AN UNSEEMLY BRAWL.

Taihape Daily Times, Issue 160, 8 September 1916, Page 4

AN UNSEEMLY BRAWL.

VENTILATED IN COURT.

FAULTS ON BOTH SIDES

DEFENDANT FINED TEN SHILLINGS.

At the Taihape Magistrate's Court I yesterday, a railway employee named R. Good, was charged with assaulting C. S. Crothers,, another railway employee. His Worship, Mr J. L. Hewitt, presided. C. S. Crothers, an engine driver, stated that he was standing on the Eailway Station at about 7.25 p_m. on the 31st August, when Good approached him and used obscene and insulting language to him. Afterwards Good walk,ed over in front of witness to Healey 's boardinghouse, and near the house he struck witness, who retaliated. A few people came over from the station platform, and witness then turned and went into the house. About 9.10 p.m. he was on his way back to ( work, and was walking towards the engine shed, when he heard footsteps behind him. Good confronted him and used more insulting language, and said he was "going to fix" him. Blows were struck and witness fell, striking his head in the rails* Good hitting him as he lay. Then Good and his companions went away; witness proceeded to the office and reported the matter to Mr Taylor. Cross-examined, witness stated he did not call Good a certain insulting name. Early in the evening witness had crossed to the boardinghouse after Good, but was not following him. Defendant was not sitting on a windowsill when witness got there. If witnesses said a stand-up fight had taken place, he would deny it. He had not thrown stones at Good. It was untrue that he was under the influence of liquor at the time, but he had had o couple of drinks. He was not in a fighting mood at the time, and had not been mixed up in trouble of the kind before.

James Taylor, locomotive foreman, gave evidence to the effect that about P. 20 p.m. on the night in question, Crothers had reported to him that he had been assaulted by Fireman Good. Complainant at the time was in a bad state,, and his face was bleeding. To Mr Ongley: It was quite possible that "the wounds could have been .caused in fighting. u ;Constable Manley stated that from information received, he had gone to the''engine-shed and had seen Crothers, who was covered with blood. There was a'large lump over the right temple, which was stated to have been caused by Crother's falling on the line when he was struck. On the following morning witness had seen Grood, who stated he had been kicked and struck by Crothers. Good showed no signs of having been knocked about. ; For the defendant, Arthur Rollins, a fireman, gave -evidence thaft there had been an argument, between the two men on the station. Good went across the road, and the other man followed him. Witness also, .went across, and when he got there, Crothers was kicking Good. The former, who was in a fighting mood, afterwards Avent away.

To the Police: Witness did not do anything to help Good; he thought Good was able to look after himself. He did not know what had led- up to the incident. ....->

Ernest Blockley, a telegraph . messenger, stated that, he had heard the argument between the two men on the Eailway Station, and had heard Crothers say to Good, "We'll fight it out," but Good had replied, "I wouldn't light the likes of you. They then separated, and witness., after clearing the telegraph box on the station, started to return to the Post Office. He saw there was further trouble between the two men, who were then near Healey's Boardinghouse. Good was guarding against punches from Crowther. Witness had to return to the Post Office, and did not want to see any more.

Walter McDermid, a cleaner employed on the railways, also gav e evidence as to the fracas outside Healey 's. Good was sitting on a window-sill, and the two men were arguing the) point, Crothers struck Good, who fell 1 , and then Crothers jumped on him. That night witness had been to the engineshed and was coming away when he saw the two men righting. Good was knocked down. He got up and went away, Crothers, meanwhile, throwing stones at him.

To the Police: Witness admitted that he had told Constable Manley that he knew nothing about the affair.

Eoy McKersay also gave evidence. Crothers had used bad language on the station, and there had been an argument. Witness corroborated the statements of other witnesses as to the trouble outside Healey's.

To the Police: He had not heard Good say that he would see Crothers when the hitler was going to work. Leonard Matthews, an aeting-fira-man, said he had not known anything of the first trouble. On his way home thai evening, he was with McDermid, Good, McKersay and Kcilins. They stood talking near tiso line while Good proceeded on. He beard a noise, and the two were lighting. Good had io get out, and Crothers threw stones at Mm, and tad tad n S« a S e *

To the Police: He had had a rough, idea that something would happen, as Good had said he would like to meet Crothers. He understood that Good, was going to the engine-shed to find out from the sheet what duty lie was on the following day. Witness htrf! seen Crothers going down ahead, and had thought it would be a good place to le out of. ™ Defendant gave evidence similiar to that of th e other witnesses. He had spoken to Crothers on the station, but the latter swore at him_ Witness then went across to Healey's, to wait for Rollins, and Crothers- had come over and said he A mix-up followed. About 9.10 p.m.. "he was going towards the engine-shed, so that he could sec the duty sheet. He met Crothers,, who again used strong language, and a fight ensued. Both of them had fallen. The defendant had a number of marks on his body. To the Police: Defendant denied that he was of a quarrelsome nature. Mr Taylor (re-called) stated that when complainant reported the case he was quite sober. Constable Mank-y, re-called, gave evidence to the effect that complainant was sober. His Worship said that the whole question was whether Good went out on th e second occasion to square up the trouble that had occurred. The other witness had given reasons for beingtogether. When a man got into trouble and three or four got togetjier,. jprobnbly something had been saijd about squaring up, as non e of them had seen the fight_ It all led to the conclusion that good had gone out to square-up the thing. There were probably faults on both sides on the first occasion, but when one man went looking for trouble the second time, he was responsible. Defendant would be fined 10s.