MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 25 January 1929, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

HAVER A SITTINGS CONCLUDED.

The fortnightly sittings of the Ha\yera Magistrate's Court were conciuued .before Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., yesterday afternoon. Edward John Murtagh (Mr A. A. Dennett) was charged with being imlUvialiv on licensed premises, the Egmont Ho be) 1 , alter hours on December 15. Defendant, in his evidence, which was corroborated by the licensee, isaid ,u,;at he called for a letter which, was add ressied to him at the hotel. The magistrate held that a breach of the law had not been proved and dismissed the information. ASSAULT AT MAN UTAH!. J anies Murphy, ox lvaponga, who was represented oy Air J. -Hessen, was cnargea with assaulting William George itspmer at Maoiutahi on Januaay 12. xhe first witness caked was William Ceorige Jispiner, who said that he was in tiie Manutahi Hotel at about 5 o'clock on January 12. Witness was in tiie- bar having a drink or two with some friends. Murphy and a man named Kerrisk came in and stood by tiie stide oiv the opposite side of the bar. Witness’s two friends, the O’Neill Bros., went round to Murphy’s side of the bar later, and the next thing witness knew was that Murphy accused him of “chucking off” and struck witness, causing damage to a dental plate. Witness had known defendant slight.-y at Kaponga some considerable time ago. Witness said; ne was.quite certain ’he gave defendant no provocation. Murphy appeared to be quite sober. To Sergeant Henry: Witness was certain he called Murphy no names. To Mr Hesseil: “I do not remember passing any remark to Murphy, but I may have passed a remark to the O’Neills; tney were in my company.” • ‘While you were on the opposite side of the bar, did Murphy sa.y anything to you?” Witness: “No. The O’Neills might have done.” The only conversation I had with Murphy was when he struck me after accusing me of passing remarks.”

In reply to counsel witness said he knew no reason why Murphy should assault him. . , Sergeant Henry: "Was there any disturbance in the bar prior to the assault ? Witness: “No. Absolutely none.” _ William John Simpson, labourer, said he was in the Manutahi Hotel an company with Esoiner and another about 5.20 p.m. After Murphy came in the O’Neills went over to his side of the bar. The next thing witness heard was Murphy cal I ]itier out to Bspiner asking whv he was passing remarks, and then saw defendant strike Bspiner twice and when Bspiner was down he (defendant) threatened to “put the boot in.” in •roph- to counsel, witness said that, ho was sitting on a chair in tho bar. Ho beard Bspiner pass remarks, but they miay have been addressed to the O’Neills. Bspiner did not mention any names. Witness notice Murphy s©av© the slide, and in company with Kerri sk and the O’Neills, came to the bar. Murphy said , to Bspiner, “What are you slinging off for,” and struck Espiner with his right. At this stage witness collapsed. and had to be assisted from' tlie Court. William Henry Saunders, farm hand,' said he was at the Manutahi Hotel' on the dav in question, in company with Bspiner and the O’Neill brothers. Witness remembered Murphy and Kein.sk arriving at the hotel, and the two O’Neills ioined them. Sergeant Henry: “While- you were there did you hear Bspiner isay anything?” , Witness : “No. Murphy came round and struck Bspiner twice in the face, and Bspiner went down.” Sergeant Henry : “There was no provocation?” Witness: “None whatever. To counsel: “I heard no remarks made to anyone. Bsniner said! nothing to Murphy that I ’know of. I only saw

Murphy strike Eispiner twice in quick succession, a left and a right. I sawno reason why Murphy should act as he did.”

The defendant, James Murphy, contractor, of Kaponga, deposed that on the dav in question he, in company with Kerrisk, entered the hotel to obtain refreshment. Bspiner was in the bar in company with tho O’Neills, who later cam© to defendant’s .side of the bar. Bspiner, according to witness, started passing remarks of a tory character. Defendant .said he had no intention of speaking to Hspiner. He knew Elspmer at Kaponga and! knew of no reason for any dissen-t-ion. Bspiner approached defendant and placed! his hands on his arms. In answer to Sergeant Henry, defendant said th© language'used by Espiner was the cause of the trouble. I S.M.: “When yon entered the bar who did the O’Neills come to drink with?” “They came to see Kerrisk. • I did not know them previously. ’ ’ Samuel Kerrisk .said he heard Bspiner passing sarcastic remarks to Murphy after the O’Neills came over to their side of the bar. “As-we left the slide to go outside, Bspiner placed his hands on Murphy going out the door, and 1 it. looked as if hi© was going to strike him. Had Bspiner not oome out nothing woui’d have happened. The words Bspiner used’ were "enough provocation for what happened.” Michael O’Neill said he heard - ELspinor passing remarks. . Witness did not see the trouble, but heal’d a commotion .

In answer to Sergeant Henry, witness saidi he took exception to what Bspiner said.

The magistrate hdld that an assault had been proved. On the one hand Bspiner and his two witnesses held that there was no provocation, and on th e o ther hand: Murphy hade exaggerated the seriousness of Bspiner’s remarks. which were not of a. nature to warrant such a. violent, assault. Defendant would l>o fined £3 and costs £3 los. half the fine to bo paid to Bspiner. •