Now! Then! A Keighley churchwarden and constable drag one Mr Aken, a local bookseller and printer, into Sunday service

18 October 1835: A Keighley churchwarden and constable drag one Mr Aken, a local bookseller and printer, into Sunday service

York Herald. 1836/03/05. Aken v. Robinson and Another. York. Get it:

Excerpt

Hiram Arnold: I was present in Church Street with two of my children and Mr Aken. While there, the churchwarden and constable came up to us. Robinson seized the plaintiff by the arm, saying, “I’ll make you two gentlemen go to church.” Aken said, “I should think you won’t,” and I said, “What have we done amiss that we are to go to church?” The constable came to me, but I said that I was in my sleeve waistcoat, and not dressed for the occasion, on which he left me. Robinson then said to the constable, “I charge you to take this man to church.” He went to assist Robinson, and they took hold of him and dragged him along. They took him forward to the church porch, and Aken slipped them, and went up the north gallery steps, and being at the outside I saw no more of them. He seized the door of the church in going in, but they pulled him away. I saw the plaintiff afterwards, and he complained of his arm being bad about a fortnight or three weeks. Cross-examined: They came from the church to us during the morning service. It is usual for the churchwardens to go round to public houses, and see whether any persons be tippling there, but I never saw them take people to church. (His Lordship intimated that they could not be justified in that course.) I saw Aken that evening at a public house called the Woodpecker. We might be there two hours, and had two pints of ale. I think his character and reputation much worse by being taken to church in that manner. Re-examined: His arm was hurt by being wrenched from the door which he had seized. [Verdict for Aken, with damages reduced by the jury to £5 from the £20 offered out of court.]

Order the book

Subscribe to the free daily email

To facilitate reading, the spelling and punctuation of elderly excerpts have generally been modernised, and distracting excision scars concealed. My selections, translations, and editions are copyright.

Abbreviations

Comment

Something to say? Get in touch

Original

Mr ALEXANDER and Mr MARSHALL were for the plaintiff, a bookseller and printer, residing at Keighley; and Mr CRESSWELL and the Hon. J. S. WORTLEY for the defendants, Messrs Robinson and Wall, the churchwarden and constable of that place. The declaration charged the defendants with having assaulted and subjected the plaintiff to false imprisonment, to which they entered the general plea of not guilty. The learned Counsel opened the case by stating that this was one of the most wanton and unusual assaults he had ever heard of in the course of his practice. On Sunday morning, the 18th of October, in last year, the plaintiff and a Mr Arnold were talking together at the door of the churchyard, which just borders upon the market-place, and their conversation was suddenly interrupted by the defendants coming up and insisting upon the parties going to church. They remonstrated, and the latter on the ground that he was not dressed for the occasion; the churchwarden then called on the constable to come and assist him in taking Aken to the church. They then took hold of each arm, dragged him to the church porch, wrenched his arm from the church door, which he seized, prevented him going into the gallery when there, and forced him into a pew against his will, while the communion service was being read. He then enlarged at great length on the injury which had been done to his person and character by this trespass and imprisonment; and called upon the jury to give such damages as would teach the defendants in future not to exceed the bounds of their authority, and infringe so grossly on the liberty of the subject. He then called the following witnesses:-
Hiram Arnold deposed-I was present in Church-street, at the time in question, with two of my children and Mr Aken; while there the churchwarden and constable came up to us; Robinson seized the plaintiff by the arm, saying, “I’ll make you two gentlemen go to church.” Aken said, “I should think you won’t;” and I said, “what have we done amiss that we are to go to church.” The constable came to me, but I said that I was in my sleeve waistcoat and not dressed for the occasion, on which he left me.- Robinson then said to the constable, “I charge you to take this man to church;” he then went to assist Robinson, and they took hold of him and dragged him along. They took him forward to the church porch, and Aken then slipped them, and went up the north gallery steps, and being at the outside I saw no more of them. He seized the door of the church in going in, but they pulled him away. I saw the plaintiff afterwards, and he complained of his arm being bad about a fortnight or three weeks. Cross-examined.- They came from the church to us during the morning service. It is usual for the churchwardens to go round to public-houses, and see whether any persons be tippling there, but I never saw them take people to church. (His Lordship intimated that they could not be justified in that course.) I saw Aken that evening at a public-house called the Woodpecker,–we might be there two hours, and had two pints of ale. I think his character and reputation much worse by being taken to church in that manner. Re-examined.-His arm was hurt by being wrenched from the door which he had seized.
Charles Smith, shoemaker, saw the parties in conversation at the time in question; he heard the churchwarden call to the constable to come and assist him in taking Aken to church, and he saw them drag him along.
Amos Coates was at the church on the morning stated, and during the course of the service saw the plaintiff pushed into church by Robinson-the other defendant was standing by at the time. Cross-examined-He believed the churchwardens were in the habit of occasionally bringing boys to church.
Mr CRESWELL addressed the jury at considerable length on behalf of the defence. He designated the action as paltry and unworthy of the plaintiff, brought to harass and persecute the defendants, and contended that no proof of imprisonment had been made out against the latter defendant, nor had the character of the plaintiff been injured, unless by being taken to church, and placed in a pew along with a respectable young man. He then put in evidence several letters which had passed between the attornies for the parties, in one of which, dated October, the defendant offered to make an apology, to give £20 for damages and costs incurred at that time. He trusted that they would not encourage these actions by giving large damages, which would make the liberty of the subject such common place trash that no-body would afterwards take notice of it when it had really been infringed upon.
Mr ALEXANDER replied with great force, severely reprehending the conduct of the defendants, and enlarged on the aggravated nature of the assault, in the invasion of his liberty and the injury of his person.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up, observing that it appeared to him to be a case of serious assault and imprisonment, and that the defendants acted in concert throughout the transaction.-The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages £5.

912 words.