The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-02-27 00:00:00

"LARKING" AT CAMBRIDGE.

A case was heard at the Guildhall at Cambridge,
on Monday, before the borough bench of magistrates,
which excited more than ordinary interest, and the
court, as a consequence, was densely crowded.
Charles A. Andrews, a Creile, an undergraduate of
St. John's College, was brought up, on remand from
Saturday, charged with mischievously ringing the door .
bell of Dr. Ransom, of Jesus-lane.
It should be premised, in order to a due understand-
ing of the case and the interest excited, that several
terms back a bell-ringing furore appeared to have
I seized such members of the undergraduate body as
were given to nocturnal amusements, and though, as a
rule, the practice has been discontinued, a species of
crusade is still kept up against the particular bell of
Dr. Ransom, the reason being that on the apprehen-
sion of the first offender Dr. Ransom exhibited what
the undergraduates construed into • great desire for
his punishment. The memory of this has been handed
down through succeeding freshmen, and the annoyance
to the doctor has been perpetuated by the ringing of
his night-bell at unseemly hours, and without any
valid excuse. In fact, it has been a regular cage of
"Monsieur Tonson, Monsieur Tonson I"
At least half-a-doaen undergraduates have been
fined for offences against this particular bell, and on
the occasion of the last charge, the Bench intimated
that they would undoubtedly send the next offender to
prison. Hence the large attendance.
Police-constable Webb deposed that on Friday night
he saw several gentlemen coming up Jesus-lane. The
defendant was one of them, and as soon as he reached
Dr. Ransom's he got hold of the bell-pull and gave it a
pulL He then took his cap from his head with his
right hand and ran towards witness. Caught hold of
him and charged him with ringing the bell. He denied
it. Witness said they must go back and see, and
having gone about ten yards toward's Dr. Itansom'a,
saw that gentleman with his head out of the window.
Defendant was in company with six or seven others.
Dr. Ransom deposed that the bell was rung about
25 minutes to 11—the night Leib Was not in bed.
. Opened the window, and saw the defendant in custody.
Saw the defendant at about 25 minutes past 11 walking
up and down opposite his house.
The defendant was understood to deny that he had
told the policeman he did not ring the belL He might,
he said, have made use of some expression that the
; cfficer had misconstrued. With regard to the state-
molt that Dr. Ransom had seen him walking up and
• down, that gentleman was mistaken, for he could prove
that he had been in a billiard room for the two hours
I just previous to the bell being rung. He had a state-
ment in writing; might he be permitted to read it?
The Bench assenting, the defendant then proceeded
,r to read as follows, only the least sign of patois being
El discernible :
- -

I do confess that, aeting under the impubie of the moment
I pulled a street-door bell in Jesus-lane on Friday night ;
but, slum the fact of its being Dr. itansom's hell seems likely
info small degree to prove prejudicial to myself, I declare
upon my honour as a gentleman that I was not aware at the
time that the bell I pulled was Dr. itansones, that I had ne
Intention of annoying him in particular, and that I
had never before seen either his house or Ms bell in
my life. The only reason I can allege for having touched
It at all is that it was a very prominent object, and that
the temptation was sudden. lam a freshman, and am
as yet net fully acquainted with the wave and cantons
of the University, and more especially with its current
gossip; and, furthermore, lain to some extent a compara-
tive stranger to some of the peculiarillies of social
life ; and. although I frankly acknowledge myself guilty
of a thoughtless act in annoying a private family, I never
, was aware before that the occasional ringing of bells was an
offence so serious as it now seems to be—street-door bells
being unknown things in the country from which I come.
I trust I may further be allowed to state that I have
hitherto been guilty of no breach of College or Unlveniity
discipline, and that so far as I am aware I have never
had occasion to be on any other than good terms with
my College authorities. I repeat again that this has
been a solitary act of temporary infatuation, and not
at all in accordance with my general habits and chanicter.
And if you should require evidence in support of this asser-
tion. I ask your permission to produce (1) the evidence of the
Dean of my College, to slow that I have hitherto been
attentive to my College duties; and (2, of Mr. James Dew-
berry, in whose holm I have lodgings, to show that my
habits of life are quiet and regular. I trust, therefore, that
although I acknowledge having committed as act of indis-
cretion, the fact of nip being ignorant of the peculiar circum-
stances of the case may in sonic measure mitigate the
severity of the penalty which you might otherwise be disposed
to inflict.
The Rev. Henry Russell, Fellow and Dean of it,.
John's College deposed that the defendant is in his '
second term. His general conduct had been exceedingly
good; he had never been reported to him for anything
whatever. Witness has only been Dean one term,
but he could tell by his predecessor's books that the
defendant had never been reported during residence.
The defendant had only been three years in England.
The Rev. Dr. Parkinson, Fellow and Tutor of St.
John's, said the defendant was bin pupil. His conduct
had been uniformly good up to now. If he had been
irregular or guilty of any breach of College discipline,
witness must have known it. He came to witness
, with teetimoniale of the highest character from Dr.

many

Ifieof-Kines—College, London, and
other gentlemen; he is a native of India.
The bench retired for about twenty minutes, and on
their return,—
The Mayor sadd the Bench had considered the case most
anxiously, and they regarded it as one of clearly a very
serious character, as a respectable inhabitant of the town
had been subjected to a series of annoyances, of which
that given by the defendant was the last. At the same time
the Bench felt hound to take each ease into consideration
separately. and they had given due weight to the fact that
the defendant, being young ill the University. probsbly
knew very little of what 'had previously occurred. If
they thought he had been cognizant of Mamie trans-
actions he would inevitably have been subjected to humn-
sonment That, however, would he such a blow to his future
prospects that the Bench were willing to give him the benign
of the doubt this time. As it was, however, they felt it to
be their duty to inthiot the highest penalty in their power.
He would have to pay at,. and costs, or go to prison for 14
days, with hard labour.
- - - - - • •

The money was immediately paid and the defendant
retired. The decision appeared greatly to disappoint
a number of " coughs" who had assembled outside
the court to witness the expected conveyance of an
undergraduate to prison, or, as they expressed it,
"see him go to