CALLED HIM A LIAR.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XI, Issue 63, 2 March 1921, Page 6

CALLED HIM A LIAR.

QUARREL IN BARBER’S SHOP. HASTINGS ASSAULT CASE. At the Hastings Courthouse to-day, before Mr. R. \V. Dyer, S.M., Horace Cornish (Mr. C. Duff) was charged, on the information of Robert John Lloyd, hairdresser (Mr- Kelly), with assaulting him. in Mr. Plummer’s hair-dres-sing shop, on February 17th. ( Mr. Kelly said that it appeared that the parties lived in the same house, where Cornish and his wife were allowed the free use of two rooms, as Lloyd thought Mrs. Cornish would be company for his wife. A disagreement arose afterwards. Robert John Lloyd complainant, gave evidence that defendant hit him on the face twice with his fist. To Mr. Duff: Had not been remonstrated with by Cornish for his (witness’) treatment of his (witness’) wife, nor was he drunk while the Cornish’s were in the house. Defendant said that he paid witness 3/- for Mr. Plum mer. and witness said “You’re a b liar,’’ but that was after Cornish struck him. Horace N. Cornish, in his evidence, admitted giving Lloyd a back-hander, with his half-opened hand- He spoke to Lloyd regarding his not having paid the 3/- to Mr. Plummer, and Lloyd called witness a “b liar.’’ Witness warned him and Lloyd repeated the phrase, in a worse form, whereupon witness gave the back-hander. He struck him because of the names he called witness. To Mr. Kelly: He did not go into the shop with the intention of assaulting Lloyd. Gerald John, McCormick, in his evidence said that he could not say if Lloyd called Cornish a liar before or after he was struck by Cornish. His impression, at the time, was that Cornish had provocation. W. H. Plummer, hairdresser, deposed that Lloyd had worked for him. On the occasion in question, Cornish came into witness’ shop. 'Witness’ back was turned and he heard a scuffle and one of the parties, he thought it was Lloyd, called the other a b liar. Saw Cornish strike Lloyd on the mouth with the back of his handTo Mr. Kelly: Heard the scuffle before he heard the word liar used. A blow might have been struck in this scuffle. In giving judgment, his Worship said that it made all the difference whether Lloyd called cornish a “b liar,” before or after Cornish struck him. From his evidence he was now satisfied that Lloyd told Cornish he was a “b liar,” before Cornish struck him. Of course, Cornish was not legally entitled to assault the man, in any circumstances, but he did think that any man who called another “a liar,” or a “b liar,” might know what to expect —it’s a thing men will not tolerate. Defendant would be convicted and discharged, without costs.