ASSAULT CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1024, 28 March 1912, Page 3

ASSAULT CASE.

BARBER AND CLIENT,

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Mervyn J. Littlejohn was charged, on the information of Stephen G. Hollington, with, on March 9th, assaulting him by striking him on the face with his clenched fist. Mr Moore appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Stephen G. Hollington, in evidence stated that on the evening of March 9th, in company with Ronald Bright, he entered defendant’s shop for the purpose ot getting his hair cut. Defendant refused to cut it for less than one shilling. Witness replied that he could get it done tor sixpence, and as he went to get his hat he made use of a certain expression as to what to do with defendant’s saloon. In further explanation, witness said he did not know the meaning of the expression, but had heard it used on several occasions. Continuing his evidence, witness said that when he made use of the expression, defendant struck him two violent blows with his clenched fist, one on the ear and the other on the throat. Witness then left the shop. On the following Monday delendant came to him and said he had heard that witness was taking the matter to Court. Witness had replied that he had no option. Defendant then said; “You can do your worst.” Under cross-examination by Mr Moore, witness said that as far as he could remember, he had mentioned everything that took place, He was positive of the expression used, by the use ot which he inferred nothing. He did not intend the expression as an insult. Had said it in an unconscious manner, and was surprised when he found that defendant considered he had been insulted. Was not annoyed because defendant would not cut his hair. Defendant was not busy, but he told witness that he reserved Saturday nights for outside customers. He may have told witness that he could get his hair cut any time during the week. Understood that defendant wanted to charge a shilling because it was Saturday night, and witness could get his hair cut any night during the week. The expression used was a common one, and its meaning did not interest him. This was the first occasion upon which he h?d used an expression of which he did not know the meaning. Defendant did not attempt to put him out of the shop, or ask him to go out, although he could have done so if he so desired. He was taken by surprise when defendant struck him, and walked out of the shop. He did not run out. Witness was taller than defendant, but did not do anything, as he had no right to take the law into his own hands. He did not think he got what he deserved, or that defendant had a right to do what he did. He was perfectly sober at the time. He took a little too much liquor sometimes, but had had none that night. Did not consider that he brought the assault on himself, although if he had not made use ot the expression he didn’t suppose there would have been any trouble. His reason for bringing forward the case was because it was not the first time that similar assaults had taken place. Defendant had assaulted other people, and he therefore could not let the matter drop. Ronald Cyril Bright stated that Hollington said to Littlejohn, “I waut my hair trimmed,” and placed himselt in the chair. Defendant was sweeping up the hair on the floor, and said, “I won’t do it lor less than a shilling.’’ Plaintiff asked why, and defendant said because it was Saturday night. Plaintiff then said, “Very well, I’ll go elsewhere.” Defendant replied, “You can d well go where you like.” Hollington walked towards where his hat was and then made use of the expression above referred to. Holliugton put on his hat. and was about to leave the shop when defendant struck him across the ear. He hit him twice, and jammed him up against the wall, saying, “i’ll show you what you will do.” Witness left l ie shop, and Hollington followed, and said he would go to the police. To Mr Moore : Littlejohn said, “I want a shilling” ; he did not say, you can come in during the week. He afterwards explained that he would nut do it for less than a shilling because it was Saturday night. Constable Woods said that Hollington came to him at about 9.40 o’clock on the night in question and made a complaint. Witness examined Hollington's ear, and found it to be bruised and swollen. He told him he could come on Monday and lay an information if he so desired. On Monday, after Hollington had laid the information, Littlejohn came in and said he had a complaint to make. Witness told him there was a complaint against him, and handed him the summons. Littlejohn said he desired to lay an information against Hollington for using threatening and offensive language, but witness pointed out that the shop was not a public place, and the language could not be heard outside. He advised him to see a solicitor. To Mr Moore; Witness said he had never heard the expression used previously. Holliugton’s injury did not appear very serious. It was such as might have happened in a scuffle trying to get Hollington out of the shop. After addressing the court setting out the various grounds of defence counsel called the defendant, who stated that Hollington came into his shop and asked to have his hair trimmed. Witness

said; “If you waut me to cut your hair you’ll have to come in here some night during the week. I told you before I reserved Saturday nights for outside customers.” Plaintiff said : “Oh, come on, give me a hair cut, you’re not busy.” Witness said : “I’ll tell you what I’ll do, I’ll cut your hair for a shilling if you like.” He said: “Oh, Christ, I wouldn’t pay a shilling to get my hair cut,” and witness replied, “You’ll not get it cut here to-uight for less.” Plaintiff then got out of the chair and started to walk towards where his hat was and said something about witness being “too independent and a man «houldu’t come into the shop at all.” Witness told him he didn’t waut any cheek about it and that he was welcome to go somewhere else. He then said: “I’ll keep it on until Monday and go somewhere else, and then used the expression referred to.” Witness had heard the expression once or twice before and took it to have an obsene meaning. He took it as intended for an insult. Witness said: “What’s that ? Get out of this.” He then applied a method to get him out. In reply to a question by complainant witness said he would swear that he (complainant) used bad language. The Magistrate said he could find no excuse, or justification, or palliation of defendant’s action in the matter. It was not a trivial matter and appeared unjustifiable. Defendant was convicted and fined 40s. Complainant and his witness were allowed 5s expenses each.