Friday, October 07, 2005
Apple stealing case. London Press and Home Secretary responds
Dover Express and East Kent News August 23rd 1929
The farmers speak including Grandad, William Clark
THE APPLE STEALING CASE
The letter from Mr. Edwin Bradley to Lord FitzWalter which appeared in last weeks issue in reference to the apple stealing case was copied into the London Press on Monday. On Friday the following appeared in the ‘Daily Mail’ one of the journals which a week previous called attention to the 14 days sentence that caused the magistrates to pass such a sentence.
The Daily Mail’s correspondent wrote:-
“The farmers in the area of the two new Kentish mining villages of Aylesham and Snowdon are complaining of the damage done to their crops, and special steps are taken to guard them.
Last week a sentence of 14 days’ hard labour was passed at Dover on a young miner of Aylesham, for stealing apples valued at 1s., from an orchard. Mr. Clines, the Home Secretary ordered the man’s release.
Mr. Clark, who lives at Ackholt farm, between the villages, told me:
“Our crops are suffering a great deal. The miners’ women and children took away our peas in baskets. A great deal of trouble is caused by the large number of dogs which the miners keep. My neughbour: Mr. Baleden, had five sheep killed, and three injured by dogs. His loss is about 60pd. And there is no recompense.
There is no resident constable in either place, through the population is now 3600.
We want to get on comfortably with the miners and their families, but as the fathers have to go to work at different times, many of their children are inclined to run wild. Last week boys put a number of corn sheaves into a hedge and set fire to three of them.”
Mr. Arthur T. Stead of Ratling Farm, who was the prosecutor in the apple stealing case said:
“I have lost much of my fruit since the mining villages were built, and I am also losing about 30 poultry each year. I have asked for police protection.
On Saturday the following appeared in the” Daily Mail” stated to have been sent to them by their Canterbury correspondent:-“Mr. John Elks, the miners’ agent for the Kent district said to me:-“In my opinion there is generally a great deal of prejudice against the miners, both in the countryside and in the towns in Kent. It is especially so among what I may call the upper classes, the landowners and the farmers. The shopkeepers treat us reasonably on the whole. We do not agree with the statements that that the damage the farmers are suffering from is wholly due to miners. The miners are blamed because they think there is no one else to blame. The Kent mineworkers association would like some proof from the farmers.
Mr. Elks defended the miners against charges of drunkenness, “I say definitely,” he concluded "that the county magistrates are prejudiced against miners.”
Mr. E. Lawther, of Aylesham, the president of the Kent mineworkers association, said:-“I do not think the people generally in East Kent have anything against the miners, it is only among certain classes. If the farmers had put before me any cases where depredations had taken place and they suspected our people , I and other officials of the association would have been only to glad to cooperate with them to stop it”
Mr. Owen Marks, a Snowdon miner, living at Dover, said:-“The Magistrates and the landed gentry in general attempt to treat us like a lot of spendthrifts. If they care to examine the record of mine4s as a whole they will find as upright a class of workers as any in England.
On Tuesday the following letter appeared in the “Daily Mail” from Mr. Edwin Bradley, whose letter to Lord FitzWalter was published in our last issue:
(To the Editor of the “Daily Mail”)
“Sir- Mr. Elks- the representative has stated in today’s (Saturday’s) ‘Daily Mail’ that the trouble in East Kent arises from class prejudice against the miners and denies that the miners have raided the farmers’ crops. He asks for facts, May I give him a few as I have lived in East Kent all my life and I know the people well?
A farmer living at Ackholt, near Snowdon Colliery had a field of potatoes, and about a fortnight ago, set his two sons with a dog to guard them at night. (This is Kent in the 20th Century) The elder lad, aged 20, took a loaded gun, he (two unreadable short words here-b) unwisely, probably feeling afraid. By some means the gun was accidentally discharged and the poor boy killed on the spot at midnight. Did that father send his sons there because of class prejudice? N, it came out in very reluctant evidence at the inquest that he was compelled to guard his crop against the miners.
The Wingham branch of Magistrates of which I am a member; has been severely blamed for sentencing a young miner for 14 days’ hard labour for stealing one shillings’ worth of apples. This is only half the truth. The man was 23 (figure very unclear-b) and one of a gang of four: the other three escaped. It is true he only had a shillingsworth of apples in his possession, but he and others like him would have had all the fruit in the orchard. if it had been unguarded. My next point is most important. On this same farm some time ago three grown up miners aged about 40, were caught red handed stealing the fruit. There was no previous conviction against them and the magistrates anxious to spare their character, discharged them after appealing most earnestly to their better natures, and warning them that imprisonment must be the penalty for another offence. This may have been foolish leniency it certainly was not class hatred. Another farmer I have known had his whole onion crop stolen and many others have suffered similar loss, but the thefts generally occur at night, and the culprits are hard to catch. The farmers too, are very reluctant to proceed against them as rightly or wrongly, they dread reprisals. The farmers are having a great struggle to get a living just now. Is it fair to expect them to go to the expense of watching their crops, not to speak of the suspense and annoyance caused them. They naturally look to the Magistrates and police to protect them. I suggest to Mr. Elks that the miners’ organizations take the matter up seriously, and try to restore the former sense of security and confidence in the countryside. I know that they would have no easy task in controlling that portion of the mining population that is frequently shifting, but they would find that the Kentish people of all classes would cooperate with them and a better feeling would follow them all around and a sing (sorry that’s what it looks like-b) be removed from the mining community.- Edwin Bradley, Leybourne House, August 24th 1929)
We have received a letter from Mr. F. (looks like T, but am certain this was Frank Turner) Turner, the Chairman of the Snowdon branch of the Kent Mine Workers Association, but we cannot publish it as it makes charges of perjury against another person that would justify an action for libel, if not of criminal libel against us if we published it. If there is any authority for his allegation it is a matter of Public Prosecution and the Police to take up and not a matter to a letter to the Press.
Damn, I would love to see Mr. Turner’s letter.
In all these articles I have tried to copy punctuation and capitilisation exactly- it seems important. Magistrates get a capital M even in the middle of a sentence. Police get the middle of a sentence capital sometimes e.g. when Express is being magisterial about Mr. Turner’s letter. All named policemen have capital letters before their name Miners and farmers don’t qualify for any special capitals, before their name or otherwise.
Lord FitzWalter gets 2 capitals in his territorial name-one slap in the middle.
Miners refer to others by surname only Jackson, farmers to each other as Mr. Jackson. Miners don’t refer to farmers by name and vice versa.
BramBled
The farmers speak including Grandad, William Clark
THE APPLE STEALING CASE
The letter from Mr. Edwin Bradley to Lord FitzWalter which appeared in last weeks issue in reference to the apple stealing case was copied into the London Press on Monday. On Friday the following appeared in the ‘Daily Mail’ one of the journals which a week previous called attention to the 14 days sentence that caused the magistrates to pass such a sentence.
The Daily Mail’s correspondent wrote:-
“The farmers in the area of the two new Kentish mining villages of Aylesham and Snowdon are complaining of the damage done to their crops, and special steps are taken to guard them.
Last week a sentence of 14 days’ hard labour was passed at Dover on a young miner of Aylesham, for stealing apples valued at 1s., from an orchard. Mr. Clines, the Home Secretary ordered the man’s release.
Mr. Clark, who lives at Ackholt farm, between the villages, told me:
“Our crops are suffering a great deal. The miners’ women and children took away our peas in baskets. A great deal of trouble is caused by the large number of dogs which the miners keep. My neughbour: Mr. Baleden, had five sheep killed, and three injured by dogs. His loss is about 60pd. And there is no recompense.
There is no resident constable in either place, through the population is now 3600.
We want to get on comfortably with the miners and their families, but as the fathers have to go to work at different times, many of their children are inclined to run wild. Last week boys put a number of corn sheaves into a hedge and set fire to three of them.”
Mr. Arthur T. Stead of Ratling Farm, who was the prosecutor in the apple stealing case said:
“I have lost much of my fruit since the mining villages were built, and I am also losing about 30 poultry each year. I have asked for police protection.
On Saturday the following appeared in the” Daily Mail” stated to have been sent to them by their Canterbury correspondent:-“Mr. John Elks, the miners’ agent for the Kent district said to me:-“In my opinion there is generally a great deal of prejudice against the miners, both in the countryside and in the towns in Kent. It is especially so among what I may call the upper classes, the landowners and the farmers. The shopkeepers treat us reasonably on the whole. We do not agree with the statements that that the damage the farmers are suffering from is wholly due to miners. The miners are blamed because they think there is no one else to blame. The Kent mineworkers association would like some proof from the farmers.
Mr. Elks defended the miners against charges of drunkenness, “I say definitely,” he concluded "that the county magistrates are prejudiced against miners.”
Mr. E. Lawther, of Aylesham, the president of the Kent mineworkers association, said:-“I do not think the people generally in East Kent have anything against the miners, it is only among certain classes. If the farmers had put before me any cases where depredations had taken place and they suspected our people , I and other officials of the association would have been only to glad to cooperate with them to stop it”
Mr. Owen Marks, a Snowdon miner, living at Dover, said:-“The Magistrates and the landed gentry in general attempt to treat us like a lot of spendthrifts. If they care to examine the record of mine4s as a whole they will find as upright a class of workers as any in England.
On Tuesday the following letter appeared in the “Daily Mail” from Mr. Edwin Bradley, whose letter to Lord FitzWalter was published in our last issue:
(To the Editor of the “Daily Mail”)
“Sir- Mr. Elks- the representative has stated in today’s (Saturday’s) ‘Daily Mail’ that the trouble in East Kent arises from class prejudice against the miners and denies that the miners have raided the farmers’ crops. He asks for facts, May I give him a few as I have lived in East Kent all my life and I know the people well?
A farmer living at Ackholt, near Snowdon Colliery had a field of potatoes, and about a fortnight ago, set his two sons with a dog to guard them at night. (This is Kent in the 20th Century) The elder lad, aged 20, took a loaded gun, he (two unreadable short words here-b) unwisely, probably feeling afraid. By some means the gun was accidentally discharged and the poor boy killed on the spot at midnight. Did that father send his sons there because of class prejudice? N, it came out in very reluctant evidence at the inquest that he was compelled to guard his crop against the miners.
The Wingham branch of Magistrates of which I am a member; has been severely blamed for sentencing a young miner for 14 days’ hard labour for stealing one shillings’ worth of apples. This is only half the truth. The man was 23 (figure very unclear-b) and one of a gang of four: the other three escaped. It is true he only had a shillingsworth of apples in his possession, but he and others like him would have had all the fruit in the orchard. if it had been unguarded. My next point is most important. On this same farm some time ago three grown up miners aged about 40, were caught red handed stealing the fruit. There was no previous conviction against them and the magistrates anxious to spare their character, discharged them after appealing most earnestly to their better natures, and warning them that imprisonment must be the penalty for another offence. This may have been foolish leniency it certainly was not class hatred. Another farmer I have known had his whole onion crop stolen and many others have suffered similar loss, but the thefts generally occur at night, and the culprits are hard to catch. The farmers too, are very reluctant to proceed against them as rightly or wrongly, they dread reprisals. The farmers are having a great struggle to get a living just now. Is it fair to expect them to go to the expense of watching their crops, not to speak of the suspense and annoyance caused them. They naturally look to the Magistrates and police to protect them. I suggest to Mr. Elks that the miners’ organizations take the matter up seriously, and try to restore the former sense of security and confidence in the countryside. I know that they would have no easy task in controlling that portion of the mining population that is frequently shifting, but they would find that the Kentish people of all classes would cooperate with them and a better feeling would follow them all around and a sing (sorry that’s what it looks like-b) be removed from the mining community.- Edwin Bradley, Leybourne House, August 24th 1929)
We have received a letter from Mr. F. (looks like T, but am certain this was Frank Turner) Turner, the Chairman of the Snowdon branch of the Kent Mine Workers Association, but we cannot publish it as it makes charges of perjury against another person that would justify an action for libel, if not of criminal libel against us if we published it. If there is any authority for his allegation it is a matter of Public Prosecution and the Police to take up and not a matter to a letter to the Press.
Damn, I would love to see Mr. Turner’s letter.
In all these articles I have tried to copy punctuation and capitilisation exactly- it seems important. Magistrates get a capital M even in the middle of a sentence. Police get the middle of a sentence capital sometimes e.g. when Express is being magisterial about Mr. Turner’s letter. All named policemen have capital letters before their name Miners and farmers don’t qualify for any special capitals, before their name or otherwise.
Lord FitzWalter gets 2 capitals in his territorial name-one slap in the middle.
Miners refer to others by surname only Jackson, farmers to each other as Mr. Jackson. Miners don’t refer to farmers by name and vice versa.
BramBled
Some poachers, a little bolter and a farmer speaks out
More Aylesham troubles week of Reggie’s death- watch for recurring characters
Dover Express and East Kent News 30th? August 1929
AYLESHAM MINERS
FARMER TELLS OF HIS TROUBLES
At the sitting of the Wingham Petty Sessions at the court house on Thursday, Bernard Allen, of Aylesham, was summoned for trespassing in search of conies at Nonington on August 16th, and pleaded not guilty.
William Whittington, under keeper to Cmdr. O. Brien, St Albans’s Park, said that at 3.30 on August 16th he saw defendant with three men coming across Old Court fields. He went to them and asked them to get to the road, which they did. A few minutes later a hare came out of the corn and defendant went on to the field and the others went on to the field again and put their dogs on to the hare.
Defendant: Hares are not conies, sir.
Witness said he went to them again and asked them to get on to the road, and they did. A few minutes later a rabbit came out of the corn and defendant went on to the field and put his dog onto the rabbit which it caught. Defendant took the rabbit from the dog and killed it, putting it into his pocket. When asked for it by Mr. Baleden, who was with witness, he refused. Witness went and fetched the constable to get defendant’s name.
How big was the rabbit?-it was about half grown.
Defendant: It was a little bolter.
Robert Baleden, Church Street Farm, Nonington, said he had the shooting rights over the ground. He was cutting a 15 acre field of corn and had two acres left to cut when the defendant and three miners came along the top of the field, where a water main had just been laid, and they were making it into a path. The four men had two dogs with them and he sent and asked them to go on the road... They were most abusive and adopted a threatening attitude. He went and told them he had suffered a lot of damage from their dogs and through miners they running through the standing corn, but if they went off nothing would be said. He started cutting again and had gone a few runs when a hare started to run over the hills towards where the miners were sitting on the bank. He stopped the tractor and shouted them to go off, which they did. He had finished cutting the field and moved out the tractor and binder*(this word not clear-brambled) when he saw the men and dogs about 200yds. From the road in a field, and the dogs were chasing a rabbit and the men were running after it. He and the last witness went up to them, and as he got there the defendant had just taken a rabbit which was alive out of the mouth of the dog, so witness said “You had better give me that rabbit.”. He said:”No,” and witness said “Don’t be silly, give me the rabbit and have no more trouble,” Whereon the defendant broke the neck off the rabbit and put it in his pocket. Witness was rather annoyed and said “You mean you are going to keep it?” and defendant said” Yes, I am” Witness said “All right,” and he and the keeper got in the car and fetched the constable. As they went along by Aylesham coming along by Old Court Firs, they found defendant sitting on a bank, beside a field of corn with the other men and the dogs. This sort of trouble they had had out their way ever since the Spring.
The Magistrates Clerk: I do not think you had better say anything about that now.
Defendant said that the witness never saw him break the rabbit’s neck.
Witness: I did.
P.C. Charman, K.C.C., Nonington said that about 3.40pm, the last witness came to him and informed him that there had been trouble with men in the corn at Church Street Farm and he went there and saw defendant sitting on a bank by the side of the road. He asked defendant for the rabbit and he said “My dog did catch a rabbit but I took it away from the dog. The rabbit being alive ran away.”
Defendant said it was just a little bolter and that’s why he let it go. My dog could not catch a rabbit; it is only a little fox terrier. As for making it go after a hare, I should not think of it.!
The chairman said that there would be a conviction.
Supt. Lane said that there was nothing known against the defendant in the district.
The Chairman, Mr. A.H. Godfrey, said that the defendant had two opportunities to keep out of trouble. He had brought himself into this deliberately and in addition to that he had told the police officer a deliberate lie when he knew he had the rabbit and had put it in his pocket. He would be fined 1pound or 14 days.
Defendant asked for time as he had been out of work sometime with boils.
The, chairman in granting time for payment, said if he came there again they would make it pretty hot for him.
Basil Newington, of Aylesham, pleaded guilty, to trespassing on land belonging to Lord FitzWalter in search of conies.
Frederick Hughes, gamekeeper to Lord FitzWalter, said that on August 13th about 1.30 he saw defendant and another man come away from the bank close to Bushy Ruff. He asked what they had got in the basket and defendant said it was nothing to do with him. The policeman who had been sent for came along and there was a bit of a scuffle-but got six rabbits out of the other man’s basket. The policeman took their names and addresses but the other man gave a wrong name he believed.
P.C. Honey, K.C.C., chillienden said he found the defendant detained and asked if he had any rabbits, and he replied,”I got a couple.” And when asked to produce them said “No you don’t, I shall have to pay for them.” When witness started to search him they went over on the bank together. He took six rabbits away from him.
Defendant: You did not take them off me, you took them off Jackson. The policeman said” Let’s have those __________ rabbits.” and jumped on him on the bank.
Supt. Lane said that defendant was before the court on November 3rd, 1927, and also on February 7th this year, and fined 1 pound on each occasion for poaching.
The chairman said that they were inflicting a heavier penalty this time. He would have to pay 2 pds. Or go to prison for a month.
Defendant asked for time, saying he had been off work for six weeks.
The chairman said that he could have a month, but didn’t he think he was foolish to go on like this?
Defendant: I could not see I was doing any damage walking around when they were cutting the corn.
The Chairman: You had better stop that sort of thing or you will get iate (word unreadable- brambled)-_ serious trouble.
* Ok, binder is correct- it was a sort of grain cutter on the tractor like this
* binder also Kentish for a hedge laying instrument- but grain cutter makes more sense here
Dover Express and East Kent News 30th? August 1929
AYLESHAM MINERS
FARMER TELLS OF HIS TROUBLES
At the sitting of the Wingham Petty Sessions at the court house on Thursday, Bernard Allen, of Aylesham, was summoned for trespassing in search of conies at Nonington on August 16th, and pleaded not guilty.
William Whittington, under keeper to Cmdr. O. Brien, St Albans’s Park, said that at 3.30 on August 16th he saw defendant with three men coming across Old Court fields. He went to them and asked them to get to the road, which they did. A few minutes later a hare came out of the corn and defendant went on to the field and the others went on to the field again and put their dogs on to the hare.
Defendant: Hares are not conies, sir.
Witness said he went to them again and asked them to get on to the road, and they did. A few minutes later a rabbit came out of the corn and defendant went on to the field and put his dog onto the rabbit which it caught. Defendant took the rabbit from the dog and killed it, putting it into his pocket. When asked for it by Mr. Baleden, who was with witness, he refused. Witness went and fetched the constable to get defendant’s name.
How big was the rabbit?-it was about half grown.
Defendant: It was a little bolter.
Robert Baleden, Church Street Farm, Nonington, said he had the shooting rights over the ground. He was cutting a 15 acre field of corn and had two acres left to cut when the defendant and three miners came along the top of the field, where a water main had just been laid, and they were making it into a path. The four men had two dogs with them and he sent and asked them to go on the road... They were most abusive and adopted a threatening attitude. He went and told them he had suffered a lot of damage from their dogs and through miners they running through the standing corn, but if they went off nothing would be said. He started cutting again and had gone a few runs when a hare started to run over the hills towards where the miners were sitting on the bank. He stopped the tractor and shouted them to go off, which they did. He had finished cutting the field and moved out the tractor and binder*(this word not clear-brambled) when he saw the men and dogs about 200yds. From the road in a field, and the dogs were chasing a rabbit and the men were running after it. He and the last witness went up to them, and as he got there the defendant had just taken a rabbit which was alive out of the mouth of the dog, so witness said “You had better give me that rabbit.”. He said:”No,” and witness said “Don’t be silly, give me the rabbit and have no more trouble,” Whereon the defendant broke the neck off the rabbit and put it in his pocket. Witness was rather annoyed and said “You mean you are going to keep it?” and defendant said” Yes, I am” Witness said “All right,” and he and the keeper got in the car and fetched the constable. As they went along by Aylesham coming along by Old Court Firs, they found defendant sitting on a bank, beside a field of corn with the other men and the dogs. This sort of trouble they had had out their way ever since the Spring.
The Magistrates Clerk: I do not think you had better say anything about that now.
Defendant said that the witness never saw him break the rabbit’s neck.
Witness: I did.
P.C. Charman, K.C.C., Nonington said that about 3.40pm, the last witness came to him and informed him that there had been trouble with men in the corn at Church Street Farm and he went there and saw defendant sitting on a bank by the side of the road. He asked defendant for the rabbit and he said “My dog did catch a rabbit but I took it away from the dog. The rabbit being alive ran away.”
Defendant said it was just a little bolter and that’s why he let it go. My dog could not catch a rabbit; it is only a little fox terrier. As for making it go after a hare, I should not think of it.!
The chairman said that there would be a conviction.
Supt. Lane said that there was nothing known against the defendant in the district.
The Chairman, Mr. A.H. Godfrey, said that the defendant had two opportunities to keep out of trouble. He had brought himself into this deliberately and in addition to that he had told the police officer a deliberate lie when he knew he had the rabbit and had put it in his pocket. He would be fined 1pound or 14 days.
Defendant asked for time as he had been out of work sometime with boils.
The, chairman in granting time for payment, said if he came there again they would make it pretty hot for him.
Basil Newington, of Aylesham, pleaded guilty, to trespassing on land belonging to Lord FitzWalter in search of conies.
Frederick Hughes, gamekeeper to Lord FitzWalter, said that on August 13th about 1.30 he saw defendant and another man come away from the bank close to Bushy Ruff. He asked what they had got in the basket and defendant said it was nothing to do with him. The policeman who had been sent for came along and there was a bit of a scuffle-but got six rabbits out of the other man’s basket. The policeman took their names and addresses but the other man gave a wrong name he believed.
P.C. Honey, K.C.C., chillienden said he found the defendant detained and asked if he had any rabbits, and he replied,”I got a couple.” And when asked to produce them said “No you don’t, I shall have to pay for them.” When witness started to search him they went over on the bank together. He took six rabbits away from him.
Defendant: You did not take them off me, you took them off Jackson. The policeman said” Let’s have those __________ rabbits.” and jumped on him on the bank.
Supt. Lane said that defendant was before the court on November 3rd, 1927, and also on February 7th this year, and fined 1 pound on each occasion for poaching.
The chairman said that they were inflicting a heavier penalty this time. He would have to pay 2 pds. Or go to prison for a month.
Defendant asked for time, saying he had been off work for six weeks.
The chairman said that he could have a month, but didn’t he think he was foolish to go on like this?
Defendant: I could not see I was doing any damage walking around when they were cutting the corn.
The Chairman: You had better stop that sort of thing or you will get iate (word unreadable- brambled)-_ serious trouble.
* Ok, binder is correct- it was a sort of grain cutter on the tractor like this
* binder also Kentish for a hedge laying instrument- but grain cutter makes more sense here
Aylesham miner and Apple theft Sentence- Home Secretary Intervenes
From Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 23 August, 1929
THE AYLESHAM MINER AND APPLE THEFT SENTENCE
Last week at the Dover County Petty Sessions, before the following magistrates, Lord FitzWalter (Chairman), Sir Robert McCall, K.C., Cavanaugh, Messrs C.J. Burgess, H.J. May, A.T. Goodfellow, E. Bradley, Troward Harvey, H. Mackeson, E. Hinds and Miss Bomford., a miner of Aylesham, named Arthur Kinley was sentenced to 14 days imprisonment for stealing a quantity of growing apples from an orchard at Ratling Court, Nonington; on August 11th. The evidence was that at 9pm the man and three others were stealing apples in the orchard of Ratling Court. Mr. A.T. Steed caught the man and the three others ran away. It was stated that nothing was known against the defendant, who had been in the district three weeks, but the farmers in the district had suffered considerable loss by theft and other willful damage. The sentence was at once the subject of considerable criticism in the London Press, and Lord FitzWalter was singled out as the magistrate who was responsible. It will be seen that the bench consisted of magistrates who are well known Liberals, and Mr. Good fellow, a Dover Labor leader. Whether the sentence was unanimous whether the sentence was unanimous, or as the result of a vote was not known, but it is obvious that the matter is one dealt with collectively and not by one individual. There is no question that a sentence of imprisonment is not passed in these days for the first conviction for such a theft unless there are some special circumstances. The statement of the police that the farmers in the district were suffering continuous loss by theft and willful damage disclosed the position of affairs that is occurring around the mining village of Aylesham. So serious have matters become that farmers armed with shot-guns have been protecting their crops in the neighbourhood, and one of these, whilst watching a potato field , was killed by the accidental discharge of his gun. That there has grown up a feeling of hostility between the miners and the surrounding agriculturalists is undoubted. The latter, from a financial point of view, are in a good deal worse position then the miners. Mr. Elks, the miners’ agent, in a statement to the press, said that' if the farmers had to sit up all night to protect their crops it looks as if the miners were not getting enough to keep them.' Miners are, however, paid much higher wages then the surrounding agriculturalists.
On Sunday, the Snowdon branch of the Kent Mineworkers Association. held a meeting at which Mr. F. Turner presided and the following resolution was passed:” That this meeting of the K.M.W.A. emphatically protest against the savage sentence imposed on Arthur Kinley by the county magistrates at Dover on Thursday. We consider the sentence is out of proportion to the offence committed and further declare that in our opinion the magistrates were actuated by prejudice and spite against Kinley simply because he is a miner.” Mr. Lowther, the secretary of the branch, has stated that this sentence, following on that of two months against Owen for striking a deputy, convinced him there is a magisterial prejudice against the miner.
In the case referred to, of Owen, he was stood off by a deputy of Snowdon Colliery, Mr. H. Allcock, as he refused to work in the stall allotted to him. As Mr. Allcock was going home, he was waylaid by Owen, who knocked Mr. Allcock down with a blow on the nose, which bled for many hours, and then struck him on the face and chest whilst on the ground. The case was nut brought by the police, but by the assaulted deputy, for whom the solicitor who represents the colliery mine company appeared.
The Kent Mine Workers’ Association approached Mr. Cook, the Secretary of the Miners’ Federation, on the matter and he was in communication with Mr. Clynes, the Home Secretary. On Monday, Kinley, who was at Maidstone Prison, was released and sent back to Aylesham by the prison Authorities, In an interview Kinley said that he and a pal took the apples for a joke and that when he heard the sentence he was so astonished that he could not defend himself. It might be pointed out that in all police court proceedings the defence is heard before the sentence, and this was the case at the court of Dover last Thursday,
In connection with the raid on this particular farm there was a previous charge before the county Magistrates against three miners for a similar robbery. The men were given a severe caution and told if the offence again took place imprisonment of whoever was caught would follow.
THE AYLESHAM MINER AND APPLE THEFT SENTENCE
Last week at the Dover County Petty Sessions, before the following magistrates, Lord FitzWalter (Chairman), Sir Robert McCall, K.C., Cavanaugh, Messrs C.J. Burgess, H.J. May, A.T. Goodfellow, E. Bradley, Troward Harvey, H. Mackeson, E. Hinds and Miss Bomford., a miner of Aylesham, named Arthur Kinley was sentenced to 14 days imprisonment for stealing a quantity of growing apples from an orchard at Ratling Court, Nonington; on August 11th. The evidence was that at 9pm the man and three others were stealing apples in the orchard of Ratling Court. Mr. A.T. Steed caught the man and the three others ran away. It was stated that nothing was known against the defendant, who had been in the district three weeks, but the farmers in the district had suffered considerable loss by theft and other willful damage. The sentence was at once the subject of considerable criticism in the London Press, and Lord FitzWalter was singled out as the magistrate who was responsible. It will be seen that the bench consisted of magistrates who are well known Liberals, and Mr. Good fellow, a Dover Labor leader. Whether the sentence was unanimous whether the sentence was unanimous, or as the result of a vote was not known, but it is obvious that the matter is one dealt with collectively and not by one individual. There is no question that a sentence of imprisonment is not passed in these days for the first conviction for such a theft unless there are some special circumstances. The statement of the police that the farmers in the district were suffering continuous loss by theft and willful damage disclosed the position of affairs that is occurring around the mining village of Aylesham. So serious have matters become that farmers armed with shot-guns have been protecting their crops in the neighbourhood, and one of these, whilst watching a potato field , was killed by the accidental discharge of his gun. That there has grown up a feeling of hostility between the miners and the surrounding agriculturalists is undoubted. The latter, from a financial point of view, are in a good deal worse position then the miners. Mr. Elks, the miners’ agent, in a statement to the press, said that' if the farmers had to sit up all night to protect their crops it looks as if the miners were not getting enough to keep them.' Miners are, however, paid much higher wages then the surrounding agriculturalists.
On Sunday, the Snowdon branch of the Kent Mineworkers Association. held a meeting at which Mr. F. Turner presided and the following resolution was passed:” That this meeting of the K.M.W.A. emphatically protest against the savage sentence imposed on Arthur Kinley by the county magistrates at Dover on Thursday. We consider the sentence is out of proportion to the offence committed and further declare that in our opinion the magistrates were actuated by prejudice and spite against Kinley simply because he is a miner.” Mr. Lowther, the secretary of the branch, has stated that this sentence, following on that of two months against Owen for striking a deputy, convinced him there is a magisterial prejudice against the miner.
In the case referred to, of Owen, he was stood off by a deputy of Snowdon Colliery, Mr. H. Allcock, as he refused to work in the stall allotted to him. As Mr. Allcock was going home, he was waylaid by Owen, who knocked Mr. Allcock down with a blow on the nose, which bled for many hours, and then struck him on the face and chest whilst on the ground. The case was nut brought by the police, but by the assaulted deputy, for whom the solicitor who represents the colliery mine company appeared.
The Kent Mine Workers’ Association approached Mr. Cook, the Secretary of the Miners’ Federation, on the matter and he was in communication with Mr. Clynes, the Home Secretary. On Monday, Kinley, who was at Maidstone Prison, was released and sent back to Aylesham by the prison Authorities, In an interview Kinley said that he and a pal took the apples for a joke and that when he heard the sentence he was so astonished that he could not defend himself. It might be pointed out that in all police court proceedings the defence is heard before the sentence, and this was the case at the court of Dover last Thursday,
In connection with the raid on this particular farm there was a previous charge before the county Magistrates against three miners for a similar robbery. The men were given a severe caution and told if the offence again took place imprisonment of whoever was caught would follow.
Prison for Scrumping Miner
Another press clipping- this one was under news of Aylesham’s fetes and women's institutes, (with an advert for R.Woods camping equipment next to it!- poor Reggie)
Out of the stories I have this is the story that reached the national press, and is still remembered.(Reggie’s story is remembered only as a father killing his son- an intriguing version) A local historian told me that the word of mouth story passed to him was that an Aylesham miner got 6 months for stealing an apple- as you can see the original story was reported differently. Please remember that miners would argue that the Express was prejudiced against them- but it’s the only source I have at present. Also it’s clear that is a tumultuous week for Aylesham- something’s up. The apple stealing appeal will reach the Home Secretary. More to come-
From Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 16 August, 1929
PRISON FOR MINER- At the Dover County Sessions yesterday, Arthur Kinsley, pleaded guilty to stealing a quantity of growing apples from an orchard at Nonington, on the 11th August, valued at a shilling the property of Arthur Thomas Steed.-Sidney Frederick Hillier,, a farmhand to Mr. A.T. Steed, of Ratling Court, said that at 9pm on the 11th August, he saw 4 persons stealing apples in the orchard, and he caught the defendant. The others ran way. Mr. Steed took him to Sandwich and gave him in charge. The apples produced were found on the prisoner. Lane said there had been nothing against the defendant, but farmers in the district had suffered considerable damage by theft and other willful damage. Defendant had only been in the district about three weeks-Defendant was sentenced to prison for 14 days.
Out of the stories I have this is the story that reached the national press, and is still remembered.(Reggie’s story is remembered only as a father killing his son- an intriguing version) A local historian told me that the word of mouth story passed to him was that an Aylesham miner got 6 months for stealing an apple- as you can see the original story was reported differently. Please remember that miners would argue that the Express was prejudiced against them- but it’s the only source I have at present. Also it’s clear that is a tumultuous week for Aylesham- something’s up. The apple stealing appeal will reach the Home Secretary. More to come-
From Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 16 August, 1929
PRISON FOR MINER- At the Dover County Sessions yesterday, Arthur Kinsley, pleaded guilty to stealing a quantity of growing apples from an orchard at Nonington, on the 11th August, valued at a shilling the property of Arthur Thomas Steed.-Sidney Frederick Hillier,, a farmhand to Mr. A.T. Steed, of Ratling Court, said that at 9pm on the 11th August, he saw 4 persons stealing apples in the orchard, and he caught the defendant. The others ran way. Mr. Steed took him to Sandwich and gave him in charge. The apples produced were found on the prisoner. Lane said there had been nothing against the defendant, but farmers in the district had suffered considerable damage by theft and other willful damage. Defendant had only been in the district about three weeks-Defendant was sentenced to prison for 14 days.
14 days hard labour for apple theft
From Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 16 August, 1929
Where page numbers are given, you can read the articles by clicking the page numbers.
The 14 days imprisonment for apple stealing
Most of the London Press is this morning criticizing the action of the Wingham magistrates in sending an Aylesham miner to prison for 14 days for apple stealing, as reported on page 10. The man was, with others, who were not caught, robbing an orchard. The condition of affairs in the district is however, not explained. Last week a young farmer armed with a gun to protect the crops lost his life by the accidental discharge of a gun. The report of this inquest will be found on page 14, evidence will be given there of the depredations from which the farmers are suffering.
See also the Home Secretary Intervenes
Where page numbers are given, you can read the articles by clicking the page numbers.
The 14 days imprisonment for apple stealing
Most of the London Press is this morning criticizing the action of the Wingham magistrates in sending an Aylesham miner to prison for 14 days for apple stealing, as reported on page 10. The man was, with others, who were not caught, robbing an orchard. The condition of affairs in the district is however, not explained. Last week a young farmer armed with a gun to protect the crops lost his life by the accidental discharge of a gun. The report of this inquest will be found on page 14, evidence will be given there of the depredations from which the farmers are suffering.
See also the Home Secretary Intervenes
Did a dog fire the gun? - conclusion of inquest
first Inquest report here
From Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 23 August, 1929
Snowdon Shooting Mystery
Protest as to suggested drunkenness at Snowdon Institute
The inquest on the body of Reginald William Clark, 23, of Nonington, who was shot in a tent in the early hours of Saturday morning, August 10th, was resumed at Ackholt farm, Nonington, last Saturday morning by the East Kent coroner, Mr. W. Rutley Mowell.
The coroner: I should like to ask the brother of the deceased one or two additional questions.
When you found what had happened was the dog still tethered to the tent pole? - Yes.
Did you notice the position of the cord which held the dog? - I did not notice where it was.
You told me the dog was on the bed?-Was the cord entangled around the gun? - no: the gun was lying on the ground but there was no rope round it.
The gun was quite free from the cord?-yes.
Mr. Campbell (one of the jury): I should like to ask him a question on his evidence which appeared in the local press. His remarks about drunken miners coming from the institute cast an aspersion on the Institute. Has he got any reasons?
The coroner: I do not object to you asking him that. What I have got about that is this, “On Monday night we heard another dog barking outside the door…….”
Mr. Campbell: Were they coming from the institute?-They were coming from that direction.
Mr. Campbell: They might have been coming from Barham, Nonington and Woolage.
The coroner:”We will enter it this way.” With regard to my evidence about people coming from the club, I cannot be sure they came from the club. I mean they came from the direction of the club”.
P.C. Ralph Chalmers, K.C.C.., stationed at Nonington, said : At about 8.10am(note: this time not clear in my copy-brambled), on Saturday August 10th , Mr. Clark informed me that his son Reginald was lying in a tent at Ackholt farm with a gunshot wound in his chest. I went with Mr. Clark to the tent, where I saw the deceased lying in a bed with the lower portion of his body covered with the bed- clothes. There was a gun lying on the ground with the muzzle pointing towards the deceased. There was also an Alsatian dog made fast by a cord secured to the centre pole of the tent. The dog was sitting at the front of the deceased’s bed and it barked when I got there. Mr. Clark had to take it outside before I could enter the tent.
The Coroner: The presence of the dog, to my mind controverts the possibility that anybody else could have entered the tent.
Replying, to the Coroner, P.C. Charman said he did not think the deceased could have been out of bed from the position of the clothes. By a juryman: It looked as through the deceased had sat up in bed and the clothes had fallen from his body.
The Coroner: What was the deceased wearing?-A cotton singlet and a pyjama suit.
Was the shot through the vest through the vest and pyjamas?-It had penetrated the vest. The.pyjama jacket had evidently opened because where the jacket had joined the shot had taken part of it away.
Was there any trace of any part of the shot in the bedclothes?-No.
He must have had the bedclothes down just below the point where the shot entered his body ?- I should think so.
The foreman of the Jury (Mr. JF Harlow) said they had seen the tent and found it to be in the same condition that the brother had stated- They had come to the conclusion that the gun was fired by the dog through the animal becoming in some way entangled with the gun and they returned a verdict of “accidental Death”. The jury expressed their sympathy with the deceased’s family.
Mr. Clark thanked them and said he wanted to thank the police and the coroner for the way in which he had conducted the enquiry.
For scan of this newpaper report click here
From Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 23 August, 1929
Snowdon Shooting Mystery
Protest as to suggested drunkenness at Snowdon Institute
The inquest on the body of Reginald William Clark, 23, of Nonington, who was shot in a tent in the early hours of Saturday morning, August 10th, was resumed at Ackholt farm, Nonington, last Saturday morning by the East Kent coroner, Mr. W. Rutley Mowell.
The coroner: I should like to ask the brother of the deceased one or two additional questions.
When you found what had happened was the dog still tethered to the tent pole? - Yes.
Did you notice the position of the cord which held the dog? - I did not notice where it was.
You told me the dog was on the bed?-Was the cord entangled around the gun? - no: the gun was lying on the ground but there was no rope round it.
The gun was quite free from the cord?-yes.
Mr. Campbell (one of the jury): I should like to ask him a question on his evidence which appeared in the local press. His remarks about drunken miners coming from the institute cast an aspersion on the Institute. Has he got any reasons?
The coroner: I do not object to you asking him that. What I have got about that is this, “On Monday night we heard another dog barking outside the door…….”
Mr. Campbell: Were they coming from the institute?-They were coming from that direction.
Mr. Campbell: They might have been coming from Barham, Nonington and Woolage.
The coroner:”We will enter it this way.” With regard to my evidence about people coming from the club, I cannot be sure they came from the club. I mean they came from the direction of the club”.
P.C. Ralph Chalmers, K.C.C.., stationed at Nonington, said : At about 8.10am(note: this time not clear in my copy-brambled), on Saturday August 10th , Mr. Clark informed me that his son Reginald was lying in a tent at Ackholt farm with a gunshot wound in his chest. I went with Mr. Clark to the tent, where I saw the deceased lying in a bed with the lower portion of his body covered with the bed- clothes. There was a gun lying on the ground with the muzzle pointing towards the deceased. There was also an Alsatian dog made fast by a cord secured to the centre pole of the tent. The dog was sitting at the front of the deceased’s bed and it barked when I got there. Mr. Clark had to take it outside before I could enter the tent.
The Coroner: The presence of the dog, to my mind controverts the possibility that anybody else could have entered the tent.
Replying, to the Coroner, P.C. Charman said he did not think the deceased could have been out of bed from the position of the clothes. By a juryman: It looked as through the deceased had sat up in bed and the clothes had fallen from his body.
The Coroner: What was the deceased wearing?-A cotton singlet and a pyjama suit.
Was the shot through the vest through the vest and pyjamas?-It had penetrated the vest. The.pyjama jacket had evidently opened because where the jacket had joined the shot had taken part of it away.
Was there any trace of any part of the shot in the bedclothes?-No.
He must have had the bedclothes down just below the point where the shot entered his body ?- I should think so.
The foreman of the Jury (Mr. JF Harlow) said they had seen the tent and found it to be in the same condition that the brother had stated- They had come to the conclusion that the gun was fired by the dog through the animal becoming in some way entangled with the gun and they returned a verdict of “accidental Death”. The jury expressed their sympathy with the deceased’s family.
Mr. Clark thanked them and said he wanted to thank the police and the coroner for the way in which he had conducted the enquiry.
For scan of this newpaper report click here
Watchers for Aylesham Depradators
All below is taken from Dover Express and East Kent News for 16th August 1929
‘Snowdon Shooting Mystery
Did a dog fire the gun?
Watchers for Aylesham Depredators
In the early hours of Saturday morning last a young farmer of Ackholt farm, Nonington named Reginald William Clark, was found by his brother to be suffering from a gunshot wound in his chest, and considerable mystery surrounds the circumstances under which he met his death. It appears that the deceased who was sleeping with his brother in a tent on the farm, went to bed about 11.15am and the latter , on awakening at the report of a gun, found his brother lying in bed with a wound in the chest and he died soon after.
The inquest was held on Monday afternoon at Ackholt farm, Nonington, by the East Kent Coroner, Mr. W. Rutley Mowell. He was assisted by a jury of whom Mr. James Frederick Harlow was the foreman.
William Clark, of Ackholt farm, Nonington, father of the deceased, identified the body as that of his son Reginald William who lived with him. He was single, aged 23, and assisted witness on the farm as a tractor mechanic He last saw him alive at about 10.15 on Friday night last when he went to bed. The deceased and his brother had been sleeping in the tent since the previous Sunday in Ackholt wood, which was near his potato field, a quarter of a mile from the house.
The coroner:; Why did they do that?-Well, some of the inhabitants of Aylesham are good and the others are bad, and the bad ones are frequently crossing the farm and taking things and we have the tent there to protect the field.
Continuing, witness said the deceased also had a gun and his own Alsatian dog. The gun was to scare the rooks in the early morning and they usually fired about one shot. The gum belonged to the deceased and witnesses provided the cartridges. He did not know whether the deceased loaded the gun overnight. The deceased had nothing on his mind and was never worried.
Leslie Stuart Clark, 16 1/2 years, brother of the deceased, said he helped on the farm. On Friday he and his brother left the house for the tent at about 11 o’clock. The deceased opened the flap of the tent on arrival and went inside. He had he gun with him and he loaded it at the farm before going to the tent, as he sometimes did. There was an oil lamp in the tent, and in addition they had an electric torch. On Friday night the deceased lit the lamp. They secured the flap of the tent when they were inside, and the deceased put out the light. The dog was tied to the tent pole with a 7 ft. length of rope. He did not notice where the deceased put the gun when he got inside the tent, but he was awakened at about 1.30 by the sound of a gun being fired. He saw there was a light which proved to be a torch, under his brother’s right hand. He heard the deceased say “oh dear” three times and he called out to him. As there was no answer he got out of bed and shook him. He then saw the wound in his chest. The dog was on the bed near his feet and seemed to be licking either the paws or the head of the deceased. He found the gun lying at the foot of the bed with the muzzle pointing towards the deceased .He covered the deceased’s wound up so that the dog should not touch it and then opened the flap of the tent and ran down the house and told his father.’
By Mr. Mowlis? The bedclothes were turned back just enough to expose the wound. The dog was still secured to the post and the dog would certainly have given the warning had any body else entered the tent. He thought the string which secured he dog got round the hammer of the gun and when the deceased felt the dog move, he must have got up and reached for the gun, getting hold of the muzzle, and then the gun went off. There was a clock in the tent but he did not notice the time.
By one of the jury. The dog kept jumping on the bed and the deceased told the dog to get down.
By another juryman. On the previous Monday night the deceased had some words with some drunken miners who came from the Snowdon Men’s club at about 10pm.
The Juryman (Mr. Baledon): Do you think he had his gun loaded so that he could scare people away? - He might have had that in his mind.
Mr. Baledon: I think that was the idea, because we have this trouble with miners pilfering our stuff, and the first thing to do is to catch them. I suggest that the real reason why the deceased and his brother were up there was to scare off men and not rooks?
Mr. Clark: yes
By Supt. Lane: The gun was normally placed at the head of the bed. The deceased only had one cartridge, and he had never seen the deceased load the gun before.
Dr Gerald E. Bellamy said he first saw the body about 8 am the same morning and the deceased had then been dead about an hour. The body was still warm. A superficial examination only revealed the gunshot wound in the chest. He had also made a post mortem examination. In his opinion, he did not think the muzzle of the gun could have been nearer then two feet and not more then three feet away. The direction of the shot was slightly upwards, inwards towards the middle line of the body, and backwards into the sheet. The shot penetrated the heart and he found most of the pellets in the right ventricle. There were a few shots in one lung. Death was caused through gunshot wounds causing haemophagge. It was inconceivable that the wound was self inflicted.
The Coroner: that is a very important statement, and I do not think you quite mean it,- I would not say it was impossible.
You mean he could not have deliberately got into that position?- I mean it was not suicide.
The Coroner addressing the jury said they had heard all the material evidence. The deceased and his brother were in the tent obviously for the protection of their father’s crops. They took a loaded gun with them which was a very foolish thing to do, but they thought if they had a loaded gun it would scare the people if it were fired into the air. They went to bed and the rest of the story they had to take from the brother of the deceased. It was for them to say whether it was an accident, in fact there did not seem to be any direct evidence to indicate anything else, but the position was a curious one. The deceased was in the bed with the bedclothes down to the point of the wound, and the wound pointing right into his heart. It might if they took those facts alone point to suicide, but they were not the only facts. It was difficult to follow the theory that the gun went off accidentally, but they had the evidence of the doctor, who told them that suicide was out of the question. They could return a verdict of “accidental death” which meant misadventure, or they could return an open verdict which meant they did not know how it happened.
After retiring, the foreman said the jury wanted to see the tent and the coroner adjourned the inquest until tomorrow (Saturday)
I have the following weeks article on the conclusion of the inquest is here. Plus apple stealing in Aylesham- what this has to do with Reggies death, and how the apple stealing became historically significant.
‘Snowdon Shooting Mystery
Did a dog fire the gun?
Watchers for Aylesham Depredators
In the early hours of Saturday morning last a young farmer of Ackholt farm, Nonington named Reginald William Clark, was found by his brother to be suffering from a gunshot wound in his chest, and considerable mystery surrounds the circumstances under which he met his death. It appears that the deceased who was sleeping with his brother in a tent on the farm, went to bed about 11.15am and the latter , on awakening at the report of a gun, found his brother lying in bed with a wound in the chest and he died soon after.
The inquest was held on Monday afternoon at Ackholt farm, Nonington, by the East Kent Coroner, Mr. W. Rutley Mowell. He was assisted by a jury of whom Mr. James Frederick Harlow was the foreman.
William Clark, of Ackholt farm, Nonington, father of the deceased, identified the body as that of his son Reginald William who lived with him. He was single, aged 23, and assisted witness on the farm as a tractor mechanic He last saw him alive at about 10.15 on Friday night last when he went to bed. The deceased and his brother had been sleeping in the tent since the previous Sunday in Ackholt wood, which was near his potato field, a quarter of a mile from the house.
The coroner:; Why did they do that?-Well, some of the inhabitants of Aylesham are good and the others are bad, and the bad ones are frequently crossing the farm and taking things and we have the tent there to protect the field.
Continuing, witness said the deceased also had a gun and his own Alsatian dog. The gun was to scare the rooks in the early morning and they usually fired about one shot. The gum belonged to the deceased and witnesses provided the cartridges. He did not know whether the deceased loaded the gun overnight. The deceased had nothing on his mind and was never worried.
Leslie Stuart Clark, 16 1/2 years, brother of the deceased, said he helped on the farm. On Friday he and his brother left the house for the tent at about 11 o’clock. The deceased opened the flap of the tent on arrival and went inside. He had he gun with him and he loaded it at the farm before going to the tent, as he sometimes did. There was an oil lamp in the tent, and in addition they had an electric torch. On Friday night the deceased lit the lamp. They secured the flap of the tent when they were inside, and the deceased put out the light. The dog was tied to the tent pole with a 7 ft. length of rope. He did not notice where the deceased put the gun when he got inside the tent, but he was awakened at about 1.30 by the sound of a gun being fired. He saw there was a light which proved to be a torch, under his brother’s right hand. He heard the deceased say “oh dear” three times and he called out to him. As there was no answer he got out of bed and shook him. He then saw the wound in his chest. The dog was on the bed near his feet and seemed to be licking either the paws or the head of the deceased. He found the gun lying at the foot of the bed with the muzzle pointing towards the deceased .He covered the deceased’s wound up so that the dog should not touch it and then opened the flap of the tent and ran down the house and told his father.’
By Mr. Mowlis? The bedclothes were turned back just enough to expose the wound. The dog was still secured to the post and the dog would certainly have given the warning had any body else entered the tent. He thought the string which secured he dog got round the hammer of the gun and when the deceased felt the dog move, he must have got up and reached for the gun, getting hold of the muzzle, and then the gun went off. There was a clock in the tent but he did not notice the time.
By one of the jury. The dog kept jumping on the bed and the deceased told the dog to get down.
By another juryman. On the previous Monday night the deceased had some words with some drunken miners who came from the Snowdon Men’s club at about 10pm.
The Juryman (Mr. Baledon): Do you think he had his gun loaded so that he could scare people away? - He might have had that in his mind.
Mr. Baledon: I think that was the idea, because we have this trouble with miners pilfering our stuff, and the first thing to do is to catch them. I suggest that the real reason why the deceased and his brother were up there was to scare off men and not rooks?
Mr. Clark: yes
By Supt. Lane: The gun was normally placed at the head of the bed. The deceased only had one cartridge, and he had never seen the deceased load the gun before.
Dr Gerald E. Bellamy said he first saw the body about 8 am the same morning and the deceased had then been dead about an hour. The body was still warm. A superficial examination only revealed the gunshot wound in the chest. He had also made a post mortem examination. In his opinion, he did not think the muzzle of the gun could have been nearer then two feet and not more then three feet away. The direction of the shot was slightly upwards, inwards towards the middle line of the body, and backwards into the sheet. The shot penetrated the heart and he found most of the pellets in the right ventricle. There were a few shots in one lung. Death was caused through gunshot wounds causing haemophagge. It was inconceivable that the wound was self inflicted.
The Coroner: that is a very important statement, and I do not think you quite mean it,- I would not say it was impossible.
You mean he could not have deliberately got into that position?- I mean it was not suicide.
The Coroner addressing the jury said they had heard all the material evidence. The deceased and his brother were in the tent obviously for the protection of their father’s crops. They took a loaded gun with them which was a very foolish thing to do, but they thought if they had a loaded gun it would scare the people if it were fired into the air. They went to bed and the rest of the story they had to take from the brother of the deceased. It was for them to say whether it was an accident, in fact there did not seem to be any direct evidence to indicate anything else, but the position was a curious one. The deceased was in the bed with the bedclothes down to the point of the wound, and the wound pointing right into his heart. It might if they took those facts alone point to suicide, but they were not the only facts. It was difficult to follow the theory that the gun went off accidentally, but they had the evidence of the doctor, who told them that suicide was out of the question. They could return a verdict of “accidental death” which meant misadventure, or they could return an open verdict which meant they did not know how it happened.
After retiring, the foreman said the jury wanted to see the tent and the coroner adjourned the inquest until tomorrow (Saturday)
I have the following weeks article on the conclusion of the inquest is here. Plus apple stealing in Aylesham- what this has to do with Reggies death, and how the apple stealing became historically significant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)