The Sun.
London, England, 1824-12-02 00:00:00

SENTENCE OF THE JUDGE.

Sir JOHN NICHOLL—" It seems to . be quite desirable, I
think, that these several causes should be put an end to us
speedily as can be, and I therefore proceed at once to give my
opinion in respect of them. Indeed, I must acknowledge that
I had been much in hopes that what had passed on a former
occasion would have had the effect of inducing these parties to
come to an understanding between one another, so that this
kind of continued litigation, and this unfortunate breach of
harmony which have taken place in the parish of bt. Mary,
Newington, might be at length entirely assuaged and removed.
The defendants, however, in each of these cases, have in
some degree profited by what fell from the Court on the occa-
sion I have just adverted to ; in as plod) as they have not gone
on to examine witnesses in support of the defensive allegation*
that they have brought in, in reply to the articles exhibited
against them ; a proceeding, intleal, which, had they adopted.
could have been of no avail to them in making out any thing
like a case of defence ; and, therefore, so far as that goes, their
conduct, I think, has had a tendency, in some degree, to lessen
the expellees that would have been incurred had they persisted
in going on to examine witnesses. The Court hiving read all
these proceedings, and heard what the learned Counsel have
thought proper to offer on each side, it remains that I should
proceed to express my opinion as to the sentence which it may
be proper to pronounce on each of these parties.
The same general principles apply to all the three cases
which are at this moment before the Court, as apply to such
cases at all times; and were,. indeed, applied by the Court
to that upon which it gave judgment on a former Court-
day. The cases being in a little degree distinct from
each other in respect to costs, the Court will presently state
the grounds of the distinctions which it will take in pro.
nouncing its sentence. Having so stated,! in another instance
occuring on a former day, the.general principles applicable to
such matters, it will be unnecessary for me now to lay them
down again. The Court is of opinion that these articles have
been promoted by the proper officer, with a view to provide
for the upholding of the sanctity of the place which is in
question, to prevent any sort of indecorum and indecency
from taking place in that edifice which is by law set apart for
the purposes of Public Worship; and that the Court is not
to look at the case before it, in order to decide upon the merits
or demerits of the individuals who may have been engaged in
quarrelling and brawling in that situation. The Court only
knows that the law prohibits them from quarrelling at all in
a place of Public Worship.
The offence out of which this case and the other cases before
the Court arise, grew out of certain transactions occurring at
the time of the election of the Parish Officers for this Parish;
which election, I think, was held in the Church of St. Mary,
Newiugton, at Easter, in 1823. On that occasion a poll was
demanded on behalf of one of the Candidates, who wits named
for the situation of Churchwarden. On the same occasion a
great quarrel took place, it appears, between a Mr. Roffey,who was one of the Churchwardens, and a Mr. Hurcombe,
who was a parishioner. Against Mr. Roffey the Judge's office
was some time since promoted in a cause of brawling. Mr.
Roffey being prosecuted was found guilty, and sentenced and
condemned in costs; and perhaps the offence of that indivi-
dual was in some degree aggravated by the nature of the very
office that he held ; for he was the Churchwarden. It would
appear, indeed, that in this capacity even Mr. Roffey acted,
not without considerable provocation at one part of the busi-
ness. At the same time offensive conduct towards a person
holding so high an official situation in the parish as
that of a Churchwarden is no justification for an of-
fence of this sort committed itY the Churchwarden.
And I think, indeed, it does appear in some degree by these
proceedings that the first offensive words that were made use of
in the course of these transactions were made use of by Mr.
Roffey ; for it should seem that after Mr. Hurcombe had been
speaking for some time upon a question which had been raised
tot to adjourning the vestry, Mr. Miry did, though perhaps
not in the most offensive or insulting way, if such language can
be used in any other sense than that of extreme insult and
offence—call Hurcotnbe a coward, to which Mr. Hurcombe re-
torted by calling Roffey a common informer. But after all,
the result if the whole evidence is, I think, that Hurcombe did
over and overegain in the course of that evening, and while the
business of, the meeting and election was going on, and not
merely on the first occasion of Holley); calling him a coward,—
call Roffey an informer and a common informer ; but certain it
is that tile words Coward and informer were bandied backwards
and forwards between those
two persons all the evening long.
in the former cases, that even on
nreo
tuitin
awn
wt
evidence Court w was of opinion,
.
Hu be appeared to be pretty much
' fn part delictu with Mr. Ridley, and it intimated, at the same
time, that if that should reel turn out tube so, upon evidence
in the case in which he was defendant, it would be the wisest
course for him to take to find his way out of this Court in the
shortest way he could. And to a certain degree this advice up.
pears to have hail its effect upon Mr. Hurcombe by his not exa-
mining witnesses to his allegation. but on the other hand,
in support of these articles which have been exhibited against
Mr. Hurcombe, no less than witnesses have been examined,
who depose to his having repeatedly called Mr. Rolfey a common
informer, stating that he had brought
actions against several of
his fellow parishioners, for the purpose of putting money into
his own pocket. But all this matter of accusation and recri-
mination had in a great measure subsided, and Mr. Roffey was
goin quietly out of the Church, when the brawling was renewed
by Ilurcombe. For I think the result of all this evidence is,
though some objections have been taken to it, (very ingeniously
it must be allowed by Counsel,) that as Raley was going
quietly out of the Church down the north aisle, and
passing by Hurcombe where he stood there; Bur-
combe did himself renew the dispute by addressing sonic
words (and this is perhaps the most aggravated part of
this transaction in which Hu:combe was engaged) to Roffey,
as he did so pass him, and again, after Wiley hod passed him ;
so as to induce him to turn back, and ask Ilurcombe what he
meant? This question was asked by Roffey, he himself being
perhaps at the time in some state of irritation. And what is
the consequence of this renewed brawling ? (for in that light the
Court must consider die conduct of both these persons.) Why,
that it immediately produces a degree of outrageous tumult,
which is followed by a scene of the most disgraceful ccnfusion ;
so much so, that Sir. Roffey is himitell violently attacked by
persons around him, ill treated, and finally put into the hands
of a constable, who take him into custody although a church.
warden, but not until after he had sustained a great deal of
personal violence. Now, as to this part of the business, I think
the " smiting" or striking is not very satisfactorily established
as against Mr: Hurcombe. As far as I can collect from the
statements contained in the articles and the depositions, it
would appear that Hurcombe was apprehensive that Roffey
was going to smite him ; and that under this apprehension he
lifted up his arm in order to ward oft' the blow that he thought
was about to be inflicted upon him ; anti in so doing, he cer-
tainly might have struck Alr. Roffey unintentionally, who was,
however, thereby driving back against the scat behind. Now,
certainly, an net of thus kind can hardly be considered as
amounting to what the law would call, smiling, because the
blow was not intended for Mr. Roffey. At the same time this
blow, accidental or not, having so happened, and inure espe-
cially seeing that it was accompanied with other incidents that
passed in quick succession, such as the seizing of Mr. Roffey,
his ill treatment by some of those who stood around him,—and
his person being taken into custody by the constable ;—all these
were circumstances that 'night very naturAy induce Mr. ltof-
fey to suppose that he had been intentionally struck by Mr.
Hurcombe on this occasion.
Upon the whole of this evidence, therefore, I am of opinion
that the brawling which was originally articled, is proved ; anti
not only the original brawling, but this renewed brawling
which took place in the north-aisle of the Church when Mr.
Roffey was about quitting it, and was called back by the offen-
sive language of 111 r. Hurcombe. And I cannot help thinking
that in truth, if the cases of Mr. Hurcombe and Mr. Roffey are
to he put in opposite scales, it will be found that there is no
great difference in their respective offeneetk. But it unfortu-
nately happens that if the Court should be of' opinion, us I
feel that 1 am bound to pronounce, that the Court must think
here are not sufficient grounds laid for extenuation; it must
condemn Mr. Hurcombe in the costs, yet still those costs will
not be so severe, as they would have been, bad Mr. Hurcombe
adopted a different mode of proceeding in these Courts; not so
severe as I presume they were in the former case, because I
perceivethat he has not gone on to examine witnesses upon his '
defensive plea, nor endeavoured in any other way to incumber
the cause.
The next ease is that of Mr. WILLIAMS which has. no par-
ticular connection either with that of Mr. Roffey or that of
Hurcombe. Six witnesses have been examined on die
articles exhibited against him, and they very fully prove the
brawling charged and objected, and as I have read the deposi-
tions taken in the cage, which have Slot been opened, however,
by Counsel, and upon which I have not heard Counsel, it
may be proper that I should now state a few passages from
these depositions.
The first witness examined is Mr. John Pair, who says, ad-
verting to the proceedinssa that took place on the day in ques-
tion—" The friends of Mr. Jones demanded a poll, which was
" granted; that during such poll sonic very angry words had

passA between Mr. Richard Rofrey, the Churchwarden, ap-
' " pointed by the Rector, and Mr. Joseph Hurcombe, one of the
" parishioners, and now one of the sidestnen of the saki parish ;
" after and in consequence of, which the aforesaid Jame,
" Williams attacked the said Richard Roffey during the con-
" tinuance of the poll for speaking to such a man as Mr. Hut-
" combe in the way he had spoken of him, by calling him, Mr.
" Hurcombe, a coward, and the said James Williams knowing
" that the said Richard Rofrey had formerly been a wheelwright
" by trade, insultingly asked him what he would fight Mr.
" Hurcombe with, whether with an old wheelbarrow ? He
" also called the said Richard Roffey a blackguard, and a
" cobler of carts. He repeatedly called him a blackguard, and
" was otherwise very abusive. That the said James NVilliams
" was intetfering and troublesome the whole evening, and the
" Chairnian had frequent occasions to call him to order.

Mr. John Meggett Cranley, another witness who has been
examined, speaks very much I think to:the same effect ; he
says that oa the day artioulate " he saw the said James 1191-
" Hama, the party articled against and objected to in this cause,
" at the said meeting ; but he did not hear him, addressing
" the said Richard Raley, say ' you are,' nor speaking of him I
" say he is a blackguard, a cobler of carts, and the greatest
" blackguard in the country,' save and except as will herein-
" after be deposed, nor anything to that or the like effect. De-
" ponent was at various periods paying so much attention to
" the poll as not at all to observe what also was going on ; so
!.' that it might have taken place without his having heard or
" known anything about it And again to the fintrth article
" he says, that during the aforesaid poll he heard the said
" Jaraes Williams tell the Rev. Arthur Cyril Onslow, the
" Rector of the parish, and Chairman of the said meeting, that
" he ought to be ashamed of himself for appointing such a
" blackguard as Roffey, ►meaning the aforesaid Richard Roffey,
" to be -his Churchwarden ; or he used words to that precise
" effect, and he so expressed himself in a loud and angry man-
" ner, and he was repeatedly called to order by die Chairman
" for his improper behaviour in being noisy and troublesome."
The Rev. Mr. Onslow, himself, who is the Rector of this
parish of St. Mary, Newington, deposes pretty nearly to the
same effect. "He very well knows the articulate James Wil-
" liams,the.party articled against and objected to in this cause,
" and he was present at the aforesaid meeting in Vestry, and
" deponent heard the said James Williams tell the said Richard
" Roffey that he, the said Richard Roffey, was a blackguard,
" a cobler of carts, and the greatest blackguard in the country.
" The deponent does not know of any provocation given by
" the said Richard Rolfe), to the said James Williams for such
" insulting language, though he says that the said Richard '
" Roffey was pretty sharp in his replies to the said James Wil-
" Hams. The deponent fhrther says that the said James Wil-
" llama was the most troublesome person in Church during the
" whole night, and deponent was under the necessity of calling
" him to order, and desiring him to be quiet, more frequently
" than any other person."
To similar facts Mr. Onslow speaks again in his evidence to
the 4th of the articles. Why then here are, it seems, continued
and repeated disturbances occasioned by Mr. Williams, who
acts, it is clear, in a very improper manner, without any re.
Bard whatever, either for the sanctity of the place, or the au-
thority of the Rev. Chairman, especially considering that Mr.
Onslow was also a Magistrate of the County—and inconsist-
ently also with that respect which was assuredly due to him, as
the Minister of the Parish ; and therefore it does seem to me,
that all this misconduct on the part of Mr. Williams consti-
tutes likewise rather an aggravated ease of brawling.
Theremaining case, then, is that of Mr. RICHARDSON;
and that certainly does seem to be the most aggravated case of
these three.

John Fair, in his evidence, states that It was at this vestry
be saw Daniel Higley Richardson for the first time. lie was
then coming up to the poll; that just as he passed dtponent,
he said in an angry tone, " you damned rascals, I'll work
you," meaning, as deponent understood and verily believes,
the pillions who were anxious for the success of Mr..lones, the
other candidate; and in his evidence to the 4th article he says,
that the Rev. Mr. Arthur C. Onslow, the Chairman, having
congratulated Mr. Richardson on his having obtained some
place or situation lately, which was done on Mr. Richardson's
coming up to vote ; " Mr. Richardson thanked him, and ea' ,
" I hope I soon shall congratulate you on the retuntof Mr.
" Palmer, meaning the afbresaid Samuel Palmer,,Wben Mr.
"J. M. Cranky, who was slttirg at the table, said, I doubt it,
" and I hope not ; the said D. H. Richardson, in an angry
" violent manner, who are you, Sir, 1,,t) home—go home. Mr.
Cranley, in rFply, said, not for such a monkey as you. Mr.
" Richardst.n instantly observed, if you say so again, I Will
" knock your ugly teeth down your throat; and at the same
" time he held Ins clenched fist across his breast up to big left
" shoulder, as if he was going to strike the said John M. Cran-
" ley a back-handed blow, and deponent really thought that
"he would have so done ; but he did not. Mr. Richardson
" then took his own card-case out of his pocket, and deManded
" Mr. Cratiley's card. Mr. Cranley then wrote something
" upon a card, and exchanged cards with Al r. Richardson, the
" altercation continuing the whole time. Mr. Richardson then
" voted end went away. In ten or fifteen minutes lie returned,
" and gave Mr. Cranley's card back to him again, saying at
" the same time that he would not soil his pocket with it. In
" the whole of this transaction the conduct of the said Daniel
" H. Itichardsoa was riotous and disorderly, and created a
" great disturbance in the church."
same effect that I have now
tinhge.A:ntbeduytt.laiietryrteeiralyurert:.,errooavinooksitledoiwer,awitnesses ; Mr. Cranky himself,
evidence does certainly constitute, not merely a case of brawl.
f andtad
te ht
an ehexer
cs
e, e
dw nh sly
l ysubstancedepose
aggravatedof l thei ii
one. Before any provocation takes place, as the voters come
up, who arc adverse to his party, he calls them " blackguards"
and " rascals ;" and after receiving a very civil and polite
congratulation from the Rev. Mr. Onslow, on an appointment
that he had recently received, Mr. Richardson, instead of re-
plying to that gentleman in the :tame courteous and conciliatory
manner, says in rather an exulting tone—" I hope 1 shall
" soon congratulate you on the return of Mr. Palmer," in-
sinuating thereby what the deposition-which I have just read
' from, appears to intimate. And though Mr. Cranky possibly
was notjustitied in taking. up the matter, upon this observa-
tion in respect to Mr. Palmer, yet it must be admitted that
this Mr. Richardson was very gross in his language, and that
his menacing tone was accompanied by an attitude of actual
menace which might reasonably enough induce persons
who stood by to suppose that the matter would not end
there. But in fact the matter does not end here, for lie
demands of Mr. Cranley an exchange of cards, which
demand might naturally lead any bystander to suppose
that something more serious would yet ensue. The mat-
ter, however, does not even terminate at this point ; for in
ten minutes, or so, Mr. Richardson not being at all cooled in
the interval at' time that had elapsed, or come to that concilia-
tory and proper feeling that ought to prevail in such a place
at all times, returns back, and says to Mr. Cranley, " that he
will not soil his pocket with such a card." Certainly it must
he allowed that it does not at all diminish the °nine of this gen-
tleman that he belongs to a profession that ought to have taught
him to behave better, and enjoys an official situation that
should have instructed him to preserve always a very different
line of conduct. . _ _

Now these are the three cases on which the Judge's office
has been promoted severally against these defendants; and I
must pronounce the articles exhibited in all the three cases to
have been proved ; I must hold that the brawling has been
proved in each of them.
The Court has already made some observations in respect of
o :i s i n
s i%l
suit was
Ti joancits i
n case,
a
in
the first of these cases ; that of Mr. Burcombe. Thu Court
would really have been glad —could it, consistently with jus-
tice, have found any grounds for such a course,—to mitigate
theciists:, more
e olre
especially,
in this case
the Court did find, and did assign such gt
he u
rounds.
In Mr. e
promoter
his official capacity of Churchwarden, it is true, andth
at
capacity, in
to generally speaking, he was be protected. He was
also acting with the sanction and at the desire of the Vestry,
but the Court had the misfortune to differ in opinion from that
very respectable body, the Vestry of St. Mary, Newington, as
to the directions it had so given to Mr. Palmer. Because, tak-
ing all the circumstances of that case into consideration, the
Court was of opinion, that instead of instructing. Mr. Palmer to
institute prosecutions against Mr. Roffey and Mr. Tijon, the
Vestry ought to have instructed him to proceed against those
two parties whose animosities and brawling were so violent and
an long continued. And the Court cannot help thinking Mr.
Hurcombe to have been the more blameable cause of that re-
newed quarrel in the north aisle of this church, which was pro-
ductive of so great a tumult and disturbance in so sacred a
place.
But independently of the considerations just named, the Court
must here observe, that Mr. England, by whom the Judge's
office has been promoted in the present instances, is also pro-
ceetling in his official capacity. And in regard to what fell from
the Learned Counsel as the real prosecutor in these cases, and
the argument which was drawn from the late period at which
the proceedings new before the Court have been brought;
I omit say that I cannot see any thing to warrant me in sup.
posing that Maley is the real prosecutor in this case of which
I am now speaking. it is true that Mr. England did not be-
gin so soon in laying proceedings as other persons have done ;
but let it be remembered, that when Mr. Bailey ceased to be
any longer Churchwarden, the office of the Judge was no longer
to lie promoted by him ; that duty devolved on Mr. England,
if, as sidesman, he thought it necessary to institute such pro-
ceedings for the purpose of sustaining the decorum and the
sanctity of the Church. And if he was in no great hurry to
promote these proceedings, (actuated, ss probably he was, by
the hope that harmony would yet be re-established in the parish,
and amity restored on both sides), I do not know that the
Court is very much to blame him for that considerate sort of
clay. In Proceeding as he now does, this Gentleman is act-

ing, as far at least as the Court knows, or can suppose, on his
own official sense of the duties that have devolved upon hint ;
and generally speaking, persons in official situations are to be
protected in the discharge of their duties.
In the next place, in regard to Mr. Tijou, it is necessary that
I should state very briefly what induced the Court to mitigate
the costs in his case. Mr. Tijou was not originally in the
Church when the disturbances began ; but he finds on coming
back into it, attracted by the uproar, a great confusion prevail.
ing in the Church ; he also finds his Churchwarden Mr, Roffby,
to whom, by his oath of office as aidesman he was bound to
adhere, and whom he was also bound to protect, in a situation
of great jeopardy and peril. 1 think it is described that he was
held down upon a bench, treated with great violence, and that
he had his shirt and his waistcoot torn in the scuffle. Now it
was Mr. 'rijou's duty undoubtedly to assist him ; and if he
had merely confined himself to the discharge of this duty in
assisting his Churchwarden under such circumstances, and
rescuing him from the situation in which he was so 'Lad,
the Court would have thought that Mr. Tijou's proceedings
amounted to no more than the discharge of his duty; and it
would have held that they furnished a complete justification ;
but on other accounts the Court did not think so. There were,
however, many extenuating considerations in his ease, and
though he Court pronounced him guilty, yet it mitigated the
costs to the sum of 601.
And really 1 have looked through all these cases which art
before me, for the purpose'of finding some such grounds of
mitigation ; but I really can discover nothing else but cases of
aggravated brawling. If Mr. Hurcombe, for instaece, in the
first moment of his irritation, had merely retorted on Mr.
Roffey, and there suffered the matter to rest, the Court would
have considered it as a question of' mitigated costs; more espe..
cially because Mr. Miley, as far as I see at least, was the hiss
aggressor in the business; but, instead of that, the tumult goes
on for an hour or two together, -Mr. Hurcombe taking part in
it; and is then, by Mr. Hurcombe himself, renewed in the
north aisle of the Church..
With respect to these two other persons, I have already stated
why I think their's to be cases of aggravated offence. I say r
should have been glad to find, (if the Court could be permitted
to entertain feelings of such a sort its between these persons,
consistently with its official duty, and perhaps it marat
so express itself in regard to the interests of the parish), I
should have been glad to find grounds Ibr such a sentence as
might have tended, in some degree, to restore harmony to all,
without giving any triumph to one party or the other. And
perhaps the Court may not illegitimately entertain feelings In.
favour of such a public object. However that may be, it has a
duty to perform that is paramount to all these; and when I
consider that this person, Mr. England, is discharging by the
promotion of these articles his official duties in a legitimate
way, and that he has not perhaps that prospect before him
which Mr. Painter had of being reimbursed in all the expences
to be incurred—by the parish—considering the nature of his
situation, and that he is entitled, as I have said, to be protect.
ed in the discharge of his official functions ; and that it is this
Court's duty to protect the sanctity of the church, and to enforce
the decorum that ought to he observed there ; I am sorry that‘
I can perceive no }Founds for pronouncing any other sentence
than that these pullet have, all githem,been guilty qf brawlfv;
That they be therybre suspended eft INGRESSIT ECCLESI.I.:,
for afbrtnight.—(rbat, I think, Mr. Registrar, was the tam
fixed, in the other case, was it not 1)
REoistrnan—No, air; in the former case, I think it
was a month.
Sir JOHN Nictiox.r.--.3ltis, there is one such case that hes
been already adjudged, and 1 think the suspension here should
be for the same time. Let them be suspended then ns-
nitEsau ECCLESiiE, for the space ,f one month; and be OW-
demised to pay all coals.
" I would really recommend to all the inhabitants of this
parish of St, Nary Newington, to let all these past matters sink
into oblivion ; and, that for the future, they would endeavour
to forget all those unfortunate animosities."