Marlborough Express, Town Edition, 10 January 1914, The Stabbing Sensation

Town Edition.

THE STABBING SENSATION

INCIDENT AT HIS MAJESTY’S THEATRE.

TWO ACCUSED IN COURT

CHINAMAN ACQUITTED; - EUROPEAN FINED £10.

The hearing of the cases arising out of the stabbing affray that occurred in the pit lobby; of His Majesty’s Theatre on the night of the 5th inst. was commenced before Mr F. O’B. Loughman, S.M, this morning.

Chow Lei, whose age was stated to be 55 years, pleaded not guilty to a charge of assaulting Percy Randall Maddock and causing him actual bodily harm. He was defended by Mr T. Scott-Smith.

Percy Randall Maddock, a young man, pleaded not guilty to a charge that he did commit common assault by striking Chow Lei on the neck. Mr. S. P. McNab appeared for Maddock.

Mr Philip Falkner was sworn as interpreter.

The two cases were heard together. The witnesses were ordered out of Court.

Sergeant Hanson conducted the prosecution.

Henry Lawrence Homes, grocer's assistant, said that he attended the picture show at His Majesty’s Theatre on the night of the 5th inst. At the interval Chow Lei went out immediately in front of him. The witness saw Maddock hit the Chinaman on the back of the neck, apparently without cause. The Chinaman said "Go to hell," but did not retaliate. Maddock struck a fairly hard blow with his fist, reaching over the witness's shoulder to do so.

Jean Baptiste, an inmate of the Old Men's Home, said that he was in the theatre and saw Maddock sitting behind the Chinaman. He did not see Maddock do anything to the Chinaman, but he saw the latter leave his seat and go to another. He next saw Chow Lei coming into the theatre after the interval. On that occasion, he saw Maddock kick the Chinaman in the back. The latter turned round and said "What did you hit me for?" Maddock: then struck Chow Lei, apparently with his fist, and knocked him down. This happened in the passage. The witness then went on into the theatre and saw nothing more.

By Mr McNab: The Chinaman had a child with him, and had in his hand a knife, with which he was peeling an apple. He did not see the Chinaman strike back.

Ernest Reed, doorkeeper at the theatre, said that the interval occurred. at 10 minutes past 9 o'clock. A good crowd came out, but there was an unusual crush. He saw Maddock put his hand on the back of the Chinaman’s neck. The Chinaman -turned round and said "What for? Me no touch you." He saw nothing further happening then between the accused: After the interval he heard a scuffle; and going into the porch he saw the Chinaman rising off the floor, with blood running down his chin. Chow Lei said something three times that sounded like “murder,” and then approach Maddock with his two hands extended and appeared to push the young man. He did not notice whether Chow Lei had a knife in his hand. The two accused closed in a fighting contest, and Maddock stumbled and went down on his hand. They parted, and the witness intervened and put the Chinaman in the theatre and Maddock into the passage. The latter was bleeding freely on his head and face. Some five minutes before the disturbance he saw the Chinaman holding in his hand a small pen-knife, with which he had been peeling an apple.

Crosse-examined by Mr McNab, the witness said that he could not say whether the knife was used on Maddock before or after the blow was struck. The lights were down at the time.

William James Spittal, hairdresser’s assistant, said that after the interval he was returning to the theatre and saw the Chinaman in the passage with lips bleeding. He then saw the Chinaman hit Maddock, and the latter return the blow and knock him backwards. Maddock came back on to the witness’s feet, and the witness pushed him off. Maddock looked round at the witness, who saw no blood on his face. The Chinaman was holding something in his hand – what he could not say. Maddock went towards the Chinaman again, and the latter put his hand out as if he were hitting Maddock in the face. Maddock came back on to the witness again, and the witness could see blood flowing freely from his head and face. Maddock withdrew to the corridor and went out with witness. Going out of the door, Maddock told him that the Chinaman had used a knife.

Constable Byrne said that from the information received he proceeded to the theatre on the night of the 5th. He saw Maddock standing in the corridor bleeding freely from the face, head and arm. (The coat worn by Maddock on the occasion in question was produced. It showed several slits in the sleeve.) The witness went into the theatre and arrested Chow Lei, and later found in one of his pockets a knife (produced). When charged with the offence the Chainman denied that he used a knife. He said that he had no knife on him. Maddock denied having provoked the Chinaman. The Chinaman was bleeding at the mouth, and there was a cut on his arm.

Dr. J.F. Bennett said that Maddock called at his surgery on Tuesday night. Maddock was suffering from various incised wounds. One wound extended from the corner of the right eye down to the corner of the mouth. Another extended for about six inches on the left forearm. A stab wound extended down to the bone on the left side of the front of the head. On the left wrist was a minor wound. The face wound was the most serious, and in the case the bevel of the knife, turned obliquely, had prevented a deeper and more serious cut. There were minor scratches on the neck. Maddock was suffering to some considerable extent from loss of blood, chiefly from the wound in the face. His condition necessitated the use of chloroform for the stitching of the wounds. None of the wounds were dangerous.

Mr McNab called the following evidence: -

Frederick Watson, flaxmill hand, said that coming out of the theatre for the interval, he saw Maddock put his hand in his pocket to get his ticket. The Chinaman, who was in front, turned round and said to Maddock “Go to hell, you ---------.”  He did not see Maddock attach the Chinaman. He did not go to the theatre with Maddock, and did not know him intimately.

William Watson, flaxmill hand, brother of the previous witness, gave similar evidence. He did not see Maddock strike the Chinaman, but apparently Maddock. accidentally touched the Chinaman on the back of the head with his arm as he was reaching out for his pass. His brother called out, "Good night, Percy," to Maddock in the lobby, and that greeting directed his attention to the latter.

Walter Pascoe, flaxmill hand, said he accompanied Maddock and a man named Cole to the theatre. "They sat together. He did not notice the Chinaman. Not one of the three shifted his seat during the entertainment. He came out for the interval behind the accused, but saw no blow struck, nor did he hear the Chinaman say anything in the passage. He met Maddock for the first time that day.

Samuel Cole, harvester, who was one of Maddock's party, gave corroborative evidence. None of them smoked a cigarette in the theatre.

Mr McNab volunteered to put Percy R. Maddock, accused, into the witness-box for examination. He himself had no questions to ask him.

The accused said that he was a cabinetmaker.

Cross-examined by Sergeant Hanson, Maddock said that he did not see the Chinaman sitting in front of him or near him in the theatre. He did not see the Chinaman until he was coming out at the interval. He did not intentionally touch the Chinaman, but his arm might have been knocked against him, or the Chinaman might have mistaken him for someone else. After the interval, while he was returning to the pit, the Chinaman was at the doorway and rushed at him and cut his sleeve with a. knife. The witness then knocked him down, and the Chinaman rushed and cut him about with the knife.

In reply to further questions, Maddock said that this was not the first time he had had a row with a Chinaman. He had a row with a Chainman in Picton about four years ago. He also had a row with a Chinaman in Blenheim recently. It was at a performance of “Runaway Girl.” There was a crowded audience, and he was leaning against the back wall, resting his feet on the edge of a seat, when a Chainman pushed him over to pass him. He knocked the Chainman down, and considered that he was right in doing so. The Chainman said “What for?” and passed on. He was not looked upon as the head of a gang of hoodlums or larrikins.

Mr. McNab strongly protested against a. question as to whether the accused did not appear in Court some time ago on a charge of theft. The young fellow was acquitted, and the matter should, not have been mentioned.

In reply to his Worship, Maddock said that he had no idea why: Chow Lei should, have assaulted him. Perhaps he mistook him for someone else, or perhaps the Chinamen in the place, hearing about the affair at "The Runaway Girl," had him marked.

His Worship: Perhaps you are a peaceful citizen going about exposed to the fury of Chinamen. Dreadful, isn’t it? "You think I will believe,” added his Worship, “that you were peaceful citizen going into the theatre and were stabbed and mishandled without giving the slightest provocation.”

Accused: I did not give any provocation.

That night or on any other occasion?—No

It is a little unusual, isn’t it, for \* Chinaman to go about and seek trouble?—l don't believe they are a peaceful, lot.

His Worship : Then they must be a ferocious lot of people, going about stabbing mild and inoffensive young men like yourself.

His Worship said that he would like to hear if Chow Lei had anything to say.

Chow Lei entered the witness box and took oath with a lighted match, swearing that he believed his soul would be extinguished like the match if he told a lie.

Chow Lei, accused, said Maddock was sitting behind him at the Theatre, and put a cigarette on the back of his neck. The witness did not know if the cigarette wis lighted. He then changed his seat. Going out after, the interval he was struck from behind, and. turning round he asked Maddock why he hit him. He (witness) was with two children. He took one of the children to a Chinese fruit shop, leaving, it there, and returned to the theatre, with-the other. While he was in the vestibule, Maddock came in and struck him in the face and then in the chest and knocked him down, and kicked him while he was down. The witness called for help, and no one came. He had in his hand a knife, with which he had been peeling an apple for the child. When he got up he pointed out to Maddock that he was holding a knife. Maddock rushed at him again, and the knife entered the aggressor's coat-sleeve. For the rest the accused used the knife in self-defence. He himself was cut by the knife on the arm.

The accused held up a bandaged forearm.

"Take that off."' said the Magistrate indicating the bandage ; and the Chinaman . unwound the cloth to display a slight wound.

His Worship said he was satisfied that Maddock was the aggressor. There was annoyance caused to the Chinaman during the first part of the performance. Then they came out; and, said his Worship, he was satisfied that Maddock struck the Chinaman deliberately, and wontonly. The evidence was conclusive. When the Chinaman returned to the theatre, Maddock deliberately assaulted him and knocked him down, The Chinaman was peeling an apple, and had an open knife in his hand. The accounts as to what took place during that assault were very confusing. But clearly the Chinaman was knocked down and kicked. He was assaulted before he used the knife. It was not clear as to how he used the knife. But there was no doubt in his mind that he did not use it till he had been knocked down. What Maddock had said about the affair was nothing but a deliberate lie. That young man had not spoken a word of truth in his evidence. Was it credible that a Chinaman, one of those people who were known to be most peaceful citizens in this country, would go into the vestibule of a public theatre, draw a knife, and stab a young man like this without provocation? This young man had a "down" on Chinamen, as many people had. But if one had this ''down," his remedy did not lie in taking the law into his own hands and assaulting a Chinaman. One could if he chose, advocate legislation for the exclusion of Chinese, but he must respect the law. Maddock was like the Sydney “push.” He did not go quite so far, for they killed Chinamen;- but he was certainly training himself for the "push." According to Chow Lei, Maddock persisted in assaulting him, though warned that the Chinaman held a knife and that he might come into contact with it. In his extremity, apparently, the Chinaman "lashed out." It was not a nice thing to "lash out" with a knife, and not a thing to be encouraged ; but then, also, it was not a proper thing for persons like Maddock to assault an inoffensive citizen. A Chinaman was entitled to the protection of the law as well as any other man. This young man was a robust, muscular young man, and the Chinaman-was not in his first youth. The latter was just the kind of prey that would suit this young man. His Worship said that he did not wish to pass over without comment the use of the knife, but he thought the provocation was such that the Chinaman, suffering indignity after indignity and assault after assault, gave way to passion and inflicted a number of wounds. Indeed, he thought that the provocation was so great that he was not going to punish the Chinaman. He would dismiss the case against him with a caution.

His Worship than asked what the police had to say about Maddock.

Sergt. Hanson replied in unfavourable terms.

The Magistrate said that he was going to treat Maddock lightly; This was the first time that he had had to deal with him, and though he was not quite sure whether two months imprisonment would not be the right thing for him, he would not do more than convict him and inflict a fine of £10, with costs amounting to £2 5s. A month was allowed for the payment of the fine.

1. ↑ The Stabbing Sensation. (1914, January 10). Marlborough Express, XLVIII(8), 2. https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MEX19140110.2.7