AFFAIR IN SHOP

Northern Advocate, 5 February 1934, Page 15

AFFAIR IN SHOP

ALLEGED FIGHTING CHARGES DISMISSED Charges of assault, and fighting in view of a public place, Avere preferred against two Whangarei men in the Police Court this morning, before Mr G. N. Morris, S.M. Hugh Seally (Mr Trimmer), was charged with assaulting George Reid and also Avith fighting with George Reid in vieAA T of a public place. George Reid (Mr Johnson) was charged with assaulting Hugh Seally and A\ r itli fighting with Hugh Seally in view of a public place. Pleas' of not guilty AvCre entered in each ease. George William Wilding said he Avas doing Avoiding Avork in his shop at the time, Avhen Reid came in and asked him something. Witness did not know Avliat took place. He had no idea of anything happening till he heard a tin being knocked OA’er and Avent round and saAv Reid and Seally rolling on the floor. Witness told them to get up and leave. The position Avhere the men Avere at grips was not in vicAv of the road. Mr Powell: '‘Do you know if there Avas any feeling between, the men.” — “I couldn’t tell if there Avas any feeling. People in the street could not ha\ r e seen the men on the floor, owing to a truck being in the way.” “Did you separate them?” —“I did, and I told them to get up and leaA T e the shop. Neither made any remark, and I Avas not interested in them. What I wanted Avas to get them out of the shop.” William Parkes said he was in Wilding’s shop that day when Reid came in and asked Wilding something, but what he could not say. Witness was stooping at the time and heard a tin go over. The only time witness saw the two men was when they got up. He saw Wilding go over to them, but did not see any blows struck. Len North, a blacksmith employed at James and Whimp’s, said he saw very little. Then men could not bo seen from the street, and he stepped in and saw the two on the floor wrestling. Wilding separated them and they went out. Witness saw no fight and saw no blows struck. Thomas Beeston detailed h6w he came up with Reid, and how Seally met them. With Seally, Reid went down to Wilding’s shop to prove some statement that had been made. They were away about; five or ton minutes, when Avitness walked down to the shop. He saw Reid, who had a red mark on his ear. Then they both came up to Reid’s car, parked in Cameron Street, and Seally said it was his (Seally’s) fault and apologised to Reid for hitting him. , Seally said that when he got wild he did not know what he was doing. They went away in Reid’s car to Beohre’s to write out an apology from Seally. Both were quite friendly after the affair, C. 11. Chissell, a J.P., said Reid ax\d Seally came to his house, where Reid said Seally had assaulted him _ and Reid wanted an apology. Witness drew up an apology and both signed it. Constable Harrington said he intervieAvcd both defendants. Seally said he did not Avish to make any statement, but in conversation said that he had gone to Wilding’s Avith Reid. The latter said something to Wilding and then came to Seally and said: “You and your association are a pack of hands up, and after this Reid pushed him. They came to holts ami rolled on the floor of the shop. Seally said the trouble actually commenced in the doorway of the shop, and they rolled on to the floor. Mr Trimmer submitted that the ease did not contain much. They had had a difference of opinion and the trouble was over in ten seconds, and they were tire best of friends after the affair. They; Avere still the best of friends. An apology was given, and the affair was a more flash in the pan. Mr Trimmer asked that the ease bo dismissed under the section provided. The Magistrate said that there did not seem to be much damage done, and he Avould be prepared to consider the matter after the evidence' in the case against Reid had been taken. Mr Johnson questioned seA’eral of the witnesses, who were the same as in the charges against Seally. The Magistrate said there Avas no evidence that Reid Avas the aggressor, and the charges were dismissed. In the case of Seally, Mr Morris (said that fhoro was no doubt that j there AA r as an assault, but he would dismiss it ns trivial under Section 92 of the Act.