£2000 CLAIMED.

Waikato Times, Volume 99, Issue 16654, 20 November 1925, Page 9

£2OOO CLAIMED.

A BARRISTER SUED.

INTERESTING ASSAULT CASE. An action presenting some rather interesting features was commenced before Mr Acting-Justice Ralston and a jury in No. 1 Court, Sydney, when Captan Thomas Rabn Hammond sued Ralph Vivian Hodgson, a Sydney barrister, to recover £2OOO compensation lor alleged assault. The defence was a plea of not guilty, and an allegation that the plaintiff first assaulted defendant.

The story told on behalf of the plaintiff, who is a returned soldier and a merchant, carrying on business mostly with India, was that on the night of August 25 last lie experienced ar “Gurrawheen,” Vaucluse, the home of Mrs Hodgson, an unprovoked assault at the hands of the defendant, who is chairman of the Railways Appeal Board, and three other persons. The result of the assault was that ho was seriously injured. He was hit on the head by the defendant with a weapon resembling a policeman’s baton, hit about the body, wounded over the eye, had his nose injured, and was considcrablv knocked about.

Though the case was merely an ordinary one, of common assault, plaintiff's counsel suggested that there was something more behind it. The defendant, he said, a little more than two years ago, married his present wife, and, owing to domestic differences, she left him and went to reside at “Gurrawheen,” with her two children. There were also two other ladies occupying rooms in the house on the night in question, one being a Mrs Jackson or a Mrs Dykes. Some considerable time before the assault Mrs Hodgson had made the acquaintance of Captain Hammond quite in the ordinary way—as a matter of fact, he had met her at a party. They did not see each other again until months later, when they became on friendly terms. He was interested in animals, and prided, himself on his veterinary skill. Mrs Hodgson had a dog that was sick, and plaintiff used to call at the house to attend to the animal.

Notice to Quit. There was not, said counsel, the slightest ground for suspicion between Mrs Hodkson and the plaintiff, and there existed between them nothing but an honest friendship. On the night referred to, the defendant evidently went to the house determined to commit an assault, and he went there with a revolver in his pocket. Luckily, however, the revolver was not used. Mrs Jackson, or Mrs Dykes, went to stay at the house a little while before the night of August 25. She had received notice from Mrs Hodgson to quit, but for that night she had arranged a party of friends, and asked Mrs Hodgson’s permission to use the dining-room until half-past 9 o’clock. Mrs Hodgson and her two children occupied a bed-sitting room, and, in addition fo the little boy and girl, the plaintiff was also there until Mrs Jackson, or Mrs Dykes, got rid of her guests. Mrs Jackson, or Mrs Dykes, then put out the light in the hall, a thing she had never done before. Plaintiff saw some shadows on the door, and he moved towards the place, when the defendant and three men rushed in. Defendant then rushed at plaintiff with the baton and struck him with it, afterwards rushing to his wife’s room, apparently in the hope of finding some papers there. On his return, the plaintiff was struggling with the other men, and shortly after they all left. Mr Feez, K.G., and Mr Monahan (instructed by Messrs Arnold, Manion and Co.) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Curtis, K.C., and Mr Maxwell

(instructed by Mr C. P. White) represented the defendant. In cross-examination, plaintiff admitted having been served with a petition in divorce on August 27 last. 11c did not know whether that was before he issued his writ. in that petition lie was charged with adultery, and a man named Christie was also charged. Plaintiff said he was a married man, and lived with his wife, who was at present in England on a holiday. He had taken Mrs Hodgson fo the Hotel Australia. He had taken her to Dungowan Restaurant l in Moore Street, and he had taken her twice to the theatre. lie did not see the sick dog until August 4. It was on account of the dog ,hc was there on the night of the 25th.

Mrs Hodgson Gives Evidence. Olive Beatrice Hodgson, wife of the defendant, said she had not been living with her husband since October, 1924. From the time of the separation until the night of the assault she had not seen him. Before separating she and her husband had a terrible row. She knew Captain Hammond, who had visited her house to attend her sick dog. She had never been in any way familiar with Captain Hammond. She did not know on the night of the assault that Mrs Jackson or Dykes was a spy, but she knew that she was being watched, and she had written to her husbaqd and’ complained about being persecuted. On the night in question, witness thought it peculiar that Mrs Jackson put the light out in the hall. Witness heard the tramp of a lot of men, and then she saw Mr Hodgson. There was a great, commotion. Her husband caught her by the throat and called her names. She did not know T whether Mrs Jackson was a spy, but Mrs Jackson tried to protect her.- Witness called out for Captain Hammond, but Mrs Jackson said he was stunned. In the scuffle, witness put her hand to her husband's pocket and felt he had a revolver. Captain Hammond was only in her house ns a friend, and there was no truth in the suggestion that she had committed adultery withhim.

In answer to Mr Curtis, witness said she divorced her first husband, Arthur Ramsay Sharp, on a petition l'or a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, in June, 1923. The two children she had were his. She knew a man named Charles Grant Campbell Christie for five years. Ho acted as a friend for her, and was trying to sell her bungalow.

A couple of letters which had been written to witness by. Christie were read by Mr Curtis. In those letters the writer addressed her' as “Petal” and “Sweetness.” • The case is part-heard.