The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-08-28 00:00:00

EXTRAORDINARY SCENE in a POLICE-
COURT.

At Solihull Police-court, on Saturday afternoon,
Ernest J. Stanbury Eardley, law student, was sum-
moned by his father, who resides at Springfield, Hall-
green, for unlawfully, and without just or legal cause,
placing himself on the complainant's, premises, with
refusing to leave the same when requested, and with
conducting himself in a noisy manner, thereby annoy-
ing complainant in the peaceful occupation of his
dwelling-house. Complainant, fearing defendant
would renew the nuisance, applied to have him bound
over to keep the peace. Mr. Stubbins, barrister,
prosecuted. When the case was called defendant
applied for an adjournment, urging that the magis-
trates had no jurisdiction, for he was a native of
Worcestershire. Seeing this affair had been going
on for seven years, and that he was quietly in posses-
sion and enjoyment of his property, he asked for an
adjournment in order that the Crown might have
time to take up the case. It was a case in which
£lO,OOO was involved, £5OOO of his own, besides his
livelihocd, his happiness, his reputation his mother's
happiness and his brothers'—at least several of his
brothers. The magistrates suggested •that defendant
should give an undertaking not to molest his father,
but he declined, and proceeded to recite the all'eged
wrongs his father had done him, winding up by the
statement that he was incapable of pity, and must insist
on the assertion of his rights. The magistrates sub-
sequently called on Mr. Stubbins to open the case,
upon which defendant said he should interrupt him,
adding "You must hear me. You cannot please your-
selves. You are petty officers, and the people do not
know what insignificant people magistrates are."
Mr. Stubbins: I protest against this Court being
insulted in this way.
Defendant: Being insulted in this manner! You
don't interrupt. It is not a Court. I don't acknow-
ledge it. Defendant added that he had been in the
Court of Queen's Bench and the Court of Appeal,
and had never been accused before of insulting the
Court.

The Magistrates' Clerk: The magistrates have
overruled your objection.
The Defendant: They can't overrule me. You
may commit me if you like. You may shut me up
if you like. I defy you! I may be committed, and
I will be committed rather than I should take this
ruling, but I will appeal to the highest authorities in
the land.

Mr. Chattock Well,now, go on, Mr. Stubbing.
Defendant: I will certainly maintain my right on
this question, and Mr. Stubbing knows my right, and
that you are overruling the practices cf the Courts of
Queen's Bench most shamefully.
When Mr. Stubbins rose to address the Court,
defendant interposed with a number of objections, and
working himself into a state of great excitement,
shouted to the Bench, "I defy you, if you
like to commit me it will be as a first-class misde-
meanant, and you will be responsible for my food,
my comfort, and my safety, and ydu will be liable
for damages" The Bench made another attempt to
induce the defendant to give an undertaking not to
molest his father, but he declined to make any pro-
mise. For fully an hour the Court was occupied
with the dispute, defendant refusing to let Mr.
Stubbing proceed with the case till he was heard as
to the jurisdiction of the magistrates. The affair
ended in a most remarkable manner. Mr. Stubbing
at length, on being called by the magistrates, re-
quested the complainant to go into the witness-box
to be examined. He stood at, one side of the
table facing the magistrates, the defendant at the
opposite side, and the complainant in the witness-box
behind. Defendant waited until the first question
was put to the complainant by Mr. Stubbing. Then
be at once rose, and holding a large document
, before him he commenced to read at the top of
his voice. The scene may be better imagined
than described. Mr. Stubbins questioned the
complainant, the complainant answered him,
the defendant kept reading as loudly as he could,
and the magistrates, puzzled beyond their com-
prehension, put questions indiscriminately to Mr.
Stubbins and defendant, and vainly expostulated
with the latter on his behaviour. The whole affair
was really a struggle between the defendant on the
one side, and Mr. Stubbins and the Bench on the
other, as to which could make the greatest noise and
talk the other down. The defendant ultimatell
gained the victory. The complainant was withdrawn
from the box by Mr. Stubbins, and the magistrates
were forced to listen to the defendant while he read
from his voluminous papers case after case in support
of his contention that magistrates had no power to
hear a summons when the matter complained of was
involved in a dispute to a title of property.
Defendant, after continuing his arguments at great
length, and quoting cases in support of his objection
to -jurisdiction, went into the witness-box, and swore
tbsit in July, 1881, he was turned out of the house by
force, and had never given up his possession. He
called in support of his case the complainant, whom
be examined at great length. At five o'clock the
magistrates refused to sit longer, and the case was
adjourned to September 4.