QUARRELS AT KEW.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15184, 1 July 1911, Page 15

QUARRELS AT KEW.

ACTION FOR ASSAULT. Practically the whole of the day was devoted in the City Police Court yesterday to the hearing.of a chargo of assault arising out of quarrels that have taken place between William Sanders of Kew, lormerly coal-merchant and now expressman, and two young men named Allison, to whom ho disposed of his business. Mr J. R. Bartholomew-, S.M., occupied the bench. Samuel Rudolph Allison was charged with assaulting William Sanders on June 17. Mr H. D. Bedford appeared for complainant and Mr A. C. Hanlon for accused. Mr Bedford said there had been some mistake. It was accused's brother who was charged with the assault. Mr Hanlon said that the chorgu was a criminal one and accused was not present when the offence took place. Mr Bedford: There is no case against this man. I ask that the charge be withdrawn. Mr Hanlon: I ask that■ it be dismissed, and I also ask for costs. Tho' case was dismissed, the question of costs being held over. Ernest Fcrroll Allison was then charged ■with having on June 17 assaulted William Sanders, who asked that he be bound over to keep the peace- towards him. Mr Han-. lon appeared for the accused, who pleaded "Not guilty." Mr Bedford said that some months ago the complainant sold his coal business to tho accused and his brother upon certain terms, and those terms were not complied with by tho Allison brothers, with the remit that the hill of sale which complainant held, over the property had to be realised. Iho bailiff was put in and the goods seized, but tho Allison's borrowed the money and redeemed the goods. A good deal of bitterness resulted from the proceedings.. On June 17 Sanders's lad was hi the coal yard, whioh adjoined Sanders's residence, playing with one of tho horses when as the result of words which passed between the boy and the accused the latter seized the lad and shook him. Sanders came out and after some words the accused took off his coat and hat and wanted Sanders to fight. Sanders refused, but told accused to take away some bags which he had placed on the dividing fence. Allison refused, so complainant took them off himself, whereupon Allison grappled with him and finally hit Sanders with a stick on the back. Complainant, an expressman and formerly carrying on a coal business at Kew, said he Bold the business to the Allison's on certain terms as to payment. These terms they did not observe and witness sued them in the Magistrate's Court, and ultimately put in the bailiff, seizing tho goods under a bill of sale. Then the Allison's paid the money. He had had trouble with them several times. When ho asked them for payment they told him to wait for it as they had to wait for it. On Saturday, June 17, about 1.30 p.m. ho was having his dinner when he was told that the accused was ill-treating his boy. He went to the yard and Allison had his little boy by the- throat with both hands and was vigorously shaking him. Then he took off his coat and hat and said to witness: "Now come old man, hit me." Witness said that sort of thing was too low; he would not condescend to do it. There were some dirty bags hanging on the fence near his yard and witness commenced to take them down and throw them into the yard. Alter sortie struggling the accused picked up a big stick and gave witness' a blow on the back. Ho was afraid of a repetition of these occurrences. In answer to Mr Hanlon ho said lit was not hiding behind the door when someone came and asked him to go out and light, nor did the man at tho door ask him what he had been saying about his wife. Ho was afraid that the accused would do him some bodily harm. The real cause of the trouble was that ho accused them of being thieves, because they took somo wood from his yard, but he made them put it hack. He had never charged the accused with being a drunkard. Mrs Sanders, wife of the complainant, gavo evidence as to tho struggle which took place between her husband and the accused. She had never charged the ac-i cused with being a drunkard, but she liad' said he was untruthful and a thief. Evidence was also given by complainant's children—two girls and a boy—and a lad named Victor Murray. Mr Hanlon said that those were very vindictice proceedings indeed. The charges were laid so vindictively against tho Allisons that in the first instance a charge was laid against a hian who was not preeent at all when the affair occurred. It was laid simply because he was a brother. When complainant came into court, however, ho had to admit that it was a mistake. Mr Bedford said that that was not the result of vindietiveness on Sanders's pari, but "was a mistake on the part of his clerk who had instructions to lay an information against one of the Allison's, but by some mistake informations were laid against both of them. Mr Hanlon said tliat recklessness was 6omo evidence of the vindietiveness with whioh Sanders had pursued these two lad.s. They bought the coal business from him and for a whiio things went on all right. Sanders thought that tho Allison's had cheated him out of 17s 6d which they had collected for him, and persisted in calling them liars and thieves until they justified themselves by producing a receipt for the. antount. That was the cause of somo of the bad feeling. When the accused gave his evidence counsel thought that the Court would to impre-'Scd by the fact that h" was a hard-working lad who had been harassed by Sanders. Sanders had hou<rhl a bill of sale over the place in order that he might have some hold over the two boys and put them out, thus enabling him to sell the place again at another fancy figure. Because he had failed to put them out of the business, however, Sanders had laid this information in an endeavour to further hnra.«s them. The affair was brought about by the interference of the Sanders family. In regard to the assault Allison picked up a stick and waved it round his head to stop Sanders from ing his bags off the f««).' bsi u» snerj

nothing about hitting Sanders. If it was an., assault it was ail assault of the most trivial character. The accused said lie bought tin* business for £117 and found ho had paid too much •for it. After ho was summoned it was arranged that ho was to pay so much, and these instalments. became overdue and the bailiffs wero put in and (lie horse and drays taken away. He borrowed money and redeemed tho goods and now they wore doing all right. Sanders had charged him with appropriating moneys which witness had collected for him and had called him aii sorts of names. When ho took the wood from Sanders's yard it was under the impression that they could use that wood liiitil they got in a supply. On the day of the quarrel the children had been calling names and ho shook the boy and the rest followed when the.family ran out and poked his bag;, off tho fence. Ho had not assaulted Sanders. Evidence was also given by Samuel Jl'Crackon, grocer at Cavorsham, and a lad named David Frascr. The Magistrate said that tho evidence disclosed a somewhat unsatisfactory state of affairs. lie could not hold that the charge of assault had been made out. The accused evidently appreciated the fact that physical violence must not bo used. The evidence, given by tho Sanders children would liavo been more impressive if it had not boon so precocious. It was not often that childicn fenced counsel's questions so cleverly. The blow Sanders got was tho result of his own interference. Tho information was dismissed with costs (£1 14s), and costs (£1 Is) would bo allowed on tho first information.