STREET FIGHT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLVIII, Issue 21788, 18 October 1940, Page 4

STREET FIGHT

Man And Youth Convicted Long Evidence Heard Lengthy evidence was heard in two cases before Mr H. Morgan. S.M.. at ; the Timaru Magistrate's Court .yester- I day when William Harold Anderson. I a middle-aged single man described as a driver (Mr L. J O'Connell) pleaded I not guilty to a charge that on Sunday. September 29. 1940. he did fight ’ Norman Brooks, aged 17. a railway porter, in a public place—Stafford Street. Brooks, who was represented by Mr R. Stout, pleaded not guilty to having fought Anderson. Both cases were heard together. Senior-sergeant D. J. Hewitt prosecuted. Constable Pawsey read a signed statement by Brooks in which he said that he had met Anderson, who. without provocation had called him a “rotten, dirty little Anderson threw his arms about and kicked Brooks in the right leg. Brooks struck him with his fists three or four times, and Anderson then kicked him in the stomach. Brooks had then gone into the Salvation Army Citadel and rested on a seat there. Brooks had not reported the matter to the police as he had been in too much pain, and he still felt the effect of the kick the next morning. Brooks had been in bed when the constable interviewed him. “You Hypocrite!’’ Anderson, in his statement read by Constable Pawsey. said that he had greeted Brooks with “Good day you I hypocrite!" and Brooks had struck him on the nose with his clenched fist. “I will put you in your place,’’ Brooks added. "I retaliated and kicked him and he kicked me. I was perfectly sober.” said Anderson. “I tried to avoid trouble. ‘You are a nice one to be in the Salvation Army Band when you are drinking and smoking’.” I said. "I have seen him drinking on several occasions,’’ Anderson continued. “He previously accused me of damaging the Salvation Army Band instruments.” In reply to Mr Stout Constable Pawsey said that he knew that Anderson was a prohibited person, but he was not aware that he had been bound over to keep the peace with people named Simmons. Leonard Charles Cortes, "taxi driver, who was on duty at a garage in Stafford Street south, said he had heard a cry of “Get away home out of it.” He went to the door and saw Brooks following Anderson and trying to strike him with his fists. He did not sec any kicking. When they separated Brooks walked along in a normal manner. On behalf of his client Mr O’Connell submitted that the fight had been started by Brooks and that he was the active aggressor, and that whatever part Anderson had taken in the affair had been in self-defence. There was no suggestion that Anderson had been drinking. He was a single man who was known co be a good worker and his employer spoke highly of him. In the witness box Anderson said that Brooks seemed to be looking for trouble. Witness gave him a kick or two and told him to get away out of it. Brooks replied “Get out of it you mongrel; put a chain round your neck and get back to your kennel.’’ Legal Point Upheld To Mr Stout: I knov/ there has been trouble in the band. There are only eight playing on the street instead of 28. Mr O’Connell: I submit Mr Stout is not entitled to cross-examine the defendant. His Worship: I think you are correct. Mr O’Connell. He is giving evidence on his own behalf. Mr Stout: It is positively absurd to suggest that Brooks attacked the man. If so, it says a great deal for the tenacity of modern youth. Anderson has been annoying the Brooks family for about four years. Two of the boys used to sell newspapers. Anderson used to give them money and address them by mildly suggestive nicknames. If not a danger to the boys he was potentially dangerous and the father had not only spoken to Anderson himself, but also to the Salvation Army officer who had also told Anderson to keep away from the boys. Apparently there had been some dissension in the band, of which Brooks was a member. In December last Anderson commenced writing letters to the Brooks family. These letters (producing a file containing a considerable number) indicate that he has been making a nuisance of himself to the Brooks family. Objection Over-ruled Senior-sergeant Hewitt: I do not understand why this dirty linen is necessary. It has got nothing to do with the fighting episode. It is not going to serve any useful purpose. The Magistrate: Lne question might arise as to who was the aggressor. The past conduct of one or the other might help the Court to arrive at who was the aggressor. William Richard Brooks, father of Norman Brooks, said that trouble had arisen three or lour years ago. He did not approve ol a man of 40 associating with boys of 12 or 14 years. Anderson 1 ..d frequently annoyed witness and his family even at the pictures on a Saturday night and on several occasions he had come to witness’s home uninvited and when drunk. Once when witness was away Mrs Brooks had seen Anderson coming and had locked the door, but he had forced his way in through a window in broad daylight. She had pushed him out through the window. Trouble at Station Evidence similar to that in his statement to the p -lice was given by Norman Brooks, who said that since his appointment to the railways Anderson had come to the porter's room on several occasions and had made trouble. Once Anderson had attempted to kick him. but had been prevented from doing so. Anderson called him -Primrose” and witness objected strongly to such nicknames being sung out all over the railway station. A brother of Norman Brooks gave evidence that the day after the fight Anderson called on him at his place ol employment and threatened that he would be similarly treated if lie did not look out. Evidence of “Bad Blood” His Worship said it was clear from the evidence that Anderson was the aggressor, but, at the same time, Brooks had indulged in a fight with him in a public place. There was evidence of bad blood between them for some time. He thought Anderson had set the trouble going by his remark to young Brooks, who had retaliated. Anderson should have realised that his conduct to the Brooks family might give rise to a breach of the peace. Brooks had a remedy by proceeding against Anderson for assault. Under the circumstances- ol Brooks’ youth, and. as he had been provoked, he intended to convict him and order him to pay Court costs 13/and witness’s expenses 3/4. The evidence showed that Anderson had used his weight to some effect by kicking the boy, with a result that a doctor had been called and the lad had been away from work from Monday till the following Thursday. Anderson’s conduct showed that he had been prepared to make things unpleasant for the boy. Anderson would be convicted and fined £2 with Court costs 13/- and witness's expenses 3/4.