A BAKEHOUSE MELEE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVIII, Issue 18573, 27 November 1920, Page 6

A BAKEHOUSE MELEE.

CHARGE OF ASSAULT. Alleging an unwarranted assault upon him, James Patrick Maddren, a youth sixteen years of age, proceeded against his former employers, Murray and Hubert Campbell, bakers, of Christy church, at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The case was heard by Mr V. G. Day, S.M., Air Thomas appearing for tho plaintiff and Mr L. A. Dougall for the defendants. Tho complainant stated that he had worked twice for Campbell Brothers. On Friday, November 0, ho failed to attend his work on account of illness. As a result of something he heard lio understood that tho Campbell, brothers were dispensing with his services- Ho therefore went to the bakery to obtain a cheque for his wagos. He had not yet received the cheque. Tho Campbells were, sitting in the bakehouse: one was rending a paper and the other counting the day’s takings. A bottle of beer was opened in the room. The Campbells and complainant arpied for a while, arid the brothers called him opprobrious names. Robert Campbell then hit him four times, and the other brother seized him by the neck and lucked him three times. As he went out of the door compltainant fell over the doorstep. Complainant had to go to the doctor. His trousers were torn below the knee. The right side of his face was bruised and contused;. his knee was cut, and his wrist sprained. Ho had not been able to attend work since. . , , To Mr Dougall: He had not been sufficiently well to go to work on November 5- He had worked for the Campbell Bros, lor six months altogether. Constable C. Roberts stated that lie had seen the comnlainant after the alleged assault. His face bore unraistnkoahle signs of having received a blow. The defendant, Murray Campbell, stated that complainant arrived at the bakehouse on November 8, about G p.m. He “ rushed in,” asking for his wages. Witness stated that he did not consider complainant was entitled to any wages. There had always been trouble with the boy, who did not givo satisfaction. Maddren. after daring witness “ to come outside,” rushed out of the door and foil over. He then proceeded to “ bombard the bakehouse wtitli baskets.” Witness was never within hand's reach of the boy, whose story was n fabrication. To Mr Thomas: Tho boy’s story seemed to bo the result of a vivid imagination. Mr Day: How do you account for the boy’s, cheek being swollen? Witness: .1 can’t account for it at all. Mr Day: The fall could not have produced all this injury. The defendant, Robert Campbell, corroborated his brother’s statement. Complainant, lie stated, had used wore language than lie bad ever heard in his life. He thought ho was under the influence of liquor. As lie tripped over he bumped his head on the gas stove. Mr Thomas: Of course! You had to find something to acooutit lor that abrasion. William Smith, labourer in the employ’ of the Christchurch City Council, stated that on the evening of November 8 lie was in the vicinity of the defendants’ bakehouse. He heard the complainant using "vile nnd corrupt” language. The bov then passed witness. He had no marks upon his face. He had mixed, in liis time, with rough men, but ho. would give the boy in this case credit for using tho vilest language he had ever heard. To Mr Thomas: He was outside the bakehouse' when the boy went in. The hoy was " wobbling ” as he walked. Constable Roberts, recalled, stated that he was positive that the hoy had shown absolutely no sign of drunkenness. The boy was not a drunkard. The Magistrate said that it was rather an extraordinary case. He would convict the defendants. The two brothers did not tell the snme story. There was a considerable' discrepancy ns • regards the spot where tho Camp-hells said thnt the hoy had fallen. Defendants would be fined 40s each, together with costs, half the fines to go to the complainant.