Tuapeka Times, Volume XV, Issue 867, 5 August 1882, Page 3

 

ETTRICK.

The weather hitherto has been very unsettled, with rain, frost, and snow in turns. However, during the past fortnight or three weeks, the rain has obtained the ascendency, and in consequence, ploughing and other farm work may be said to have been almost completely at a standstill. The low lands are so thoroughly soaked that nothing can be done.

The Benger Burn rose to an unprecedented height last Saturday, and in its fury destroyed our old established footbridge, to the great inconvenience, of the people of the township, the children attending the school, and the travelling public generally. 

Mr Robert Gawn," junior, was very nearly losing a very- valuable team of horses while crossing the creek at the usual ford, and only for the coolness and skill displayed by him when the horses and wagon got into deep water, the result would have been disastrous. When Mr Gawn was safely landed on the bank of the creek, with his team of ten horses in hand, the same as if nothing had happened, he was vociferously cheered for his nerve, indomitable pluck, and presence of mind. I may mention that William Aherne and James M'Millan (another teamster) exposed  themselves to great danger by jumping into the, creek when they saw the leaders swerve on approaching the bank, they scrambled on to  the backs of the Horses and landed them safely on terra firma. The scene was one of intense excitement, . which I would not desire to witness again.'— 1st August, 1882.

 

In the wrestling, open to all comers, Hogg, who has improved considerably since his first appearance in the ring, had little difficulty in disposing of his men. In the second match, confined to Tuapeka County, the spectators were afforded a good deal of amusement, especially when Gawn and Aitken came together. The former is a big, powerfully built man, who turns the scales at 17st ; while Aitken is very slightly built, not being much over 10st. Aitken stood not the slightest chance with his formidable opponent, who good-naturedly told Aitken not to get frightened, as he was not going to hurt him. Hogg and Gawn had a very severe bout, but the more skilful tactics of the former carried him through triumphantly. 

A STABBING CASE.

At a sitting of the Police Court, Lawrence, on Thursday, before Messrs E. Herbert and T. Pilling, justices, William Blewitt, a rabbiter, living at the Beaumont, was charged, on the information of the Police, with unlawfully wounding and assaulting Robert Gawn, waggoner, at Tuapeka Flat, on the night of the 5th instant.

Sergeant Conn conducted the prosecution, the accused, who pleaded " Not guilty," being defended by Mr Dalziell. ?

The first witness called was Robert Gawn, carrier, who stated that between 10 and 11 o'clock on Tuesday night he was going along the Tuapeka Flat road in company with John Miscall, and when between Mr Alex. Stiven's residence and the Tuapeka Hotel he heard a row going on. Two old men were fighting, one of them being on the ground. Almost immediately after this, the accused Blewitt and a young man named Pierce came up. Witness didn't remember all that took place, but almost as soon as he left the footpath and went on to the road he heard someone say, "Look out; that fellow's got a knife," meaning the accused, who was edging away from the middle of the road towards the footpath. Witness caught the accused round the body from behind, his right arm being free. The accused struggled a little, attempting to get away, and while witness held the accused he felt two or three jags on his arm. He didn't see a knife in accused's hands at the time, nor did he think he had been stabbed. While witness held the accused, Miscall attempted to take a knife from him, but Blewitt would not give it to him. He, however, gave it to Pierce on the understanding that witness let him go. He did not provoke accused in any way ; nor did he interfere in the row ; he merely caught hold of accused when the cry was raised that he had a knife.

Cross-examined by Mr Dalziell: He had several drinks that night; he could not remember the number. It was too dark for him to see a knife in accused's hand. He went with Miscall to the Tuapeka Hotel after the row; Pierce and Blewitt followed. After he found out that accused had stabbed him, he caught hold of him and gave him a bit of a shake up. He did not handle accused very roughly in the hotel. He caught hold of him, put him gently on the floor and then sat on him. He was a bit wild at the time.

John Miscall, in the main, corroborated the previous witness's evidence. Blewitt struck witness because he picked up the old man who was lying on the road. He tried to take the knife (both blades of which were open) from accused when Gawn had hold of him ; but was unsuccessful. Accused gave the knife to Pierce.

Cross-examined by Mr Dalziell : After Gawn let accused go, he made the remark that he had been stabbed. Gawn caught hold of accused and gave him a good shake. He then told accused to clear out as quickly as he could.

Dr Nicoll had examined Gawn's left arm and found an incised wound midway up the arm, towards the outside, an inch in length and half-an-inch in depth. There were two small cuts on the same arm above the wrist. The wounds, which had evidently been made by a sharp instrument, were not particularly dangerous.

This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Dalziell briefly opened the case for the defence, and then called Ernest Pierce, who gave his evidence in a very clear and straightforward manner. When he and Blewitt, who followed Gawn and Miscall, came up to the two old men who were fighting on the road, one of the men (East) complained to Blewitt that the other man was knocking him about. Blewitt then knocked the man down, and Miscall interfered. Gawn, who was on the footpath, then came over, apparently to assist Miscall, when Blewitt called out that there were too many of them against him ; that he had a knife, and would use it in self-defence. Gawn then caught Blewitt round the body. Blewitt struggled hard to get free, but witness did not see him use the knife on Gawn. Gawn advised accused, before he let him go, to give up the knife. He said: "Give up the knife; it's only a bit of a lark." Accused then gave the knife, which had one blade open, to witness. Gawn, after letting accused go, pulled off his coat and said he had been stabbed on the arm. He was a bit wild at the time, caught hold of accused and shook him a good deal, and then told him to clear out as quick as he could. Blewitt expressed his sorrow for what he had done.

Mr Dalziell submitted that the wounds inflicted on Gawn's arm were not done intentionally by the accused. An assault was defined in the statute as " the act of intentionally applying force to the person of another." In this case it was made clear that the accused had not intentionally inflicted the wounds on Gawn's arm. In the struggle to get free he accidentally struck Gawn: he did not do so intentionally. Had it been the accused's intention to do Gawn an injury, he could have struck him with the knife, as his right arm was free, in a vital spot. His not having done so was proof that he did not intentionally stab Gawn, and, therefore, what had happened could only be regarded as an accident. Under-such circumstances, counsel submitted that the accused should either be convicted and discharged or a small fine imposed.

The Bench, who retired for a few minutes before giving their decision, said they regarded the offence with which accused was charged as a most serious one, and as the evidence clearly showed that the accused had deliberately used the knife on Gawn, they felt it was a duty incumbent upon them to inflict the severest sentence that the statute under which the information was laid allowed. Accused would be convicted of the offence and sentenced to a term of two months' imprisonment in Dunedin gaol, with hard labor. Mr Dalziell said it was within the discretion of the justices to inflict a penalty instead of imprisonment. The accused was a married man, having a wife and two children.

The Bench remarked that they had the utmost sympathy for accused's wife and children, but they did not think they would be justified, considering the nature of the offence, in altering ,the terms of their decision. The Court then rose.