ASSAULT ON A PUBLICAN.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 2288, 11 June 1921, Page 3

ASSAULT ON A PUBLICAN.

FOR REFUSING TO SERVE DRINKS.

MAGISTRATE’S WARNINCI.

At the local S.M. Court yesterday, before Mr J. L. Stout,* S.M., Edward Boyle and Job Alexander Healey were charged by the police with assaulting R. Palmer, licensee of .the Family Hotel, on May 28th . Inspector McKinnon conducted the prosecution on behalf of the police, and Mr H. 0. Cooper appeared for defendants.

The-accused pleaded not guilty. Reinhold Palmer, licensee of the Family Hotel, stated that on the 28th May he saw the two accused and Ronald Healey in his hotel, at about 6.20 p.m. They came in through the front door, and Ron. Healey asked him to serve them with drinks. He refused, and went in' and had his tea. When he came out, about half an hour later, he again saw the three men in the commercial room, and asked them to leave the premises. He made the request three times. After about ten minutes they went out, but returned about a quarter of an hour later, and Ronald Healey again asked for drinks. Boyle then said if lie didn’t supply them there would be a smash up. Job Healey then struck Palmer in the face. Mrs Palmer then came on the scene, and he instructed her to telephone for the police. His lips were bleeding slightly as the result of the blow. He could not say whether Mrs Palmer telephoned for the police or not. Ronald Healey took no part in the assault. Job Healey attempted to strike Palmer again, but he gave him n push. The police then arrived on the scene. -The row lasted about a quarter of an hour. Boyle scratched witness’ face just, before the police arrived. Mrs Palmer, wife of the licensee, slated that on the date in question she saw (lie two Healeys and Boyle in the hotel, and heard one of them ask for drinks, which Mr Palmer refused, They then went outside, and she and Mr Palmer went in to tea. After tea the accused men came in again, and as she was getting some drinks for the hoarders she heard voices, and looked under the .slide. She heard a scuffle, and saw Mr Palmer with his face bleeding, and Boyle standing a little way from him. She took Mr Palmer’n handkerchief and wiped his face, and in doing so heard one of the accused say that he (Palmer) deserved all he got. The police then arrived. Mcssfs Childs and Curran were in the Commercial room at the time of the disturbance. She did not ring for the police. Kathleen McGrath, jvaitress at the Family Hotel, stated that as she was coming down the stairs on the date in question she saw three men 'and Mr Palmer in the passage. She heard Mr Palmer say, “You get no '’drink here; leave the premises.” Slip then went into the commercial room. As Mr Palmer walked towards the commercial room, one of the men rushed at him, and Palmer put up his hands in defence.

Henry Curran, boarder at the Family Hotel, said that lie was sitting by the fire in the commercial room at the time of the disturbance. When lie saw Air Palmer he had a deep scratch on his face. He did not see anything of the row. Arthur Childs, another boarder at the hotel, said that when he went into the commercial room lie sow Boyle and the two Healeys sitting down there. Palmer asked them to leave the premises. He later saw Palmer and Boyle sparring at the door. He saw' Healey about a week later, and he then had a discoloured eye.

Constable O’Bonoghue stated that Constable Owen’s and bis own attention was first drawn to a disturbance at the Post Office Hotel by a man who rushed out of the premises anffi told them- to hurry, as there was a row on. When they arrived they found Boyle and the Healeys standing at the door of the commercial room. Palmer’s face was scratched and bleeding. Boyle said, “1 struck Palmer because he struck my mate, Healey,” and Healey said that lie would make his explanation subsequently in Court.

Job Alexander Healey, labourer, stated that in company with his brother Ron. and Boyle, he visited tho Family Hotel on the evening mentioned. Ron. Healey asked for drinks, but Palmer refused them, and told them to get out or he would “chuck them out.” Oue of them mentioned that he would have to be a bit of a Sandow to do it, whereupon Palmer struck him (witness) iu the eye with such force that it knocked him down. Palmer then struck at Boyle, who caught Palmer by the chin and held him. They wero leaving the premises, but had started arguing the point. Neither he nor Boyle struck Palmer. Edward Charles Boyle said that when they asked for drinks Palmer neither said “yes” or “no,” so they sat down in the commercial room r,nd waited. After tea Palmer came, out and said that he had seen them before, and that they did not .patronise his hotel. Henley asked for a drink, and Palmer said that he wouldn’t- give him one, but would give him (Boyle) one because- be had seen him before. Witness then said that he wouldn’t have any if the others couldn't, lie did not hit Palmer, but scratched his face in grabbing his chin. He denied saying there would be a smash if they were not served. The row only lasted about five minutes. When the police came, they walked out. Ronald Healey stated that Palmer hit Job in the eye and had smacked at Boyle. Palmer gave them all a drink. He had not had more than

six long shandies that day. Palmer told them to leave the premisesAvhen they asked for the second drink, two or three minutes later. Would swear that Palmer had served the three of them with drinks. •

The Magistrate stated that the evidence Was very conflicting, but nevertheless the accused were illegally on licensed premises, and had been asked to leave, but refused, and had argued about the drinks. There was no reason for the licensee to strike any of the accused if they had been behaving quietly. In all probability Healey did not get what he deserved. The Magistrate further went on to say that Foxton seemed to have a good number of “hangersron” and “wasters” about the hotels, and that these men were a nuisance and a source of trouble. There was sufficient evidence, however, to convict, and both accused would he fined £5 each, and costs 225.

Mr Cooper asked for time to pay, and pointed out that owing to lack of work hardship was inflicted on the men.

The Magistrate was .of opinion that men who colld frequent hotels for drinks were not deserving of consideration in this respect. He said that in future cases of conviction he would send them to gaol without the option of a fine. A month would be given in which to pay the fines.