Cambridge Independent Press 3 Apr 1880: Thomas Peters assaulted policeman

ASSAULTING A POLICEMAN.

Thomas Peters (50), gardener, of Trumpington, was charged with assaulting p.c. Ding while in the execution of his duty at Trumpington on the 15th of March.

Mr. POLAND ADCOCK appeared on behalf of the defendant.

P.c. Ding said that he was stationed at Harston. On the 15th of March, about 11:30 p.m., he was returning from Cambridge on duty. On the Trumpington-road, near to Mr. Sayle’s, he overtook a man who was staggering on the path. He passed the man and said, “Good night.” The man called out, “What have you got there.” He (the policeman) was carrying a bundle at the time. The man said he (the witness) had been stealing it. He further said the witness had been breaking in and stealing the bundle, for he saw him break in. He took no notice. The defendant made a run after the witness, and told him it was no good his trying to get away. The defendant said he would take the witness and have him locked up. He also said he meant to see what the policeman had in the bundle, and made a snatch at it. The policeman said, “No you won’t; it does not concern you.” The defendant kept using obscene language, and the witness told him he thought he did not know what he was talking about. He asked the defendant whether he was aware that he was a policeman. The defendant said he did not care what he was, and that he meant to know what was going on on that road. He (the witness) then asked the defendant what his name was again, and the defendant said, “If you come up here I will give it you.” The defendant then went to his house, shook the door, and the woman came down in her nightdress with a light. The defendant went in and asked the constable to go in also. The witness refused to go in, but told the woman he wanted to know the defendant’s name. She shut the door and made no answer. He heard the woman say, “Now, don’t you go out.” The defendant pulled the door open and came out. He said, “I’m a man. What do you want.” The witness said he wanted the defendant’s name, and the defendant immediately seized the witness by the collar of his coat with both hands. The witness let go of the bundle, took hold of the defendant, and tried to break his hold. The defendant fell down and pulled the witness on top of him, saying, “I’m a man. Now I’ll let you have it.” The witness cautioned the defendant, and told him to let go. The defendant did so, and they both got up. The defendant then invited the witness into the house to have a glass of beer and settle the affair. The witness declined to do so, whereupon the defendant threatened to report the witness for interfering with him and his wife on the path. He further said he had a witness who witnessed the affair, and whom he would call. The witness again told the woman that he wanted to know the defendant’s name. The woman said the defendant’s name was Tom Peters, her husband, and he (the witness) had no right to interfere with him. The witness denied this, and said he should report the defendant. The defendant was staggering about a good deal.

By Mr. ADCOCK: The defendant wife’s accused me of being drunk. I went into the Little Rose while I was in Cambridge. I did not go to any other publichouse. I got into Cambridge about three o’clock. I had two glasses of beer at the Little Rose and one three of whiskey. I went into a publichouse in the afternoon with my father-in-law, Hutt, the basket maker. When I saw the defendant on the road, I did not call him a —— thief. When the woman shut the door I did not break it open. I did not touch the door. I will say positively that I was not intoxicated. I have been in the police force for ten years. I went to the defendant’s house for the purposes of getting his name.

Sergeant Levitt deposed to being with the previous witness from half-past eight to half-past nine, and stated that then p.c. Ding was perfectly sober.

Mr. ADCOCK then addressed the Bench on behalf of the defendant, and said he was instructed to say that the policeman who accosted the defendant was staggering, and not the defendant. He also remarked that he was unable to call the defendant’s wife or the defendant himself, to give testimony. The wife alleged that she had been assaulted by the policeman, who pushed her when he went up to the house.

The defendant was fined 10s. and costs.

Mr. ADCOCK then applied for a summons on behalf of the defendant’s wife against the police.

The Bench agreed to that; but Mr. ADCOCK declined to take it out.