ASSAULT ON A SOLDIER

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 134, 23 February 1918, Page 8

ASSAULT ON A SOLDIER

PUBLICAN FINED £10.

Reserved judgment was delivered m the Magistrate s Court yesterday by Mr. S. lii. M'Carthy, S.M.; in the case in which the police proceeded against Albert Rowland: Durrant on a charge of assaulting Herbert Cutts, a member of-the-Expeditionary Forces, ou February 2. On the evening in question Cutts, with live other members of the Expeditionary Forces, called at the New Commercial Hotel, and had tuo rounds of drinks just before 6 p.m., and at this hour the barmaid told them they must leave, as it was closing time. The men told the barmaid they wanted dinner, and they were under the impression they were to stop for dinner at the hotel. • There was 110 suggestion that any of the men were under the influence of liquor, or were other than reputable, and _ abo to pay for their entertainment, While the men were in the back premises of the hotel there were sounds of breakim/ bottles, but tho 111011 had nothing to do with this, although defendant declared that he saw Cutts breaking bottles on the top edge of the bottlebin, but no traces of broken bottl<« were found there. Cutts and his mates denied that the former had broken any of the bottles, and the Magistrate said he believed Cutts and his-party, and disbelieved defendant, "ivho has clearly set up the ho* ticbreaking incident as the result o. an alterthought." When ordered to leave the hotel, Cutts and his mates said they were stopping for dinner, anc. it was not suggested that defendant «H'ld not have accommodated the so.dieis with a meal. When again ordered out of the hotel, Cutts said to his mates, "'Cume on, boys; this is how they treat soldiers. They first take our money and then turn us out on the street. Defendant declared that lie offered to return the soldiers their money, but, this they all denied. "W hat the. defendant did was to punch Cutts on the mouth with Ms clenched fists." defendant's account was that, Cutts stiuck him first, and that any blows defendant administered Cutts were in self-defence. Sergeant Wade, who saw defendant, immediately after the assault, stated that defendant's facs was unmarked. Moreover, defendants witness, Sergeant Craig, a soldier, namitted that he had endeavoured to dissuado Cutts from proceeding any further with tho matter. "It must not he overlooked," concluded His Worship, "that defendant is a, licensed publican, and therefore an_ innkeeper clothed with rights and duties of innkeepers, whilst Cutts and his mates, on the night in question, were to his knowledge travellers, and, as such, entitled to the. meal they asked for. With this defendant unlawfully refused to supply them. Xot only that, he wrongly accused Cutts and his mates of breaking bottles, and committed on Ciuts a cowardly and unprovoked assault. Moreover, he has attempted to escape punishment by setting up a perjured defence." _ _ Defendant was. convicted, and finoa £10, and ordered to pay expenses, in default two months' imprisonment. Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for the defendant.