A Denaby Assault

Isa Scott, chargeman, and John William Scott, dataller, both of Denaby, were summoned for having committed an assault upon John Thomas Ford, at that place, on the 9th inst. Mr. W. Baddiley appeared for complainant, and Mr. G. W. Andrews represented the defendants.

In opening the case, Mr. Baddiley said the parties were related by marriage, Mrs. Asa Scott and Mrs. Ford being sisters. On the previous Saturday evening Ford and his wife went to Scott’s house for some groceries, and left there at about 1.30 on Sunday morning, and before they left they had some words.

While the dispute was in progress, Asa Scott took up a poker and with it struck the complainant several severe blows upon the head, when John William Scott, son of the other defendant, remarked, “I’m going to have a go in at this,” and immediately took the poker out of his father’s hand and also assaulted the complainant, while the father kicked Ford. P.C. Richardson was called in, and medical assistance was summoned. The complainant had since been unable to follow his employment.

According to his instructions, no provocation had been given for the assault, but even if there had been, nothing could have justified an assault of this character. The complainant gave evidence bearing out the statement of Mr. Baddiley.

Mr. Andrews, cross-examining, asked if Asa Scott had never been in a court of justice in his life. Complainant replied that he had “squared” a lot of summonses or he would have been many a time (laughter). When asked if John William Scott had only one leg, complainant replied that it did not matter, as he thought himself as good a man as if he had two.

Complainant’s wife, Ernest Ford (son of complainant), Michael O’Malley, and P.C. Richardson also gave evidence on behalf of the complainant.

Mr. Andrews addressed the Bench for the defendants. He said Asa Scott was having supper when the complainant and his wife entered the house. He suggested it was extremely unlikely that the defendants would have committed such an assault as described, as considerable damage would have resulted in the house.

He contended the trouble began through the complainant using obscene language and refusing to leave when requested. Asa Scott, he said, left the house to allow tempers to cool, but when complainant entered again he called Scott “a —— rotten liar.”

Mrs. Ford, he added, struck Asa Scott with a bottle and threw it at him. The prosecution denied this, though broken glass was found near the fireplace. When the son saw what was happening to his father, he attempted to quell the disturbance but did not strike anyone.

The defendants entered the witness-box and gave evidence confirming their advocate’s version. Samuel Davies, a lodger, said it was his first day in the house, and remarked humorously that he had “got into a warm nest” (laughter).

Further evidence was given by Sarah Ann Scott (wife and mother of the defendants), Jane Ann Scott, and Henry Gilbert.

The Chairman said the Bench considered that a very serious assault had been committed by the younger defendant. There was no doubt the complainant had been struck on the head with a poker by John William Scott. In the case of Asa Scott, however, the evidence was so contradictory that they would not convict him.

As the Bench were determined to put down this class of conduct, which was rather frequent in that locality, John William Scott was committed to Wakefield for one calendar month with hard labour.

The younger defendant: “Thank you.”