Now! Then! Percy Broomhead fires his revolver at his neighbour’s house during a defamation dispute

Excerpt

In reply to Mr Andrew, he denied having used further abusive language after the issue of the writ. “Have you got a revolver?” “Yes.” “Did you fire a revolver at the back door of Mrs Bland’s house?” “I fired it off, but not at the back door.” “Do you recognise this bullet as fitting your revolver?” “Yes.” “Do you know that one went through Mrs Bland’s window?” “Yes.” “And you offered to pay for the glass?” “Yes, I had it put in.” “You don’t dispute the fact that a great many bullets were picked up at the back door?” “I heard about it afterwards. I didn’t aim at the back door.” “What were you doing, firing a six-chambered revolver?” “It was the 6th of November.” “I could understand it if it had been the 5th, but why the 6th of November?” “I did it to amuse the children. I hadn’t time to do it on the 5th, so I did it on the 6th.”

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:

ER: East Riding
GM: Greater Manchester
NR: North Riding
NY: North Yorkshire
SY: South Yorkshire
WR: West Riding
WY: West Yorkshire

Comment

Via Chris Hobbs.

Something to say? Get in touch

Original

[West Riding Assizes]
SHEFFIELD SLANDER ACTION
Damages – One Sovereign

Ethel Hawkins, of 139, Howard Road, Walkley, Sheffield, brought an action against Percy Broomhead, fish dealer, of 137 Howard Road, Sheffield. L. Andrew (instructed by Messrs Taylor and Emmett) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr S Fleming (instructed by Mr J.E. Wing) for defendant.

The plaintiff, said Mr Andrew, was a domestic servant in the employ of Mrs Bland, who keeps a grocer’s shop, and the defendant lived next door. The alleged slander arose in this way. The defendant and his wife were in their house on the 28th September, and the defendant went out and invited Mrs Bland to come inside. Mrs Bland went into the house, and found that there had been a quarrel, and the wife at once began to make complaints, in the presence of Mrs Bland and the defendant, in regard to plaintiff’s character. She remarked that it was not the first time that she had had to complain about the matter and she “knew now where the money was going”. It was at a subsequent interview at which the slander which was the subject of this action took place.

On the evening of the 6th October the defendant entered Mrs Bland’s shop, and demanded to know where the plaintiff was. The girl came into the shop, and Broomhead then used abusive epithets to the girl, who asked him what grounds he had to complain of her conduct, and what made his wife jealous of her, adding that, if she had the money, she would make his wife pay for it. Defendant then put his hand in his pocket, and drew out some coins, which he threw on the counter, saying. “You are a little —. You will take either married or single men’s money.” The expression, of course, bore the obvious meaning that the girl was unchaste.

The next day the girl consulted a firm of solicitors, who wrote to defendant, giving him an opportunity of making an apology for the expression which he had made use of. There was no answer to the letter, and though the defendant lived next door, he never once denied making use of the expression until the pleadings in the action, and he never offered an apology. He (counsel) now again gave the defendant an opportunity of apologising and paying the plaintiff’s out-of-pocket expenses in coming to bring the action, when there would be an end of the proceedings. The plaintiff did not ask for vindictive damages. She came before the court as a perfectly chaste girl, whose character and reputation Mrs Bland would tell the jury were unblemished, and that character she wished to vindicate. Mrs Bland was the first witness, and she described what happened when she went into defendant’s house. The defendant then told her that his wife was jealous of the plaintiff, and witness replied that she had never seen anything wrong with the girl. Defendant’s wife remarked that she had seen enough of her. A week later the defendant entered witness’s shop and demanded to see plaintiff. The latter came forward, and asked him what he wanted, and he replied that he would soon show her if she insulted his wife. Plaintiff replied that she had done nothing to cause Mrs. Broomhead, to be jealous of her, and declared that it would serve her (Mrs Broomhead) right if she summoned her. Defendant then threw ten shillings onto the counter and said, “There’s the money. Fetch her up.” Plaintiff replied that she had money of her own, upon which defendant said she was not particular whether it was a married man’s money or a single man’s money.

The plaintiff then entered the box, and corroborated the substance of Mrs Bland’s evidence with regard to what took place in her shop, besides speaking to an interview which she had previously had with Mrs Broomhead in consequence of what had been said at the latter’s home the week before. This was the case for the plaintiff.

The defendant gave evidence, and swore that he did not make use of the expression referred to. In the interview which plaintiff had with his wife, she (plaintiff) called her “a stinking nuisance,” and defendant subsequently went to Mrs Bland’s shop to complain to plaintiff as to that. He admitted calling her “a little —” for pushing his child out of the house after “the bother,” and also showing her the money, but he denied placing it on the counter, or making use of the expression alleged against him. In reply to Mr Andrew, he denied having used further abusive language after the issue of the writ.
Have you got a revolver? — Yes.
Did you fire a revolver at the back door of Mrs Bland’s house? — I fired it off but not at the back door.
Do you recognise this bullet as fitting your revolver? — Yes.
Do you know that one went through Mrs Bland’s window? — Yes.
And you offered to pay for the glass? — Yes, I had it put in.
You don’t dispute the fact that a great many bullets were picked up at the back door? — I heard about it afterwards (Laughter.) I didn’t aim at the back door.
What were you doing, firing a six-chambered revolver? — It was the 6th of November. (Laughter.)
I could understand it if it had been the 5th but why the 6th of November? — I did it to amuse the children. I hadn’t time to do it on the 5th, so I did it on the 6th. (Laughter.)
The Commissioner, in summing up, pointed out that the jury must consider whether the words alleged to have been used were mere abuse, or were meant to be an imputation on the girl’s chastity. He called to the jury’s attention to the fact that the girl had suffered no pecuniary loss on account of what had been said.
The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £1.
Judgement was entered accordingly, cost to follow.

1045 words.

Now! Then! 2024! - Yorkshire On This Day

6 November 1903: Percy Broomhead fires his revolver at his neighbour’s house during a defamation dispute

Excerpt

Comment

Comment

Original

Tags

Similar

Search

Subscribe/buy

Donate

Music & books

Social