ASSAULTS AT LYTTELTON.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14832, 25 November 1913, Page 8

ASSAULTS AT LYTTELTON.

CASES BEFORE THE COURT. The Lyttelton Courthouse was crowded to the doors by strikers aud seamen and firemen yesterday, when two cases arising out of disturbances in the' streets were dealt with by Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M. Edward Tatnell was charged that on November 19th, at Lyttelton, he did behave in a public place, to wit, Norwich Quay and Canterbury street, in a manner whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned. , Mr J. A. Cassidy appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. On the case being called, benior-Ser-geant Ryan applied to have the case withdrawn, stating that another charge would be substituted for it. This was granted. Accused w*_ then charged with assaulting one John Stewai i. Mr Cassidy then applied for an adjournment "to make enquiries," and asked for bail. If, however, bail were not allowed, he would go on with the case, otherwise the accused would have to do a further term of imprisonment. The case was then gone on with, all witnesses, at the request of Mr Cassidy, leaving the Court.

Senior-Sergeant Ryan stated that the complainant was employed on the Pateena as a steward. On the day in question he was walking along near" the Mitre Hotel, when he was accosted by accused, who asked him if he had a union ticket. Complainant replied that he did not belong to the union, and knew nothing about it. - Accused then struck him, and when witness turned to run away he was followed by accused and another man, knocked down and kicked. The assault was witnessed by Constable Hamilton.

Complainant confirmed the above statement of the case. He said he was stuck-up by accused, who struck him

and knocked him down. He was also kicked, but by whom he could not swear to. He was certain, however, that accused was the man who had assaulted him. After witness got up, the men left him alone. Constable -tamiltou and Acting-De-tective Carney also gave evidence. Mr D. Cassidy, for the defence, said that his client was a man who had lived in Lyttelton for the past thirty years. He was a stevedore, and bad never been in the Court before, except to vote. It was a most regrettable case. Accused asked complainant if he was a unionist, and was told to "Go to ." as it was none of his business whether witness was or not. These remarks angered accused, who struck Stewart, and, continued Mr Cassidy, "He is not going to the box to perjure himself now." Accused would admit that he struck Stewart, but would swear that he did not kick him—he had never kicked a man in his life. The accused had not gone out to look for Stewart —it was a casual meetisg, and it was the words used by the latter which led up to the trouble. Complainant could not say who kicked him, and, as a matter of fact, there was no kicking at all. Accused certainly had struck some blows, but Mr Cassidy hoped that the case could be met by a fine, and that Tatnell would not be sent to gaol. He would suggest that accused be bound over to keep away from the port until the present trouble had blown over.

Accused boro out the statement made by Mr Cassidy. He admitted having struck Stewart, but denied that he had kicked him. They had como to grips and rolled on to the road.

Samuel Rodgers. Henry R. Voyce, and Wiliiam Millar also gave evidence. When giving his decision the Magistrate said that the assault was a serious one. If the assault had ceased at the first blow he would have taken a more lenient view of the case, but accused had followed up Stewart and struck him again. He would be sentenced to one month's imprisonment. ANOTHER CASE. James Garner was charged with assaulting James Hayden in London street.

Accused was defended by Mr J. A. Cassidy. Complainant said that he was an employee of the Westport Coal Company, with whom he had been for three years. On the day in question accused, who was under the influence of liquor, came across to him and asked him when he was going to leave his job, at -the same timo calling him a "scab." While accused was speaking to him he caught hold of his coat and shook him severely, saying that if he didn't leave his job he would be made to do 60. Witness said that he would cease work if told to do so by someone in authority, but he would not take orders from accused. The latter then asked him to come round a corner, and fight him. Witness refused to fight him, not being very strong. Accused left his hold on witness's coat when told to do so by Albert Huston, who was going past at the time.

Albert Huston and Acting-Detective Carney also gave evidence. Accused said that he approached complainant, asking him to leave his position, as he had taken tho nightwatchman's place, and it was not fair to the other employees. He told him that he -should have a little sense, but did not call him a "scab." He asked complainant to go round the corner to right the matter out, but did not strike him. Ho was not taking a prominent part in the strike, although on one occasion he had been cautioned for using the word "scab" on the wharf.

Frederick J. Page, butcher, also gave evidence, stating the men had certainly taken part in a heated argument, but nothing more serious had occurred than a good "tongue fight." The Magistrate held that this case was not so serious as the preceding one, and convicted accused, ordering him to find sureties to keep the peace, self in £50, and one surety of £20, for six months. remanded; Samuel Rogers, who gave evidence in the first case, was then charged with assaulting John Stewart. Mr Cassidy, who appeared for accused, pleaded not guilty, and applied for a remand to Wednesday. The remand was granted, bail being allowed, self in £50 and one surety of £50. ." y

As the accused men came out of Court they were lustily cheered by their mates.