A STREET PARADES.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 3804, 15 April 1913, Page 2

A STREET PARADES.

the cast, nr.ro:;e tttk m v;:> TRATE. TWO MEN fixed. The sequel to an incident which oe(iiiTcd in Olad'.tono Road eariv on Saturday evening was heard before Mr W. A. Barton. S.M.. yesterday, when Arthur Hawnd and John Stanton Gilford were charged with having used threatening heharior, whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned, the former pleading guilty and Gilford, for whom Mr Willork appeared, not guilty. .Senior Serge. Hutton cut 'd.

Constable Smart said that at- Did p.m. on Saturday, he was at the earner of Reel Street- and Gladstone Hoad and was attracted by loud screaming. 11“ found the two ae:used in gii]i< and Hawnd was bleeding at the chin. To Mr- Wi 1 lock (who a,.poured ~ r Gilford;: lie saw Gilford strike blows as well as Hawnd.

The accused Hawnd said ha knew Gilford well and saw biin at the- British Empire Hotel on Saturday. 11-' bad an altercation witli Gilford and tie* latter ran away. They met in the street afterwards and Gilford smr-k him.

To Mr Willed'. : The pah" had "nerds" before Gilford .struck him. Witness had too much drink in. Senr.-Sergt. Hutton gave evidence regarding the arrest of the two accused. Hawnd was covered by a good deal of blood. Gilford denied having .struck Hawnd in the street, hut admitted having struck them elsewhere. To Mr Wiiluck: Gilford was M,belaud Hawnd drunk,

Mr Willock pleaded that Gilford had acted under great provocation and purely in sell-defence. Accused Gilford gave evidence to tliu effect that Hawnd had interfered with him in the hotel, became abusive, and caused the whole trouble. It was only after Hawnd had used filthy and abusive language that witness struck him. In the street lie tried to resist Hawnd’s attempts to strike him.

A voting man railed as a witness, said iio saw the pair when the altercation took place. Gil lord was standing and Hawnd attacked him. Gilford merely tried to break away from Hawnd. who was under the influence of liquor. His Worship said that no doubt Hawnd was chiefly responsible lor the trouble, and as he had been more to blame than Gilford, there, would If a difference in the. penalties. Hawnd was fined C2 and costs. (2s) or relays’ imprisonment, and Gilford was mulcted in a fine of Cl and costs (2s) or J (lavs’.