A FIGHT IN COURT.

Taihape Daily Times, Issue 220, 5 February 1917, Page 3

A FIGHT IN COURT.

SOLICITORS COME TO BLOWS. FINED FOB CONTEMPT OF COURT. MELBOURNE, Jan. 20. During the hearing of the last case on the list at the District Court yesterday a violent quarrel, in which blows were exchanged, took place between the two solicitors representing the parties. The case wap onc * n Emma Lydia charged hen husband, Daniel Lcm, with having left her without adequate means of support. Mr W. C. Manchester appeared for complainant; Mr M. Lazarus for defendant. Mr Lazarus produced receipts to show that defendant had paid to Mr Gribblc, solicitor, of Ballarat, who was acting for complainanti, contributions night up to January 10. Mr Gribble held written authority to act for complainant, Mr W. H. McLorinan, J. P. (chairman) said the receipts produced put the case right out of Court. The ease would be dismissed. After Mr Lazarus had made an unsuccessful application for costs, Mr Manchester rose to address the Court, whereupon Mr Lazarus made a remark to him in an undertone.

Mr Manchester (turning round): You are a liar. (Sensation.) Mr Lazarus (heatedly): You call me a liar and I will punch you. I'll allow no man to call me that. Mr Manchester: You are a liar. Mr Lazarus rushed at Mr Manchester and, slinging his right arm, struck Manchester on the side of the head. The latter fell across the table and the two ""of them grappled together. Sergeant Barbour rushed forward and held 'Mr Manchester). Constable Clapham caught hold of Mr Lazarus. Still both men continued to struggle and punch each other. The whole court was in an uproar. The constables and the solicitors were all mixed up together. All that could be seen of Mr Manchester from the body of the court was his feet resting on the table. When the disturbance had subsided so that he could make himself heard, the 1 chairman of the Bench said it was a disgraceful scene, and such conduct could not be tolerated. Explanations were made by both of the solicitors, but these were considered not to be sufficient. Both men were held to have been guilty of gross contempt of the Court, and were fined £2 2/- each.