FLAXMILL HANDS COME TO BLOWS.

Shannon News, 18 January 1929, Page 3

FLAXMILL HANDS COME TO BLOWS.

aggressor fined. Two flax-mills-employed at Te Mukanui mill, Tokomavu, came to blows or. the afternoon of December 7. They were Peter Galloway and Henry Cuthbert Stokes. The former came out of the encounter a little worse than his opponent, and had to seek the attention of a doctor. He also infoimeu the Police of the affair with the result that yesterday Stokes was arraigned before two Justices on a charge of assault and causing actual bodily harm. Mr H. R. Cooper appeared for defendant and it was agreed to deal with the case summarily instead of entailing the expense of the Supreme Court, action. Peter Galloway deposed that- he and Stokes were working'at -Tokoniai-u as fibre yardmen. Part of their duty was to push out fibre poles. One pole slipped and Stokes called _hiin a stupid \y —. Witness resented the allegations whereupon Stokes slashed him. with the hook he used instead of his lost hand. The hook' caused a cut on his chest and cuts on the face and he had to "ct medical attention. There had been no ill-feeling between Stokes and himself. As a result- of the injuries witness was off work for a day and alialf. . i ~ . To Mr Cooper witness said that after the poles had been pushed out, they went on loading fibre. He told Stokes he would not allow anyone ,to call, him the names used whereupon accused came at him and he was obliged to strike out in defence. Edward Love joy Patrick said he had known Galloway nine months and Stokes for a number of years. Both wove quiet men. Harold Parr, who saw part of the fig), i, considered. Stokes the aggressor. Ga.Howay finally succeeded ir. getting hold of the hook and it came out of Stokes’ arm. Galloway was, an inoffensive sort of fellow. To Mr Cooper witness said he heard Stokes call Galloway a little Scotch ■ b—."''.The scrap) lasted. about three minutes. . iMr Cooper, submitted that the affair was more of , a storm in a tea-cup.. A lot had been said about Stokes using the hook in his amputated arm, but nothing had been said of Galloway tackling a man who had »an injured limb. The tiv.o had been described as decent fellows and after the fight lnid gone on working side by side. Stoke’s evidence would be that Galloway made a rush, at him. Arthur John McClure said he had a good view of the fight and the first he saw was Galloway rushing at Stokes.

Mr Cooper: .1 suppose it is a common thing to have a fight down at the mill.

Witness: That-was the first I have seen for two years down there. Stoker entered the witness box to say that he didn’t remember calling Gl-ailoway names, but he may have done. If he did use the words alleged, he had had no intentions of hurting his feelings. After pushing out the poles both returned to the unloading shed. Galloway then came up to him and asked witness if he had called him a b —? “I replied yes,” said witness, “whereupon Galloway stated he would allow' nobody to call him that and came at me. I went over the truck and Galloway grabbed my hook which came out leaving the sheath which is iron-bound at the end. It was that which caught Galloway. After we had been going, at it. a while -Galloway called out to cut it. out and We stopped. We then went on with our work.”

Dr. Hunter Will stated that on examining Galloway he found him suffering from abrasions of the cheek, chest and back. There was no necessity for stitches although the injuries were' evidently caused by something hairier than a fist.

The. Bg.nch considered Stokes was the aggressor but Viewed the. offence lightly. They entered a conviction with a 10s fine. Witnesses’ expenses amounted to £1 9s 6d,