VISIT NOT WELCOME

Hokitika Guardian, 25 January 1928, Page 1

VISIT NOT WELCOME

SON-IN-LAAY HAS HOSTH-I RECEPTION.

CHRISTCHURCH, Jan. 24. AA’lion Horace Norman Cornish, a New Brighton motor-mechanic, called at the residence of his mother-in-law at 144, Kilmore Street, in order to take his wife home, he had a mixed reception. First his -mother-in-law threw a saucepan of hotwater over him, and ho was then chased with a broom by his sister-in-law. To finish it off his brother-in-law accosted him at- the gate, and a- fight ensued. The incident had its sequel at the Afagistrate’s Court on December 24, when both Cornish and his brother-in-law, Frederick Hadley, were charged with fighting in a public place. The ease was heard before Mr H. A. Young, S.M. Hadley was convicted and discharged, and Cornish was convicted and fined £2.

Not satisfied with the decision. Cornish applied for a re-hearing, and this was granted by Mr A'oung. The rehearing came on yesterday liefore AH' Young.

The police evidence was on the same lines as at the first trial, but Cornish called his wife to explain why he had gone to his mother-in-law’s house. The Magistrate accepted the explanation regarding Cornish’s reason for visiting the house, and entered a new decision, convicting and discharging Cornish, who thus receives the same treatment as did Hadley.

Constable E. T. Eunice said thatCornish had driven to the Police Station in his motor car at'about G p.m. on December 23. Cornish had said that he had had a row with his moth-crr-in-law. who had thrown over him a saucepan of boiling water. AAilness had visited the house, situated at J 44 Kilmore Street, and had found the mother-in-law and her daughter in an hysterical condition. He had then .rone outside and he found Cornish and bis brother-in-law Hadley' fighting on the street in front of the house. Both men were exchanging blows freely. He had separated the pair and taken them to the Police Station.

To Sergeant. Almond witness said that Cornish was on top of Hadley. Cornish then called his wife, who said that she hail gone to her mother’s place about 5 p.m. and that she lmd arranged that Cornish was to call for her. There had been trouble between her mother and Cornish on several occasions. She had seen her young sister chasing Cornish, but bad not. seen the fight in front of the house. Giving evidence, Cornish said that as lie was not welcome at his mother-in-law’s place ho had waited outside, and had then gone round to the back door. His mother-in-law resented Ins appearance and had thrown a saucepan of boiling water over him. He then went for the police. He stood at the gateway while the police went in. Hadley, his brother-in-law, then came, to the gate and pulled him down and fought him on the ground. In reply to Sergeant Almond, witness denied that lie had been fighting Hadley. As soon as the constable arrived he gave no trouble at all. had not been drinking. Sergeant Almond: Have you been before the Court previously ?—Yes. Once for assault, and once lor fighting ? Yes. but I was given the benefit of the doubt by the Magistdate.

Sergeant Almond : You were convicted and discharged .'--Yes. Wiiv did you go to your mother-in-law’s'place when then was trouble between her and yourself?-! used to keep away, but on this occasion 1 was asked to call for my wife. The Magistrate said that the evidence of Mrs Cornish had accounted for Cornish visiting the place. lie had evidently been unwelcome, and a fight had ensued between him apd Ha die v. As Cornish was not wholly to blame for the occurrence, lie would alter his previous decision. Cornish was convicted and discharged. . , The Magistrate warned Cornish not to enter his mother-in-law’s house and to wait outside if ho was calling for liis wife.