BRAWL IN CAFE

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20125, 22 February 1937, Page 8

BRAWL IN CAFE

PROPRIETOR & CUSTOMER. ASSAULT CHARGE FOLLOWS. STRUGGLE ON FOOTPATH. A midnight scene in a Hamilton Cafe, in which the proprietor assaulted a customer was described in the Magistrate’s Court, Hamilton, before Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., to-day, when James Thorpe was charged with assaulting James S. F. Clemett, and further with using indecent language in a public place. Defendant, who elected to be dealt with summarily and pleaded not guilty, was convicted on the first charge and the second count was dismissed. The case for the police was conducted by Senior-Sergeant G. H. Lambert, and Mr A. L. Tompkins appeared for defendant.

The first witness, Frank Blake, said he went to defendant’s cafe in Victoria Street on the night of January 10. Later when a man came in for some coffee defendant used strong language and accused the customer of owing him a debt. Witness added that defendant then made a swing with a bottle and later used a chair to force the customer out of the premises. The two then had an argument on the pavement.

James S. F. Glemelt, the customer, said lie went to the cafe and defendant called him abusive names and accused witness of not being able to maintain his wife. Defendant told witness that lie owed 2s for a meal and later said: “I’ll get you.” Fight on Pavement. Witness replied: “If you want me you can have me now.” Defendant tried to hit witness twice; then the two became engaged in a fight on the pavement. Witness- tripped and defendant fell on top of him. Somebody ’separated the paif and witness left to take a friend home. About midnight witness returned to the cafe for some coffee. He thought defendant would harbour no ill feeling but witness was again accused of owing defendant 2s. Witness paid the amount and on asking for the coffee was met with more abusive language. Defendant leapt over the counter and picked up a chair to strike witness but he warded him off. Witness said defendant was very excited and his voice was louder than usual.^ Cross-examined, witness denied swearing at defendant and said he was not ordered out of the shop. Witness denied having returned to the cal'e the second time with a view to making trouble.

Harold King and Sydney Strange gave further evidence of the affair on similar lines to that of Blake.

Mr Tompkins submitted that the charge of indecent language in a public place should be dismissed because the law provided that the words must be heard by someone and in this case there was no evidence to show that anybody had heard defendant swearing. The magistrate dismissed this charge. Fine Imposed. Defendant, in the witness stand, said Clemett came into the oafe “in his usual bouncy manner.” Witness asked Clemett why he abused his staff last week, and asked him to leave the premises but Glemelt said witness would have to put him out. Witness replied that he was not big enough to do that. Witness said Clemett forced him to go out on the pavement, where a fight ensued. When Clemett returned at midnight witness told him that he would not serve him. He claimed that Clemett had provoked him.

On the charge of assault, defendant was convicted and fined £3 and costs totalling £1 18s.