MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 7 March 1933, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

ASSAULT CHARGE'S. GREYMOUTH, March 7. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr W. .Meldi’um, :S.M., Thomas Fitzpatrick and Phißip James Anderson were charged with assault. Th e cases arose out of incidents which occurred just before nine o’clock on the evening of Saturday, February 25, in Taiuui Street, in front of a Chines,, - fruit shop. The charge against Fitzpatrick wag laid by the police, and that against Anderson.was laid by Fitzpatrick. Anderson alleged that, while he was ■standing in front c l f the shop window, with a friend, Peter Affleck, intending to buy «om e fruit, Fitzpatrick came’ along, under the influence of liquor, and ordered him to move on. Fitzpatrick’s nose- was scratched and bleeding. Witness told him to go awr.v, hut Fitzpatrick said, “Pll soon show you,” and started pushing witness. H e grabbed witness and swung him against a. verandah post., tearing his

eoat. Witness shoved him off, and Fitzpatrick Jell to the ground. He again made a grab, and witness threw him off. Fitzpatrick started to run away, but witness asked iliim what about thp coat. Fitzpatrick denied that li e tore it, and witness then sent Affleck for the police. He did not assault Fitzpatrick in any way, but pushed him in self-defence. Two policemen arrived, and they all went to the ■station

Corroborative evidence wn.g given by peter Affleck.

■Constable 'Robinson stated that, when he was called to the scene, Fitzpatrick alleged that Anderson tried to strike him, and that someone had kicked him when he fell. Fitzpatrick was not in a fighting mood, but .Anderson was annoyed at. lids coat being torn. Fitzpatrick’s nose was bleeding •but Anderson was not inhirod. Constable Murray gave similar evidence. yeither. of th e men was drunk, he added, but both seemed to have had some liquor.

Senior-Sergeant Reach stated tliat 1 , when h e saw Fitzpafeso* at 8.45 p.m., he had kVn off his no'se, and bloodstains on bis face. He looked as thou fib h. e ,'had ha d a f all during the evening. He certainly had had some liquor.

In the course of his evidence, Fitzpatrick stated that he wa.s in a hurry, as the shops were just closing. Anderson ami Affleck were in his way, and he jokingly asked them to move ow. He tried to get past Anderson, when h & slipped and put his hand out to save himself. In. falling, !*fs hand caught in the pocket of Anderson’s coat, and tore .it. H*> denied that he was drunk, or looking for trouble, asalleged that Anderson struck r.nu kicked .him. H e was prepared to pay for the damage done to the coat, and would have offered to do eo at v»e time, but Anderson would not let him get a word in. The Senior-Sergeant referred to Fitzpatrick’s previous convictions, despite a protest \from Mr Brosnan, and stated that Fitzpatrick had offended in a .similar manner on previous occasions.

“I am quite satisfied that the aggressor was Eitzpatrick,” said th e S.M. “Hie admits going over to the shop, and ordering or telling Anderson and Affleck t 0 move on. He said that he slipped when he got to them, and caught hold of Anderson’s coat pocket, and tor e it when h.e fell. The evidence for the prosecution is that he grabbed Anderson by the coat and tried to swing him around, telling him that if he did not move on, he would make him do so. I am quite satisfied that he was the aggressor, and that anything done by Anderson wats in selfdefence. Fitzpatrick is fined £2, with 16s witnesses’ expenses, and half of the fine will go towards paying for the damage done to Anderson’s coat. The charge against Anderson is dismissed.”

UNPAID LEVIES. Several! charges were laid against employers of failure to deduct th e unemployment tax. In each c?se were recorded, and small fines inflicted. OBSCENE LANGUAGE. James Davey, labourer,. was charged that on February 3, at Wall send, he did behave in a threatening manner, and also that ibe did uge obscene language in a public place, to wit the Main Highway, Wallfiend. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty to both charges, and elected to be dealt with summarily. After hearing evidence, the Magistrate said that ther e was no doubt that the words were used. The defendant had admitted that he had used words -tihxvt he would not use in a drawing room. H>e would b e convicted and fined £1 with 10s costs, and 11s 8d witnesses’ expenses.

Defendant applied for time to pay and was given one month to find the money.