OVER THE TEACUPS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 112, 13 May 1926, Page 8

OVER THE TEACUPS.

FEMININE CHARMS DISPUTED!

TRIAL FOR ALLEGED ASSAULT;

Whether a certain young woma_ possessed good looks or not was hotly disputed by two men over the tea cap's one night recently. One of the men held that she was most attractive, and the other held a different opinion. The upshot of it all was that blows followed the argument, which culminated in Eric Gordon Stites being mishandled.

As a result of that assault Edward Patrick Brogan. an exjockey, stood his trial before Mr. Justice Herdman in tha ■Supreme Court charged with asaulting Stite3 so as to cause him actual bodily harm, and further with assaulting him, Mr. Paterson prosecuted and . Mr, Beckerleg appeared for the accused. For tlie Crown it was stated that.tha accused was a boarder in the.house of Stites' mother at Grey Lynn. In ttia. course of an argument over the beauty, of a lady, Stites invited the accused ti ■'have it out.'' While in his bedroom, the accused made an insulting remark to Stite*. The two then engaged if bat'/.-. Stites. it i- alleged, was strnelc with a piece of timber (the defence,said a hairbrush) received a fracture of .tht collar-bone and shoulder blade and other injuries. For the defence it was stated that Stites went home tinder the influence of liquor and picked a quarrel. Mrs. Stites, in evidence, said the accused was not quarrelsome and often left the table to avoid arguments. For three months before the assault het son had played the part of a bully. It was he who brought up the argument describing the girl as the "best looking in Auckland, bar none."' Witness said her son retrrted "what do you know about good -looking sheilas ? She is better looking than jockeys' sheilas and wives."

The evidence of .he two daughters who were present on the occasion traversed that of the mother.

The accused stated that he resented the remarks made concerning women T?Jm l attended the races when Stites broke into his room. He struck Stites on the face with his fist, and also hit him several times on the arm and hand.

His Honor said the ca=e was a comparatively simple one. There was no doubt that Stites was assaulted and ia such a way ;i< to be serioiK. It was also a fact that the accused assaulted Stites. The defence was that the accused was either provoked or that hs assaulted Stites to protect himself. The real question was whether the accused was justified in Using the piece of wood. He would also have to consider that the evidence of the mother of Stites ~"a* biased against her son.

After a retirement of over two hours, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of common assault under provocation.

His Honor remanded the accused until to-morrow for sentence.