Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Taunton Courier. Bristol and Exeter Journal, and Western Advertiser. Wednesday 21 Apr 1909
Page 3 Column 4
TAUNTON COUNTY PETTY SESSIONS.
SATURDAY. - Before Colonel W. O. MEADE-KING (in the chair), Major-General EMERSON, Major A. G. BARRETT, Mr. J. E. W. WAKEFIELD, and Mr. A. E. EASTWOOD.
CREECH BUTCHERS AT VARIANCE.
A FIGHT ON THE HIGHWAY.
ALLEGED ASSAULTS.
A somewhat complicated case of alleged assault occupied the attention of the Court for over two hours, this being all the business. The defendant was Edmund TROTT, a butcher, of Creech St. Michael, and the complainant Mrs. Emma Jane HOPKINS, wife of William HOPKINS, also a butcher, of Creech. - Mr. C. P. CLARKE appeared for the complainant, and Mr. F. W. CLARKE for the defendant.
Mr. CLARKE, in his opening statement, said that the defendant's mother, Mrs. DREW, of Creech, and Mr. HOPKINS were both butchers, and had a stall each in Taunton Market. On March 28th some altercation arose between the two families, with the result that Mrs. DREW was ordered to go to another stall. Mr. CLARKE described the alleged assault, which he said took place on April 2nd. He submitted to the Bench that the assault was premeditated and absolutely unjustified, and that the defendant should be dealt with somewhat more severely than was usual in such cases. It was not simply a case of a neighbours' quarrel, but of a man knocking about a woman against whom he had no sort of complaint at all.
The complainant stated that while she was in the house about 8 p.m. on Friday, April 2nd, she heard a disturbance, and recognised the defendant's voice. He was using threatening language, and when she went out she found him and her husband outside. She tried to persuade her husband to come in, and ordered defendant off the premises. Defendant struck her, and afterwards there followed a fight between her husband and the defendant, both getting into the ditch. After they got out again defendant struck her again when she went to the assistance of her husband. He shook her and pulled her hair. As the result of the blows she received she had to send for a doctor.
By Mr. F. W. CLARKE: She did not use bad language to the defendant.
William HOPKINS, husband of the complainant, gave evidence of the quarrel that took place in Taunton market, the upshot of which was that defendant's mother had to move to another stall. On the way home on the night of the alleged assault he met DREW (the defendant's half-brother), and DREW exclaimed “Here he is.” and the defendant rushed inside his (witness's) gate and challenged him to fight. His wife came out and ordered the defendant off, but he used very bad language and struck her. Witness thereupon “went for” the defendant, and they both fell into the ditch. When they got out defendant rushed at him again and knocked him down. His wife came to his assistance, and then the defendant struck her again. He had not spoken to the defendant for years, as he considered him a very dangerous young fellow.
By Mr. CLARKE: His wife did not strike the defendant.
Charles BROOKES, a labourer, of Creech, corroborated the assault. He told the defendant to leave Mrs. HOPKINS alone, and that he ought to be ashamed to hit a woman. He helped to stop the row.
Viva HOPKINS, daughter of the complainant, also corroborated.
By Mr. CLARKE: She did not join in the fray with sticks.
This was the case for the prosecution, and Mr. F. W. CLARKE at once called the witnessess [sic] for the defence.
William George DREW, half-brother of the defendant, a butcher,of Creech, stated that on the night in question he was out getting orders, when he met HOPKINS and his wife, who both struck him. The defendant came to take his part, but never went inside the HOPKINS' premises. TROTT and HOPKINS both fell into the ditch.
By Mr. C. P. CLARKE: He was not a fighting man, and had to get the defendant to come to his assistance against Mr. HOPKINS and his wife. They had never thought of meeting HOPKINS that particular night. He went to the Lane End Inn for orders, and was there abut half-an-hour.
William Henry SAUNDERS, a railway employee, spoke to seeing what happened after the men came out of the ditch. He never saw the defendant strike Mrs. HOPKINS. Both parties used bad language.
By Mr. CLARKE: He did not know how the quarrel started. He could not say why Mrs. HOPKINS had to send for a doctor.
Charlotte SAUNDERS, wife of the previous witness, corroborated, and said that HOPKINS and TROTT were having a “fine concern.” - Asked by Mr. CLARKE what she meant by a “fine concern,” she replied “They were talking worse than the 'bookies' up at Hatch Races.” (Laughter.) She did not see the defendant pull Mrs. HOPKINS' hair or strike her.
Fredk. SEAGAR also spoke to seeing hat happened after the ditch incident, and denied that Mrs. HOPKINS was struck, although she might have been.
Mary TROTT, sister of the defendant, stated she was present at the quarrel, and HOPKINS hit her as well. She alleged that BROOKES had been bribed to give evidence, for she had heard the complainant offer him a drink. She was aware that her brother was fined some months ago, but that was because people told untruths.
The defendant then gave evidence on his own behalf. He said that on the evening in question he heard a row going on between his half-brother DREW and HOPKINS. He went out and found Mrs. HOPKINS catching hold of DREW, while HOPKINS was threatening to strike him. Witness describee [sic] the fight which then occurred between him and HOPKINS, and their falling into the ditch. He denied ever striking Mrs. HOPKINS, but alleged that she tore his coat. HOPKINS was always wanting to fight him.
By Mr. CLARKE: He took his own part when he was challenged.
Mr. F. W. CLARKE said he did not think that Mrs. HOPKINS was intentionally hit at all. He suggested that both parties should be bound over to keep the peace.
The Chairman, after a short retirement by the Bench, said that they had decided to bind each of the parties over in the sum of £5 to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour for six months. Each party would pay their own costs. The costs were 5s for the defendant and 5s 6d for the complainant.
There was another summons against TROTT for assaulting HOPKINS at the same time and place, and Mr. and Mrs. HOPKINS were also summoned by DREW for assault. These cases the magistrates adjourned for a fortnight.
<NOTES: William John HOPKINS son of William Charles HOPKINS and Maria PHILLIPS, married Emma Jane HOWE
Mrs Emma HOWE is Emma Jane HOWE daughter of Robert HOWE and Sarah BRASS, married William John HOPKINS>