New Britain herald., 1929-08-09

Hanecak jumped on her listed" her and made nail marks on her left fore arm. she said. She screamed ard pushed down to the floor, and had her hair yanked severely She showed the hai rto the court along with bald spot on the right side Of her head where she claims the hair originally was.
 Mrs. Narho also declared that she never struck Henecak with a mop stick because the mopstick was in the back yard, but that she might have scratched Hanecak's face be- cause she wanted to get away
 "Yes. l tried to get away There were four hands against my two hands," she complained to the court
 Did you see the four hands" ." asked Judge T'raceski.
 No, feel" replied Mrs. Narho.
 Warned to Be Frank
 At various times during her testi- mony Mrs. Varho was warned by the court to tell the whole story or she would not be believed.
 Mrs. Mettie, the police matron. on the stand said that she examine Mrs. Narho this morning and said that there were bruises on both of her arms and both hips. Detective Sergeant Ellinger who also testified in the case. said that he believed there was cause for action. He also declared that he had talked with the accused man and he admitted that there had been some troubh' although he denied the assault.
 John Hanecak said that the trou- ble started over his little boy who would persist in straying to Mrs. Narho's yard. Although he was called back, the child was obstinate brought back by his mother. He also said that his wife had told him that the Narho boy had thrown stone at his boy. Later in the eve ring the IIanecak child went to visit neighbor who lives on the IOOG dDONt MI B. ' dl llO. 1ldilSNdh went to the second floor of the house for his son and when he cane down Mrs. Narho, who was standing in the first floor hallway. hit hin with a mop. He handed the small boy to his wife. turned Mrs. Narh3 around and went away. He denied the assault.
 Asked how she got the scratches and bruises. Hanccah replied that perhaps Mrs. Narho's husband was responsible He was emphatic in his denial that he hit the woman because he was holding the child. Names were banded back and forth, he said, and he repeated that he had been hit with a mop while he was in the hallway.
 Mrs. Hanecak verified her hus- bands testimony when she said that her husband pushed Mrs. Narho into the hallway and closed the door. She said that she saw the woman run out of her door with the mop stick and swear. She is certain that she did not pull the woman's hair or scratch or hit her.
 Woman'S Testimony Not Convincing
 Since there are no disinterested witnesses, this is a difficult case, declared Judge Trace@ki in handing down his decision. Tt is natural that 13-ycar-old child would testify for her mother. and l am sure that Mrs. Narho has eXaggsr- atcd her story. The accused did not tell the entire story either, for their had been a disturbance Tuesday evening, but as to the seriousness of it. I do not know.
 "The examination or Mrs. Narho did not take place until this morn ing. l am convinced that the dis turbance did not take place the way Mrs. Narho said. Her evi- dcnCe is not convincing. Later in it was not enough for a conviction and changed it.
 '"Tho evidence is not enough for Anna and so l discharge her. But I shall fine John Hanecak $10 and costs for breach of the peace and assault He should stay at home. I believe he was the agErcssor as he went into the other woman's yard"