Mexborough & Swinton Times – Friday 29 August 1902
Alleged Assault at Denaby
Mary Cairns, married woman, Denaby, was summoned by John Thomas Hill, for assaulting him at Denaby, on the 14th August.
Mr. W. M. Gichard appeared for the complainant and Mr. J. H. Rowlands defended.
Mr. Gichard said that the defendant was summoned for having assaulted Hill on the 14th August.
On that date he was returning work at the Cadeby Main Colliery, and whilst passing Whitaker’s shop he was struck to the by a brick thrown by the defendant. It was in order to stop those kind of things taking place in that neighbourhood that proceedings were taken.
Complainant was sworn, and he stated that he lived in Marr street. On the date in question be was returning from work shortly after two o’clock. He was hit in the back with a brick thrown by the defendant.
Cross examined by Rowlands, complainant said the defendant was behind hint when she threw the brick. There was not a crowd about. He had defendant’s son up some time ago, when the case was dismissed.
Re-examined by Mr. Gichard, he said he had been frequently interfered with. The assault happened on the main road between the new public house and Whittaker’s pawnshop.
David Hill, brother of the complainant, said when his brother was coming home from work, he was in the main road. He saw the defendant there, and he saw her pick up a piece of brick, and throw it at complainant.
Cross-examined, he said he was about twenty yards away.
Phoebe Hill, the mother of the complainant, said she went to meet her son coming home from work. She had made a practice of going to meet him. He was hit on the shoulder by a brick by the defendant. Her son had never been to work since.
Mr. Rowlands, for the defendant said that it was very strange that there wens no other witnesses for the complainant than his own brother and mother. The defendant would give an absolute denial to the charge.
The defendant was called and she stated that on the date in question she was talking to Mrs. Cusworth, near her (Mrs. Cusworth’s) house; the men who were working were just returning home, and there was lot of booing, but she did not go among the crowd, and no stones were thrown.
It was stated by other witnesses called for the defence that when in the middle of the crowd the complainant trod on a woman’s foot, and she pushed him away. No one hit him.
The Bench stated that the evidence was contradictory, and the case would be dismissed.