FISTICUFFS AT SALE

Taranaki Daily News, 15 April 1935, Page 7

FISTICUFFS AT SALE

INCIDENT AT INGLEWOOD. YOUTH CONVICTED OF ASSAULT. A difference between Keith Athol Clark and Joseph Brennan Hartigan resulted in Hartigan appearing before Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., in the Inglewood Police Court on Friday on a charge of assaulting Clark at Inglewood on March 23. Pleading not guilty and conducting his own case, Hartigan was convicted and ordereo! to come up for sentence within six months •if called upon. He was also ordered to pay costs amounting to £1 ss. The pair had not been on the best of terms for some time, and he gathered that Hartigan was always the aggressor, said Constable Graham. Clark went to the police for advice and was advised to ignore Hartigan. Both men attended a pig sale at Inglewood on March 23, where the alleged offence took place. There was a large crowd present at the sale and the offence occurred in a place that was not hidden from the public. Hartigan challenged Clark to fight, but Clark clearly indicated that he would not. Later he was assaulted. The assault in itself was not very serious, the worst feature being that it happened at the sale, where there was a large crowd, including women. He was standing on the railing of the pens when Hartigan challenged him to a fight, said Keith Athol Clark, aged 20, a farm labourer. He refused to fight and on one occasion he was hit on the ear. He turned around and -saw the Hartigan brothers standing near him. Clark’s brother after talking to him accosted Hartigan and asked him what the trouble was. Hartigan, seeing Clark, dashed at him and assaulted him. To the magistrate Clark said Hartigan was annoyed because he alleged Clark had attempted to run him down with a motor-car' at Kaimata. Twelve months before Hartigan wanted to fight him at a dance. Clark had not known him before that.

Clark had bumped into him as a result of being pushed by a third party, said Cecil Edgar Mawson, farmer, who was present at the sale when the offence was alleged to have occurred. Mawson turned and saw Hartigan strike Clark two or three blows on the back. An argument ensued but Clark, standing with his hands in his pockets, refused to fight. They were standing on tfife rail during the argument. Clark was later joined by his brother and the pair spoke to Hartigan, who struck Clark. Hartigan used insulting language to Clark, Mawson told the magistrate. Alfred Barton Clark, brother of plaintiff, said after the-first disagreement he met his brother and after a discussion approached Hartigan to ascertain the trouble. He tapped Hartigan on the shoulder. He turned around and, observing Clark’s brother, rushed at him and struck him. . In the witness box Hartigan said that on March 13 he left the Kaimata store at about 10.30 p.m. and as he walked along the road a car approached. He was on the edge of the road when the car swerved towards him and Clark shouted to him as the cat passed. At the sale he asked Clark why he attempted to run him down at Kaimata, and an argument arose. He took his coat off and challenged Clark but did not hit him while he was on the rails. Clark refused and he put his coat on and as far as he was concerned the disagreement was over. Later the Clark brothers approached him and when he turned around there was one on each side of him. He could not say whether their fists were clenched, but he considered they were in a fighting position. He struck Clark but maintained he did so in self-defence. A struggle ensued during which he was held and hit in the ribs. Clark’s sister urged the brothers on. They were separated and he challenged the crowd to fight him one after the other. To Constable Graham. Hartigan said the Clark brothers had their hands at their side when they approached him, but he took their position as meaning they intended to fight. He had not challenged Clark to fight before. He . thought Clark’s reason for going to the police was to cover himself against, any future disagreement that might occur, even if it was of Clark’s making. There was another incident that had caused feeling between the pair, but he would rather not refer to it in court, Hartigan told the magistrate. He admitted Clark was not altogether to blame, although he was concerned to a certain extent.

“You say you struck Clark in selfdefence but he had' not struck you. I cannot accept that as a defence,” said the magistrate. “Who hit Clark when he was on the rails?”

Hartigan intimated that he had not, but he would prefer not to say who had. “You appear to have a grievance against Clark but you must not give vent to it in this way,” said Mr. Woodward.