ALL OVER A GIRL

Hawera Star, Volume XLIX, 16 January 1930, Page 4

ALL OVER A GIRL

YOUNG MAN CONVICTED. ASSAULT AND INDECENT LANGUAGE. Two charges, involving the use of indecent language on the South Road on November 23 ’ and the assault of Frank Beaurepaire, were preferred against George Hooper in the Magistrate’s Court at Hawera yesterday afternoon and evening, before Mr. J. H- Salmon, S.M. Mr. A. K. North appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty to botli charges. Sergeant Henry prosecuted. In an outline of the case Sergeant Henry stated that on November 23, the young mail assaulted had accompanied a young lady to the theatre. Afterwards lie had iseen the young lady home. On the way they had encountered four youths and an argument had ensued between defendant and Beaurepaire. A fight had taken place and the latter was considerably knocked about., needing medical attention. The young lady had been out previously with Hooper, but did not wish to have anything to do with him. Frank Beaurepaire gave evidence to the effect that returning home from the Grand Theatre in company with a young lady he met defendant and three companions in Princes Street. Witness and the young lady had crossed the road to avoid them. Later, when opposite the saleyards. Hooper had overtaken him and had asked him wliat liis idea, was in going out with the girl. Witness said that he had told Hooper that the girl did not wish to go out with him again and that he (witness) could please himself what he did. Hooper had then left them. A few minutes later Hooper had' again crossed over to witness and the young lady. Hooper had called the young lady something that she had objected to and wanted to fight witness, who had told him that he would see him later on- Hooper had struck out and a fight had ensued. Both had rolled to the ground and Hooper’s friends had crossed the road to see the “scrap.”

Continuing, Beaurepaire said that liis thumb had been put out of joint, while he had received a black eye and had lost a tooth, after which Hooper and his friends hard walked away. As the result of the assault he had suffered damage- to the extent of £ls. Answering Mr. North, witness said that he remembered Hooper speaking to the young lady in the main street, but was convinced that defendant had not asked him what he was doing out with his girl. “Did you. not go and take thus girl from a friend of yours?” asked Mr. North.

“It rested with the girl,” answered witness.

GIRL’S EVIDENCE

The girl mentioned gave evidence to the effect that she had known Hoopei for about four months and had been out with him several times. On the way home from the theatre they had met Hooper as stated by Beaurepaire, and Hooper had said to the latter: “This is a nice way to treat a boy.” When defendant had spoken to witness, she had told him that she could do as she liked. Hooper had struck Beaurepaire in the face and a fight had commenced. ■ Hooper had used language towards herConstable Mullan detailed the extent of Beaurepaire’s injuries, stating that it appeared as though he had had a had time.

DENIAL OF ALLEGATIONS. In submitting the case for his client, Air. North stated that he was the son of a. well known and respected family. Apparently, as -the girl had gone out with Hooper on several occasions, he had considered that she was “his girl.’: Beaurepaire iiad come on the scene and had parted the two. Beaurepaire had, apparently, been truculent when spoken to by Hooper and the ensuing fight could not be considered po be an assault. Also, it would be denied that defendant had used bad language. DEFENDANT’S ACCOUNT., Defendant, in evidence, said that he had taken the girl about a good deal. When he had seen the girl and Beaurepaire up town together he had asked her what it all meant. An appointment had been made with the girl for the following Saturday evening, when witness had decided to get the matter settled. However, the girl llad not kept the appointment, hut had gone to the theatre with Beaurepaire. \\ hen witness had accosted Beaurepaire he had been told by Beaurepaire to mind his own business. Beaurepaire had asked the girl to hold something lor him,, saving that he would fix witness. |He had' grabbed -witness by the shoniI uers and they had wrestled ,in the gutter, Beaurepaire grasping him bv the throat. Afterwards, in his opinion, it was a fair fight- Both had more or less been knocked about and their clothes damaged. He did not say anything abusive to the girl. Charles Henry Walker gave his version of the affair, stating that he was one of three of Hooper’s companions 'who had been present. A lot of arguing had been carried on, principally about the girl going out with Beaurepaire, who had subsequently grabbed Hooper and thrown him in the gutter. The light had followed, after which the pair had walked away from each other. Beaurepaire had not been at all polite, pribr to the tight, but Hooper had at. no time used bad language. Witness and his friends had taken no part in the fight, but had simply gone along after Hooper because of curiosity.

Charles Simons, another of Hooper’s companions, also said that he had not hoard any bad language used. He stated that Beaurepaire had been the aggressor in the fight. FINES AND- CONVICTIONS. ' The magistrate reviewed the evidence at some length, remarking that he considered that Hooper had been the aggressor. Defendant had said that he [had made no indecent remarks, but had admitted calling the girl a certain name. A conviction was entered and a fine of £3 imposed on eac-h of the two charges, with 10s costs and £1 witnesses’ expenses. An application 'for suppression of defendant’s name was refused.