BULL IN A CHINA SHOP

DISTURBANCE AT HINDON. CROCKERY SUFFERS SEVERELY. MAN SEVERELY FINED. An interesting and, at times, amusing caso was heard boloru Mr J. ii. Bartholin mow, S.M., m tho City Polioo Court yesterday morning. On December 21 last year, whilo a number of men from some miration works in Central Otago were procoucung to town lor tho holidays, a disturbnaoe took placo in the refreshment room at iimdon, and the damage U> property that resuited 6eemi to have approached that arising from the entry of a bull into a china shop. In tho iornial cliargo Joseph Burk and William Leamey were charged with committing mischief, by wilfully damaging 25 oupa and saucers, two sugar basins, and one jug, 25 sandwiches, 0110 bag uf sugar, and ono lady's hat, of a total valuo of £2 Is, the property of Mary Ann Gndgoman. Both men were also charged on a furthor information with behaving in a violent manner to tho annoyance of other persons on a railway. Senior Sergeant Dart conducted tho prosecution. Mr ijcurr upcared for Burk, who pleaded guilty to both charges, and Mr Hanlon appeared for Loamey, this defendant pleading not guilty to both charges. Senior Sergeant Dart outlined the caac. He stated that on the date mentioned the two accused and some others wero coming down tho Otago Central railway, and there seemed to have been a good deal of drinking. All the men had been in the same omployment in Otago Central, and at Hindon they alighted from the tram and entered the refreshment room. A quarrel was started, Leamey being active on the one side and Burk on the other. From tho quarrel matters proceeded to a light, and then cups were knocked over, a bag of sugar was emptied, tea waa spilt over some sandwiches, basins and jugs were broken, and a lady's hat was destroyed. Eventually one of tie guards stopped the disturbance by blowing hia whistle to start the train. Mary Ann Gridgeman, proprietress of the refreshment room at Hindon, stated that she had heard quarrelling and bad language, and witnessed the disturbance. Burk was very drunk and was struck by Leamey, after having said something offensive to him. Thomas Rowa, assistant in the tea-rooms, stated that he gathered from the nature of the quarrel that the others had a grievance against Leamey. Burk aggravated Leamey, and the latter then struck at him. Burk, in returning the Mow, missed Leamey and struck some other unoffending person, who immedately left the room. John Percy Lilly, guard on the train, stated that he saw nothing of the disturbance. In his opinion the men had apparently had some drink, but they were not drunk. Mr Hanlon stated that the case was a most unfortunate one from Leamey's point of view. He was" a ganger on some irrigation works at Moa Creek, and it appeared that he had ordered some of the other men to go and work upon a dam. They had refused, and had since harboured a grudge against Leamey on that account. On the date of the trouble Leamey, though a smoker, bad kept out of tho smoking carriage, and it was only after he had been abused in the tea-ream and called extremely offensive names that he retaliated. Under the circumstances counsel contended that Leamey had not gone outside his rights. Further than that he had refused to pay for tho damage done, as he believed he was not responsible for it. William Leamey, in evidence, averred that he had been " called several things that ho waa not." "Where did Burk strike you?" asked Senior Sergeant Dart, with a view to eliciting what part of his anatomy had received the blow. "In the tea-rooms," was the unexpected reply. The Magistrate said it was apparent from the evidence that Burk and a number of others had shown considerable hostility to Loamey, but there woe nothing to show tho nature of the language used towards him. No man was justified in striking a blow unless language of a most offensive nature was used towards him. Looking at tho whole situation, however, it appeared that the matter had turned out as Mr Hanlon had stated, and the charge against Leamey would therefore be dismissed. Mr Scurr urged on behalf of Burk that he had merely been tho tool of others, who, counsel believed, wero as much concerned m tho matter as the accused. The Magistrate eaid he could not regard Bark as being the dupe of others, as he seemed to be one of the most aggressive persons in the disturbance. If others wero concerned in the affair they could recognise their responsibility by sharing the penalty. On the charge of violent behaviour Burk would be fined £2 and costs (7s), in default 14 days' imprisonment, and on the other charge he would be fined £2, and ordered to make good the damage, amounting to £2 Is, in default one month's imprisonment.