The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1887-12-17 00:00:00

A SOCIALIST SENT TO HARD LABOUR.

Joseph Ellis, 26 years of age, a Socialist leader,
who has been on bail since Nov. 29, surrendered on
Monday at the Middlesex Sessions to answer a charge
of assaulting Peter Livingstone, an inspector of
police attached to Bow-street Station. The defendant
pleaded not guilty. Mr. Forrest Fulton and Mr.
Muir prosecuted for the Treasury; Mr. Pickersgill
and Mr. Boyn appeared for the defendant. Inspector
Livingstone deposed that on Sunday, Nov. 13, Le was
on duty in the Strand, at the junction of Wellington-
street and Waterloo-bridge, and had charge of the
police. A procession came along in which the prisoner
was, and it was stopped. The accused stepped forward
and struck him a blow on the right eye and nose.
He thought he had some instrument in his hand.
The blow he received was a very severe one. Witness
at once caught hold of him by the shoulder, and had
no sooner done so than another man struck him a
violent blow in the mouth. Police-coastable Carr,
80 E, said: I was on duty at the time, and saw a van
and horses turned in the direction of Waterloo-
bridge. The prisoner was in front of the procession,
and after speaking to Inspector Livingstone he made
a blow at me with some bard substance twisted in a
pocket handkerchief. The blow was aimed at my
face, but as I drew my head back I received the blow
on my left shoulder. The blow was a most severe
one and caused me to stagger. Before I could re-
cover I saw the prisoner strike Inspector Livingstone
in the face. The inspector caught hold of
the prisoner by the right arm and threw him
to the ground, with the result that the inspector
and he fell together. After other evidence,
including that of an independent witness, named
Jenks, Mr. Pickersgill addiessed the jury for the
defence. The jury found Ellis guilty of inflicting
grievous bodily harm upon Inspector Livingstone in
the execution of his duty, but recommended him to
the merciful consideration of the Court on account of
his previous good character and the excitement of the
moment. Mr. Fulton said he was instructed, on
behalf of the Treasury, to say that they looked upon
this as a very bad assault. Inspector Livingstone, in
answer to the Court, said he had made inquiries, and
the prisoner had borne a very good character up to
now. His lordship, in passing sentence, observed that
Ellis had been guilty of a very gross assault. He
ordered him to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour
for eight calendar months.

Amongst, the summonses for hearing at the Bow-
street Police-court on Saturday were four against
police-constables 98 A, 99 E, and 105 G (against whom
two charges werelbrought) for assaults arising out of
the recent disturbances in Trafalgar-square. Before
the summonses were called on Mr. W. M. Thompson
made an application to Mr. Bridge on behalf of Mr.
Stead for a warrant for the apprehension of Alfred
Wilson, one of the men charged with assaulting the
police during encounters brought about by the at-
tempts to hold meetings in defiance of Sir C. Warren's
order. Mr. Stead was bail for Wilson, and could not
now:find him. He was anxious that a warrant should
be granted to secure his attendance. The case had
been adjourned from week to week until Thursday
last, when it was again adjourned for a week. Unless
something was done Mr. Stead felt he could not
attend at the remand. Mr. Bridge: But the surety
s bound to produce the man. Mr. Thompson: Yes,
and for that reason I ask you for a warrant. Mr.
Bridge said he could not grant a warrant, but Mr.
Stead could give Wilson into custody if he could find
him. On the summons against Police-constable 98 A,
for an alleged assault on Mr. Feargns O'Connor,
being called on, Inspector Fairey, of the A Division,
said it must be a case of mistaken identity, as the
number, 98 A, was that of a sergeant of the Criminal
Investigation :Department, who had been abroad
for the last four months. Witness had brought
Police-constable 98 AR. On the day of the alleged
assault—the 20th ult.—he, however, was on duty
the whole of that day enrolling special constables.
Mr. Thompson, after consulting with his client and
the witness he had in couit, said: The case has takeu
a most extraordinary turn. The beat thing will be to
apply for an adjournment. Certainly I could put
witnesses in the box to swear that 98 A or A R was
the number. If you will adjourn this and the other
cases until this day week I should be glad. It is cer-
tainly a startling revelation to me and my client. The
charge is so serious, and the circumstances of there
being no 98 A, is so extraordinary, that it will require
further investigation. Mr. Bridge: Certainly. The
cases were then adjourned.
THE WRONG CORPSE SENT HOME.—AN
EXTRAORDINARY BLUNDER.

The Central News is informed that an extraor.
dinary mistake has occurred in connection with the
case of Alfred Linnell, whose injury near Trafalgar
square and subsequent death in Charing-cross Hos-
pital have lately formed the subject of inquiry. It
appears that on the evening of the 3rd inst. Linnell's
body was removed from the hospital to the house of
Mrs. Hann, 2, Penchurch-avenue, whose husband died
in the hospital on the let inst. When the coffin lid
was removed the mistake was discovered, and the
bodies were exchanged on the following Monday.
The hospital authorities were deeply grieved, and
Mrs. Hann has received the following letters:
"Charing-cross Hospital, Dec. 10.
"The Secretary is desired by the Weekly Board of
Governors to express to Mrs. Hann and the other re-
latives of Mr. James Hann, who died in the hospital
on the Ist inst., their deep regret at the mistake,
through which the body of another patient was made over
to their undertaker when he came on the 3rd inst. for
Mr. Hann's remains."
"Charing-cross Hospital, Dec. 10.
" Madam,—l enclose you a special jotter of regret
from the Board of Governors of this hospital, at t'_ e
deplorable mistake which occurred on the 3rd. I
should be very much obliged if you will at the same
time tell me by whose orders the undertaker came for
the body on the night of the 3rd, when you all knew
there was an inquest on the sth. He could not, there-
fore, have come by the orders of the family.—Yours
faithfully, ARTHUR READE, Secretary."