ASSAULT IN THE STREET.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2065, 27 April 1907, Page 3

ASSAULT IN THE STREET.

THE RESULT OF A DOG FIGHT. At the Police Court yesterday morning, John Roberts, charged with assaulting a youth named Samuel Dolman on Monday night, pleaded guilty, but explained that he acted under strong provocation. Complainant’s evidence was to the effect that coming down the road he saw two dogs fighting; they ran between his legs, and he walked over them. Defendant came up to him and complained that he kicked thedog. About half-past ten, as he was walking along the road, defendant said to him, ‘‘lVliat did you kick my dog for?” Witness replied he did not. whereupon defendant struck him on the eye. The blow knocked him to the ground, and made his teeth loose and sore. Accused stated that on the evening in question complainant came up and saw the two dogs, which were playing, not fighting, and he told Doiman not to kick the dog. - When ha asked him why he kicked the'dog, Dolman used particularly disgusting language to him and ho then committed the assault. He would produce witneses to show that the language complained of was used. Under cross-examination by the detective, denied that he used the foul language, and also denied that he habitually used such language or that he lived with thieves. Harrv Sweeney, a cooper, coitoborated’ defendant’s statements. Patrick Davy, laborer, also supported defendant. His Worship desired to hear the evidence of Dolman’s associates on the evening, and occordingly Bernard Redstone was called, and i>vid that he was a chain away and would not have heard any language used. ~ ■

By accused: Hoard some muttering, but it was not distinct. George Sceats said lie was going up Gladstone road on Monday night, and saw defendant and Dolman together a few yards ahead of him. Defendant asked Dolman a question ; the latter gave some reply, and then defendant struck him a blow, which caused him to fall. Accused asked • for leniency, but His Worship said that if the* language was used as stated, which lie very much doubted, he was not justified in attacking the hoy in such a cowardly manner. He would he fined £2 and costs 10s, seven days being allowed for payment.