A dispute over $50 led a man to being attacked so viciously that he was forced to eat through a straw for two months, a Supreme Court jury heard yesterday.

John Stephen Glasgow, 22, of Spring Hill, Warwick denies violently robbing Allen Robinson on December 12, 2003.

In his opening remarks, Crown counsel Wayne Caines told the jury this was a ?senseless and violent act?.

Then Mr. Robinson, a 49-year-old Works and Engineering carpenter, told the eight-woman, four-man jury: ?I was travelling to a side job on Tribe Road Number Five in Paget when this guy stopped me.

?He was talking about how I owed someone $50 and needed to give him $100. I said I didn?t owe anyone any money... The next thing was, I felt a blow to the left side of my face. I was knocked to the ground and my bike fell on top of me.?

He said that his wallet had been taken and when he got up, he walked out onto the main road, where he saw the man who attacked him.

?I saw him on the sidewalk. I told him I wanted my wallet back ...

?Then I felt another blow. I fell to the ground. Someone threw my wallet on my chest. $600 was missing,? he said.

Mr. Robinson 49, had to have surgery for his cracked jaw and loose teeth.

?I missed Christmas dinner,? he said. ?I couldn?t eat for two months. I had to eat through a straw.?

Mr. Robinson said at a Police identification parade he saw the person who attacked him.

?I pointed him out to the officers,? he said. ?Do you see the person who attacked you sitting in court?? Mr. Caines asked.

?Yes,? he replied, before pointing at Glasgow.

However, Glasgow?s lawyer, Craig Attridge questioned Mr. Robinson from an earlier statement he made to Police where he said he ?assumed that he was struck with a fist?.

Mr. Attridge suggested that Mr. Robinson had assumed that it was Glasgow that hit him.

And Mr. Robinson admitted that he did not see the person who hit him, or who took his wallet.

At one stage, Acting Justice Carlisle Greaves had to stop Mr. Attridge?s questions because he said they were improper.

Mr. Attridge continued to say that his client was the only person in the identity parade that was not wearing shoelaces ? an indication that he had been in Police custody.

But Mr. Robinson said he did not notice.

?I suggest to you that when you identified my client as the person who attacked you on December 12, 2003, you were mistaken?? Mr. Attridge said.

?You are incorrect,? Mr. Robinson said.

And on re-examination, Mr. Caines said Mr. Robinson told Police that he ?felt a blow to the side of his face since it came out of nowhere I did not see it coming?.

He said that even though it was dusk, he could see clearly and that he had no difficulty in identifying his attacker at the identity parade.

The trial continues this morning.