QUARREL WITH THE BAKER.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLVIII, Issue 4458, 27 January 1917, Page 2

QUARREL WITH THE BAKER.

SEQUEL IN ASSAULT CASE. A complaint of assault was heard by Mr AV. A. Barton, S.M., at Hie Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, the complainant being Samuel Vincent Wood Kyle, for \\ horn Mr, Barnard appeared, and the defendant Montague Stanley Collier, represented by Mr Blair. ‘ Mr Blair intimated that his client would plead guilty to the assault, but pleaded provocation. He stated his side of the affair, but Mr Barnard said he could not agree to the facts as stated by Mr Blair. His Worship said that lie could not adjudicate on the' ease under these circumstances and would have to hear the evidence.

Mr Burnard then called tho complains nt

Samuel Wood Kyle, who said that he was employed by J. Erskine, baker. He bad never seen the defendant until the 23rd inst., when he asked witness to stop as he wanted to speak to him. - Witness got off tho cart, and defendant said chat witness had insulted his wife. Witness asked in what way he had insulted his wile. Defendant replied by not supplying her with bread. Witness asked defendant to go and see Mr Erskine as he was acting under instructions. De_ fondant walked a few yards up the path and then caught witness by the throat and threw him on the ground, hitting and kicking witness while he was on the ground. •Mr Bi air.- You say you never saw the defendant before?—Yes. What amount was owing bv defend-ant-?—About 9= lOd.

Witness added that defendant did not say that she would pay for the bread oil Saturday. Mr Blair: Did not Mrs Collier say that for your interference she would take no more bread from you?

Witness: She may have clone—adding hurriedly, “yes.” Did you not say that Mr Barton would have to decide upon the payment of the account?—No. Witness said- that when defendant saw him on the 23rd inst. lie said that Hie would have to apologise to his wife.

Mr Blair: Was it after the argument that you suggested that defendant should see Mr Ersldne? Witness: Yes. To Ur Burnard: It was about a week previously that witness asked 91 rs Collier for her account.

James Livingstone deposed that Tie saw the defendant in a yard at about 2 o’clock on the day in question. Witness saw defendant take witness by the throat and knock him down and give him two or three punches in the face. 'The defendant then left- the yard and went out on to the street. Witness did not hear any argument. To Mr Blair: Witness said he was about 20 yards away at the time of the argument but- came up within five yards when the blows were struck.

Bert Boyle said that lie was assisting informant on the cart on the day in question. He saw the defendant knock complainant down and heard him swearing at complainant. When complainant was down defendant held and kicked him several times. To Mr Blair: Witness was sitting on the cart about 4 feet away. Witness did not hear Collier complain that his wife' had been insulted. Marv Collier, wife of defendant, said that she had been dealing with Erskino's for about three weeks, and had received no account. On the 23rd complainant said that he wanted the money for the bread, and witness replied that it was not convenient. Complainant said that lie must have the money. Witness replied that she would pay on Saturday. Complainant said that he wanted the money then. Complainant was impudent and rude in his demeanour. W itness said that if complainant would not accept her terms, she would not take any moio bread from him. Complainant said in a loud voice "Old Barton wjll fix you up!” Witness considered that she was insulted by complainant s attitude and was upset by the occurrence.

To Ur Burnard: Witness bad asked tor the account but did not- ro<\ :\e it. She did not say that Erskine would have to sue her for it.

Annie McMullen, said that Ur and Mrs. Collier have rooms at her house. She supported the evidence of the previous witness for the defence. Montague Stanley Collier, the defendant, gave evidence that in consequence ol what his wile told him. he went to Erskino’s shop but tv as unable, to see Air Erskine. He returned later in the day and noticed the complainant coming up. W itness called to him and lie stopped and got off the cart immediately. Witness asked him what lib meant by insulting It is wife. Complainant replied that witness was a liar and he did not insult her. Witness told complainant that he would have to apologise to his wife. He replied that he would do nothing of the sort. There was an exchange of uncomplimentary language. Witness took complainant by the throat and threw him down, leaving him in disgust. Complainant followed witness and made a blow at him and missed. Witness then struck him again. Witness denied kicking the informant. He had had no previous quarrel with the informant. He did not go to see informant, but to complain to Mr Erskine. To Air Burnard: Witness did not kick the informant when he was on the ground. His Worship, in giving judgment said that if the language complained of by defendant had been used, he had his remedy, and should not have taken the law into his own' hands. He was of opinion that informant was not as- polite to defendant’s wife as he might have been, lie did not think that it was a ease iUv a heavy penalty. Defendant was fined 10s, and costs amounting to 13s.