Mexborough and Swinton Times August 27, 1897
Assault at Conisborough
Elizabeth Burniston, traction engine owner, Conisborough, was summoned for an assault on Catherine Hodgson, Conisborough, on the 11 inst.
Mr Baddiley appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr Pawson for the defendant.
Mr Baddiley, in his opening statement, said that Mrs Hodgson went to see Mrs Bell to arrange for a county court case next day. The moment she got inside Mrs Burniston sprang at her, hitting her in the face, and knocking against the wall. Mr and Mrs Bell then stopped Mrs Burniston from doing anything else. Mrs Hodgson had not spoken a single word to the defendant, and there was no reason for an assault of that kind. The next day after the assault there was to be county court case between Mrs Burniston and Mrs Hodgson’s husband.
Catherine Hodgson bore out the statement made by Mr Baddiley and added that when she was just inside the door Mrs Burniston sprang at her, and said “You nasty lounging cat, take that.” She had no idea the defendant was there.
Cross-examined by Mr Pawson, witness said it was quite dark when the assault happened. She would not swear that Mrs Burniston hadn’t a parcel in her hands. It was not true that the defendant tried to get past her. She had not spoken a single word to her.
John Thomas Bell corroborated the complainant’s evidence. Before the assault he heard Mrs Burniston say she would pull complainant’s clothes of her back the first time she saw her as her clothes were hers. He pulled Mrs Burniston away. It was twenty to eight when Mrs Burniston got to the house.
Emma Bell also corroborated. A
Mr Pawson , for the defence, said there had been an assault it was only a technical one. There was some ill feeling between the parties on account of a county court case, and on the night named, Mrs Burniston tried to get past the complainant as she was coming in. Seeing the trivial assault he thought if Mrs Burniston paid the costs it would settle the case.
The chairman said the bench were of the opinion that an assault had been committed, and defendant was fined £2 including costs.