DISTRICT COUUT.

Inangahua Times, Volume II, 1 September 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COUUT.

4. . Wedns bay, August 27th, 1880. (Before His Honor JuJ«e Weston.J I.'kgina t. Brandt. Frederick Brandt wai in lie'ed by tT»e Crown upon a charge of nssanlfc upon tlie person of Edn-nrd Morins Wricht. The particulars cf I''.e charge will be diselosod i vi the pvidence. Mr South Prosecuted on belialf of tlie Crown, and the accused was defended by Mr -Lynch and Mr Guinnes. The down Proseculot having opened the case, called the following evidence. George Moring Wriaht : I am a farmer living np«r Landing Crcrlf. Have known accused for many years and was friendly with him up to recently. On the 30th July last, 1 was at my slaughter yard ! illiig a slierp. He came to me and preseiiiod some orders. I told him I had settled with the men and got their re*

ceipt. He then called me a thief, rogue, and liar, and said I had never settled with the men, and as 1 did not want to hare any row with him I ordered him ofl my place- He said he would not leave till I did sign them, and with that he drew out his knife, and ran me up against the scaffold, and said I should either sign Ihom or ho would rip me open. He cauehthold of me with the right band, and hit me with the knife on the right breast with his left band. The clothes produced were those worn by me at the time, and show a cut which penetrates both the vest and shirt. [The remaining portion of this witness 1 evidence was simply a repetition of that given in the Magistrate's Cou t ten days ago.j Cross-examination « Did not come into town immediately after the occurrence, but was on my way in on the followins; day when I rapt Mt Gallagher and Mr Williams, and had to (urn back to psss the telegraph poles. Was occupied al| that day and came to town on the follow ing day. Did not see any blood marks on accused. Did r.ofc see the orders. [The witness was further cross-examined, but nothing new was elicited] Esther Wright : I am the wife of the last witness. Between 12 ard L o'clock accused came to our house, and asked for Mr Wright. I told him he was down at the yard and be left, and I followed him. [The witness here described the assault.] "I'iiis closed the case for the Crown. Mr Guinness having opened the case for the defence, called the following cvi« dence:—* Frederick Green : I am a sailor. J know Wright, and recollect his opening a bundle and showing me a vest, a shirt, and afl innel, and there was a cut in ail three of them, and iaid that Brandt had stabbed him with a knife. Besides the yesfc and. shirt produced, he showed me an old flannel with v cut in. lam positive about the flannel. Brandt does not usually carry a kcife. On the day cf !he alleged assault he borrowed a knife from me two or three times. Timothy Gallagher was called as to character, and said that he had known accused from 1872, and he had never known him to give away to acts of violence. This closed the case for the defenco. Mr Lynch then summed up for the defence. He went exhaustively through the evidence^ pointing out the inherent probability of the whole theory of the prosecution, and asked the jury to discredit the whole story. His Honor then gaddressed the jury, Defendant was charged with beating and iltreating Wright, which was laid as common nssault. There were two points upon which the Crown relied, namely, the u-ing of a knife by the defendant, and his seizing the prosecutor by the shoulder. Whether the knife wns actually used in the'assauit was not material. The charge simply amounted to one of assault, so if the jury" disbelieved Wright when he 'said that the knife penetrated his clotlies— they misjht say if lie was mistaken in that, he might be mistaken in the rest. It wou'd be affectation on my part to say that Ido not know the des j fendant. I have been overplus ferry, nnd found him attentive and civil, but you. like myself, must steel your hearts against all considerations of that kind, and discard everything you may have Keen in the public prints, and give your virdict strictly upon the evidence as ad« duced in open Court. Mr South has told you that you have only two courses open : either to find the accused guilty of the offence, or that the prosecutor! hns been in your opinion guilty of peijury. But there is an alternative course : you may fancy that Brandt may be guilty, but not be able to say who struck the first blow, and therefore give the accused the bene-< fit of your doubt. Ido not s.iy you aye to do IH' 1 , ami merely that you shou'd not. be frightened U-nm a striet'y impnv*. tial con. '"se by a'J^.l'U'R you Imve been told. Taking ail things against Wri»hf into consideration the position is no^ so serious. Regard the evidence therefore nr.d do your fluty. The case is that of a respectable man losing his temper and committing an assault, but a ram miy lose his temper, and still not commie birn self to an act such as that charge !. Buf on the other hand_ajnjiT_^ayj^jcv£r_so rpsppetnblp.'niir] jet In'?.? hig" wenk mos menis, and commit himself, and this is how so ninny people come before t!>p Courts. Jn iho present ense something has been made to turn upon the question of the orders presented by Brhndt to Wright, but it does not follow Hint n man mu*t honor orders drawn upon him ; he could sny that lie preferml to pny the parties themselves. Indeed, if this were not so the Courts would r be very little use. Therefore, the dishonor of the orders fornvnrr no p\'CU«e, n<.lc yourselves if the-o wns provocation. A man r>nd his wife como forward bt"l swear distinctly that (lie cuts were infkfrd in the m inner urged by the Crown ; this happened in a very peculiar mhnner, but (he knife may h;»ve been used at a disadvantage, and this might account for the discrepnncies pointed out by Mr Lynch in his very able, quiet, and gentlemanly adchvsa. There is one point in the evMenee for the pros* edition which seems to have been overlooked. Thppmseru'or's wife stated in her evidence that she did not notice the cut in her hufband's*g armcnf ' " nf^ n^ C;r the as--«nlt, whereas in !vr former depositions she allies that she saw the tu'

iiflicted during the scuffle. If, there* fore, you respect that point to the full, you might say that a mistake has been made somewhere, and that the knife did not cut the garments. On the the other hand Wright alleges that he was taken at a disadvantage and that the knife slipped. There is one point upon which there is a positive variance between the evidence of the prosecutor and his wife, the one alleging that the tear on the back of the vest was done daring the scuffle, and the other affirming: that the rent was there before the assault tonic place. Still, in a case of this kind when mistakes are made in detail, they were sometimes passed over. It bad been urged that the defendant did not usually carry a knife, and from that it was there r ore to be inferre 1 that he could not have had one on the occasion in question. He could, how* ever, have acquired one, and, as the Crown Prosecutor put it, bavo taken the knife thpre for the purpose of intimidating Wright into signing the orders. As to the statements of the prosecutor's wife • some stress had been laid upon her apparently contradictory statements. But is easy to understand that the whole scuffl • was the work of an instant, and it was possible that she might be mistaken in small matters, and this without being guilly of perjury. Tiiis is not, however, a case of debt, but ono for the preserva« lion of the pence, and it is hardly rea« sonable to think that the prosecutor would come into Court with such a fabrication simply for the preservation of the public pencp. The jury then retired, and after au absence of a quarter of an boor relumed a verdict of aequitai; The accused was then discharged.