CHARGE OF ASSAULT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 125, 13 February 1918, Page 7

CHARGE OF ASSAULT

SOLDIERS AND PUBLICAN CONFLICTING TESTIMONY The hearing of the case against Albert Rowland Durrant, licensee of the New Commercial Hotel, on a charge of assaulting ; a soldier named Herbert Cutts on Saturday, February 2, was continued in the Magistrate s Court yesterday, before Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M. Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for the defondant,' and Inspector Marsack prosecuted. ' At.the hearing on Thursday last evidence was given by the complainant, Herbert Cutts, and several other soldiers who were presont at the time when it was alleged that the assault took place. Sergeant Wade, of the Lambton Station, stated that soon after 7 p.m v on Saturday, February 2, ho went to the New Commercial Hotel in -response to a telephone message, and saV complainant and several other soldiers. Tho complainant laid an information in the preeence of the defendant, who said that the men were in the bar and lie was putting them out. Durrant said the men went out into the back premises and that lie heard bottles being broken. He said he went out to the back and uaw Cutts breaking bottles on the edge of a bin. Cutts denied breaking any bottles, and when defendant again charged him with breaking bottles the soldiers set on to him and he did his best to defend himself. Defendant later took witness to the back of the hotel, whero iwitness saw only one broken bottle on a ledge, too high -up to have been placed there except by a person 'who must have climbed on the bin. Defendant said that that bottle was not one of those that lie complained about having been broken by the soldiers. The broken bottfes had been cleared away. Witness did not see any signs of broken bottle-glass near the bin. Defendant's hands, were cut and bruised, but his face was not marked, nor were his clothes ruffled. When the soldiers mentioned that a man in a grey, suit had taken part in the rough-and-tumble, defendant said that the only assistance he had was from his chef, who did not speak much English. The complainant and his companions were sober. Cutts was, considerably knocked about; both his eyes wore blackenqd and swollen, his face was cut, his mouth swollen, and his front teeth loose. When witness saw defend, ant,early on the following morning the latter said that he thought his, nose was broken and that he had given his arm a severe wrench. On the night' of February 2, two of the hotel employees were pointed out to Cutts, who said that neither was the man in the grey suit who had struck him as wellas Durrant. Mr. O'Leary said that according to the whole of the evidence for the prosecution Dufrant attacked one of six men in a cowardly manner, and yet not one of the man's mates—soldiers who were going to tho front to fight for their country—was man enough to assist a comrade. This alone, he contended, .made their story seem somewhat improbable. If Durrant struck the first blow, it , was not likely that the friends of Cutts would stand by and do nothing. '~,'. Durrant, in giving evidence, said that at' 6 p.m. on the Saturday in question he went round the hotel to see to the closing of the bars. ' Some soldiers were in saloon bar, and when teld to go 6ut asked permission to have another drink. This Was refused, and the men became nasty. Some of them said they would stay to dinner, and asked for beer to take to the dining-room, which was refused. After somo talk the men left. tho bar and went to tho back of the hotel. One of them remarked: "Now that you have got our money I suppose we can go out into the street." Defendant thereupon offered to refund their money. .Witness heard a noise like, .breaking glass, and went out and saw Cutts with a bottle in his hand tapping it on the edge of a bottle bin. When witness accused Cutts of breaking bottles, his mates gathered round him, and after some talking one of them struck witness a back-handed blow. Witness then struck out and hit the man nearest hjm, whereupon the men came at him in a body. The hotel chef then came' out and. pulled the soldiers off. Witness again struck out and hit a man, but did not knock him down. Witness exposed his arm in Court to show that it was still discoloured by_ the bruises resulting from blows -received when ~ (according to. him) the men attacked him. Durrant Said that he left Wellington on. the following Monday morningon business, notthinking that police proceedings would be taken against him. •• • 4•■ -._ _ •■•■■. • To Inspector Marsack, witness said that the only man who assisted him ■was the chef; he saw'no man in a grey suit; Defendant repeated the , statement that he did' not. strike the first b10w , .-'-"' ■■■*: ■/■■■■■"•'■•'

V Sergeant Craig, a returned soldier, who had called at the hotel for. dinner, said he heard Durrant tell five soldiers td leave the premises as it was after 6 o'clock. "Witness heard a scuffle at the back of the hotel and saw the defendant's hat knocked off. Witness advised some soldiers who were standing near to get away as there would be trouble. Witness took no part in the disturbance,

To Inspector Mafsack, witness said that he subsequently s3w Outts at uhe Court, but did not tell him that it would be of greater advantage to him to go to town td interview Durrant than to go on with the case. The chef at the hotel gave evidence as to'pulling the soldiers away from defendant. •■■•'', Cyril h. Hebberley said that lio and his brother were .Standing outside the hotel on the day in question, when _ a soldier approached them and asked him if he would swear that Durrant struck the first blow. Witness did not know anything about the assault apart from wliat the soldier told him. "Witness and his brother both refused the request. Frank Kidman, porter at the hotel, gave evidence afl to removing tho breakage of thrte or four bottles from beside the bin. This was do;ie some time before Sergeant Wade visited the hotel. This concluded the case, and tho Magistrate reserved his decision.