The Sun.
London, England, 1865-12-21 00:00:00

A Clergyman Assaulting a Chorister.

The Rev. O.De Leyland Baldwin, curate of St. Stephen's,
Salford, was charged at the Salford Town-hall, yesterday,
with assaulting a boy named Wm. Wharton.—Mr. R. B.
B. Cobbott, in stating the facts, said that the claimant had
been a chorister at St. Steithon's up to the time of the as-
sault, that ho had rendered his services gratuitously, and
that the defendant was not justified in striking and kicking
him as he had done. The boy's father preferred the charge.
The boy said he was at the church on Tuesday morning.
In descending the stairs which led to the organ he touched
the cap of another lad. For doing this Mr. Thorp, the
organ master, hit him ou the head. Witness refused to join
the other choristers who went into the choir. The defen-
dant, who had come into the church, saw witness alone,
and asked why he did not rejoin the other boys. The re-
ply was that Mr. Thorp had hit him. The defendant told
witness to go into the choir. He answered that ho would
not, because Mr. Thorp had struck him. Thereupon, the
defendant resorted to force. He seized witness by the neck,
dragged him along, twisted an arm round towards the back,
and struck him on the face. Witness then fell. On gaining
his feet, the defendant struck him on the face and twisted
an arm again. While on the floor the defendant kicked
him. After the assault, the defendant said, "If you will
not go into the vestry in five minutes I will gag you into
it." Ho attempted to do this by putting part of his hand-
kerchief into witness's mouth, which bled afterwards in
consequence. In cross-examination, witness said the kick
might have been given accidentally. Matthew White-
head, the complainant's cousin, said he saw the defen-
dant twist Wharton's arm towards the back. Complainant
cried, and said, "Go for my father." Witness went.—W.
L. Wharton said he was the father of the complainant, who
was ten years of age. Witness was a member of the con-
gregation at St. Stephen's. After hearing what had taken
place on Tuesday evening he went to the vestry. He saw
his son and the defendant there. It was about half-past 8
o'clock. Witness asked the defendant to account for his
conduct to the lad. The defendant said the charge of as-
saulting the boy was wrong. Witness's son then related
what had occurred. This was in the defendant's presence,
and after the recital, he was asked what he had to say. As
a reply was not forthcoming, witness took his son away to
the chief constable.—The defendant, who conducted his
own case, in cross-examining the witness, asked if he was
a high or low Churchman, and whether he disapproved of
the "extraordinary observances" at St. Stephen's.—Mr.
Trafford, the magistrate, said Mr. Baldwin was only aggra-
vating the offence by putting such questions, for the assault
had occurred since those disturbances. The defendant
replied that the charge against him had been brought in
malice, because he was unpopular as a clergyman, not
because he had assaulted the boy. Mr. Trafford—Do you
think you will improve your case by imputing malice ?
Mr. W. Taylor, chief constable, said the complainant's son
was brought to him on Tuesday evening. His lips appeared
to be a little smeared* as if they or the gums had been
bleeding. The left eYe was also swollen, and the whole
face indicated recent I:beeping. This concluded the evi-
dence for the complainant. _ _

Mr. Baldwin, before calling witnesses, stated his defence.
He said he should be able to prove that this charge was
brought, not because he had assaulted the boy, but that it
was a frivolous, vexatious complaint, made for reasons he
knew not. He would prove that he was only seen to hold
_ _ _ _ .

the boy ; that at the beginning ho asked him to go into
the choir, and said his differences with the choir master
should be settled afterwards. Instead of acceding to this
arrangement, the lad attempted to run oway, as he had
done one the previous Tuesday, when defendant was
absent. Defendant held him by the arms, and twisted them
round, not to give pain but to render the boy helpless. He
utterly denied knocking him down. The boy tried to tumble
down, as lads did when likely to be punished. Then, be-
cause he was making such a noise, defendant dragged him
towards the vestry. In leading him along in that way he
might have touched the lad with a foot, but that he kicked
at him was utterly false. A scratch on the lad's eye had
been done with a pin on the Sunday preceding the day in
question. In short, what he did to the boy was that he for-
cibly detained him to prevent his running away. Commis-
sioned by the rector and churchwardens, defendant at-
tended at the church to keep the choristers in order. The
boy was sent to the church by his father to learn to sing
and he (defendant) must have such authority over him as
was possessed by a schoolmaster. (Mr. Trafford—No, no.)
At any rate, ho must have some control over the choristers.
He hoped that the magistrate would take into considera-
tion that this charge had been brought because he was un-
popular as a clergyman. Had the complainant found that
instead of a clergyman at St. Stephen's any other man had
struck his so; the matter would probly have been settled
over a glass of beer. The lad's father had been asked by
defendant's personal enemies not to compromise the charge
for any money, but to make an example of him. The de-
fendant called the following witnesses : _ _

Mary Wilson, a girl, said on tho night in question she
was in the church. She was on one side of the aisle, the
boy was on the other. She heard the defendant ask him
why he was not in the choir. Wharton's reply was, be-
cause the choir master had hit him. The defendant then
said, " Go into the choir, and I will settle with you after-
ward." Instead of complying, Wharton turned to run
away. The defendant held him by an arm, and said,
"Come into the vestry with ve." The boyrefused. The
defendant then tried to carry him, and Wharton "slur-
red" down. Witness did not see the defendant hit or kick
the lad, but she heard Wharton cry, " Oh, my arm."
Richard Knowles, a chorister, said he saw the defendant
hit the boy on the face. The blow was struck with the
open hand. David Collins saidthat he and other choristers
were in the vestry playing, and that Wharton looked into
the defendant's note-book. James Thorp, the choir master,
was proceeding to state what occasioned the little misun-
derstanding between himself and the boy, when Mr.
Trafford interrupted. The defendant—l wish to show
that the boy has not told the truth. Mr. Trafford-4f you
prove that he has told an untruth, it does not follow that
he cannot speak the truth upon oath. The very purpose
of the oath is to make a person speak the truth who would
not without it. Samuel Rastrick, who holds the keys of
the church, said the choristers gave much trouble to the
defendant. He did not see the assault. The defendant
said, on his honour, as a gentleman, he had not kicked the
lad. This concluded the defence.

Mr. Trafford said it was a pity this charge had been
brought. He was the more sorry that the defendant should
impute to the complainant that it had been brought in
malice, and in a spirit of persecution ; for nothing had ap-
peared to justify such an imputation. Yet the charge was
one which might not have been made had a conciliatory
spirit been manifested. This was the first time a clergyman
had been brought before him on such a charge. He should
fine the defendant 10s. He regretted the necessity for that
decision; but he really thought that those persons, the high
Church people, who talked so much about the sanctity of
the Church, ought to take care and not thrash a lad within
the sacred precincts.