FISTICUFFS

Hokitika Guardian, 6 January 1931, Page 6

FISTICUFFS

OLD MAN STRUCK. MR LEADLEY’S “ARGUMENT.” (By Telegraph—Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, January 5. Heated words were exchanged between .Mr W. E. Lead ley, R.S.A. member ol‘ the Unemployment Board, and .M.r R. J. Ecroyd, member of the Unemployment Committee, prior to a meeting of the Committee in the City council Chambers to-day. ..ir Lead ley twice struck -Mr Eerovd once knocking him down and causing him to strike; his head on the stairs, and on the second occasion blackening his eye;. Mr Eerovd, who is in his seventieth year, did not retaliate. Mr Lendley is 40 years bi age.

Tin. dispute arose* out ol a report published in the “Press” newspaper ol' tlie statement that is alleged to have been made by Mr Lend ley at the last meeting of the Committee. Mr Ueadley was reported as having said that there was no doubt that the Unemployment levy would lie increased by Parliament next session. Ihe Prime Minister and the Minister of i abeur took notice of this statement, both refuting it, and Mr Lead ley at mice made a public statement to the effect that lie had not made the statement in the form reported, and also to the effect that Mr Kcroyd had first said that the levy would have to he raised, and that he (Ueadley) had agreed, saying: “Nothing surer.”

.Mr Kcroyd at once wrote a letter denying that Mr Ueadlev’s account was accurate. To-day when Mr Eeroyd and Mr Ueadlev met. Mr Load ley raised the question of what had happened at the meeting. Mr Kcroyd denied having said that the levy would he increased. Mr Lead Icy declared that Mr Kcroyd had said this. Mr Kcroyd retorted: “You are a damned liar!” 'ihereupon Ueadley struck him. After some interval, the two met again in another, part of the building. The argument was renewed. Kcroyd 'again called Ueadley a damned liar, and Ueadley again struck him. Ueadley later apologised to Kcroyd for his angry violence, but he insisted that bis account of what happened at the meeting was correct. Kcroyd stoutly maintained that Leadley’s accouiit was wrong.