FISH AND CHIPS !

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 77, 28 October 1916, Page 7

FISH AND CHIPS !

BILLINGSGATE IN BROADWAY. JAKES V. ASPLUND. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Messrs J. W. Boon and A. W. Reid, J.P.’s, Ivan Asplund, of Broadway, was charged that on 25th October last, he did wilfully and without just cause, injure and destroy part of the property of one Henry Jakes, to wit, the plate-glass door in his shop Broadway. He was further charged that ho did wilfully assault Henry Jakes without just cause. Prosecutor was represented by Air A. Coleman (Rutherford, Macalister and Coleman). Mr T. C. Fookss appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty to both charges. Counsel briefly role ted the facts that prosecutor took over a fish business in Broadway from Air J. Bowen. PROSECUTOR’S STORY.

Prosecutor, in his evidence, said ho took over the fish business from Bowen a fortnight last Monday. On Tuesday, 17th October, accused walked in his shop and started cleaning in the back yard. AVitness told him not to do so, and accused used bad language, got excited, and said he would push all witness’s belongings later into- the yard, and he did so. When the police arrived, the goods had been removed to their place again. Next day prosecutor anticipated further trouble and stood outside the shop. Accused turned oft' the water in the shop, and prosecutor told him not to do so, and then turned the water on again. On doing so, accused seized witness and turned him out of the shop. Being afraid to re-enter the shop alone,! prosecutor induced a friend of his named Bonner to go in and get his coat. When Bonner was opening the door to leave, accused laid hands on witness. Accused had no interest in the business. In cross-examination, witness said accused was not to heip in the business. No arrangement was made as to accused sleeping on the premises. A stretcher was found on the premises. There had been no dealings with accused. AVitness had a banking account at,the National Bank. On tbe advice of his jawyer he had handed the takings to him “for safe custody.” On the night of the row, accused locked himself in and then put his arm through the glass door. There had been a rough and tumble and witness walked out of shop. Accused called prosecutor and others outside of the shop “a dirty lot of Germans.” • . ,■ THE WITNESSES. John Zurcher gave evidence of prosecutor having been pushed out of his shop “fairly quick.” AVitness did not know what happened inside the shop. William Bonner gave evidence that on the evening in question he saw prosecutor with his coat off, and was informed that he had been pushed out of his shop. Witness went to prosecutor’s shop and entered the kitchen. AVitness was leaving when accused caught hold of Jakes, and there .was a souffle between accused and prosecutor.

Joseph McCluggage gave ’ evidence that he negotiated the sale of Bowen’s business to Mr's Asplund and Jakes, both of whom paid £75 as equal partners. Witness stated that in consequence of what happened he rang up the police.

LITTLE PARTNERSHIP DISPUTE,

Mr Fookes briefly addressed the Bench in defence, and narrated that in consequence of legal difficulties the business transactions had to bo re-modelled. The root of the trouble was that prosecutor was against the accused through all the transactions. When prosecutor’s belongings were put in the yard it was the intention of accused to replace them, and they had been replaced when the police arrived. In pursuance of instructions from the mother', accused closed the door. The assault arose through the closing of the door, Mrs Asplund desiring one thing and prosecutor another. As to the assault, there was no actual injury done, no violence or punching, and no threatening whatever. r ! here was only a private quarrel, a little partnership dispute. H. E. Lawrence, solicitor, gave evidence as to acting professionally for all parties with regard t 0 the preparation of a lease and other documents. Prosecutor was to be on wages until his discharge as a bankrupt. All the interest in the lease was vested in Mrs Asplund. Witness said in reply to Mr Coleman, prosecutor definitely stated that the accused was to have nothing whatever to do with the business. THE ASPLTJNDS. Ivan Asplund, accused, stated he was his mother’s adviser relating to the purchase of this fish business. He arranged to do certain work with the approval of the prosecutor. On 25th October he started to clean up the backyard. Prosecutor objected, and being short tempered ho said to prosecutor, “You go to ——. Witness insisted on being at the shop and did all lie could to keep the place clean and to assist his mother. Witness kept the books. When witness turned off the water, prosecutor objected. Later prosecutor left, and then, on finding the door closed, witness endeavored to open it but in doing so broke the glass in the door. His mother was an Englishwoman, and his father a naturalised Russian. Witness had ha 1 experience in connection with Chinese import business in Auckland. Emma Sophia Asplund stated that . her son was there to look alter the

books. Throughout the arrangements, prosecutor objected to her sou being , about the premises. ! ! A STORM IN A TEA-CUP. Afr Fookes, in pleading for the defence, said that Mrs Asplund was «--e interested person, and when the window was broken in the door she had the glass replaced. Jakes showed rei sentment throughout. It was Mrs Asplund alone who was legally quali.bility. The case was one of imichI fieri to full ; hare of the responsi-ado-about-iiothing, simply a storm in a teacup and a ventilation of prvate disputes. | ACCUSED FINED £l. j After Counsel had been heard on the legal points, the Bench retired, and then announced that as Mr iJakes had no legal standing in the . business, he would be non-suited. As to the charge of assault, the accused would be fined £1 and costs.