ALLEGED ASSAULT.

Northern Advocate, 5 August 1924, Page 7

ALLEGED ASSAULT.

INCIDENT AT PORTLAND,

INFORMATION DISMISSED,

Arising from an incident which occurred at the Portland cement works on the morning of July 25 a private information by Fred. Shortland (Mr Shorland) against Fred. Rostance (Mr Briggs;) for damages for alleged assault was heard at the Whangarei Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr R. W. Tate, S.M. It was claimed that complainant had been struck by Eostance.

Mr Shorland described the alleged offence as being most brutal, unprovoked and unjust.

Fred. Shortland said that he bad been a fitter at the Portland Cement Company's works. On July 25 complainant went through the fitting shop in the morning. Eostance, tho foreman, had passed the remark that n radial drill had been fixed up and added that complainant should not break it again. Shortland had replied that he had not done so, and Rostance had then said "All right," and complainant pased on to his own overseer, who told him that Briggs, the chief engineer, had been informed Iby Eostance that complainant had | broken the drill. Complainant then j returned to Eostance and asked what was meant by telling lies to Briggs about him. Eostance threatened to punch his heat! • and told him to get out of the shop. Complainant then went to Briggs and Rostance followed him. Briggs said that he had been told a fortnight earlier that the drill had oeen broken. Subsequently Shortland and defendant had returned to the shop, the latter mumbling that he would "get" complainant. When they reached the shop, defendant tried to push Shortland out of it. stating that he would not have him working there. Complainant was pushed away from the bench. He then said that he wanted to get his tools, whereupon defendant struck him several times and knocked him ivcr some shafting. As he was rising complainant was again struck in the mouth. Lupto-i had then stepped between them. At no time had complainant threatened to strike defendant, nor had he used any insulting or bad

language.

in reply to Mr Briggs, witness ad mitted that he had told Rostauci; that he It-ew more about grinding drills than defendant, as he had been experienced in fit Ling shops and no* in n cement work-. Finally Briggs, the engineer, had told him that if he remained there it would lead to further trouble so he got his time, took his tools and left the jo!). Complainant ii'id not used any bad language to Rostance, and he had not asked Rostance's permission to go into the fitting shop, a*? no one ever did. Short-

hind did not take orders from defendant, as the latter was not his boss. If Briggs was going to say that complainant had later told him that he had f.iven Rostance ' 1 a good tidying up," he would commit perjury. Defendant was the foreman and complainant a fitter and that was why the former had got the sack. Shortland described where his tools were and pointed out that they were his own property nrd that there was a risk of losing them if they were left about. George Irwin, who had been in the fitting shop at the time, said lie had witnessed the incident between tiie parties. He wrfs too far off to lienr what was said, but he saw complainant pushed anl subsequently struck once. Witness had then called to his jiates to "come and see the fun."

Cross-examine;'.) by Mr Briggs, witness admitted that he Jad seen only part or the assault, limited to a push and a blow.

Thomas Lupton, another fitter, described how he nc<i seen Shortland <n his back on th< grornd ai:d Rogtance si.i>'uiiig nea" hi n. Witness had <j-ot octthe j).°ir and Shortland then walked away. He had heard Rostance tell Shorclan-i to go out of the sli >ix As for the files being used by Sh*)rvl;.nd, the •■nmpnny usually suppled tlieni, "ind fitter j'cncally did not i-e their own tiles.

Asked by the Majirtratc why Ye had interfered, vitm said that ho usually tried to be a peacemaker wh >n he saw men lighting. For the defence, Mr Briggs sub' mitted that as defendant was foreman of the litters' shop he required to exercise authority thfcre. A lot of machinery was about ■ and it was a dan-

| gerous place for a scilTie. Defendant j had a splendid record and numerousi j references and it was not likely thai'- { he would have a row with a workman, j It was also pointed out. that Shortland | had been dismissed by Briggs without j any reference to Rostance at all. I Complainant was a young man of the I aggressive type, and he had caused ! the trouble. Foul language had been j used by Shortland, who had first struck I Rostance once in the stomach. SubseI quently complainant had told Beavis that he had given Rostance "a tidy doing." A point stressed was that Briggs had dismissed Shortland on the spot.

Defendant said that he was laying a job out for Morrison, the blacksmith, when Shortland came along and asked, with a number of superfluous adjectives, what defendant ' meant by telling Briggs that he had broken the machine. Defendant replied that he had not told Briggs anything of the sort. Complainant then used bad language and asked defendant to go up to Briggs. Defendant told him to get out of the shop, and he then saw him go to Briggs. Witness followed and heard Briggs tell complainant to go and work with Whittome, his own foreman. Defendant told Briggs that Shortland was to keep out of his shop. Later complainant returned to the shop and wanted to get his tools. After telling him that he would get the tools and that he was to get out, defendant pushed complainant towards the door. Shortland then struck him a low blow, and himself stumbled back over some steel shafting. If he had got his lips injured it must have been due to that fall. Complainant had had no right to be at the vice bench at all. When , he came to defendant complainant was wasting the firm's time. Defend- j ant had had 32 years' experience of J fitting and had been in charge of .1000 men. |

In reply to Mr Shorland defendant denied having either reported or accused complainant of having broken the radial drill. He had, however, told Briggs that he believed .Shortland had used the drill last. Complainant stumbled on the iron, but in the excitement witness could not say exactly which way he fell.

Mr Shorland asked why, if Shortland was the aggressoor, defendant had not taken a case of assault against him, but Rostance replied that he was not aggressrve and as Shortland was leaving he considered that that was the end of the matter, and at the same time he had been averse to taking legal action.

Robert Morrison, blacksmith, described the language allegedly used by complainant towards defendant, when he told Shortland to get out of the shop. In reply to Mr Shorland, witness said that he had not actually seen the assault, as he left. Irvine had told him before the Court proceedings that there had been no bl-jws struck, only a scuffle. Arthur Beavis, a fitter on the constructional work, deposed to having heard Shortland say that he had had a row with Rostance and had knocked his wrist up. Witness had heard Irwin say something just before the Court proceedings, but he could not recollect what it was.

The Magistrate remarked that it was true that there were witnesses who had said that Rostance was the aggressor, but those witnesses had not

impressed him. He was impressed by the evidence of Morrison and of the defendant, for whom he found. The information was dismissed, with costa £1 12s.

"Some of the men had to come a distance of 17 miles on horseback to play in Saturday's match," said the secretary of the Southland Rugby Union at a recent meeting, referring to the keenness of the newly-estab-lished Southern Sub-iwiion (states the "Times"). "In some places they had to pull their feet out of the stirrups to keep them out of the mud."

"Sitting here clay after day, one tiling impresses me strongly," sail Mr J. R. Batholomew, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court the other day (states the Dannevirke "Star"), "and that is that the powers of observation of the average person are very limited indeed. It seems that, unless something special happens to attract the attention, no impression is made by passing events. Speaking the matter over after something out-of-the-way has happened, peoplo usually come to the conclusion that it has been prefaced bv nothing that can be recol-

lected."

AUCTIONEERS