UNKNOWN

Mataura Ensign, 20 March 1913, Page 5

UNKNOWN

ECHO OF BUTCHERS' STRIKE. MATAURA ASSAULT CASKS. i The decision of the fizzing panies to accept free labor on th# killing "boards" aa a result of the demands of the union butchers some time ago was brought under notice this morning at the Magistrate's Court, before Mr H. A. Young. S.M., when the police prosecuted 1). Walton and Wm. Irwin for using threatening behaviour whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned at Mataura on March 8. Both accused pleaded not guilty, Irwin being defended by Mr Inder. Sergeant Hurrowes outlined the facta of the case which were to the effect that three men, including Irwin, had vi.sited a fish shop on. tho nigiit in question. On leaving the shop someone on tho opposite side of the street made a remark regarding a "*eab." Irwin asked who was being called a "scab," and Walton, who appeared, replied, "Anyone* thf cap iiw." Then the trouble started. Air lirhT said tho sergeant had outlined the facts except that Irwin had asked Walton "Am I a 'scab'?" and W r alton said "Yes." Counsel submitted that there had been no breach «f tile peace ; ;it tile uiei'e m,ij ueen a fight or assault. Mr Inder outlined the position occupied by tli© free laborers and unionists at the Mataura Freezing Works and remarked that Walton as a unionist had exercised his right to "go out," while Irwin had exercised his right as a freo citi&en. to work for the company. Surely be was entitled to do so without having to submit to tho approbious term of "scab." Mr Inder submitted that th® case should be dismissed. Kvidence was given by Fergio and Telfer (who had participated in the fighting to a certain extent) corroborating tho statements made. The accused Walton's story differed in somo particulars from that told. He said that ho called no one a "scab" in particular, but he added, to Irwin, that "if the cap fitted he could wear it " Irwin then struck him on the jaw, and i ceded to divert himself ..f his coat. \Vitness was compelled to follow suit to defend himself. It struck him during tho fracas tha; was not t! • right place on iq bo found lignting and ho sat do„u, i»ot Irwin struck him again, prolonging the proceedings for a further period. Sergeant liurrowes: Were vou not somewhat elevated P Walton said that ho had had thre* or four beers, but ho was quite well able to look after himself. There lis a good deal of feeling between the unionists anti the freo Laborers, is thero not? —I will admit we dou't Jo\"e them. K. J. Patterson, Jas. 0. Ross and A. H. McDonald gave evidence to support Walton's version of tho case. Mr Inder called Irwin, who said that Walton called him a liar and a "scab." He was the only freo laborer <"' out at the timo although several ; rikora were about.

The magistrate said it was quite evident that there hud been threatening behaviour on. the part of both accused. The public must be protected. It was clear that Walton had used the word "scab," but Irwin as well was looking for trouble. Both accused wero lined 5s and costs (lis 6d). " NO PROVOCATION." H. C. Lanauze was charged on the information of the police that h® did assault Henry Telfor at Jiatnura on March 8. Sergeant Burrovves prosecuted and said the cas© arose out of the previous one. Accused pleaded guihy under provocation. Thos. Telfer, farmer, Mataura, said that he saw Lanauzo near Currie's shop between 10 and 11 p.m. on March 8. He said Irwin was a "scab" and witness replied that he was no more a scab than ho (Lanaussc) was. Lanauze then hit lolfer .several times. Cross-examined ; Witness did not cal Lanauze a scab. Lanauze said ho certainly understood Teller to call liim a scab. David Fergie corroborated Telfer'a evidence.

Constable Barrett said that when Telfer complained to witness he found that Telfer had a severe cut over the right eye, his head was cut and his face skinned and his hip bruised. Hit head was also tied up. The magistrate said accused might have misunderstood Telfer, but there was no provocation for the assault. It might have been a serious one and accused was liable to a fin© of £lO or three months' imprisonment, but considering all the oirouiit.star.ces ho would bo fined £3 and costs ss, in default 14 days' imprisonment. A month would be allowed wherein to pay the fine.