sir.” Witness, replying to his counsel’s remark that it was stated that he was “beastly drunk” said there was no truth in the statement. Mr Ha'wkins said chat counsel had stated that he could produce evidence that Thomson was drunk, and asked the magistrate that the opposing counsel should give explicit evidence, on such a statement.

The magistra*e said evidence could be called later if necessary.

“Well,” said Mr Downes, “one witness says, ‘he was as drunk as a lord.”

The Police Version.

Constable William Mahoney- gave evidence as to Thomson making complamt to him of the assault. He took off his hat to show a wound on the head, which was still bleeding. He appeared dazed from the effects of the fall. Thomson who was generally regarded as a very inoffensive man appeared sober and though injured was “well able to walk.”

Mary Maliony, daughter of the last witness, said when returning from the butcher’s she saw Bloxham strike Thomson who fell against a trap wheel. She never saw Thomson raise his hand at all.

Edward Thomson, aged 10 years, nephew of complainant, said that when at the stables, he saw Bloxham I. strike complainant twice, and he fell on a piece of iron. That concluded the case for the prosecution. The defence. Counsel said that the defence was simply that the trouble was brought about by Thomson himself, who, when sober, was a peaceful man, but on that ■ particular occasion was in a drunken state. Thomson approached defend- ' ant who asked for the loan of a waggon to cart some firewood. Defendant • asked him to send his bill and told him 'he was drunk. Thomson then " got very excited and "made a grab" at Bloxham, who in defence, gave ) Thomson a push. Thomson fell on the footpath. He was in a sitting position and then fell on his head. He ■ scrambled up and excitedly rushed forward into the smithy crying out: , “Where’s the ?” Bloxham, in self-defence, gave Thomson a harder blow than he intended and struck him “just to make him remember that he was drunk." Thomson then struck his head on the wheel, “but that was not included in the programme,” added Mr Downes. Informant had brought it on himself. Defendant was as sorry as he could be. Thomson deserved it, and if he had not been drunk he would not have got what he ultimately did get. Defendant’s Story. Percy Bloxham, who when compared with Thomson evidently has the appearance that he is “capable of using his fists,” said that on the day referred to he saw Thomson and said: “What about a waggon for the carting of ’wood on Saturday?” Thomson then said: When you pay that account, I will see about the waggon.” He got “harking” about the account so witness told him to go away and not talk to him then, and bring the account in the morning, adding: “You are drunk.” With that Thomson made a grab at witness, who was still standing at the wheel with a spanner in his hand. Witness gave him a push and he fell backward; he then left him and walked into the shop. He did not assist him to rise after being struck. He could not say how he got up, because he (witness) was in the shop. Thomson then rushed into the shop shouting. In defence, witness struck Thomson and he fell back on -a wheel.

Mr Downes: Did he strike you?— Yes. I got a crack on the ribs.

What condition was he in?—He was “pretty hard on it.” The way he was carrying on was such that I had never seen before, I considered he was very drunk.

Mr Downes: When you pushed him was it sufficient to hurt if he had been sober. —No.

They had., always been the of friends previously. Aftei all w r as over, he picked the complainant up and put him on a bench at the back of the shop, got water, and bathed his face. He walked home then. “It sobered nim ■down a lot,” added this witness. Cross-examined by counsel: There was nothing wrong in sending an ac--1 count was there?—l never received one.

But you knew that you owed £4. Do you not think Thomson had waited long enough? If you knew you owed the account why did you not pay it? —Witness said he had a delicate wife and several children and could not pay. He wanted the account. Have you ever struck anyone before?—May have done. You are pretty quick with your fiats? Quick tempered?—No. Take a -lot to upset you?—l don’t know. You say Thomson was drunk as some excuse for the unwarranted assault upon him. If he had been “beastly drunk” Thomson would not have been able to have driven his coach that day. . 'Counsel reminded Bloxham that although he. said he had a crack in the ribs, he did not tell the constable about it. Why did you not tell him said counsel? —Because it would all come out in court. Don’t you think you could have side tracked Thomson if you liked.—Yes, I could. , , , After you did strike him he lost a certain amount of blood. —Yes it sobered him pretty well, and the cold water after helped to sober him off. Witness doubted Constable Mahoney’s evidence as to Thomson being sober, when counsel reminded him of the constable’s evidence to that effect. Thomas Wilson, blacksmith, Kihikihi, and the employer of defendant said he remembered some conversation between the two parties whilst engaged outside his shop when Thomson said: “When you pay that account you will get the waggon. Bloxham picked up his tools and went towards the shop. Thomson caught hold of him and Bloxham gave him “a sort of shove” and over he went. Afterwards he lifted Thomson up. He bled a little and seemed a lot better a few minutes later. Mr Downes: What condition was he j n ?—Practically drunk —could not call it anythng else. Do you think he would have been affected so much if he had not been drunk?— Certainly not. “Well how' was he?—Oh, “half gone,’ but could take a bit. The witness then proceeded to give his personal experience as to what a drunken man would do under certain circumstances. A drunken jnan will fight if he is not touched, and know nothing about it the next day. Witness said he had several times been asked about the affair, but he had replied it would all come out in court later on.

Edna Wilson, daughter cl last witness gave evidence as to seeing Thomson lying in the roadway full on his back and at a short distance away saw Bloxham’s arms go opt and strike Thomson.

As to his condition, witness said he was inebriated. About, that she was quite positive. Do you know a drunken man when you see him? asked Mr Downes. “I think so,” smilingly replied the witness.

William Potter, slaughterman, who saw Thomson about 4 o'clock at the hotel said when he saw him he was carrying a good deal of liquor. Hugh Dawson gave evidence as to being at the stable after the occurrence.

After reviewing the evidence, the Magistrate dismissed the case, with costs amounting to £5 12s against the complainant.