OHAKUNE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 178, 30 July 1932, Page 3

OHAKUNE

BOY AND MAN At the Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday before Mr R. M. Watson, S.M., a boy 15 years of age, Raymond Smith, was charged with assaulting a wan named W. -McKone, at Rangataua, and application was made that the boy be bound over to keep the peace. Witnesses were ordered out of Court. The solicitor for the complainant outlined the particulars of the case. W. McKone, the complainant, a man about 60 years of age, manager of a .swamill company at Rangataua, stated the boy at one time lived with his family i. a house on the mill property. The boy had a dog w r hich was one day in the man’s fowl run and chased a fowl. He fired a shot at the dog, but missed it. On June 29 he saw the boy coming along a right-of-way, and he advised him to keep his dog at home. He caught the boy and threw him on the ground. The boy hit him on the forehead and blackened his eye. He sent for the police, and he refused an invitation by the boy to have a fight with him. In answer to counsel for the boy witness admitted the boy was on private land, and he went over the fence to him. He denied he had trouble with a couple of neighbours. He used a .303 military rifle to fire at the dog. The police refused to take action, and he took out the summons against the boy. He spoke first to the boy. and told him to take his dog away. He let the boy go when he promised not to hit him. He fired firearms for sport and never fired near the house. He was surprised that the boy was only 15 years and some months, and thought he was 18.

A little boy, Bertie Hodge, told how young Smith had said that if McKone said anything to him he would knock him down.

The defendant, Raymond Smith, described how, on the day in question, snow was on the ground. He was riding his bicyclo home when McKone sang out to him and came running towards him. McKone attempted to hit him about the stomach, but he dodged it and hit out. He admitted he hit McKone, but did not agree that McKone was on top when the two were on the ground. He declared they were side by side. McKone swore at him and threatened to choke him, and put a finger in his mouth. Answering the man’s counsel the boy admitted he hit the man. The man made to hit him and he dodged it and hit out. He explained how he hit the man and afterwards held him. He let the man get up and hit afterwards. In answer to the magistrate the boy said he thought the man was coming to hit him and that was his reason for hitting the man. He was not frightened of the man. He owned the dog and it was about seven months’ old. He was living with his father, and they were now about half a mile away from the complainant’s. He had been to the wrestling class at the Junction and knew a little about boxing, but he did not think he was anything extra good at it. He worked seven days a week a Chinaman, and did not have time -to play football.

T. W. Plank told how he lived for three years in the house that was recently used by the Smith family. He knew the parties and considered McKone was a very excitable man. He had seen a .303 rifle on the man’s table.

P. A. Partridge, a neighbour, had never worked for the company of which McKone was manager •’nd did not live on the mill property, but on private property adjoining. About 9 o’clock one night he heard McKone fire three revolver shots. They were fired from the man’s door. He sang out to McKone to “cut it out.” McKone complained that someone had thrown a stone on his roof. McKone lost his temper very easily.

The boy’s mother told how she saw the boy coming home after having been a message. She was on the verandah with the baby. She saw McKone run out towards the boy, but did not see the fight, as there was a fence in the way.

Counsel for the boy briefly reviewed the facts. The buy admitted the assault, but it was a trivial case. It had not taken place on public property and he contended the case should be dismissed. The boy had only acted in self defence. It was ridiculous to suggest that the man was in any fear of the boy. Counsel for the man declared that the boy had been to a wrestling class and was something of a boxer. The case was brought to prevent trouble in the future.

The magistrate said the evidence had been of a contradictory nature, but he believed the version of the man. He thought the little boy Hodge had told the truth, and that the defendant was looking for an opportunity to fight if the man said anything to him. The magistrate said he would convict on the charge of assault. The attitude of the youth was an impudent .one. He must change his outlook. His conduct towards a man 50 years older than himself was not what it should be. and he must get rid of the idea that he can go about exhibiting his gladiatorial qulifications. The magistrate hoped the present case would have that effect. A fine of £2 would be imposed on the assualf charge. With regard - to the application for sureties the boy was living with his parents, who had now shifted, and he would dismiss that application. Counsel for the boy asked for time to pay, but the magistrate said a boy working seven days’ a week should not need time and refused the request.