TROUBLES OF A NONUNIONIST.

Auckland Star, Volume XXII, Issue 6, 8 January 1891, Page 5

TROUBLES OF A NONUNIONIST.

A man Bamed Charles Jacob was charged ab the Police Court this morning with having, on the 6th of January, unlawfully assaulted Thomas James North, on board the s.s. Wakatipu, by striking him with his clenched fist.

Colonel Haultain and Mr S. Y. Collins were on the Bench. Mr Hudson Williamson appeared for the complainant, and Mr W. J. Napier for the defendant. T. J. North deposed that he was second cook on thes.s. Wakatipu. About6o'clock on the morning in question he was in bhe galley when bhe defendanb came to him, and saying that he would stop his growling struck him violently in the face, and knocked him down senseless. Witness had nob provoked the assault. He was a non-Unionist, and defendant belonged to a Union. He was certain bhab he would be drowned before he got to the Barrier, therefore he wanted defendant bound over to keep the peace. Wibness had been frequenbly threatened by the other men. By Mr Napier : Witness could not give the name of the men who had threatened him. The men did say thab witness did nob cook the food properly. He had been compelled to sleep on deck for fear of being "shipped." Wibness had growled bhab morning because the fire was not properly lit. Witness did nob strike defendanb with the poker. The poker and he tumbled down together, witness having his arms round it. The defendant did nob say that he struck witness because he was a non-Unionist.

Mr Williamson said thab was all the evidence he could adduce..

Mr Napier conbended that there was nothing to show that this was a question of Union and non-Unionist. He thought that it was unwise at such a late period to suggest that any man's life was made unbearable because he was a non-Unionist, seeing that during the late strike there had nob been a single instance of assault committed upon a non-Unionisb in Auckland. The defendant was sworn, and stated that he was a steward on the Wakatipu. On the morning in question he was in the galley and saw complainant under the influence of drink. Some words ensued, whereupon the complainant struck at him with a fish slicer. The chief cook took this weapon from him, whereupon North seized the chopper, and had it not been for the chief cook he would have been struck with it. Witness then struck North in self-defence three or four times. Witness had not heard North threatened because he was a non-Unionist. As a matter of fact witness was not himself a Unionist.

Mr Napier was going to call further evidence when the Bench intimated that it was not required and dismissed the case, each party to pay their own costs.