The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1880-07-17 00:00:00

A DISTURBANCE AT LORD'S CRICKET

GROUND.

At the Marylebone Police-court on Monday, Lord
Herbert Vane-Tempest, aged 18, of Londonderry.
house, Park-lane, and the Hon. Ashton Harbord, aged
19, of 46, 'Lipper Grosvenor-street, Grosvenor-square,
were charged before Mr. De Rutzen, the first-named
defendant with disorderly conduct at St. John's-wood
and assaulting Police-sergeant Nathan Mansfield, 4
X R., while in the execution of his duty, and the
latter defendant with attempting to rescue Lord H.
Vane-Tempest from the Custody of the police. Mr.
S. B. Abrahams, solicitor, of Great Marlborough
street, defended.—We take the following report of
the case from The Times of Tuesday :
The police-sergeant stated that at five o'clock on
Saturday evening he was on duty in St. John's-w9od-
road, and saw the defendants and others ejected from
Lord's Cricket-ground. They were shouting and
waving their umbrellas, and were very disorderly.
The witness, with other officers, attempted to dis-
perse them, and partially succeeded in doing so, when
the defendant, Lord H. Vane-Tempest, who had lost
his hat, tried to force his way backoto the ground.
_ _ _

Mr. Abrahams asked that the charges might be
taken separately, as they were distinct. Mr. De
Rutzen gave his sanction to this. Mr. Harbord then
left the dock, and the case against Lord H. Vane-
Tempest was proceeded with.
The witness' continuing, said that while Lord H.
Vane-Tempest and others were trying to rush back
into the ground he got in front of them to prexent
their doing so, as there was likely to be a disturbance.
The defendant said, "Get away, you cad," and at the
same time struck him with his right hand on the left
side of the face. With great difficulty the witness got
him to the station.

Cross-examined, the witness said that Lord H. Vane-
Tempest was outside the ground. He saw him ejected.
He would not let the defendant go and fetch his hat,
because he would have been disobeying orders. One of
the defendant's friends got his hat and put it on his
head after he was in custody. The defendant had no
umbrella in his right hand. Dectective-sergeant
Richard Besson stated that several persons tried to
get the defendant away from the police. This was the
case against Lard H. Vane-Tempest.

The Hon. Mr. Harbord was then placed in the
dock. Police-sergeant Mansfield stated that when he
had Lord H. Vane-Tempest in custody Mr. Harbord
tried to rescue him. The witness was almost pulled to
the ground. He was removed by a constable, but he
made a rush back a second time, and he was then
taken into custody.
Cross-examined: He did not hear Lord H. Vane-
Tempest say, "Harbord, take hold of my umbrella
for me." His belief was that the defendant made a
deliberate attempt to rescue Lord H. Vane-Tempest.

Police-constable James Potter, 22 S R. said that he
was called at Lord's, and saw Lord H. Vane-Tempest
in custody. Mr. Harbord was coming along in a very
excited state, and the sergeant said, " Take that man.'
The witness took hold of his left arm, but in about a
minute the defendant got away from him. Another
constable then stopped him, and witness assisted to
take him to the station. Police-constable Lansdowne,
251 S, said that he saw the defendant escape from the
custody of the last witness and arrested him. The de-
fendant had two umbrellas in his hand.
Mr. Abrahams was now about to address the Court
for the defence, when Mr. De Rutzen recalled the
sergeant, Mansfield, who in answer to questions put
to him said that when Mr. Harbord first came up he
did not hear him say anything. OR the second occa-
sion he rushed between the witness and Lord H.
Vane-Tempest, but did not attempt to do anything.
He would not have given the defendant into custody
on the first occasion.
Mr. De Rutzen said the witness had said that he
had done nothing on the second occasion, and after
that it would not be necessary for Mr. Abrahams to
say anything. The defendant would be discharged.

. _ .._
Mr. Abrahams then addressed the magistrate for
Lord H. Vane-Tempest. He said that on coming out
of the gate his lordship's hat was knocked off and the
police would not permit him to go back and get it.
He had in his hand a very valuable umbrella, a pre-
sent when arrested, and he asked Mr. Harbord to take
charge of it, and it was to get it that Mr. Harbord
rushed forward. His lordship actually handed the
umbrella to him, and he was afterwards seen with
two umbrellas in his hand. No one saw the assault
and no one could come forward to corroborate the
sergeant. The defendant admitted that he pressed by
by those who surrounded him to get into the ground
to recover his hat, and it might have been that he put
his hand on the sergeant's breast, but he denied strik-
ing him a blow with his fist at the sergeant.

The Hon. Ashton Harbord stated that he saw his
friend Lord H. Vane-Tempest arrested by the ser-
geant. His lordship had an umbrella in his hand.
Witness stayed by his side, and did not see him as-
sault any one. After his arrest he asked witness to
take his umbrella. Witness, who was 10 or 12 yards
behind, then went up to him to get it.
Mr. Theodore Brinckman, of 40, Berkeley-square,
said that he saw Lord H. Vane-Tempest, without a
hat, pushed along in a very violent manner, and the
witness called out to the officer not to treat him so.
The police were pulling him along in a most brutal
manner.

Mr. Ewan Christian, living at Westbourne-park-
villas, stated that he saw Lord H. Vane-Tempest try
to go into the ground to get his hat. He was very
agitated, being much pulled about, but he struck no
blows.

Lord Claud John Hamilton, living at 23, Lowndes-
square, gave similar evidence.
Mr. Gerald Paget, of MO, Eaton-square, said that
the defendant was very roughly treated, and called
out to him, "I have been taken into custody and have
done nothing." The defendant had an umbrella in
his right hand.
Mr. De Rutzen said the defendant on coming out
asked to be allowed to go back for his hat, and it
would have been great deal better if he had been
permitted to do so. There would then have been no
disturbance. The question was, had a blow been
struck? He thought not. The sergeant said that
the defendant struck him with his right hand, and
also that the defendant had no umbrella in his hand.
The sergeant was, hewever, wrong, for it had been
shown that the defendant had an umbrella in his right
hand. The defendant would be discharged.