“A BACKWARD SQUABBLE”

Evening Star, Issue 17279, 18 February 1920, Page 6

“A BACKWARD SQUABBLE”

IK ATE PARENTS IN CONFLICT. CHARGE OF ASSAULT DISMISSED. Mr Widdowson. S.M.. together with two loading criminal lawyers and the uoiial court officials, were occupied for an liour this morning elucidating a case which arose out of what .Mr Hanlon (who appeared tor the defendant) described as “a back yard .squabble over children, anri one which should never have come to Jim Court.” Trie sequel to the squabble and subsequent quarrel by the parents was a charge ot assault preferred against dames 11. Murray (foreman of the brigade) bv .jouisa Elliott (wile of the electrician at the lire station), for whom Mr Irwin appeared. 1 The story, pieced together from the evidence of the several witnesses, was to Lie effect that four children belonging to some of the members of the Fire Brigade who lived at the station were playing together in the common yard, when two of them got a-quarrelling. these were a boy (aged 5) of the defendant’s mid a girl_ (aged 4) of the complainant’s, the boy, it appeared, had pummelled the girl who, in turn, pulled the bov’s hair, the boy continuing to fight bv thumping the girl a second time. Mrs Elliott, seeing the scuflle, rap across and pulled the boy away, gave him a £oo-d shako, and it was alleged—smacked him on the side of tn£, neck and on the shoulder. (Airs Elliott in her evidence dcnie.l delivering the blow, though other witnesses swore sho did). The defendant Murray witnessed what ho considered the rough handling of his boy. and it roused his ire to such an extent that he rushed across the va--d gripped Mrs Elliott tightly bv the" arm I made no bones about* it,” said the defendant in the box. “ I grabbed her hard ”) and pushed or dragged her awnv. Then there were “words.”" Mrs Elliott told defendant that ha, had “ better go ami do that to Mrs Murray. She was more used to it.” to which defendant replied : ‘You are a lying little two pins Ed put you 'under the tap.” Complainant and some of the witnesses said defendant put up bis disengaged hand as though to strike Mrs Elliott, but Murray denied this, making a counterasertion that, he was protecting'himself froin a projected blow bv Mrs Elliott. This apparently was the end of tlie act uni scuffle, but bad blond remained, and Mrs Elliott demanded an apology, which Murray refused to make—hence the Court proceedings.

In yj \ inc his decision Mr Widdowson snid ho air rood with defendant's counsel that it. was almost a pity the case should have come into Court-, 'but pot for the same reason. He (the Magistrate) thought defendant should have acknowledged the position and apologised when asked to do so. Ho had certainly lost his temper. /Tad he thought Mrs Elliott was doine a, bit too much to his boy defendant shoTdd merely have separated the two; hut l.e went further and committed what in ’aw constituted an assault. Taking into consideration all the circumstances, it was not a ease where each of the parties should be bound over to keep the peace, nor yet was it a case for a monetary or any other punishment. Defendant would h- ordered to pay the expenses involved (7? Court costs and £2 2s solicitors’ fee), and on this payment being made the information would be dismissed under section 92.