HUNTLY ASSAULT CHARGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 138, 12 June 1926, Page 9

HUNTLY ASSAULT CHARGE.

m # .. \ JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. j (From Our Own Correspondent.) HUNTLY, this day. I A case of great interest to residents, of Te Kauwhata was heard before Mr.' Wyvern Wilson. S.M., when Patrick McCarthy pir. Clavis) sued Paul Restoir (Mr. Seymour) for £2."> general damages and 10/fi s]iecial damages for injury caused through an alleged assault. Plaintiff, a butcher at Te Kauwhata. i- one of a local committee in charpe of the Memorial Hall, the picture rights of which are leased to defendant Reston. A condition of the lease is that sawdust should be spread on the floor prior to every picture performance, and plaintiff was authorised by his committee to see that this was carried out. On the Saturday evening, at 0..'50 o'clock, and during tlie showing ol the pictures, plaintiff on his mission of sawdust inspection entered

the hall, informed Reston that he had arrived, and commenced to light matches to aid him in his inspection. As fast as witness lit up defendant blew the lights out, and finally. gently but firmly, propelled McCarthy outside. At* 10.30 McCarthy again returned, this time whilst the hall was being swept out. and was again ejected —this time because he laid hands on the pianist (a man). Later, during a visit to the lobby of the hall, a scuffle ensued between th_ parties, and this time plaintiff wa-> pushed right out into the road, and, as a witness for plaintiff remarked, was ''smacked in the beak" by Reston. Hostilities then ceased, and the present case was the result. During tbe hearing of the case it transpired that a certain amount of drinking had taken place. In summing up, his Worship stated that the cause of all the trouble was that plaintiff, though not drunk, was in a state of excitement caused through drink, and that the time selected for his "ridiculous errand of looking for sawdust in the dark" was unreasonable. Defendant had acted in a reasonable manner, and had, in fact, only protected himself. His action did not In law constitute assault, and judgment would be for defend.nit with costs £S G/4.