The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-01-08 00:00:00

BEFORE MESSRS CHALL'NER AND W. BROWN, M P.

A RUFFIAN.—IMPORTANT TO PUBLICANS—Robert Jones
of 9 Trafalgar Street, was charged by Mrs. Ann Brad-
shave, the wife of a publican in Trowbridge Street, for
having assaulted her on the evening of the 30th ultimo.
Mr. Bremner appeared for the complainant, and in open-
ing the case, stated, that on the evedng in question, the
defendant went to the house and acted in the most
abominable manner, and committed a violentassault upon
his client. Mrs. Bradshaw sent for a policeman, and one
came, bat he refused to enter the house. He (Mr. B.)
could not help observing, that although the police were
ready at all hours of the day and night to enter public
houses for the purpose of prosecuting them, yet they
would not enter a public house to protect the propri tor
or his servants from the violence of ruffians who might
be there. Mr. Brown : Who gave such orders to the
police. tint they are not to enter a public house to
protect people ? Mr. Clough said he would explain the
reason. Mr. Bremner went on to say that the corn-
piainant sent for a policeman, but it was a quarter
of an hour before one could be found. One did come at

last, but ho only came as far as the door, and he refused
to enter, telling Mrs Bradshaw to turn the man out,
and if he did anything wrong in the street he would
take him into custody, Such conduct on the part of the
police emboldened the ruffianly behaviour of the
defendant, who at last caught Mrs Bradshaw round the
neck, got her head under his arm„ and beat her severely
—still the policeman would not enter. She caled
" murder," and some person in the house went to her
assistance, and, after some time, when the policeman
saw her assaulted, he did go in and take away the
prisoner. He called Mrs. Bradshaw, who said she was
five years in business, and there was no complaint
against her. She then corroborated the statement, as
did also two other witnesses. Mr. Brown said he would
like to have the policeman's evidence, and he would
ask hint some questions in reference to not entering
public houses to remove ruffians. Mr. Clough said the
police acted in this respect under orders laid down fur

their guidance. There was a difference of opinion in the
watch committee as to the order. It was deemed right to
prevent officers going into public houses unless they saw
actual violence committed. Ii is own opinion always
was, that the police should enter houses when called on
to do so, and in cases where violence did happen, in
consequence of their not having dune so, the judge from
the bench censured such conduct. M. Brown said, he

was glad to hear such an opinion. It was most
disgraceful to find a respectable woman, five
years in business, thus treated, and in the presence of a
policeman who refuses to interfere to prevent the out-
rage. He could not help sa.ing it was truly disgraceful.
Mr. Wybergh read the printed rules as laid down by
Major Grcig, and it appeared that the police were
prevented from entering public houses except in oases of
violence. Mr. Brown : Well, it may be a rule laid
down, but how is a female like this in a public house to
he protected from such a ruffian as this fellow, except
the police enter and protect her ? He ordered the
policeman to he called, and constable 467 then entered
the box and was sworn. He said, Mrs. Bradshaw told

him in a very bullying manner that she was waiting a
long time for him—she was. insolent to him —Mr.
Bremner, (ironically): Oh, indeed, she offended your
dignity—and ordered him to take out the man
at once. He refused, when she attempted to
push the man down some steps for the purpose
of injuring him—Mr. Bremner: Oh—and the
man only turned round, and merely caught her to
prevent his falling—indeed she was very saucy to him
(the officer.) He subsequently took the man away, and
she charged him, but did not appear next morning to
sustain the charge. Mr. Bremner said she was about a
minute late; the case was called on early, but as she did
not answer when called, the man was discharged,
although Mrs. Bradshaw was on the stairs at the
moment. As to the evidence of the policeman, he said
lie never heard a more disgraceful and disreputable
statement uttered in a court of justice by a policeman.
This fellow in order to screen himself from the conse-
quences of his own acts— for he had acted ma t impro-
perly, and actually now tells a story to make the bench
believe that the lady had been aggressor, by committing
ihe,_assault on such a big hulking ruffian as the defendant.
Yes, he had the audacity to come into a court of justice
and swear it, but did the magistrates credit such a
monstrous story ? He (Mr. B.) was most delighted to
hear from the bench an opinion that the absurd rule
made for the police, of not entering public houses to
protect the inhabitants, should be abrogated. The
question was this, were publicans to he protected by the
police the same as other citizens or were they not ? If
they were not, such conduct on the part of the police was not
calculated to insure them the respect and confidence of
the people of Liverpool. He would not say a word
more on the whole case, but leave it to the decision of
the magistrates. Mr. Brown said publicans must be
I protected. It was disgraceful for a policeman to stand
by and see a respectable woman treated as described,

by a ruffian like the defendant, and not interfere to
protect her. The policeman had a right and ought to
have interfered in the case, and he hoped they would
not, have a repetition of such conduct brought before
the court again. The prisoner was sent to gaol for two
months in default of paying a lice of £2 and costs.