Note
ROUGH MUSIC
Walter Rogers, George Rogers, Ernest Rogers, John Alfred Woodage, Thomas Woodage, Albert Edward Warner, John Bird and James Burrows, all of Sandhurst, were summoned for having on the 26th of August created a breach of the peace, and for using obscene language. They pleased not guilty.
Mr. F. J. Ratcliffe was for Warner; the others were undefended. --Sarah Ann James, wife of Samuel James, of Sandhurst, said that she saw the whole of the defendants at the front of her gate on the day in question. They passed and repassed the gate. The used bad language and said Come along, let’s give it to old Sammy, the old ______. She was not sure the whole of them used bad language; but all were blowing horns or hitting tins and causng a general annoyance and disturbance. The defendant Bird said she heard swear. She was not aware that her husband provoked the defendants in any way. --In reply to Mr. Ratcliffe, witness said she saw Warner beating a tin; she did not hear him swear. She admitted throwing some tar over Warner. Sarah Louise James, daughter of the previous witness, said she remembered the 26th August. She saw the majority of the defendants in front of her mother’s gate. They were beating tins and shouting. Cross-examined by Mr. Radcliffe: Her mother did throw tar and paraffin over the deendants. Warner might have been one of the few who were not beating tins. Amy Letitia James, sister of the last witness, and a brother named Hubert Henry James, also Samuel Elias James, the husband of the first witness, gave evidence. The last-named, cross-examined, said Bird mad use of particularly bad jingle; he swore the worst of the lot. Witness did threaten the defendants with a gun if they interfered with him. The Chairman sad there could be no doubt that there was a very unseemly and very improper row, but they felt some doubt with regard to the specific evidence against particular individuals, and were inclined to take a lenient view of the case if the defendants would ledge themselves that they would not annoy Mr. James in any way in the future. _The undertaking having been entered into, the Chairman said the summonses would be dismissed, but cautioned the defendants againstbeing brought there on a similar charge, because if they were they would be dealt with severely.
THE SEQUEL TO THE ROUGH MUSIC
Frederick Wakley, lodging at the Princeof Wales,Sandhurst, ws charged with an assault on Sarah Ann James, in the parish of Sandhurst, on the 26th August. He pleaded not guilty.Mr Percy St. Gerrans was for the complainant: Mr. Ratcliffe defended.Mrs James said she remembered the 26th August. There was a crown opposite her house beating tins. The defendant was amongst them. She threw a bucket of lean water over him. She was aware they were rough musicing her husband. The crown having passed on, returned shortly afterwards. She had a syringe in her hand. Defendant came up to her and said You ______, would you throw it over me. nd she replied Yes, if you interfere with me. He then called her an old ______ again and she then syringed him. Defendant then rshed at her, and entering the garden, seized the bath produced and forced it over her head, hurting her very much.In reply to Mr. Ratcliffe, witness admitted that she syringed the defendant with tar and parafin, but not before he had used very bad language to her.Sarah Louisa James corroborated her mother’s evidence.In cross-examination she admitted that the bath was not forced over her mother’s head until she had syringed the efendant.Amy Letitia James saw her mother struck with a bath, but she could not say by whom. She was too far away to see.P.C. Mason said he saw the defendant at his lodgings, Prince of Wales, Sandhurst, ad asked him to let him see his clothes. He said Here they are, and pointed to the clothes he was wearing. In consequence of what he subsequently hear he requested the defendant’s landlady to let him see the bedroom occupied by the efendant. In the bedroom upstairs he found the clothes produced. The were covered with tar. Later he saw the defendant downstairs, and he admitted they were the clothes he was wearing the previous night.P.C. Freeman said that whe he charged the defendant with unlawfully wounding Mrs. James he made no reply.--Inspector Goddard said the defendant admitted to him that he was one of the gang present outside James’ house on the evening in question.Dr.Russell, of Sandhurst, who attended the complainant on the evening of the assault, said that the wound on her forehead was about 3¼ inches long. He stitched it up. The wound was quite consistent with a hard blow, such as would be received from th tagged edge of the bath produced. The cut went to the bone.Mr. Ratcliffe said his client had no intention of causing the wound. What he did was in self defence. The complainant had, a his clothes shewed, be very freely syringed with tar and praffin, and the wound was caused in his endeavour to push the complainant aside.The defendant, on oath, said that as he was in the act of striking the syringe out of the complainant’ s hand he accidently struck her with the bath on the forehead. He certainly did not strike her intentionallyshe stepped forward and received the blow on the head. He had not spoken to the complainant he did not know her, and he had no grievance against her.Cross-examined, defendant denied that he wished to annoy the complainant.Inspector Goddard said he knew nothing against the defendant. He was an Exeter man, and had been in one psition for eighteen months. This he left with a good character. The defendant had been locked up from the Tuesday in last week until Friday, when he was allowed bail.The Bench said there could be no doubtthat a very serious assault had been committed; it might have been more serious that it was. Fortunately for the defendant, however, the wound had healed and the woman’s life was not placed in danger. Defendant would be fined 20s., with costs £1 0s. 6., for the assault, he would have to pay a guinea for the doctor’s fee, and allow the complainant £1 1s. towards the expenses she had incurred.The defendant applied for time in whih to pay, but Inspector Goddard objected. He said it had come to his knowledge that £7 had been collected with a view to defraying the defendant’s expenses, and he could be liberated immediately on the amounts ordered by the ench being paid into the Court.The Bench refused the application of the defendant, and the money was forthcoming shortly afterwards.
- Last updated: June 9, 2022 19:52