Show 111 rOTTEUS AJiSffHU lie Elcnlc All I lie illntcrlnl Allege hull III Mr Mnintnrt Coitiplnlnt Messrs Marshall A Hoylo have filed in the District Court Dr Potters answer to tho complaint filed there by Standart j Stripped of the usu legal verbiage Dr I I Potter denies that ho wantonly or maliciously I ma-liciously assaulted kicked or beat plain1 1 tiff or knocked plaintiff down or with j I great force or iolenco shook or pulled I bout plaintiff etc Hint if said plaintiff I suffered tlio injuries or any of tho injuries in-jurIes alleged by him plaintiffs own wrongful unlawful mind irritating conduct I towards defendant caused or brought about such injury or injuries That nt the time Biiid alleged assault is charged I to have occurred defendant was peacefully peace-fully engaged 1 in attending to his own I matters and was pacing through a hallway hall-way ho bad a right to use to apartments rented and occupied by I lrlntllIVS mllI nlict him and without I regarding or pay fag any attention to plaintiff when I without any provocation troin defendant + of khul lmtccr plaintiff any nature or no angrily mid maliciously I intercepted do I lenient flopped and arrested his pro groan and then mind t there wilfully I maliciously und angrily insulted abused and provoked defendant That these insults in-sults provocations win n portion of n series of insults and provocations commencing prior thereto mud continuing continu-ing until said plaintiff Intercepted said defendant ns aforesaid the said plaintiff during said time using malicious unlawful unlaw-ful gross and reprehensible language of and concerning the defendant and so acting towards defendant ns to precipitate and provoke a breach of the peace und thereupon plnintifl and defendant came to blows and such of said alleged injuries as plaintiff did actually receive if any were brought about and occasioned by plainlifTs own wilful instills in-stills provocations und acts aforesaid Thai in pursuance of his said wrongful conduct l said nlaintiff angrily d maliciously malic-iously and wilfully nRsaultcd and repeal I wily struck defendant < while defendant I was being held and impeded < l by a third party and < 1 at the first followed up defendant defen-dant to do so instead of avoiding any contest as lie might have done Wherefore Where-fore defendant < did then and hero defend himself against said plaintiff and said third person and did necessarily I strike plaintiff I until plaintiff retreated hs plaintiff i plain-tiff might have done before ho was struck or injured in any way but did not do It Defendant I I alleges that he has always been I extremely t ear eighteeh I and without i with-out the aid of his glasses cannot see with any distinctness at a distance of more than three feet from his face that lit the commencement of f said dilflctilty said l WIC f plaintiff by n blow knocked 1 off defendants defend-ants glasses and thereafter left defendant defend-ant in n condition in which for fighting purposes I ho was practically blind and I rJs llrolllrl lesn1Ig could not see how or whom he was striking either in attack or defense nnd defendant was also held impeded and assaulted by said third person at thus same time acting > in the interest of plaintiff plain-tiff and holding defendant for plaintiff to strike |