ATTACK IN STREET

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 755, 30 August 1929, Page 11

ATTACK IN STREET

DEFENCE ALLEGES PROVOCATION COMPLAINANT WARNED “He had no right to assault a man in the public street,” said Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., at the Police Court this morning of Walter E. Adams. “If it were not that he was out of work, I should fine him £5.” A fine of £2 and costs was imposed. Adams, a young man, was with assaulting Robert William Holden on July 27. Mr. Singer appeared for him and entered a plea of not guilty. According to Holden’s story, he had been attacked by Adams on his way home from the pictures in Pohsonby Road. Witness had seen Adams with his wife and brother-in-law at the pictures. They had left before the end of the programme, evidently taking the woman home. The men had accosted him in Collingwood Street and Adams had attacked him without provocation, knocking him down. Collingwood Street was in the opposite direction to Adams’s home and there was no reason why he should be in the street at that time of the night. Adams had lat»r admitted the assault in the presence of a police sergeant. “He seemed proud of it,” added witness. Mr. Singer suggested that there was provocation. Holden had boarded at the house owned by defendant’s mother-in-law and had been pestering the women, including Mrs. Adams. Counsel’s explanation of the Collingwood Street affair was that Adams with his brother-in-law, Foley, had gone to remonstrate with Holden over his conduct. He had threatened them with a handful of stores. “Did you not say that you could fight both of them at once?” asked Mr. Singer of witness. Holden: No, but I could do. Sergeant Felton described complainant’s condition when he called the police. “His face was covered with blood,” said witness. “We went to defendant’s house, where Adam? admitted that he was responsible. He said that he had gone down Collingwood Street on business and that Holden had thrown stones at him and provoked an argument. Mr. Singer called evidence alleging that Holden frequently arrived home the worse for liquor when he was boarding at Mrs. Foley’s house. He had abused the two women and threatened them. He had persisted in that conduct after leaving the house and had annoyed Mrs. Foley on the day preceding the meeting with Adams. The magistrate refused to suppress Adams’s name, but gave him a week in which to pay the fine.

“You keep away from that family,” was the magistrate’s warning to complainant.