PICTURE THEATRE DISPUTE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 16174, 10 July 1923, Page 4

PICTURE THEATRE DISPUTE.

ANGRY FATHER WATTS UPON MANAGER.

Action for, assault fails.

Some small boys, an angry father, and a. theatre manager were the parties to a, dispute, which occupied the attention of Mr. E. O. Levvey, S.M., in the Magistrate’s • Court this morning, the \ coso concerned an alleged forcible, ejection of at boy from the Palace Picture Theatre one Saturday afternoon, a subsequent interview between the manager and Hue bov’s father, and a facial injury which the'.latter suffered in a manner in some wav connected with the interview. The "bov’s father, .James I). Miller (Mr. I/. T. Burnard), claimed £2O damages from Harold Carr (Mr, J. S. Wauchop) incidental to the injury, which ho contended was tho result of an assault by defendant upon him. The polibo had been cal lei in, hut did not takei the case up, holding that, it was a mb iter for private prosecution, if the complainant believed he had suffered a wrong. •Archie Miller, tho young son of the plaintiff, said that he, his brother, and ' another 'boy were at the pictures. A dispute arose, and witness punched the other bov, who told the defendant.. Ihe defendant then came and kicked witness out. He ran outside, where ho met his father and mother,'and told them what had happened. His father came in. and asked why defendant had kicked the hoy, hut lio denied having done so. 1 defendant also struck witness’s father wit-h an electric torch. To’Mr. Wauchop witness said that he was in tho front row of Mio pictures with some other boys. Ho only punched one Boy. Tho defendant came along and kicked "witness, who ran outside. When his father came back he was very angry and excited, and “made at” tho defendant, though ho did not hit him. This happened in a dark part at the entrance, and a Struggle went on. The defendant had’an electric toi'ch. Mr. Waucliop: Did your father not strike his liead on tho door? —No. The boy- admitted having discussed tho cage with his father last night. James D. Miller, tho plaintiff, explained that he bad gone to the Palace Pictures, .where he had challenged defendant with having kicked the boy. He denied it, and plaintiff called him a “dirty coward’” for raising a foot to a boy, and with that defendant drew his electric torch and struck him above the eye. Ho had 'no opportunity of retaliation. , To Mr. Wauchop witness said that he (lid -not remember hearing thfc boy tell Constable Fitzgerald, who was called in, that defendant had not kicked him. Mr. Wauchop: Yon rushed at him?— I did nothing of the sort. Mr. Watichop: Do you always find you can believe everything a small child tells you?—lt would not ho good for them to tell mo what was not the tttith. ’■ : Mr. Wauchop: Did you not strike your head against tho door? —No. Mr’. Wauchop: Defendant says that ho expectedl you to strike him at any monient?—He may have expected it. Senior-Sergeant Fitzpatrick said that the* parties came to the police station with'Constablo Fitzgerald, Plaintiff had. a cut over his eye. To Mr. Wauchop witness * said that Constable Fitzgerald*Had stated that in the presence of defendant and plaintiff, tho boy had denied! being kicked by defendant.

■ Roy 'Edwards, a school boy, said that lie was in the pictures, and he saw the boy Miller' run out crying;. Later lie saw defendant hit some ono with a torch. To Mr.' Wauchop the bov denied that lie had been previously put out. of the pictures for misbehaving himself. Witness'alto defendant wave the toych, but he could not see anyone else. Mr. Wauchop: When did you tell Miller that you saw defendant strike him?—The other day. “Mr. Wauchop: What other day—Sunday?—Yes. Mr. Wauchop: But you did not seo hiimt etruck? —I only saw the torch. .Mr! Wauchop: Miller was not angry, was hits don’t- know. ' Witness said that ho could not hear very much, but Ko happened to Jook ’ around and saw defendant with the torch. " '• . ’> To Mr. Bnrnard witness said he saw Miller about three minutes later with a cut over his eye. James Miller, brother of tho boy alleged to have, been kicked, said that his brother had punched a boy. Then Carr came 'along and' kicked him. Mr. Wauchop said that defendant's explanation was that there had been a disturbance in the front'of the theatre, and that lie had ascertained that the boy Miller Was the cause. He told tho boy to .shift to another seat, 'but lie denied that bo had kicked' tho boy. Later ho ihcf the very irate parent., who made a riish at hinij and defendant pushed him off. The plaintiff struck his head against, a door. The little boys were obviously very anxious to say their parts correctly, /and they prattled them off tike recitations. Harold Carr, the defendant, said that lie had received a complaint from one boy that ’ another boy had punched him. He went'down to see about it, and the other boys pointed to the hoy Miller as the cause of tho trouble. Witness shifted him to another seat, and the boy went” away crying. Witness sat down again, and 1 was watching the pictures, when a boy came and said bis father wahted to see him. Ho went out and the boy ran out in front, and as be came out" of tho door Miller rushed at him, and in "so doing he struck his head on the door. Later, when tho policemen came, tho boy was questioned, and he said that ho , (witness) had not Incited him; Then they all went round to the Police Station. When witness came out of the door and saw Miller, ho thought he was mad or drunk, and told him to got out of the theatre. Then Miller rushed at him. . ; Witness," in reply to Mr. Burnard, : said actually ho had' been struck by Millay" ler in his*.rush. Witness denied having V struck plaintiff 'at all. "v l -Tho whole story must have .been invented. He had no; torch ;iifv his - hand. Anyone sitting inf-the theatre-could only see Trim reach ontohis hand “to pull the string to snap tho* lobby ligh£ on. It was,quite impossible for anyone in there to'see where he and Miller were struggling. v To Mr. Wauchop witness said that 1 lie had discovered the mark on his face * later that day.

■Constable* Fitzgerald said lie remem-bered'-.being'called, in by Miller. \ Miller said that ho had been assaulted, and that Cair had kicked his boy. Defendant denied, kickirigty the boy, or*.assaulting ZVElltyrj in .fcffct-he said, that Miller, had ansablted hiihi.. * Tho boy, questioned by Carr and himself, denied having/been kicked. .Miller was taking up a fighting attitude.' ;Tho‘; next.), day /defendant showed him'a mark over-,his-eye. „> •< ; To Mr. ■'Buthaijd witness said that, he did*not think that there was any .'mention made of a torch. His>Worship said that it was 'quite clear that there h.icl,bcen a dispute; .and a struggle, and<tliat Miller ‘.had been strdek. How lie had been struck, howevhr, there was, not sufficient-evidence, find' plaintiff would he ’non-suited with costs.