A Court Appearance.
Henry Newland 1846 – 1930.
Henry was
Stanley Newland’s grandfather. His name appeared in various newspapers,
including The Times, in September 1885 when he appeared in court charged with
disorderly conduct and causing a crowd to assemble. He was described as a
tailor aged 35, living at 233, Southampton-street, Camberwell. He was actually
about 40 years old, but the address and occupation are right. I’ve rewritten
the article as the original is quite long and not very readable.
The prosecution
called witnesses, who claimed that at about 7 o’clock on a Sunday evening,
Henry was marching in front of a brass band in the Old Kent Road.
The first
witness was a policeman, who was on duty at the time. He heard shouting and
music and saw a band being led by Henry. The policeman asked Henry to order the
band to stop playing as they were frightening two horses. Henry refused and
pushed the policeman aside. Henry was taken into custody.
The policeman
said that he had noticed a cornet and a big drum being played and that the drum
made the most noise. People in the street were complaining about the noise. The
defence suggested that the policeman may have caused the crowd to assemble by
his interference in the situation and the policeman agreed that that may have
been the case.
Another
witness, William Thomas Overy, rag merchant, said that he was with his wife and
family in the Old Kent-road when they were pushed about by the procession which
consisted of boys and girls. Men were playing a cornet and a big drum and
making a great noise. The defendant appeared to be leading them. The noise
interfered with his comfort, and it frightened the horses of the tram car. He
said that the band is a nuisance to everyone in the neighbourhood.
The magistrate
enquired whether the band have a place of worship and the defence confirmed
that they did but they also have a right to walk in the streets. Mr Bridge, the
magistrate, thought that they had better confine their religious services to
their place of worship. A third witness, Arthur How, umbrella maker, of Old
Kent-road, also stated that the noise made by the procession greatly annoyed
him.
Mr Bridge asked
whether the defendant would promise not to annoy the public again with these
processions, but the defence repeated that the band contended have a right to
walk in the streets.
The magistrate
stated that when they annoy the public, they should not do it and that the
processions cause a great deal of bitterness. Henry refused to promise to stop.
The defence
then went on to claim that the policeman acted in a most unwarrantable manner.
The prisoner was marching in a proper and orderly manner when the officer
seized the defendant and another young man without cause or reason. It had been held by the Judges that religious
bodies had a right to march through the streets singing and playing music.
The defence
then called a number of witnesses to show that the procession was marching in
an orderly manner, and that there was no occasion for the constable to
interfere with it. If there was any disturbance or obstruction it was entirely
through his conduct.
The magistrate
observed that the question he had to deal with was whether the charge had been
substantiated. He thought that under the circumstances the policeman had done
his duty, although he did not think he had acted with discretion, as it would
have been better to have taken the defendant's name and address than to have
taken him into custody. It was clear that a breach of the peace had occurred.
He should bind the defendant over in his own recognizances to keep the peace
for six months. He advised the police on any future occasion to take the names
and addressed of persons offending in this way and place the matter before the
Public Prosecutor for the purpose of indicting them as a public nuisance. The
magistrate refused to grant a case.