MAGISTRATE DISMISSES TWO ASSAULT CHARGES

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29365, 18 November 1960, Page 19

MAGISTRATE DISMISSES TWO ASSAULT CHARGES

The behaviour of all three principal actors in the case was “pretty discreditable” and it might be that the two complainants, who were witnesses for the police, were guilty of offences, said Mr A. P. Blair, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Two charges against John Merritt Harpur, aged 33, a shopkeeper, of asaulting John Thomas Harpur, his father, and George John Bryanton, were dismissed. The defendant was represented by Mr A. K. Archer. John Thomas Harpur, aged 54, a motor driver, when called to the witness stand, said he did not want to give evidence as he had been told “a tissue of lies” by his youngest son. The Magistrate told the witness

that he was compelled to give evidence.

Harpur said that about 9 p.m. on August 15 he was serving in the shop of his son. Henry Timothy Harpur, when he had an argument with the defendant about some book racks which he said belonged to him. The defendant went to take the racks and he grabbed him and a struggle took place. He later learnt that the racks belonged to the defendant. To Mr Archer, the witness said he weighed 18 stone. The defendant had struck no actual blows. George John Bryanton, aged 18, a drainlayer, said he heard the sound of breaking glass in the fruit shop next to Johnny’s Hamburger Bar. He went to have a look and saw Mr Harpur and the defendant struggling and fighting on the ground. The father was on top and the defendant was asking to be let up. He stood in the doorway and watched for a few minutes. Picked up Spanner Later an argument developed between himself and the defendant, said Bryanton. The defendant came over to him and grabbed him by the throat. He picked up a spanner because the defendant was “out to get me.” He hit the defendant across the head with the spanner and the defendant said he would get him for that.

Mr Archer: This squabble had nothing whatever to do with you? Bryanton: No. You did not know who was in the wrong?—No, but I knew the owner of the shop. Bryanton denied that he had the spanner in his hand when he went over to the shop and that if witnesses said he had they were liars. He denied saying to the father: “Let him get up and I’ll fix him.” Both the father and the defendant had asked for help. Mr Archer: You adopted a very belligerent attitude? Bryanton: My oath, wouldn’t you!

Elizabeth Harpur, a married woman, said it was she who had asked for assistance and not her husband.

Constable V. C. Gilmore said he was called to the shop known as the Fruit Bowl and saw where a struggle had taken place. “I took the father and the defendant out to the back of the shop to try to get some sense out of them, but they were very wound up. They both had blood on them. The defendant was in a proper mess. Blood had run down the side of his face from a cut on his head. His main injury was caused by Bryanton with the spanner.” Constable Gilmore said. Debris on Floor A younger member of the family was sweeping up the debris on the floor when he arrived, said Sergeant J. Wilson. It was very congested in the back of the shop and he had to stand between the defendant and his father to prevent them from fighting. The language used was not very good. It was more or less a family dispute and he told them to come around next day to make statements. He did not intend to bring any charges but the mother, father and son were very determined that charges should be laid. There was no sign of any injury on Bryanton, Sergeant Wilson said.

It must appear obvious that this was a family quarrel and any assault which took place had been initiated by the complainant, J. T. Harpur, said Mr Archer when submitting that the case should be dismissed. There was no evidence of the defendant assaulting his father.