A CHRISTMAS WRANGLE.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume II, Issue 593, 4 January 1916, Page 10

A CHRISTMAS WRANGLE.

MAN HIT WITH A BOTTLE

TUAM STREET CHAMPIONS INVOLVED.

The fact that Christmas comes but once a year is probably a blessing to a number of young men of certain habits in this city. As the result of their indulging in too much frivolity on Christmas Eve, a somewhat involved assault case came before the Magistrate's Court this morning, Messrs D. Crowther and K. Mathieson, J.P.'s, presiding, when Alexander Smith was charged with assaulting William George White, so as to cause him actual bodily harm. William George White, a baker residing at St. Albans, said he was in the city at about 11.20 p.m. on Christmas Eve, and he was in company with several others. He was in the City Hotel right-of-way, and he saw the accused there with some other men. The accused was drinking out of a bottle, and when witness got near them, two of witness's mates wished them a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. • Witness then dropped a shilling in front of the accused, and when he stooped to pick it up, the accused said it was his. Witness said it was not his, and refused to give it to the accused, whereupon the accused struck witness on the nose with a bottle. No provocation was given except that witness called the accused a liar. Mr Cassidy: You come from Tuam Street? Witness: No. Mr Cassidy: Well, your mates do? Witness: They live round about there. Mr Cassidy: Are they not known as the "Tuam Street Champions?" Witness: No. Mr Cassidy: When you were in the right-of-way did not your mates say, "We're the Tuam Street champions, we've never been beaten?" Witness: I did not hear that said. Mr Cassidy: Will you swear that those words were not used? Witness: I could not swear to that. Robert Telfer, residing at 32G Tuam Street, said he was in company with White at the time of the assault. Witness stated that after White was struck with the bottle, Smith said, "How many more want a crack?" Witness then went for a constable. Mr Cassidy: Are you one of the Tuam Street champions? Witness: No. I only came down from Cheviot that night. Hector King, a labourer, residing at 262 Tuam Street, said he was in company with White in the right-of-way, and after White had been assaulted the accused threw the other half of the bottle at another member of witness's party. In answer to a question from Mr Cassidy, witness said that he knew of the Tuam Street champions, but he did not go with any of them. Arthur James Harold Alexander, an employee of the Gas Company, residing at 11 Conference Street, also gave evidence as to having witnessed the assault. Mr Cassidy: What was the complainant hit with?

Witness: Oh, a shilling beer bottle but I don't know whether they have gone up now. Mr Cassidy: Oh, I see, that's what you have always paid tor them*? Witness: Oh, I never paid anything for them. Mr Cassidy: Well, how do you know that it was a shilling bottle. Witness: Oh, I saw the price in the paper. Mr Cassidy: What paper? Witness: The Sun. Mr Cassidy: The price of bullies of beer! Witness: 1 saw that beer had gone up. Mr Cassidy: Are you one of iae Tuam Street champions? Witness: No, I know nothing about them. Constable 0 'Donohue said that about 11.20 p.m. on Christmas Eve he saw a crowd in the right-of-way at the back of the City Hotel. As he was going in witness saw the men coming out. Witness saw White, who was bleeding freely from a wound on the nose. Complainant pointed to (he accused, and said, "Ihal man struck me on the nose with a bottle." Directly after this the accused started to rim away, and witness caught hold of ]dm. At the time accused said lie knew nothing about the assault, but when charged al Hie Police Station, accused said, "if he (While) says so." Witness said thai he afterwards wenl back to the right-of-way, and al the spot where White said the assault took place, witness found pieces of broken bottle. There was also a quantity of blood about. Mr Cassidy suggested that Ihe bench should take the case summarily, it was a case of ;i crowd in a well-known right-of-way. The right-of-way was full-of bodies, and he could bring evidence to prove that the accused neither used a bottle nor had been drinking. In the right-of-way there had been a quarrel, and

the accused had hit the complainant with his fist, after having first received a blow himself. The injuries to complainant's face had been caused by the glasses he was wearing, ft was impossible for the complainant to have received such light injuries had he been hit with a bottle. The bench decided to hear further evidence before saying whether the case would be dealt wiih summarily or sent to the Supreme Court. Evidence for the defence was then taken. Mr Smail said the accused was a very hard-.working, industrious man. He bore an excellent character, and was not a man who would go looking for trouble. (Proceeding.)