WRECKING A LAUNDRY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19280, 19 March 1926, Page 13

WRECKING A LAUNDRY.

ROUGH NIGHT FOR CHINESE. DISTURBER BEFORE COURT. MAGISTRATE IMPOSES FINES. [JDY TELEGRAPH. PRESS ASSOCIATION.] BLENHEIM. Thursday. Considerable public interest was manifested in the hearing, before Mr. Maunsell, S.M., of charges against William George Burton, a well-known Blenheim shopkeeper, arising out of trouble on the evening of March 2. when a Chinese laundry was wrecked and its manager was pushed through a plateglass window, sustaining a cut arm in tha process. The police alleged that Burton was the author of the damage and the causative agent of the injuries to the Chinese. He was charged on tw« counts: first, that on March 2 he wilfully damaged four panes of glass valued at £l] 16s 3d, the property of Jim Lee, this constituting the offence of mischief. Burton was informed when the charge was read that the alleged offence was an indictable one. He therefore had the option of being tried before a magistrate or before the Supreme Court. He announced that he preferred a trial by jury. The magistrate pointed out that the case could have been brought within magisterial jurisdiction by charging the accused under the Police Offences Act

Sergeant Stark asked leave to prefer a fresh charge and withdraw the charge already read. Mr. A. A. McNab, who appeared for the accused, objected to an amended charge as suggested, and it was finally Ogreod to Veave the point in abeyance and proceed with the second charge of assault. Sergeant Stark said Burton visited the laundry and asked for h'.s collars, but there were no collars belonging to him in the place. He then lost his temper and assaulted the Chinese manager, Ngan Tong, catching him by the throat and pushing him through the window. After that he proceeded to throw portmanteaux, etc., through the remaining panes of glass. The Chinese had sustained a bad cut on the arm, which had necessitated his removal to the hospital for treatment.

The defence was that no actual assault had been committed. Burton was on friendly terms with the Chinese generally. He called at the laundry and Ngan Tong made a remark about a person whom Burton held in high esteem. Burton became angry and tho Chinese, possibly frightened by Burton's demeanour, stepped back through the window, which went nearly to the ground. Burton would admit, however, that in anger he threw one basket through- the window.

The magistrate decided to give the option of a fine and l ' fined the accused £lO and costs.

Objection was then withdrawn to the indictable charge being amended and Burton was formally charged under the Police Offences Act with wilfully damaging four panes of glass valued at £ll 16s 3d, the property of Jim Lee. Burton pleaded guilty, and without further evidence being called was convicted and fined £3 and costs.