 |
At the late Surrey Quarter Sessions at Kingston, a case of
assault was tried which created a considerable degree of in-
terest.
Two respectable labourers, named William Clarke, aged
53, and David Wadiey, 38,and a female with an infant in her
arms, named Charlotte Goody, the daughter of the first-
named defendant, were charged with assaulting Mr. George
Chaundy, a farmer living near Kingston. The original charge
made against the defendants was that of assaulting the pro-
secutor on the highway and robbing him of a hat, but that
charge was abandoned.
Mr. Jermmett appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Cham-
bers for the defendants.
The complainant, a man apparently between 50 and 60 years
of age, stated that on the evening of the 27th of September,
he was in the Red Lion public-house at Kingston, and after
partaking of a glass of grog with the landlord, about half-
past 7 o'clock he left for the purpose of going home. He had
previously seen the defendants in the house, and they left a short
time before him. He proceeded towards his home, and when
he got a short distance up the lane leading to Norbiton-
common, where he resided, he observed the female defendant
stoop down, apparently to tie her shoe, and as he passed her
he said in a very civil way, "Shall I tie your shoe, ma'am!"
Upon this she made use of a very coarse expression, and he
walked away, when he got near the railway arch she came
up to him, seized his collar, and abused him, and the men at
the same time attacked him and beat him violently, and cut
his head, and hurt him very much. He gave information to
a policeman, and the defendants were taken into custody soon
afterwards. He lost his hat in the scuffle, but it was after-
wards returned to him.
Cross-examined. - I don't know that I ever got into any
scrapes with ladies before. I am a married man. I recol-
lect being often at Mrs. Wellington's public-house at Wands-
worth, but I don't recollect being accused of insulting a
married lady who was stopping there. Mrs. Wellington did
threaten that she would tell my wife of something, but I
think it was for "larking" with the female servants, and one
of the servants was discharged in consequence.
Mr. Jemmett here objected to the course of cross-examina-
tion, and contended that in a case of assault it was not jus-
tifiable.
Mr. Chambers contended it was a very proper and legiti-
mate inquiry that he was pursuing. His object was to show
that the complainant had been guilty on several occasions of
insulting females, in order that the jury might form an opi-
nion upon the present charge.
Cross-examination - I may have "larked" with the cook
and housemaid hundreds of times. If I have ever gone into a
married woman's bedroom, or been charged with doing so, I
shan't tell you about it. I am not going to tell you all the
bedrooms I have been in.
Mr. Chambers - How many daughters have you ?
Witness (hesitating) - I have three.
Mr. Chambers - What is the age of your eldest daughter ?
Witness (very much agitated, and appealing to Mr. Jem-
mett). - Am I obliged to answer that question ?
Mr. Chambers - Can a respectable farmer, as you are re-
presented to be, have any objection to tell the age of his eldest
daughter ?
Mr. Jemmett - I don't see any harm in your answering the
question.
Witness - She is 20 years old.
Mr. Chambers - How old are your other daughters ?
Witness - One 13, and the other 11.
Mr. Chambers - Where do they sleep ?
The witness hesitated.
Mr. Chambers - Now, Sir, on your oath, do they not sleep
in the same bed with you ?
Witness (after considerable hesitiation) - They do occa-
sionally.
Mr. Chambers - I will not ask you any more.
Several other witnesses were then examined, but they did
not give any material corroboration in support of the charge
of assault.
Mr. Chambers then made a powerful appeal to the jury on
behalf of the defendants, and in the course of his observa-
tions he remarked that he was precluded from calling any
witness to show to real character of the transaction owing
to the defendant having thought proper to indict the
whole of the parties who were present for an assault, having
first attempted to make out a case of robbery, for which he
knew there was no foundation. He put it to the jury, how-
ever, whether it was not very probable that the conduct of the
complainant towards the female on this railway arch was
such as to justify her father in inflicting summary punish-
ment upon him; and he at the same time asked them, whether
a man at his time of life, who had admitted that he slept in the
same bed with his two daughters, 11 and 13 years of age, was
deserving of much consideration at their hands ?
Mr. Duff, a magistrate for the borough of Sudbury, was
then called on behalf of the defendants, and he said
that Clarke had been in his service for 19 years, and he knew
him to be a respectable industrious man, and of quiet in-
offensive habit. He gave the other defendants a similiar
character.
The CHAIRMAN addressed a few observations to the jury
who immediately returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
The verdict was received with cheers by the person in the
court, but the ebullition of feeling was speedily suppressed
by the officers.
|
