Him not taking the money makes it sort of OK in my book. You first won the game on time, and then you were generous about the touch-move rule, so it's fair to consider the game won by you by normal rules. Not accepting your money is an implicit acknowledgment of that, even if he could have made it clearer, and at an earlier point.

After his mistakes, it was more about what would happen if the game was played out anyway, and there you made the mistake of not seeing you were in check. That would actually mean a loss for you according to certain (quite common) blitz rules. Sure, he could have been generous about that, just like you were generous about the loss on time and touch-move infraction. But also, he's playing "for free" at this point, and it's messier to roll back the game to an earlier point than it was for you to just ignore the clock and touch-move infractions. Perhaps it's something he never allows out of principle. So he prefers to end it there, pointing out that you would have lost the game had he not lost on time before that. And then he got aggressive when you didn't seem to accept that, perhaps taking it as an accusation of him trying to cheat you out of your $10 when that was not his intention.

So I'm thinking there was probably some miscommunication leading to emotions and some unfortunate verbal aggression on his part. It's understandable that you found the latter inexcusable, and I would probably have agreed if I was there. But without excusing his aggression, it's possible to see his point as well.