VOLUNTEER SEAMAN

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 3308, 30 March 1926, Page 3

VOLUNTEER SEAMAN

BRUTALLY ASSAULTED BY TWO SLAUGHTERMEN. DIFFIDENT WITNESS. The story of an assault on a volunteer seaman was told at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when two slaughtermen named Stanley John Waites and James Patrick Hourigan, were brought before Mr R. M. Watson, S.M., to answer a charge of assaulting Pcrcival Lancot Charles Kreaghcr. a labourer. The defendants, who were represented by Mr Cullinane, and who were convicted of assault last week, pleaded not guilty. Waites was further charged with using obscene language, and he also denied this. Sergeant Cahill prosecuted. Kreagher stated that on Saturday evening, March 13, when leaving the Empire hotel, at about closing time, ne was set on by three men, two of whom were the accused. First an argument took place, in which witness was called a “scab.’’ Witness ran aw'ay up Fergusson street, whore Hourigan tripped him and he was then assaulted by the two men. Waites hit witness in the mouth, knocking out two teeth. Witness fell to the ground and was severely kicked, and his injuries prevented him from lying on his right side for over a week. He did not do anything to provoke the assault and did not know the accused.

To Hr Cullinane: Witness was quite satisfied that the two accused had assaulted him. He would not swear that he had never had a drink with Waites. He had seen both of them before, but did not know them. After having several drinks on the Saturday afternoon, he felt dazed and went home, returning to town with his brothers at about 5.30 p.m. He was not drunk, but still dazed. He remembered having a drink with Waites —he also remembered having a talk with Waites about the “scab” business. Witness could not remember clearly all that happened when he first met Waites in the Manchester hotel. Both Bench and counsel had difficulty in obtaining definite answers from witness who, whilst assuring the Court that it was the two accused who assaulted him, could not say what happened before the assault. In continuing, witness told Mr Cullinane that he was not quite sure whether all he had told the Court actually happened. He was sure, however, that it was Hourigan and Waites who assaulted him. He would swear that he had done nothing to provoke the assault when witness ran away. Hourigan tripped him. Counsel; How do you know? Did you see him?

Witness: No. Counsel: You said some one kicked you? Who? Witness: I don’t know.

Witness went on to say that he had two teeth knocked out and his right side was badly bruised. When witness said he only lost one tooth in the melee and could not remember where he lost the other. Counsel: You don’t know who tripped you up?—No. Or kicked you?—No. On hit you?-—No, I know nothing.

Do you know of your own knowledge what happened that evening?— No, I don’t.

Sergeant Cahill wished to ask witness a certain question regarding the consistency of witness’ story, but the Bench would not allow the question unless the police wished' to treat the witness as hostile. A bootmaker named Fowles stated that he saw Krcagher getting on to his feet in Fergusson street with three men standing round him. Kreagher tritd to run away, but the two accused caught him and knocked him down. Some one called out “Police!” and the accused departed. Witness went across the road to the scene and said: “One at a time —give him a chance.” Waites replied: “He’s getting one at a time,” to which Fowles replied: “No, he’s not.” Waites then used the language complained of. To Mr Cullinanc: It was not the third man who assaulted Keagher, but the two accused.

Hugh Clifford Martin, motor driver, said he saw Kreagher chased by the two accused, both of whom assaulted Kreagher. He was positive that the accused assaulted Kreagher and the third man had nothing to do with it. The Bench refused to allow Mr Cullinane to ask a question of witness as to whether he had ever been ordered out of the town. The witness hotly resented the imputation and the police hastened to assure the Court that nothing of the kind had ever happened. Mr Cullinane: Those were my instructions, your Worship. A woman also gave evidence as to having seen Kreagher assaulted bj both accused. Mr Cullinane asked that the charge of using the obscene language be dismissed. The Bench refused the application at this stage, holding that the matter was not disproved and that a case had been made out.

I After consulting- with his clients, Mr Cullinano withdrew his plea of not. g-uilty to the assault charges, but Waites denied using the language. Waites then went into the box and denied using the language. He might have spoken to Fowlos, but ho was certain he did not use the language complained of. Mr Cullinano then outlined the circumstances of the case from tho accused’s story, which was to tho effect that Waites, Hourigan and Kreagher were formerly friends. They had been drinking together early in the afternoon of the day under review, and Waites had asked Kreagher if ho had volunteered as a seaman during

the shipping trouble last year. Kreagher at first denied that he had. but on being questioned again later, admitted that ho had joined the crew of a ship going to Sydney and back. This led to the trouble, both Waites and Hourigan apparently losing control of themselves. Counsel reminded His Worship that this assault took place just prior to the case of which the accused were convicted last week. In summing up. his Worship pointed out that he did not think defendants’ case had in any way been prejudiced through being proceeded with yesterday, as defendants must have known since the last case that the present charge was to be preferred against them sooner or later. His Worship was satisfied that -Hourigan was the leader of the assault, which was both brutal and unjustifiable, and ; lie would be convicted and lined fS 'and costs. £2 3s. Waites would also .ho convicted and fined £a and costs £2 3s. The Bench ordered that £2 of the lines in each case be paid to Kroagher. On the charge of using obscene language, Waites was given the benefit of the doubt, and the information was dismissed.