A man on trial for stabbing a carpenter in the neck has claimed that the victim went for him while wielding a knife.

Melvin Brangman told jurors at the Supreme Court that Clifton Anderson chased him around his garden before he grabbed Mr Anderson’s hand and fell on top of him.

Mr Anderson, 51, had previously told the jury that Melvin Brangman had slashed him across the neck with a “sharp blade” after he had turned up at his Sandys home on June 18 last year to ask for money he was owed.

Melvin Brangman’s brother, Michael, who is accused of helping to cover up the crime by cleaning blood stains from the Brangmans’ yard, chose not to take the stand yesterday as the trial entered its fourth day.

The brothers’ cousin, Paul Bascome, however, did take the stand and told jurors he was “best friends” with Mr Anderson and had known him all his life.

Mr Bascome told the Supreme Court that Mr Anderson had approached him after the alleged attack and told him to tell the brothers that he would drop the case in return for $10,000.

“When Clifton Anderson came from the hospital he came to me on numerous occasions, mostly in the morning, to say to me, could I tell my cousins that if they gave him $10,000 he would drop the charges concerning the cut on his neck,” Mr Bascome said.

“My response to that was my cousins said that they did not do it. He said that they had cut his neck, but they said they did not do it.

“I have nothing against Clifton Anderson, he is like a brother to me.”

Prosecutor Loxly Ricketts suggested to Mr Bascome that Mr Anderson had never asked for $10,000 to drop the case against the brothers.

Mr Bascome replied: “I do not agree.”

Mr Ricketts then asked Mr Bascome whether he was making the claim to back up his cousin’s story, to which he responded: “I am here to tell the truth.”

Melvin Brangman, 47, denies wounding Mr Anderson with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, while Michael Brangman, 45, denies being an accessory to the crime after the fact.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.