Mexborough and Swinton Times, June 28, 1929
Election Echo.
Councillor and Communist in Conflict
A Denaby Incident.
Sequel to Pavement Campaign.
A case arising directly out of the recent election of officials of the Y.M.A.. at Denaby was heard at Doncaster on Tuesday, when J. Gregory, miner,Denaby, was charged with doing grievous bodily harm to Samuel Rodgers, also of Denaby.
There was cross summons against John Gough, of Denaby.
Gregory was defended by Mr. A. S. Furniss. Rodgers appeared with a bandaged head,
Rodgers said he was a miner, living in Annerley Street. On Saturday, June 22, at 7.45 pm he heard a knock at his door, and at opened it saw defendant there. Defendant said “What about this?” and added, “What you have told all the neighbours. Defendant then struck him on the head with a coal hammer, without witness speaking. He then hit witness five times with the hammer which he had brought with him. Witness put his hand to avoid the first blow and his thumb was hit. Then defendant kicked him. A man named John Gough and witnesses wife were in the house at the time.
Cross examined, witness said there had a quarrel between them.
Furniss: You are a man of strong political views?—I am straightforward.
You are an out-and-out Communist ?—No, I a mind of my own, and I will let no-drive me.
I put it to you, yon were the ringleader during the coal dispute at Denaby ?
Witness’s answer was not heard.
When did you work last?–In 1925.
You have lived on the dole and charity then?—I have not come here to be insulted.
The whole story you have told is imagination and a pack of lies?—It is not, and you cannot prove it,
As far as Gregory is concerned, he is vice-chairman of the Conisboro’ Council, secretary of the local branch of the Yorkshire Association, a trustee of the Welfare, and a public man ?—I do not want you to dictate to me.
Clerk: Answer the question.
Witness: yes.
Mr Furniss produced a letter addressed to an official of the Y.M.A and asked, “Is this letter in your handwriting ?”—Yes.
You reported to Barnsley that “They are all twisters, thieves and cheats”? Yes
There was an election in Denaby and Cadeby last week, and Mr. Gregory was a candidate? -Yes
Did you pass remarks against his character? – I wrote on the road.
Gregory came to you to ask about these? – Yes.
Did he say “What about the lies you have, telling?”—He said. “What about this ?’
Did he say: “It is about time this thing was stopped ?” – No.
You know a summons is issued against you ? No.
I put it to you, you both struck at Gregory ? – No.
Was Gregory injured at all?–Not to my knowledge. He took “French leave” in my house.
What were you here for last ?—Cruelty to a pony.
Have you been charged with larceny?—No.
Is it your suggestion that Gregory came with an hammer to assault you?—Yes.
In reply to the Clerk, witness said the hammer was not his.
Lilian Rodgers, wife of complainant, said she saw the shaft of the hammer and that Gregory was not in the house very long. He was striking with the hammer so quickly that she did not see the head of it. .Gough struck at Gregory with a poker.
John Gough said he was an unemployed miner and in the house when Rodgers went to the door. Ile heard a voice say “What have you boon talking to the neighbours about me for?” and “I will do you in.” Rodgers was knocked past the door and he staggered into the kitchen. He was struck with a hammer, “a deadly looking thing.” Witness picked up a poker and struck at Gregory.
Mr. Furniss: You have been summoned for assault ?—Yes.
When did you last work ?—in 1923
What have you lived on?—Parish pay.
Mr Furniss: I put it to you, you are one of the most poisonous and insidious people in the district, and the Y.M.A. has had more trouble with you than. anyone else. You were a speaker in the coal dispute who incited the men to shoot the police ?—No,
You have been a “spouter”? – No.
Witness further stated that be had lived on 10s. per week parish relief, and he had not worked through ill-health.
Dr. John MacArthur said he was called at 12-30 pm on the Sunday morning, and he found complainant suffering from shock. In his opinion a man of defendant’s physique could have killed complainant with the first blow of a hammer. The injuries could have been caused by a fist.
P.o. Holmes, who called at the house with Sgt. Sparrow, said they found Rodgers sitting on a chair in. an exhausted condition and bleeding from one side of the head. There were three raised lumps on the head. The doctor said complainant was in a serious condition, being in an advanced stage of consumption.
Witness and the sergeant went to Gregory’s house, cautioned him, and said they had a complaint that he had struck Rodgers with a hammer, He replied, “I am saying nothing, and will reserve my defence.” When they asked him to produce the hammer he said he had not one.
Sgt. Sparrow said Gregory was perfectly sober, and he was not the kind of man to commit an assault.
Mr. Furniss: Is it a fact these men (Rodgers and Gough) have been a source of trouble ?—We have had no trouble with them, though they are connected with Communism.
Mr. Furniss said the story of the men did not bear the light of day, and no man would have suffered so little from five blows with a hammer. In the letter mentioned, complaint was made against officials of the Y.M.A. Gregory was invited to go into the house, and then complainant aimed a blow at him, so Gregory had to set about them. Gough picked up a poker and struck Gregory with it. Since the question of the hammer was mentioned, defendant told the police he had not used a hammer. He was a man in public positions and he knew what law and order was. He was glad of the opportunity of settling these grievances in public.
Defendant, on oath, stated his public offices, and said that Rodgers had been abusing him for some time, because Rodgers was refused relief at Christmas on the ground of that he was getting 26s. per week unemployment benefit, while some men, who were working had less. On Friday last week he saw some abuse which bad been written on the road, and as a result he went to the house to ask for an explanation of the slanderous statement. The men said “Come in,” and witness thought they intended to settle the matter. Then they attacked him, Rodgers first, and Gough with a poker. The latter struck witness on the shoulder, which was still bruised. There was a melee, in which witness had no weapon of any description. The first he heard of a hammer was when the police came and mentioned it. He did not go to the house for any trouble. He wanted settlement and only went on account of the writing in the street.
Cross-examined, witness denied striking first, or saying, “I will do you in,” but he agreed it would have been better had he gone to the house on Sunday morning. There were several people outside, and had he used a hammer they would have seen it.
Arthur Gregory, defendant’s son, said he went at the request of his mother to the house with his father, and saw Rodgers strike at him at once. He could not see everything because the door was half closed. His father did not strike a blow until the other man (Gough) picked up a poker, and he was not in the house more than two minutes
Witness went as far as the house, because “women always expect trouble.” When the trouble was over Rodgers ran out of the house and Gough ran away.
The Bench retired for a short consultation in private, and on their return the Chairman (Mr. G. B. Shifter) said the charge of doing grievous bodily harm would he dismissed, but Gregory would he fined £1 for common assault, though there was a great deal of provocation
The hearing of the case for tie cross-summons was made necessary by Gough’s refusal to he bound over. The proceedings, which were brief, resulted in both Gregory and Gough being hound over in the sum of £5 to keep the peace for twelve months.
The Chairman (to Gough): You had better stop this nonsense.
Gough: What nonsense is that, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman (firmly): Stand down