CHARGE OF ASSAULT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XV, Issue 193, 20 July 1925, Page 4

CHARGE OF ASSAULT.

AGENT v. SUPERINTENDENT. Ernest William Armstrong, superintendent of the T. and G. Life Insurance Company, Napier, was proceeded against in the Napier Magistrate’.* C mt tins morning t.y Samuel Hosegood i< r as-ault on July 11th at Napier. Mi Hislop appeared tor the defendant, am the complainant was represented by M B. J. Dolan. Complainant, who was an .agent act ing under the defendant, stated tli;r the defendant came to his house on the evening in question, being considerable under the influence of drink. Witnes* ordered him off the premises when h< show cl trouble, and eventually struck him a blow on the jaw*. Mr Hislop said that it was only j storm in a teacup. Armstrong had oftei to visit his agents, to discuss variou business matters. On the evening ii question, with a man named Bel., ~de fondant went to complainant’s house t< settle With him some business matters Complainant got very excited am started shouting, but defendant did no raise a hand to him.

Defendant stated that the complain ant was engaged as an agent, but ua noth.ng better than a muddler. On th Jay in question he (witness) went t see him about some errors in his a. counts and Bell went to the door. Hos< good, on coming out, told witness tha he was an unwelcome visitor and.to go out of it. He did not stay more tha' about five minutes in the house. Or in the \ard. Hosegood again became e>. ( itou and after running round, cauglhold of loth of witness's arms. Witnes shook him off and then left. Mr. Dolan: Wasn’t everything settled satisfactorily on th© previous evening? —I gave him certain instructions, but he did not carry them out. Is it correct that you rushed Hosegood and struck him?—No. Did you tell Bell that you were sorry for what had happened?—l have no recollection of it. Corroborative evidence was given bv E. Bell.