A SEAMEN’S DISPUTE.IN

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2350, 17 November 1908, Page 6

A SEAMEN’S DISPUTE.IN

CHARGES OF ASSAUI-T

The matter of a quarrel between two local seamen was investigated at the S.M. Court yesterday morning by Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M., when Ivenetli Murray McGregor proceeded against one Donald Bain for having, on September 7, assaulted him, and' riie informant further sought to have defendant bound over to keep the peace. Air. J. 11. Kirk appeared for the informant, and defendant was represented by Air. W. L. llecs. Mr. Kirk outlined the circumstances of the case and called theinformant-

Kenneth Murray McGregor, who said that on the night of the 7th inst. he returned to liis home in llangi St. about 10.20. Defendant was his neighbor, and' when lie was passing defendant he heard him using bad language. Defendant was standing at the dividing fence throwing things at his (witness’) dog. On being spoken to defendant, who was under t-lie influence of liquor, replied, threatening witness that he rvould “do for him.” Defendant then jumped over, into witness’ garden ,and threw off his hat and coat, hut- witness’ friend inter-: posed. Defendant used very abusive language, and would not leave the premises although requested to do so. After -arguing for :a time witness was standing with his -hands in his pockets and defendant aimed -a blow at him and struck him on the side of the head. Witness then struck defendant twice rapidly, and defendant returned to the -attack several times, each time being fended off by witness. Eventually a man named Sharp took •defendant away and witness went to the police station to lay- information. To-Mr Itees: Defendant never complained to him about the dog having attacked’ him. He was quite sure that'defendant struck him first before he knocked him down. He- did not kick defendant when he was on the ground, nor did he teli a man named Knowles (that he was inclined to “boot” him. To the Bench: He did not use any more violence to defendant than was necessary for self protection. lie was a peacable man and always had been. llodolphus Richardson, a coopei, gave similar evidence as to the as ga-ult ,and said that a couple of days: later defendant came to him’ aim asked how the row started. On bcini told, defendant said: “I must have been drunk, but it- is an okl grievance.” Defendant further said that he would see informant and endeavor to get him to go down the beach and settle the matter entirely. To Mr Bees: No mention was made about the conduct of.the dog. This concluded the informant s case, and for "the -defence — Jesse William Sharp said that about 9.45 he was in bed when defendant’s wife told -him there was :a disturbance outside and asked him to go out. He did so and saw defendant -and informant walking round , each other in :a -fighting attitude. Defendant said to informant: “You hit me and I will hit you.” Informant then knocked defendant down on several occasions. He heard the dog bark before he (witness) got out of bed; but- he could not say if defendant had spoken to informant about the dog. The dog was a nuisance, and now at people, barking ivhen they came into the house by the .back entrance. At the time of the assault blows were struck by both parties. Next day de r fend ant bore the appearance of hav : ing been, severely punished. James Knowles, mariner, said tlial on the morning of the Bth inst, he s aw the informant in his own yard. He siid to informant that.it was very shabby of -him to knock defendant about -as he Iliad done. Informant said he had good cause to strike defendant, and that he--had been thinking of “putting the boot into him.” Air Rees pointed out that the .evidence of the witnesses had been given in a straightforward: manner. _ Defendant had l been severely punished by informant, quite sufficiently, counsel contended, without being brought to Court for further punishment. Air Kirk said he did- not wish to press for a heavy penalty, but in fairness to -his client he asked that informant should be able to go a 1 out- town unafraid of molestation by defen hint, who had threatened to “see the matter to a finish.”

Bis Worship said that it was quite clear tliat defendant Bain was the aggressor in the matter, land menced the attack. He did not think that McGregor had used any more force than was necessary to repel the attacks of the defendant. It was also clear that Bain had heen under the influence of liquor, and he (His Worship) was quite sure that if there had been no liquor there would have been no disturbance. He would not order. Bain to find sureties that he- would keep the peace, as to do so might place 'Bain in a very awkward position. Defendant 'would be fined £1 witii £1 17s costs, but he would have to clearly .understand that if ho aga in committed a Leach of the. peace, ho would he severely dealt with. A counter charge of assault brought by. defendant against informant, was d'isxtßss&d'with #1 costs.