THE GLADSTONIAN ROWDYISM AT BADSEY
At the Evesham County Petty Sessions on Monday before Alderman Averill (chairman) and Messrs F C Holland, R F Tomes, J Ashwin and T Adkins, Walter William Blake (24), gardener, Badsey, was summoned by Charles Jones, gardener, recently of Badsey, for assaulting and beating him on July 4th. A cross-summons charged Jones with assaulting Blake. Mr G L Eades appeared for Jones, and Mr W Tree (Worcester) for Blake.
Mr Eades, in opening the case, said the assault was one almost of a murderous character, and Blake might consider himself lucky that he did not stand charged with a more serious offence than he now was. His client was present at a political meeting as a spectator, and he was hustled and turned out and challenged to fight. Afterwards from what had been overheard, he was led to expect an attack on the way home up Badsey Lane, and in consequence men named New and Nightingale accompanied him. In the lane he was struck by Blake with some weapon, and severely hurt, having to be taken to Evesham and attended by Mr Martin. He asked the Bench, for the sake of the peace of the neighbourhood, to inflict the heaviest punishment they could. If they permitted such assaults, more especially at such a time as this, they would have the whole countryside in an uproar. If the assault arose out of politics it was not committed in the heat of the moment; it was committed in cold blood in a place where the plaintiff had reason to believe he would not be disturbed.
Charles Jones said on the evening of July 4th there was a political meeting at Badsey, and he was present part of the time. Not agreeing with something said, he made a remark, and was hustled out from the meeting and challenged to fight. He went to his son’s house, and while there a man named New and his son came in. From what he was told they asked New and his son to accompany his wife, daughter and himself home. A man named Nightingale also accompanied them. When they got a short distance up the lane he saw Blake on the opposite side shouting. Blake used a disgusting expression as prosecutor passed, and prosecutor asked him what he meant by that. Blake then turned round fencing at him, and struck him on the side of the head and the arm. Prosecutor endeavoured to strike Blake back, and he received a blow on the other side which cut through his hat and rendered him partially insensible. Prosecutor and the others went towards the village as well as they could, and Blake followed them, saying he would murder the lot. They met PC Farley and went with him to his house, and Farley bound his head up. He was then taken to Evesham, and Mr A H Martin dressed his wound. He did not know if Blake had been drinking; he was supposed to be a teetotaller.
Mr Eades: There is the blue in his coat now.
By Mr Tree: Blake was not walking arm and arm with a girl named Salter when he first saw him. He would swear that he did not first say, “I don’t care for Blake, nor any …. with him” and he would swear that he did not let Blake pass and then go and strike him from behind first.
Mr A H Martin, surgeon, Evesham, said that at midnight on July 4th, Jones came to him with his son. Jones was smothered with blood. Witness examined him and found him suffering from a severe bruise on the right side of the temple, and on the under part of the right arm; also a severe contused wound on the left side of the forehead. He must have lost a considerable quantity of blood, and he was much upset. He was still attending Jones. The wound could certainly not have been caused by a fist. They might have been caused by a stick or a stone.
By Mr Tree: They might have been caused by falling on a stone.
Joseph New, gardener, Bengeworth, said he was in Badsey between eight and nine o’clock while Mr Impey was speaking at the meeting. Jones make a remark, and they mobbed him and challenged him to fight, but he refused. Witness afterwards heard Salter say he would “very nigh kill” Jones when he got him up the lane, and Blake said he would warm him when he got him up there. Witness went to Jones’ son’ house and saw Jones there, and told him of the conversation. Jones asked him to walk home with him as he was in danger of his life. Witness walked with Jones and the others, and a short distance up the lane they met Blake. Witness corroborated prosecutor as to what took place. There was something in Blake’s hand when he struck, but what, he did not know. Blake afterwards asked witness who began the row, and witness replied, “You did.”
By Mr Tree: Jones was not disturbing the meeting when he was turned out. He only said something about the land.
George Nightingale, gardener, Badsey, said in consequence of what was overheard he accompanied Jones and the party home. He corroborated the evidence as to the assault by Blake.
By Mr Tree: He would not swear that Blake had a stick in his hand, but his hand was brought down overhead, and he believed he had something in it.
George Jones, son of prosecutor, gave corroborative evidence, and said he interfered to prevent Blake striking his father again.
Bertha Susan Jones, daughter of prosecutor, also corroborated. After Blake used the dirty expression he began throwing his hands up in the air, and said he was ready for Charley Jones, and he then struck him. Her father struck Blake in self-defence, and then Blake struck her father with something that looked like a stick. Her mother caught prosecutor or he would have fallen, and then her brother stood between to prevent Blake hitting him again.
Ann Jones, wife of prosecutor, said after she caught her husband, Blake threw her son in the ditch.
P C Farley said when he came on the scene, Blake rushed at Jones again and said he would give him some more.
For the defence, Mr Tree argued that Jones was the aggressor, and that he was taking the men with him not for protection but for the object of provoking an assault.
Walter William Blake, who as a member of the Society of Friends, affirmed, said after Jones was turned he and Salter never threatened what they would do for him. After the meeting he went home again, and he came back thinking they might hear the result of the Worcester election. It was utterly untrue that he made us of the indecent expression, nor did he say anything. Jones passed him about six yards, and said he “did not car a ….. for anyone there,” and used an indecent expression. He then rushed at witness and hit him while he was arm and arm with Salter and Miss Salter. Witness struck back – after he had been hit twice – with his closed hand and then Jones’ son pitched into him from behind. Jones and prosecutor fell into a hedge where there were some short stumps which might have cut his head. Witness was perfectly sober; he had had no intoxicating drinks for six years.
By Mr Eades: His only reason for going out again was to her if the poll was declared. He never heard Salter say that he would kill Jones. Defendant did not do any of the “chucking out”, and he did not challenge to fight anybody. He never said that he would go and give Jones some more when the policeman came up.
Mrs Salter, wife of John Salter, Badsey Lane, corroborated in each particular.
Cross-examined by Mr Eades, witness at first denied the accuracy of the report in the Evesham Standard as to her share in the disturbance at the meeting, but in reply to questions she admitted striking Miss Jones, but said that was after the girl had torn her dress.
Rachel Salter, daughter of the last witness, corroborated, and said she and her brother had hold of Blake’s arms when Jones turned back and struck Blake from behind twice. Blake had nothing in his hands when he struck Jones back.
The Chairman: Is Blake keeping company with you?
No, sir.
The Chairman: I thought it looked rather like it.
Mr Tree: Political friends, sir, who came to hear the result of the poll.
Mr Eades: And none of them voters.
By Mr Eades: When Farley came Blake did not rush at Jones and say he would give him some more.
Charles Salter, brother of last witness, told a very similar story in much the same language. Charles Jones was on the ground about two yards from the ditch.
William Stanford, Badsey, said he was at his gate when Jones went by. Sparrow, who was with him, asked George Jones where he was going. George Jones said “to work” and rolled up his sleeves. He then followed the Joneses, and saw Charles Jones turn back and strike Blake. He corroborated the other evidence. He should think the ditch was the cause of Charles Jones falling. He fell head foremost into the ditch.
By Mr Eades: Blake did not run at Jones and say he would give him some more in the policeman’s presence.
John Salter also gave corroborative evidence. Charles Jones fell against the hedge. There was not a ditch where Charles Jones fell.
After a short consultation, the Chairman said the charge against Jones would be dismissed. As to the case against Blake, the Bench considered it proved, and they were very sorry anything of the sort should have occurred now, as they all knew there was plenty of freedom of speech, everybody could express his opinion, and he hope that in this contest, and in all contests in the county, there would be no breach of the peace and no damage to person or property. If it had not been for the time, and perhaps some provocation, they would have sent Blake to prison without the option of a fine, but they had decided to fine him £2 and £1 18s costs, or in default a month’s hard labour.
* * * * *
The gossip columnist, "The Chiel", writing in same edition of The Evesham Standard, said:
NOTES BY THE CHIEL
There is a popular superstition that “drink” – meaning thereby alcoholic stimulants – is the sole, or at least the chief cause of violence at elections and on other public occasions. It is also commonly supposed that the guiding principle of the members of the Society of Friends is the doctrine of non-resistance. Both these notions received a mild shock at the police court on Monday. Walter Blake of Badsey is, on his own showing, one of the sect commonly known as Quakers; he is also, as he informed the county Bench with a smile of conscious rectitude and an air of condescending superiority to all who have not so far conquered the lusts of the flesh, a total abstainer of six years standing. As he expressed it, he had not tasted any intoxicating liquor for six years. So far, however, was Mr Blake from acting upon the doctrine of turning the other cheek to the smiter, that he actually became the aggressor and severely wounded one Jones, apparently for no other reason than that he happened to be a Tory – seemingly a dire offence in the free village of Badsey. And so far as can be gathered, Blake was prompted to the outrage by no material incentive stronger than cold water. It is true that this Mr Blake, who appears to have “conscientious scruples” about some things “solemnly and sincerely” affirmed that he did not strike Jones with a weapon, but the Bench did not attach much importance to the solemn and sincere affirmation, and ordered defendant to pay £2 and £18 18s costs. The Bench did not say that Mr Blake had committed perjury, but they accepted the contradictory testimony of the other side. It is possible that on the net result of the “case”, Mr Blake will learn (1) that it is contrary to the law of England to batter a man’s skull, although he happens to be a mere benighted Tory; and (2) that the Evesham country magistrates have too much experience to be taken in by that familiar similarity in the evidence of a number of witnesses.