AN ASSAULT CASE.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7259, 15 March 1889, Page 3

AN ASSAULT CASE.

At the Resident Magistrate's Court» Christchurch, yesterday, before C. White, foord, R.M., and W. White, jun., J.P., C. M. Gray, hatter, &c., was charged with assaulting Phineas Selig, proprietor of the Referee newspaper. Mr Gresson appeared for the plaintiff, Mr Stringer for the defendant. The plaintiff deposed that on February 18th, about 7.30 or 8 p.m., he was going along Manchester street near the Skating Rink, when someone came up sharply behind him, and, calling out " You Selig," struck him on the head with a stick, knocking his hat into the gutter. Plaintiff turned round and found that his assailant was the defendant, who said " Til teach you to send mc an anonymous letter." Plaintiff then closed with him, and both went down into the gutter, after which they got up, Defendant picked up his hat and wig, which had been knocked off in the scuffle. He said " You Jew; you contemptible sneak ; what's it got to do with you if I go with twenty girls: how dare you threaten to tell my wife?" Plaintiff replied that he did not care how many girls he went with. No doubt as he was a Sunday school teacher and so on, he would take care of them properly and do them no harm. Cross-examined—Defendant jumped out from a vacant section. There was no conversation before the first blow was struck. After being charged with writing an anonymous letter he called defendant a liar. There was a lad present who saw the affair. | Thomas Crompton stated that he was on i the road. He saw one man knock off with his stick the hat of another man. The man who used the stick used bad language —he could not remember what. They both talked loudly. Cross-examined—Plaintiff did not use baa language. Witness heard him say that he had got his (defendant's) name. Witness knew .nothing of what had gone on before he saw the hat knocked off. He was in front, and, hearing loud talk, turned round. After the affair he had been to tbe lodgings of the plaintiff, who asked him what it was about. Hesook down in writing what he replied. He told him that he had heard bad language. Plaintiff reminded him about the hat being knocked off. For the defence, the defendant deposed that he bedeved the plaintiff had a grudge against hfto. because he had refused him " tick " for a white shirt. After that defendant heard from third parties that plaintiff went about making unpleasant remarks about him. Defendant received an anonymous letter on February 16th, of which he suspected plaintiff to be the writer. He had before that received one, and its contents, together with the remarks reported to him by friends, made him connect plaintiff with the last letter. On the night to question he saw plaintiff, and thought he would ask him about it. He had on his overcoat and gloves, and was carrying a stick. He walked quietly up to plaintiff, and asked him did he send him an anonymous letter. Plaintiff said "No." Defendant said, "Thave reason to believe you did." Plaintiff said, "You're a —- liar," and got very excited. He danced around, flourishing his stick, and calling out, " Produce the letter, produce the letter l" He circled nearer, still flourishing his stick, so that defendant thinking he was going to hit him, struck the pi*j»>Hfr with his gloved hand between the eyes. They then closed, and plaintiff pot his head very inartistlcally under-

neath daftadantfs aim, and both went) down, or there might have been a very different termination to the afl&ir. Cross-examined—She first anonymous letter he did not attach much importance to. After the row be fished It out of the waste paper basket, the other, the cause of the row. he had torn up. It read, "Beware of the «Yid' with the gig lamps [plaintiff wears spectacles.! • There Is a watch set upon you; look out for developments." When defendant charged plaintiff he denied having written the letter, but afterwards used an expression which tallied with a phrase in the letter, and which, in defendants mind, convicted him ot the authorship. Defendant believed plaintiff would deny anything. The letter said, "You're a beautiful teetotal fanatic," and plaintiff when|dancing about, said, inter alia, "Produce the letter; yon're a beautiful teetotal fanatic." This being all the evidence his Worship said that Mr Gray was mostly to blame. When he charged Mr Selig, and Mr Selig denied the charge he would not accept the denial. Notwithstanding an apparently previously settled disbelief in anything plaintiff might say, he threw himself to his way, and so brought on the disturbance. However, although there had been a struggle in the street, it did not appear to have oeen a very serious affair, and tbe case would probably be met by a fine of 40s, which defendant would have to pay with costs. During the hearing of the case the Court was filled with a crowd to whom ths parties appeared to be well known.