A "SOCIAL" EVENING.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 610, 13 September 1909, Page 8

A "SOCIAL" EVENING.

AND A SAD MORNING, ! a A' MELEE IN A CITY HALL. : \; Something., of a Tatber ' unpleasant nakuro occurred at a benefit social , that was held on Friday night in' Victoria Halli Adelaide Road. Among the "benefits" was ii black .'eye secured by Abram ..Joseph-Parkinhouse. . The. gentle measure which tho fair-and gallant assemblage trod must have been like a war dance, for.it ended in a 1 general melee, wherein eaoh man's hand was turned against/his neighbour. From,' the wielee -was extricated Arthur Adams, a young man, employed on the railways, and at' the Magistrate's Court,' on Saturday morning, he. was charged (I) . with : having assaulted -Norah Jaiiics. and (2) with having assaulted- Abram • Josoph 'Parlanhouse. Sta-tion-Sergeant .Darby prosecuted, and Mr. P. Jackson defended. Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., was on the beiich. -': _ Complainant, Norah James, • a young lady • first gave evidence. She had known the-do' fendant, sho said, for three months, and, on Friday night, she met him at the* benefit social in Victoria Hall. During the evening, he called her certain names, and later, just as a "dance had ended, ho came across the room, and • without any provocation, struck her* on the face. . • • ~.. 'v ■ . . • Mr. n Jackson::. Had s y°u>o|; .beeni what you call keeping company" with'him during the greater part of the time of 1 ' your acquaintances : '•»: '• ■ • • .Witness: No.' 1 '■ Mr. Jackson: Did you ■ not <"walk-OUt" with him several times?—"No; my sister was always with me. I have not spoken ; to.him since June." ... , . ' Tho Teason for, that was 'jealousy- because he had taken up with another girl ?-"Not on i my part." / ' . i Have, you Hotcalled him .names and insulted I him in the street?—" No." , "i "No°" 0 ou callcd him' a pig islander?- 1 - \Vha,t did. he say when he came tip to you?— Ho ' said he,d .bwn'. waiting;, for.;' me. When 1 _i S - A uc there wero several others near, i and they almost all started flighting. He hit Mr. Parkmhouso m.the eye." Did "he say to you, "I* won't' have any more of thl8 > and did-you reply, '(Who the are your. —"No; I couldn't say such a thing." Joseph Parkinhouse, a-brother-in-law of the last witness, said that ho did-not strike defendant, but when the latter made a move to strike. Miss. James again he. pushed him ,away. Defendant then; struck him in several places, and caused an injury to ,his eye/ which rendered it,necessary.for it..to.be bandaged. • Next, Miss James's sister,: Mrs,." Lilian Parkmhouse, went.into the box.;, ined by Mr. _ Jackson, she acknowledged that two of her sisters had had : a "eet-to ,? 'with a girl that defendant had paid. attention to. Constables 'Moore and Cummins , also gave evidence. The part which . th6y played in the social was to examine .the coniv ♦batants as they extricated themselves from the melee.-To Constable Cummins, defendant made a statement acknowledging the -assaults, but stating that Parkinhouse had strufck him first. "his, closed the . caai for the prosociition. Mr. Jackson, stated, that the case for the defence v;as that whatever defendant had done to I Miss James had been done.under extreme provocation. Also he had only struck Parkinhouso in self-dofeb<se. ■, * • 1 •'

Defendant Adams then gave.his side-of. the story. For-the greater part,of three months, he said, he had been keeping company with, Miss' James, but lie did not .like! her behaviour ill the. street, so he "threw, her over." Since then she had continually ■ insulted, him. She had called him a" ' pig islander. M voice, from the iCourt :• Oh, please/ don't swear. ; • ■. -

His Worship:, Donft interrupt. . , .Witness,'..continuing,.statedthat he said, to Miss James, '"Can't you keep quiet P Don't make a show of me here or I'll pull your ear." She retorted; "You , try if onr so' he just pushed hcry" and then Parkinhouse struck him. • . ■ . - '

_Corroborative evidence, was .given-by Joseph .Thomas. . , •. . ~

','His Worshipacmsrked.. that, though defen-. dant had. pleaded ,nq£. guilty, to it .was perfectly clear that he ;had .committed the assaults.; :.Th'e only question'::was what' degree of provocation had hVreceived?. The procced* ings,;Were,.disgraceful., / At.,.a' social. of that kind,-,,it' was j perfectly,!junnecessaryi or ■ should' Linnecessarv, . to. havej the. proceedings interr;ibted.„'in had • no, right to take {ho .law into iisjown hands.,-He had-his remedy, and could have:laid, an! jnfor-1 mation against complainant for. .using.lan'guige 'calculated to provoke ..a breach of 'the ,'peade.,'! As ,he had had some provocation;'he. would be fined 40s. on each charge, and. costs 65., in default .soven - days' imprisonment. ■ ; .Witness's expenses, would" bo allowed for ' Paikinhouso only, as ,his Worship considered- that; the others were largely,responsible for-the scene.: .