STRUGGLE FOR ’PHONE.

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 305, 9 December 1936, Page 4

STRUGGLE FOR ’PHONE.

STRATFORD TAXI-MEN

Story Of Battle Told In Magistrate’s Court.

Friction between drivers on the Stratford taxi-stand which came to a hesd recently in a scuffle in the telephone box, led to the appearance, in the Stratford Court this morning, of Henry John Simpson, charged with assault-* ing Jack Ivan The Magistrate, Mr W. H. Woodward, described the affair as trivial. Simpson was convicted but if there is no further disagreement between the two parties no penalty will be inflicted. Mr N. H. Moss, who appeared for Simpson, said his client would agree to pay witnesses’ expenses without an order being made. Sergeant C. M. Annis prosecuted.

Hooker gave evidence that at about 2.30 p.m. on November 21 he pulled into the stand on which were two j cars. Simpson’s car was about four I spaces below the first car. Simpson was not in sight. Witness took second position. After the ton ear left. Simpson called out to him lb remain where he ■was and let him (Simpson) thke first place. j He pulled into first place, said wit- ’ ness, and Simpson, after pulling into i second place, came up to witness and • said that he had taken the first place i while he (Simpson) was in Hie

‘phone box. When the phone rang witness answered it. Simpson thereupon attempted to pull him out of the box and struck, him several blows with I his fist. There were two people who I saw the incident. He asked them if I they saw film being struck and they I nodded. As he was still being struck i by Simpson he retaliated to the best of his ability. Rule of Stand. The rule on the stand, said witness, was that if a driver was not in attendance on his car and there was

a vacant space, the other drivers took the place . He considered that i he had given no provocation. I Mr Moss: Since you have been on I the stand there has been a great deal I | of- friction?—Yes. i Mr Moss: There have been allegai tions that you have given wrong ini formation. Do you know that? —Yes. I j | If a driver is in the telephone-box, j ; is not that in attendance on his car, t i asked Mr Moss. Witness said he did j not know if Simpson was in the tele-

I phone box. Simpson had plenty of time to pull up to second position, said witness. It had been the practice of Simpson in the past to pull in I ahead of cars if’ tue drivers were not in attendance. i He had not had any serious diffi- > cutties with other drivers, said Hook- | er. He thought that the trouble on I the stand ha drisen only since Simp- • son had been there. Cause of Friction, I Mr Moss pointing out that Simpson i had been on the stand tw4) years i longer than Hooker, expressed .the i opinion that the trouble had only i arisen since Hooker had come to the I stand. I | “That is not so,” said witness. I There was trouble before he joined the stand, he said, and Simpson had committed a similar assault. Re-examined by Sergeant Annis, Hooker said that he was unable to say whether or not Simpson had 1 been in the phone box when he arrived at the stand.

Mr Woodward; Why did you have to strike Simpson?—l had to get out of the box somehow. George Pratt, another taxi driver, who gave a similar description of the incident, considered that. Simpson was the aggressor. | To Mr Moss he said that if a j vacancy' occurred on the stand a car j could pull in over any car, the driver j of which was not in attendance. j Defendant’s Version. ' Simpson, in a written statement. i said that he had been in the phone i box answering a call for another drivjer when Hooker arrived and took j place ahead of him. He had not. said ■ anything then as he thought Hooker ■ would allow him to take first place I when it became vacant. When the i first ear had left, however, Hooker

i had immediately moved over into i ; first place. He called out. to Hooker ; that the position was his but Hooke* I had replied that his car had top place and would remain there. He ; had then said that the next phone j i call was !tis. Just then the phone rang, and both went to answer it. Hooker was ahead and he followed him into the box. Both of them caught hold of the re. • ceiver but Hecker had snatched P i away r,nd struck him on the mouth I with it. He had hit back in self-de-fence. There had been friction on the siand before this and he and other drivers had signed a complaint to the .

Borough Council that Hooker was intercepting calls to other drivers, telling their customers that they were not on the stand. No action had been taken by the council and the matter had lapsed. To Sergeant Annis he stated that witnesses were not in a position to see who had struck the first blow. Sergeant Annis; The box is glass ed —Only on two sides. Witnesses could not see through me and the door. Sergeant Annis asked if Hooker's striking him with the receiver might not have been an accident. Witness replied that, he was prepared to be generous and say that it may nave been accidental. In reply' to further cross-question-ing, wl’ness slated that on occasions he had pulled in as Hooker had done but had always allowed the other man to take his proper place when the next car moved out. It may have been that Ln the struggle Simpson was hit with the receiver, said Mr Woodward. He did not think, however, that Hooker would use the receiver intentionally to strike Simpson. He -was of opinion that Simpson was the aggressor. Simpson was obviously annoyed with Hooker and the matter was one likely to cause irritation. especially' when a man’s whole livelihood depended on his driving. He thought that Simpson, must be “a little choleric.”