VICTORY DAY DISTURBANCES.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 August 1919, Page 3

VICTORY DAY DISTURBANCES.

DEMONSTRATIONS AGAINST ! HINDOO FftUITERERS. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. W. 11. McKean, S.M., .Ernest Arthur Phillips, fruiterer, Devon street, New Plymouth, was chaged with assaulting Wallabh, Soma Moral, a. Hindoo carrying on business as a fruiterer in premises adjoining those of defendant. The alleged occurrence took place on the afternoon of July ID. Sub-Inspector Hutton prosecuted and Mr. A. A. Bennett appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Sub-Inspector Hutton said the ease was the outcome of a disturbance which tooL place on the afternoon of July 11) 'Peace Celebrations Day—outside the shop of two Hindoos. The Moral Bros:, opened their shop about 4 o'clock and Phillips went to them and asked them why they had opened up before 0 o'clock. His attitude was such that it attracted a crowd about him, and there was a demonstration. Phillips had subsequently shut the door of Moral's shop and struck one of the Morals on the head. Constables Nolan and Small had come on the scene and warned accused about his conduct and advised him to get into his own premises and stay there, Wallabh Soma Moral, fruiterer, Devon street, stated that on July 19 ho opened his shop about 4.30 p.m. Phillips came in and said to him "Shut your shop." There were some customers in the shop. The door was open, and Phillips pulled it shut, breaking the wire by which it was held. Ho swore at witness and also struck him on the head, Accused went away, and then witness shut his shop. Witness' brother was present at the time. Phillips did not come back to his shop after that. Phillips was under the influence of liquor at the time To Mr. Bennett: He was not aware that the fruiterers had agreed to shut their shops on Peace Day between 11 o'clock and 0 pin. He knew Phillips' shop wps shut, but lie thought the Chinamen's shops were open. Witness was inside his shop when 'Phillips struck him. Phillips was not concerned in the row which took place later in the evening.

To Sub-Inspector Hution: He opened his shop again at C o'clock, but closed it about 15 minutes later, and remained closed. Phillips' shop was opened after ij o'clock.

David Nahna Moral, brother of the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence.

Constable Nolan stated that at 5 p.m. on July 19 he was called to the corner whero accused's shop was. Phillips was in front of the Morals' shop, and appeared hostile, on account of their shop being open. Phillips was under the influence of liquor. Witness warned accused, and ho eventually went to his own shop.

To Mr. Dennett; Phillips appeared in a very hostilo mood. Witness could not say exactly what Phillips was saying lie was very talkative. He did not see Phillips shut Moral's door, or strike Moral, and knew actually nothing about the charge of assault.

Mr. Bennett explained that the charge against accused had nothing whatever to do with a subsequent the same evening, when somewhat more serious damage resulted. It was admitted by the Morals that Phillips did not come back after being warned by Constable Nolan. What 'Phillips had done had been done in good faith, and for the good of the Hindoos. He saw that by their shop being open they were provoking the hostility of a certain section of the community and he advised them to chut their premises to save further trouble.

Accused save evidence to the effect that when he came back to his shop in the afternoon of Juiy 19, lie saw a crowd in front of Moral Bros,, and on the impulse of the moment he went and urged them to shut their shop in order to save trouble. Witness pulled the door, but he did not remember shutting it. He in u y have touched one of the Morals when he pulled the door, but he did not remember striking one of them. They "shaped up" to witness. Constablo Nolan- eaine along and asked what all tho trouble was about, and told witness to get into his own place. He went into his shop and was there till eleven o'clock tho same, night. He could not understand why people said he was under tho influence of liquor. He had only one drink during the day. To Sub-Inspector Hutton: He was not in the habit of "nipping." He remained inside his own shop all the rest of the after being warned by Constable Nolan. He remembered Constable Small speaking to him, but thought he was with Constable Nolan. He had no recollection of using any force against either of the Morals. He saw nothing of the subsequent demonstration though he heard some commotion. He did not see another man arrested. He did not remember being warned that lie. would be arrested if he did not keep inside his shop. To the Magistrate: He remembered Constable Nolan warning him, and also Constable Small speaking to him. He was under the impression that both constables came to him together, Kthel Annie Phillips, wife of accused, gave evidence to the effect that Jier husband was quite sober at the time of the occurrence. She said her husband stood on the footpath all the time, and did not go inside Morals' shop. When the second row occurred her husband was in the collar getting out bananas. She remembered making' the remark: "Thank God the boss is in the cellar."

The Magistrate said there was evidence that an assault had been committed by accused against one of the SJorals- He was not satisfied with Phillips' explanation, and thought he must have been in a somewhat excited state at the time. lie was convicted and fined the sum of 10s (costs 19s).

As an outcome of a disturbance which took place outside the Morals' shop later the same evening, Andrew Williams was charged with assaulting David N. Moral. Accused pleaded guilty and was fined 20s (costs 7s). A charge of wilfully damaging 20 bottles of lemonade, the .property of W. S. Moral, against Williams was withdrawn.

W. 11. Doyle was charged with assaulting W. S. Moral, and also with breaking 20 bottles of lemonade valued at (is Bd, and with breaking a pane of glass valued at 20s, the property of W. S. Moral. He pleaded guilty to all charges, admitting that drink was the cause of his actions. He was willing to pay for the damage done. On the first charge, accused was convicted and fined the sum of 20s (costs 7s). On the other charges he was convicted and ordered to pay costs, and the amount, of the damage done, a total of £2 0a Bd.