BUCKLEY V. SPIRO.

Wanganui Chronicle, Issue 20085, 20 May 1914, Page 7

BUCKLEY V. SPIRO.

FISH-SHOP DISTURBANCE

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT

At the Magistrate's Court yesterday tho final 'stages of the assault case, Buckley v. Spiro, in which Thomas Buckley, labourer, claimed from Bardcbs Spiro, fishmonger, £o damages, as an. outcome of an alleged assault in Spiro Js shop. The case for the prosecution concluded last week, and toe'der. fendant's case was continued yesterday. Mr W. Kerr, S.M., presided. Mr Hrodie appeared for the plaintiff, and Jlr Cohen reorasented the defendant.

Percy Dronfield, cross-examinedl by Mr Brodie, said that he had frequently seen the plaintiff in tha fish-shop. He had never seen Buckley give cause for i complaint before. He could not say ! Wyllio had given trouble before. Wit-' nsss was prepared to contradict thg statement that Williams was in the first compartment when Buckley was in the shop, but he was not in the oampartshop. He saw Mr Springman in tho meat in which Buckley and Wyllie had had their meal. Witness could not say that1 Williams w*as in the dining room after the occurrence. Witness said he couid see the whole affair. Coming to the actual assault, the witness detailed the occurrences. He said he fiad never, known.'of- a row similar to tho one in question happen in the shop. In ttjA «dming room the defendant was not of an excitable disposition. At the liniw ot tha attack on Spiro witness \tas "se-i^ing |a.-{customer, iwho heard the bad -language. Witness did not "tiiinyk it was.necessary to §ive< Spires /Walter Arthur Clark, fishmonger's fes-. s:stant;.gave-evidence that on the- night of liascer Saturday at the time of the row in the shop hennas passing the shop, in the street. He heard a man say ''I ordered hapuka, and didn't get it." He slopped 3 and saw Buckley and another man in the shop. -One of them.. Buckley, looked slightly drunk, and bad language was used. Mr Spiro up to this time seemed to take no nc'tie© of the men. but when the language was t>6ed he turned round, and pointed towards the door, saying something. The took-'-hold of Spiro, ■ and'the three seemed to'be mixed up together. Witness then saw Spiro reach for sometluna from behind the counter, and sfcnke a blow. Witness then went, and summoned a policeman. When he returned he saw two men struggling along nnder Leonard's verandah. To Mr; Brodie: When witness * came round there were three men in the shop, bpiro, Buckiey and another man The witness did not see anyone come out ot the shop as he came up. Constable Hitchcok gave evidence that no was on the scene of the disturbance soon after it happened. He saw that fepiro s clothing was torn. A young man named Jones, who is in liie employ of the defendant, also save evidence.

His Worship, in summing up the case .said that seeing that the plaintiff had b3en a regular customer of Spiro's it was iceoiMjeivaWe that Spiro had assaulted Buckley without provocation. He was satisfied that the plaintiff and his companion were un<ier the influence of drink,, that they had used grossly insulting and provocative language to •Mr Spiro, and that they had attempted to prevent Mr Spiro frcm ringing up the .police. As testified to in the constable's evidence, the defendant's clothing was torn, whieli showed that considerable fore©-bad been used. Under tne-o circumstances Mr Spiro was thoroughly justified in defending himself against- such molestation, coupled as It was with such insulting language. It was .reasonable that Mr Spiro should have .-it*:pint*ted to defend himself, and also that the defendant had never intended to inflict injury to the extent thr)t, had been inflicted. ThJkM-o had b.3en much conflicting; evidence. but it was reasonable to accept'Mr Spiro's version ard that of his witnesses. Judgment would be for the defendant, without costs.

MrCohrn P.skH lr"s Worship to say that iv not ,<\-,varrlir>.cr e.osts, lie was in no way lioMjh.s; thot Spiro had acted without jiistinrition..

His Worship stir! tbnt in the course of liis judc;mf"ir. h' hv.-i hold that Spiro had acted under ?rer>f provo.?ntion awil with justifir*nt.ion. Vro riiaintiff had suffered sericu? ir.Kivr n.n.rl ir.ueh incorive'iicnre. nn<] for t'lat re-x^on p.lono, ho foil; justinocl in r.ot n:rnrcling; costs.