HOMEPAGE

POLICE, LAW AND THE COURTS

FEBRUARY, 1915
SPECIAL CONSTABLES – The following townspeople are wearing the neat little metal disc which indicates that they have been sworn in as special constables for Brandon:

George Henry Gates, Arthur Lee Barber, the Rev Lucian P Janez, Montague Froud, Frederick William Gentle, Frederick Joseph Mount, John Sydney Cooper, Frank Foxwell Brown, and George Garnham.

Up to the present they have not been called upon to do their regular duty, such as their colleagues in Norfolk are performing. In case of emergency, however, their services would, of course, be at once requisitioned, as may be gathered from an instruction which has been posted in the town, to the effect that in the event of an apprehended attack by air craft or bombardment, notice will be given to the inhabitants of Brandon by Messrs G. Wood and Son’s hooter being sounded for ten minutes. After a short interval it would again be sounded.

Special constables would assemble at the Police Station, and the inhabitants were requested to remain quietly in their houses pending instructions from the Police. Sir John Aird, of Brandon Park, is Chairman of the Emergency Committee for the Lackford Petty Sessional Division.

MAY, 1915
CASE DISMISSED – Samuel Gathercole, labourer, Brandon, was summoned for failing to notify that his child Mary Elizabeth was suffering from a notifiable disease on 27^th January. Maggie Gathercole was also summoned for exposing the child while suffering from scarlet fever.
Defendants pleased not guilty.

Leonard Howell, Assistant Sanitary Inspector to the Brandon Rural District Council, produced his authority to prosecute, and stated that on the 27^th January, from information received from the Medical Officer of Health, he visited the house of Samuel Gathercole, at Town Street, Brandon, and questioned the woman about the child Mary Elizabeth.

The answers she gave him led him to suspect that the child was suffering from scarlet fever, and he advised her to cal Dr Trotter. He examined the child and found she was partly peeing. Mrs Gathercole admitted that she had taken the child into the street on the 25^th January.

Dr W.O. Trotter said he saw the child on the 29^th January and found it was peeling from scarlet fever.  The Magistrates’ Clerk (Mr O.F. Read) pointed out that there was no evidence against the man. It was only inference.   Asked whether he presumed that the mother knew the child was suffering from scarlet fever, Dr Trotter replied that he should not like to say that.

The Clerk – “It is possible for a child to be suffering from scarlet fever and the mother not to know what it is so.”
Dr Trotter – “Yes.”
The Chairman – “You did not see the woman before the 29^th?”
Dr Trotter – “No.”
The Chairman – “Did the mother tell you she had taken the child out?”
Dr Trotter – “Yes, I believe she told me she had taken it into town.”
The Clerk – “As soon as you were called in the case was notified as one of scarlet fever?”
Dr Trotter – “Yes, and I gave the mother strict instructions not to take the child out again.”
The Chairman to Mrs Gathercole – “Have you had any other children suffering from scarlet fever?”
Defendant – “No, this Is the only one we have.”

The Chairman said there was no proof, and the case must be dismissed. At the same time they would like to caution defendants that in future, if the child got any rash, they should at once call in a doctor to say what it was. It was most dangerous to take a child out into the street when it was suffering from infectious disease, because it might be spread amongst other children. Defendants should take that as a warning, and be more careful in future.

An absentee – Colonel Hamilton attended at the Police Station on Sunday morning for the purpose of hearing a charge against Edgar Randall, London Road, Brandon of being Absent Without Leave from the 7^th Norfolk Regiment, stationed at Aldershot. Inspector Mobbs stated that after receiving a communication from the Commanding Officer he apprehended the prisoner on Saturday. Randall admitted he was an absentee. The magistrate remanded him to await the arrival of a military escort. 

Walter Norton, labourer, Brandon, was summoned for non-payment of 13s arrears for his son’s maintenance in an industrial school. The defendant did not appear but sent one of his sons, who had brought the 13s. Inspector Mobbs suggested that the defendant “would never pay unless he was forced”.

JULY, 1915
DANGEROUS DRIVING – Frank Edwards, of Thetford Road, Brandon, was summoned for driving a motor car at a speed dangerous to the public in High Street on 12^th June. Defendant pleaded not guilty.

Inspector Mobbs said he was on duty opposite the Paget Hall about 9pm on the 12^th June. In consequence of a soldier having fainted in the Hall a crowd of people had assembled in the street. Witness saw a motor car travelling at a fast speed from the direction of the bridge. He hurried off the path into the road and saw that the car was being driven by the defendant. Witness held up his hand and shouted to the defendant to drive steadier. Edwards took no notice, but continued at the same speed up the street. In the witness’ opinion the car travelled through the crowd at 25 miles an hour, and several women and children had to get out of the way. A gentleman remarked, “Do you allow people to drive in the street like that, Mobbs? He will be killing somebody one day!” At 10pm the same night witness saw the defendant, whom he informed that a complaint had been made of the way he drove his motor car. Witness pointed out that he nearly ran over some of the people, and that he failed to stop when witness held up his hand. Defendant said, “Why should I stop? There was no accident.”

Defendant, addressing the Bench, said it was nonsense to say he was going at 25 miles an hour. It was impossible for his old car to get up a quarter that speed in the distance between the Hall and the dangerous bridge, where people would naturally pull up. He passed over the bridge at about a walking pace. He did not see Inspector Mobbs hold up his hand. If he had he would have stopped. Addressing Inspector Mobbs the defendant asked, “Didn’t you tell a certain party that you would have your own back?”
Inspector Mobbs – “I deny that. I do not do police duty like that.”

P.C. O’Brien said on the evening in question he received a complaint that the defendant was driving his car about the town at a speed dangerous to the public. About 9 o’clock he saw the defendant approaching along High Street from the direction of the Railway Station. He was travelling at probably from 25 to 30 miles an hour. Witness saw Inspector Mobbs go into the road and call out, but the defendant failed to stop. He was also present when Inspector Mobbs subsequently interviewed the defendant, who said, “Why should I stop? There was no accident.”

Defendant repeated that it was impossible for him to get up that speed in the distance, and added, “The long and short of it is, it is nothing only a bit of spite.”
The Chairman said the speed had nothing to do with it. Defendant was driving to the danger of the public.
Defendant replied that the car was perfectly under control, and he could have pulled up within a few yards.

The Bench imposed a fine of £1.

AUGUST, 1915
DESERTER – Before Colonel Hamilton was Thomas Fairbrother who had gone absent without leave from the 2/5^th Battery Essex Regiment (Territorials). Inspector Mobbs received a complaint on 4^th August of a soldier acting in a suspicious manner and found him concealed near the fence along Bury Road. He had neither pass nor an explanation. Inspector Mobbs then took the man to the Police Station and searched him but found no pass. He was locked up and the next day admitted to being AWOL. He was remanded to await a military escort

OCTOBER, 1915
BRIGHT LIGHTS AT BRANDON TRADESPEOPLE AND MOTORISTS FINED. “THE LAW MUST BE OBSERVED” – The Brandon Magistrates were engaged for about two hours on Monday, chiefly hearing charges against tradespeople and motorists for infringements of the order as to obscuring or reducing of lights. Colonel B.C.P. Hamilton presided, and the other magistrates were – Colonel Spragge, Dr Pickworth and Mr George Wood.

The first case was that in which Edith M Clarke, of the White Hart hotel, was charged with insufficiently obscuring the lights on the 14^th September. She was defended by Mr A.J. Winter. PC O’Brien said about 8.45pm he saw a bright light issuing from the hotel, and on examining the window he found that the splines of the venetian blind were cromway(?) instead of down. On entering the yard he found it in a blaze of light, which came from the windows at the back of hotel. The door was also open. He drew Miss Clarke’s attention to it. She said, “You soon won’t allow us to have any light at all.” Defendant’s brother then obscured the lights.

Mr Winter – “Was the light coming from more than one window?”
Witness – “One front and one back”
Mr Winter – “Which window in front?”
Witness – The bar window”
Witness added that the light was thrown on to the building opposite . He had cautioned defendant or others in the hotel on several occasions. PC Brown, who was with the last witness, confirmed his evidence, and remarked that the blind at one of the windows in the yard was right up, the others were down, but allowed the light to leave the sides. With regard to the front window some of the splines of the blind were closed, others were open. Defendant said she was not aware there had been any complaints about the windows. The blind to the tap room was drawn partly down, and was met by a short curtain. It was not drawn right down because there were some boxes outside and the light from the window prevented the danger of people falling over them.
Mr Winter – “And since the constables came you have drawn the blind fully and let you customers take the risk?”
Witness – “Yes”
The Chairman said this was the first case which had come before the Bench, and they were not disposed to deal harshly with it, but the law must be obeyed.

Defendant would be fined 5s.

There was a similar charge against Walter Talbot, of the Duke of Wellington, for an offence on the same date. In this case Mr Winter also defended. PC O’Brien said a light was thrown across the road on to the wall opposite. The front door of the house was open, and the window had a very fine red blind which did not sufficiently obscure the light. He drew the landlord’s attention to the matter, and defendant said, “If the door is open why don’t you close it? Why don’t you attend to the lights down the street?” Defendant was rather angry, and witness left him. PC Broom gave similar evidence.

Defendant admitted that the door was open when the constable came in. He requested customers to close it after them, but they did not always do so. He had no intention of being rude to the police. In addition to the red blind he hung a tablecloth over the window. Mr Winter pointed out that in this case there appeared to have been no previous warning given, apart from the printed circular which was distributed generally. With regard to the door it was a difficulty experienced by all beerhouse keepers. Customers left the door open, although they were asked not to do so. Defendant was fined 2s 6d.

In a similar case against Arthur B. Footer, tobacconist, police-sergeant Brown said the light was showing across the road on to the opposite home. It was issuing from the sides where the blind did not fit. Witness drew defendant’s attention to it, and he said he did not think he had too much light. PC O’Brien said the defendant admitted he had some light, but said other people had more. He had warned the defendant on two occasions this week previously. Addressing the Bench, defendant said there was only one gas burner, and that was shaded ... “

PETTY SESSIONS – The effect of the war on trade was raised at the Brandon Petty Sessions on Monday, (Col Hamilton presiding) when Frederick W. Smith was summoned in respect of the non payment of £1 16s 11½d poor rate.

The Chairman: “Why do you say you cannot pay the rate?”
Defendant: “I am not doing the trade.”
The Clerk: “What is your trade?”
Defendant: “Cold meat.”
The Assistant Overseer (Mr F.J. Mount) said he rather thought the defendant had benefited through the war. The place had been full of troops, and he was very busy.
Defendant: Neither the artillery nor any of the soldiers had meat from my shop.”
The Overseer: You benefited by the troops being there. You told me so.”
Defendant: “I never said any such thing.”
The Chairman: (to Mr Mount) Your feeling is that the trade of the town has not suffered?”
Mr Mount: “I don’t think the business of the town is quite so good now. There are not so many men in the town, but previously we had a lot of troops here, and everybody felt the benefit. More money was spent in the town all round.”
Defendant said Mr Mount must admit the meat trade felt the effects of the war more than any trade in England.
The Chairman said Mr Wood did not adjudicate in this case, but the other magistrates were of the opinion that an order for payment must be made. They thought, however, the defendant should be given time to pay.
The Assistant Overseer said he would give defendant every chance.

At the same court Thomas A. Green, printer, was summoned for allowing his dog to be on the highway not under control, at midnight, on the 16^th September. He was further charged with allowing his dog to be on the highway without a name and address on its collar, on the 17^th September.
Defendant pleaded guilty in both cases.
P.C. O’Brien stated the facts.
Defendant said the dog had been out for a walk with him and he missed it in the street. With regard to the second charge, defendant said there were two collars, one with the name and address on it and the other without. His children must have changed them, as the collar without a name and address had a large ring by which the dog could be easily led. Soldiers made a big chum of the dog, with the result that it had to be very closely watched, or else it got out of the shop door.
The Bench decided to dismiss the case on payment of the costs (5s).

Clara Edwards, married woman, failed to appear in answer to a summons for assaulting and beating Amelia Dennis, married woman, at Brandon, on September 17^th. A letter was received asking the Bench to adjourn the case, as the defendant had lost her son and was suffering from a nervous breakdown.
The Chairman asked Mrs Dennis whether she was aware of the defendant’s loss.
Complainant said her son had enlisted.
The Bench directed that a fresh summons should be issued, and that the steps should be taken to bring the defendant to the next court.

NOVEMBER, 1915
NEIGHBOURS AT LOGGERHEADS – Clara Edwards, married woman, was charged with assaulting Amelia Dennis, of Brandon, on 17^th September.
Defendant, who was represented by Mr A.J. Winter, pleaded not guilty.
Complainant said on the afternoon of 17^th September she came out of her house with a newspaper to read the soldiers’ letters to the neighbours who were at work in a shed. Defendant, who came for some water, said, “You ought to read, you @@@@.”
Complainant replied, “A thing like that needs proving.”
Defendant said, “I’ll prove you, for I’ll shake your @@@@ life out.”
She then smacked complainant’s face twice, and knocked her head against a brick wall. Complainant said she would summon her. Defendant then threw a handful of stones on to the wheel of complainant’s push-chair which had a baby in it. Defendant was very drunk at the time.
Cross examined by Mr Winter, complainant said she had no grievance against Mrs Edwards. They had always been the best of friends. Complainant never took beer to the soldiers while they were on Mr Edwards’ premises. Complainant had said nothing to defendant.
Mr Winter – “What made you think defendant was drunk?
Complainant – “ By the way she acted”. Complainant added that she had nothing in her hand except the newspaper.
Ann Lingwood, married woman, of Brandon, said after using the offensive expression complained of the defendant stood her pail down, “flow up”, to complainant, slapped her face and knocked her head against the wall.
Arabella Whistler gave similar evidence as to the assault.
Complainant, she said, did not retaliate.
P.C. O’Brien said Mrs Dennis complained to him that she had been assaulted by Mrs Edwards. Complainant was crying, witness noticed her face was very red. Witness interviewed the defendant and informed her of the complainant.
Defendant said, “And I’ll do it again. You are as bad as she is. I’ll report you for upholding bad women.”
Mrs Edwards appeared to be under the influence of drink.
Giving evidence on her own behalf, defendant said previous to the occurrence in question she had about 200 soldiers stationed on her premises and she had had to complain to Mrs Dennis about her bringing beer to them during prohibited hours. She also had occasion to complain about Mrs Dennis always being with the soldiers. Defendant went to the tap because her own had gone wrong. It was untrue that she was drunk. While she was getting the water Mrs Dennis opened her door and shouted to her. As defendant was going away with the pail, complainant followed her and asked why she had been talking about complainant being with the soldiers. Defendant said she had never done so, although she could have done. Complainant then used foul language towards defendant, and defendant gave her a push. It was untrue that she knocked complainant’s head against a wall. She did not strike her at all but merely pushed her away.
Cross examined by the Chairman, defendant did not think the other witnesses could have seen what took place, because they were “down in a hole”.
Robert Edwards, husband of the defendant, said on the 17^th the defendant was quite sober. She was not in the habit of getting drunk. She was naturally a little excited. He knew nothing about the occurrence until the policeman came, and he saw Mrs Dennis “Raving on the place like a mad woman.”
The Chairman said the Bench were of the opinion the case was proved and that the assault was committed without provocation. She would be fined £1, with an alternative of 14 days imprisonment. ”

A VERY SAD CASE – Harriet Randall, widow of Brandon, was charged with stealing a galvanised pail, an enamel bowl, and a towel, value 2s 4d, the property of Mar Ann Presland, of the Avenue, on 15^th October.
Mr A.J. Winter was for the defendant.
Inspector Mobbs said about 1pm on the 16^th, he was informed by Mrs Presland that she had missed the articles from her back door during the night of October 14^th – 15^th. After making inquiries witness went to the defendant’s house and told her that the articles were missing. He added that he suspected they were in her house. Defendant said, “They are not here. I know nothing about them.” Witness said, “The hand bowl standing on the table answers to the description of Mrs Presland’s. Defendant then said, “I will tell you the truth, it belongs to her. I will go and get the pail. This was in the defendant’s cupboard. Defendant denied any knowledge of the towel. Witness said he was of the opinion it was there, and he was going to look round her house. A few minutes later defendant handed him the towel. Mrs Presland afterwards identified the things as her property. In reply to the charge, defendant said, “I am sorry to say, sir, I did steal them.”
Mary Ann Presland gave evidence of identity, and said she last saw the articles on the night of October 14^th. She missed them the following morning. In answer to the charge defendant elected to be dealt with summarily, and pleaded not guilty.
Mr Winter, addressing the Bench said this was a sad case. Defendant was a widow, with ten children. Her husband, a signalman, died three or four years ago. Five of the children were at home now. Two of the daughters were married, and three sons were serving in the Army. Not long before she lost her husband the defendant had rheumatice fever and had to be carried up and downstairs. Since the war broke out she went to stay with a married daughter in London. While there she attended a Cinema Palace, at the time when one of the raids was on and the palace itself was struck by a bomb. It was a tremendous shock to defendant’s nerves and she came home a perfect wreck. Since then she did not appear to know from day to day what she was doing, and he submitted she did not know she had took the articles. She merely found them in her house. Only on Friday last she received a report that her eldest son had been killed at the Front.
Defendant was bound over under the Probation of Offenders’ Act. ”

A GOOD MIND TO TAKE SEVEN DAYS – Walter Knights was summoned for failing to obscure a window, thereby allowing a bright light to be shed outside, on 15^th October.
Inspector Mobbs said at 8.50pm he saw defendant’s back yard lit up. He watched it for a few minutes and then went to the house. He found the light came from a large oil lamp. There was no blind to the window.
Defendant said the lamp was not bigger than his hand. It was not a big light at all. He admitted the blind was up just then.
The Chairman said he would have to pay 5s or go to prison for seven days.
Defendant – “I’ve a good mind to take the seven days” (laughter)”.

“RECEIVED FROM A SOLDIER– Peter Kent Woolsey, of Brandon, appeared to answer a charge of being in possession of a pair of Army boots and a pair of Army breaches.
Marquis Henry Stammers, tailor, of Thetford, said about 10.30 am on November 18^th, the prisoner came to his shop and offered witness a pair of Army breeches, for which he asked 7s 6d. Witness declined to take them.
Prisoner then asked 6s and witness again declined to buy them. Prisoner asked permission to leave the breeches until he came back. He left them, and witness subsequently handed them over to the Police.
George John Whistler, employed by the last witness, said on the 18^th November prisoner came into the shop with a pair of boots, which he asked witness to buy for 5s. Witness declined to buy them, and prisoner took them away.
Inspector Vincent said on the 18^th November he saw prisoner in Cage Lane. Having been cautioned he was told he was suspected of being in possession of Army stores. Prisoner was asked how he came into possession of the breeches and boots, and he replied that they were given to him by a particular soldier friend, who he had known for five weeks, but did not know his name. He hoped there was nothing wrong. He did know there was any harm in buying them. It was pointed out that he said they were given to him, and the prisoner replied, “That is right. They were given to me.”
P.C. Riches said, acting under orders, he accompanied the prisoner to a canteen on the 18^th, where prisoner handed him a pair of boots, which were passed on to the Inspector.
Quarter-Master Sergeant Braunnagel identified the boots and breeches as Army property.
On oath, prisoner said about 9 or 10 days before the Inspector saw him about the articles, a friend of his, who was canteen assistant and a soldier, handed the boots and breeches to prisoner, and said he was going to the Front and they had plenty of clothes issued out, prisoner could have them if they were of any use to him. Prisoner said he had ten years’ good character in the Army, and was now holding a responsible position.
Thomas Mortimer, called by the prisoner, said he was in the canteen when a soldier came up to the prisoner and said, “Here’s a pair of breeches and boots for you.”
The Mayor said the Bench very much regretted seeing the prisoner in his present position. They were of opinion that having served ten years in the Army he ought to have known very much better. The magistrates were determined to set their faces against that sort of thing, and defendant would have to pay a fine of £5, or undergo a month’s imprisonment.”

Web Site copyright © Darren  Norton

This website was designed and developed by Darren Norton, Brandon, Suffolk