FRACAS IN A STABLE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 330, 4 March 1910, Page 2

FRACAS IN A STABLE.

COURT PROCEEDINGS. At the Polite Court yesterday a young man named Fred Loveridge, a whan" laborer, was charged, on the illformation of Thomas Stewart, groom at W. H. Jury's stables, with having on the evening of 23rd February assaulted complainant. Mr. QuiUiam appeared for complainant and Mr. Stamli»h for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. All witnesses were ordered out of court. According to the case as outlined by Mr. Quilliam, the fracas arose out of a prohibition order that Mrs. Loveridge (defendant's mother) was taking out against her husband. She lived at the back of the stable, and had an idea that complainant and the other employees were going to employ counsel to object to the issue of the order. There was ; however, no truth in the rumor. In the afternoon she had spoken very strongly to some of the men on the subject, and went away. In the evening she returned with lier son just as complainant arrived with his cab. He went about his duties. Mrs. Loveridge called to him several times, bnt he did not respond till his work was fhiisned. He then went up to her. She asked him what he meant by interfering about the prohibition order, but he stated that he knew nothing about it. Defendant then, without warning, rushed and struck liim two heavy blows in the eye, and seriously cut one of his eyes with a ring, so that he had to consult a doctor. Complainant then tried to protect himself, and may possibly have hit defendant in 1 doing so. Defendant then ran away. Complainant rung up the police and wanted to give Loveridge in charge, hut as the fracas occurred on private property the police could not interfere, and these proceedings were taken. Complainant's evidence was corroborative of this. To Mr. Standish: Defendant struck him first. It was not true that he rushed at Loveridge and struck him first. Defendant said, "AH you get the old man here for is to fill him up with beer and get him to do your work," and then struck him two blows. To Mr. Quilliam: He had taken no steps to prevent Mrs. Loveridge obtaining a prohibition Order against her husband. This closed complainant's case. Fred Loveridge, defendant, stated that he came in with his 1 mother on the evening in question from Moturoa. He was going to Hewitt's Pictures. He went to the stable's with his mother; his sister-in-law and his sister were with them, but they remained outside. Witness and his mother went just inside the stables, and his mother called out several times, but complain ant took no notice. He was talking to witness' father lower down the stable. When within about twelve yards witness' called out, "Why don't you act like a man and speak to the woman?" Complainant asked very emphatically | what business it was of his, and rushed and struck him, cutting his eye. Witjness retaliated, and when complainant j found he was getting the worst of it he called out to witness' father to ring [ for the police. Stewart was a bigger man than witness, but witness did his best. 1

To Mr. Quilliam; He knew his mother had been to fhe stables in the afternoon, but did not know it was with the intention oi causing a row. He was a bit annoyed with' complainant for not replying to his mother. This was not his first experience; he had been fined for assaulting a groom about four years ago when lie was about seventeen. He had never struck his father with a chair.

i Mr. Standish: What was your reason .for hitting your father! 1 The Magistrate: Xo man can have any reason for hitting his father under any (circumstances; a man must 'be , very bad indeed to do so. I Mrs. Emma Loveridge corroborated her son's evidence as to Stewart getting in the first blow. She tried to part them, as she was afraid her boy would get killed—a man of forty against a boy of twenty. She had gone to the stable to ask Stewart if it was' true he was getting a lawyer to appear for her husband, as if so she would have to get one, too. There had been disputes in the home through the father's drinking, but she had never seen her son strike him. To the Magistrate: She thought she (had a right to take her &>n with her. j She did not know why the rest went. To Mr. Quilliam: She was annoyed Jn the afternoon, but was not excited in the evening. To Mr. Standish: Her son had one mark. She did not notice complainant's marks. Mrs. May Loveridge, sister-in-law, corroborated the evidence as to Stewart striking first blow. The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said he believed defendant struck the first blow. It seemed a strange thing for the whole family to go to the stables. Defendant had admitted being hot-tempered, and there was no doubt he had assaulted complainant in a fit of passion. He~"would advise him to put a curb on his temper, or he would get inco serious' trouble. He would be convicted and fined 40s and costs 21s, in default seven days' imprisonment. Half the amount of fine was ordered to be given to complainant. Defendant was given a fortnignt to pay the fine.