The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-07-05 00:00:00

A TOUCH OF NATURE. \\,.

The Cheyenne Sun tells that a big man and 6
smaller one going into a store late at night asked to
look at some clothing. Mr. Harrington himself
waited uprt the visitors and was showing them
various lines of goods when the door leading to his
residence in the rear of the store opened and in came
on the run a bay daughter of the Harrington family.
The little one came in hurrying to escape her mother,
and fell over a bog. Mr. Harrington left the cus-
tomer and went to the rescue of the baby. After the
little one was quieted and placed on the floor he re,
sumad his business, but in a minute she fell over
another box and apparently hurt herself. He left the
customer and again looked after the child.

At t'ais the man turned to his companion and said:
"Let's go out of here. I_ ain't looking for a nursery."
The proprietor heard the remark and was not slow
to)respond. Ho said that he had lived fifty-two years
and done twenty years of business, and had had
10,000 customers. But he had never had but two
Harrington babies, and this was the only one left.
He could get along without the customer, and the
sale of a suit of clothes to him, but he couln't get
along without the Harrington baby, and he didn't
care how soon the customers "skipped."

The man) who was looking at the proprietor with a
mild astonishment at first, when, the story was finished
had his handkerchief out, was wiping his eyes and
reaching his hand out to Mr. Harrington exclaimed
'Partner, God bless the baby." He couldn't do too
much, and it is needless to say they parted as
friends.

'PUBLIC SPEAKING IN THE PARKS.
In London on Saturday, at the Marylebone Police..
court, Miss Jessie Craigen of 31, Mitcroft-road, Peck-
ham, was summoned for having, on the 15th of June,
delivered a public address in the Primrose-hill Park,
contrary to the bye-laws' also for having distributed
pamphlets on the saine day and in the same place.
Joseph Page, inspector, stated that on Sunday, the
15th met,,he saw the defendant standing on a seat in
Primrose-hill. Park, delivering an address, partly on
the people's rights and partly on compulsory vaccina-
tion. He pointed out to her that this was illegal, and
that there was a part of Regent's Park set apart for
public speaking. She, however, declined to go there,
saying that she claimed the right to speak where she
was and should continue to do so. She said it
was her intention to do so every Sunday until
the right was conceded. She did speak on the
following Sunday, and had announced that she
would also speak next Sunthiy. He also warned
her that distributing pamphlets was against the law.
She said that he might summon her if -he liked, but
that she would not pay any fine which might be im-
posed, but would rather go to prison. ,Miss Craigen,
in her defence, said: My contention is that I had a
right to be there, and that the bye-law forbidding it
is entirely unconstitutional, inasmuch as the parks
are kept up by public money, and the people have a
right to use them as much as they like within cer-
tain and proper limits. That right I was there to
vindicate, and shall certainly go there again. Mr.
Cooke: You are wrong in your opinion about this
matter. There are certain Royal parks and gardens
which are governed by what is called the Parks Regu-
lation Act of 1872, amongst them being Primrose-hill,
where you were. In some of the parks it is per-
mitted to deliver addresses of a lawful character,
and with regard to Regent's Park there is such a
limitation. Kennington Park and Primrose-hill are
identically in the same position, the words of the Act
being, with respect to both, "No
.public address may
be delivered in this park," but nothing is said about
the subject of the address, whether political or theo-
logical. You are not allowed to deliver a public
address in these parks, and that is the law of the land.
Miss Craigen: But it is a bye-law. Mr. Cooke: It
is a bye-law under an Act of Parliament. I have no
discretion in the matter, and must enforce the law.
Having told you this, I trust you will withdraw what
you said just now, and not defy the law. Believing
that you were acting in ignorance, I shall only impose
a nominal fine of one shilling, but if you offend again
and are brought here I shall impose the full penalty
of £5, and in default commit you to gaol. Miss
Craigen: The people have ii right to go there, and I
shall not pay one farthing. You will get no shilling
out of me. Mr. Cooke: Then issue a distress warrant
against her goods, or in default of distress she must
undergo four days' imprisonment.
With reference to the second summons against her,
the defendant said: My defence is just the sante. I
acknowledge the distribution of the painphlets, and so
will save this gentleman (the park-keeper) the trouble
of giving evidence. lam not guilty, because I have a
right to do it, and I did it. Formal evidence of the
commission of the second offence having been given
by Inspector Page, Mr. Cooke said: ..This offence
comes under a more recent bye-law. I trust you
will reconsider your determination. Miss Craigen:
No, sir, I shall not reconsider it; I am standing upon
my rights. Mr. Cooke: Well, I fine you is., and 2s.
sosts.