Comedy for 4s IId.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 17 July 1911, Page 4

Comedy for 4s lld.

BOY'S Sl T IT OF CLOTHES LIvADS TO ASSAI'LT. A dispute about a hoy's suit of clothes gave rise to cross actions for assault heard before .Mr Justice Scruttou in a London court the other day. Mr Hurrell Cleveland Fuller, a mortgage broker, of Wimbledon, sued .Mr Charles How. a draper and outfitter, carrying on business at the Broadway. Wimbledon, a.nd a member of the Wimbledon' Borough Council, for the return of ts lid, and for damages for as&ault. The assault arose out of a, dispute over 4s lid paid for a suit of boy's clothes which wore returned Mr Fuller, the plaintiff, said that from something his wife told him, he went to Mr How's shop a.nd told him that the servant had said that the assistant liad told her that the money for the suit would 'be returned. The defendant replied that (he servant told lies. Mr Fuller told Mr How that he had as much right to believe the servant a<s Mir How had to believe his assistant ,nnd he also told ilr How that the money had been obtained hy a trick. Mr How-ordered him lo'leave the shop. As he was going out he said he would place the matter in the hands of his solicitor This seems to have provoked reciprocal Milnerescjue remarks on each other's .solicitors, after which (said MY Fuller) the defendant struck him in the face A\ith his list, and he hit back with a walkingstick. A policeman was called in, and thoy went together to the police station, but the sergeant would not take a charge of assault which the plaintiff desired to make. After leaving the police station he overtook Mr How and shook hands with him. But he was dazed and had no idea at the time luAv badly lie was injured, Mrs Tsahelle Louise Puller said that when her husband came home -she dressed his face, which appeared like a piece of soft bad meat. The defendant's version of the affair was a.s follows :--"Tn consequence of the plaintiff's remarks T asked him to leave my shop. He refused, and struck me with his stick-over the ear. T then hit him straight from the shoulder between his eyes. At the police station he withdrew all imputations and said, ' Conic and have a drink.' We shook hands in the police station." Three of the defendant s assistants gave evidence in corroboration. Mir Justice Scrutton did not accept the story civen by either. Both of them lost their tempers. As to the -Is lid, he thought there must have been a mi.siuide<rstandin,<r. and the plaintiff was entitled to the return of .the money. He gave judgment for the plaintiff on his claim for 4s lid, without costs, and also for the plaintiff on the defendant's counterclaim, without costs.