[The law report transcription is unique to this page, but the newspaper articles in this document are also collected in "reynolds-articles-by-date.html".]
Transcribed from the English Reports, vol. 143 (Common Pleas 21), digitised by Google and held at the Internet Archive
The 21st section of the Metropolis Local Management Act, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, enacts that, “if any person knowingly personate and falsely assume to vote in the name of any parishioner entitled to vote in any election under this act, or forge or in any way falsify any name or writing in any paper purporting to contain the vote or votes of any parishioner voting in any such election, or by any contrivance attempt to obstruct or prevent the purposes of any such election, the person so offending shall, upon conviction, be liable,” &c. :—Held, that an intentional obstruction of the voting by actual violence, is an offence within the act.—The duty of the court, upon a case stated under the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, is simply to answer the question of law put to them by the magistrates.
The following case was stated for the opinion of the court pursuant to the statute 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43.
This was an information preferred by John Charles Buckmaster, of St. John’s Hill, Battersea, one of the inspectors of votes of the parish of St. Mary, Battersea, on the occasion of the election of eight vestrymen, held on the 27th of May, 1862, under the 16th, 17th, and 18th sections of the Metropolis Local Management Act, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, against Thomas Andrew Fitzgerald Reynolds, of Battersea aforesaid,—for that he the said Thomas Andrew Fitzgerald Reynolds, on the said 27th day of May, 1862, did unlawfully, by a certain contrivance, to wit, by riotously forcing himself into the place holden there for the purpose of electing eight vestrymen for the said parish in accordance with the provisions of the said act, preventing the free access of the rate-payers to such place, and endeavouring forcibly to take possession of the balloting-box used for the purpose of the said election, attempt to obstruct such election.
The information was laid under the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, s. 21, which enacts that, “if any person knowingly personate and falsely assume to vote in the name of any parishioner entitled to vote in any election under this act, or forge or in any way falsify any name or writing in any paper purporting to contain the vote or votes of any parishioner voting in any such election, or by any contrivance attempt to obstruct or prevent the purposes of any such election, the person so offending shall, upon conviction before any two or more justices of the peace having jurisdiction in the parish, be liable to a penalty of not less than 10l. and not more than 50l.; and, in default of payment thereof, shall be imprisoned for a term not exceeding six nor less than three months.”
Upon the hearing of the information, it was proved before the magistrate at the Wandsworth police-court, that, on the 27th of May, 1862, a poll was taken for the election of eight vestrymen for the parish of St. Mary, Battersea, under the Metropolis Local Management Act. The poll was taken by ballot in a private room, in the presence of the churchwardens and four inspectors, two of whom were appointed by the churchwardens and two by the rate-payers, for the purpose of examining the votes. At the entrance of this room constables were placed for the purpose of preventing more persons from entering than could conveniently advance and retire to and from the table on which the balloting-box was placed. Each person voting deposited a folded paper in the balloting-box, with the names of the candidates he voted for printed upon it. There were two lists of candidates, one printed on red paper, the other on yellow.
Towards the close of the poll, it was well known that the red party was in a hopeless minority. About a quarter before 8 o’clock,—the time for closing the poll being 8 o’clock,—the defendant, who was a man of influence with the red party, was heard threatening outside the place where the poll was being taken,—“Come on; I know the law. It is past 8 o’clock. It is now an open vestry. I want them to give me in charge.” Thereupon the defendant, at the head of a large number of people, forced his way into the room where the poll was being taken, pushing aside the constables, and throwing his legs over the table on which the balloting-box was placed.
About thirty other persons of his party followed him into the room. It became necessary to remove the balloting-box to a distant part of the room. By reason of the defendant’s violence, the polling was suspended for about 10 minutes, during which it was impossible for any rate-payers to tender their votes.
It was contended that the defendant’s intention was, to get possession of the balloting-box, and so to prevent the purposes of the election.
The magistrate thought the evidence did not warrant him in concluding that the defendant’s intention was such.
It was then contended by the complainant that any intentional obstruction of the voting by actual violence, was an offence within the 21st section of the Metropolis Local Management Act.
The magistrate thought that it was not an offence within the meaning of the statute, and thereupon dismissed the complaint.
The question for the opinion of the court was, whether an intentional obstruction of the voting at such an election, by actual violence, is an offence within the meaning of the 21st section of the Metropolis Local Management Act.
Watkin Williams, for the appellant. The respondent clearly was guilty of the offence with which he was charged. The evidence shews that he deliberately and designedly obstructed the business of the election. The magistrate evidently was misled by the word “contrivance,” which is used in the 21st section of the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, and seems to have thought that, to bring a party within that section, there must be some devising or planning of an obstruction. In this he was clearly wrong. It is quite manifest that any intentional obstruction of the voting, by violence, is an offence within the act.
Day, for the respondent. (a) The decision of the magistrate was right. The three acts charged against the respondent in the information constitute the contrivance, viz. the riotously forcing himself into the room where the polling was going on, the preventing the free access of the rate-payers thereto, and the endeavouring forcibly to take possession of the balloting-box. The magistrate expressly negatives this latter; and it would appear from the evidence set out that the respondent bonâ fide believed that it was past 8 o’clock, and consequently that the voting was at an end, before he entered the room. The offences enumerated in the 21st section are, knowingly personating and falsely assuming to vote in the name of another, forging or in any way falsifying any voting-paper, or by any contrivance attempting to obstruct or prevent the purposes of any election. The magistrate was clearly warranted in finding that there was no evidence that the respondent had been guilty of either of these acts.
[Byles, J. The charge before the magistrate was, that the respondent riotously forced himself into the place of polling, prevented the free access of the rate-payers thereto, and endeavoured forcibly to take possession of the balloting-box.]
Erle, C. J. The question which the magistrate has submitted to us, and which alone we are to answer, is, whether an intentional obstruction of the voting by actual violence is an offence within the meaning of the 21st section. Do the facts set out shew that the respondent was guilty of actual violence for the purpose of obstructing the business of the election?
[In dealing with the question, the court will look at the whole of the facts set out in the case, and at the words of the statute.]
[Erle, C. J. What is the duty that is cast upon us by the statute under which these cases are brought before us? The statute recites that “it is expedient that provision should be made for obtaining the opinion of a superior court on questions of law which arise in the exercise of summary jurisdiction by justices of the peace.” The 2nd section enacts that, “after the hearing and determination by a justice or justices of the peace of an information or complaint which he or they have power to determine in a summary way, either party to the proceeding before the said justice or justices may, if dissatisfied with the said determination as being erroneous in point of law, apply in writing within three days after the same to the said justice or justices to state and sign a case setting forth the facts and the grounds of such determination, for the opinion thereon of one of the superior courts, to be named by the party applying.” The 6th section enacts that “the court to which a case is transmitted under this act shall hear and determine the question or questions of law arising thereon, and shall thereupon reverse, affirm, or amend the determination in respect of which the case has been stated, or remit the matter to the justice or justices, with the opinion of the court thereon, or may make such other order in relation to the matter, and may make such order as to costs, as to the court may seem fit.” The whole purport of the statute was, to enable the courts at Westminster to answer questions of law.] The court is to say whether upon the whole matter presented to them the decision arrived at by the magistrate was right or wrong. To constitute an offence, the “contrivance” must be by some act or acts ejusdem generis with the particular offences enumerated.
[Byles, J. Your strong point is that there must be a contrivance, an intention to obstruct the voting.]
Precisely so. [Erle, C. J. We are all agreed that we cannot interfere with the decision the magistrate has come to. All we can do is to answer the question of law which he puts to us.] The magistrate having dismissed the complaint, it is not competent to him to re-hear it.
Williams, in reply. The respondent clearly intended to obstruct the voting, which was de facto going on at the time. The magistrate evidently came to the conclusion that he ought to convict, if the acts charged against the respondent constituted an offence within the act.
[Byles, J. What judgment do you ask us to give?]
That an intentional obstruction of the voting by actual violence is within the 21st section for the Metropolis Local Management Act.
Erle, C. J. In this case the question put to us by the magistrate is, whether an intentional obstruction of the voting at an election of vestrymen, by actual violence, is an offence within the meaning of the 21st section of the Metropolis Local Management Act. The enactment upon which we are thus called upon to put a construction is that, “if any person knowingly personate and falsely assume to vote in the name of any parishioner entitled to vote in any election under this act, or forge or in any way falsify any name or writing in any paper purporting to contain the vote or votes of any parishioner voting in any such election, or by any contrivance attempt to obstruct or prevent the purposes of any such election, the person so offending shall, upon conviction,” &c., be liable to a certain penalty. The respondent is charged with a violation of that enactment, and it appears from the evidence which is set out in the case before us, that he forced himself into a room in which an election of vestrymen was going on, and by his violence caused the polling to be suspended for about ten minutes, during which time it was impossible for any rate-payers to tender their votes. Upon these facts, the magistrate puts to us the general question I have before mentioned. My answer to it is in the affirmative, in the wide and general words which are put before me. It seems to me that, if a man, with intention to obstruct the voting, uses violence, he is as much guilty of an offence within the act as if he personated a voter or forged a voting-paper. That is the best opinion I can form upon the materials before me. I therefore send back the case to the magistrate with that answer; but accompanying it by a statement that upon the facts set forth I am unable to see that he has come to a wrong conclusion. A man cannot be said to be guilty of a delict unless to some extent his mind goes with the act. Here, it seems that the respondent acted in the belief that he had a right to enter the room, and that he had no intention to do a wrongful act. That being so,—though the facts are very scantily stated,—I see no reason for altering the conclusion the magistrate has arrived at.
Williams, J. I am of the same opinion.
Byles, J. I entirely agree with my Lord that there is no ground for saying that the magistrate came to a wrong conclusion. Believing it to be past 8 o’clock, and therefore that the vestry was an open one, the respondent forced himself into the room where the voting was going on, and thereby prevented and obstructed the polling. I quite agree that there may be a contrivance to do such an act by violence. But, if he did it under a misapprehension of his right, the respondent would not be intended by violence to obstruct or prevent the purposes of the election.
Keating, J. I am of the same opinion. I see no reason for saying that the magistrate came to a wrong conclusion upon the facts. If the question he intended to put to us was whether “contrivance,” in the statute, is to be confined to cases in which there is an absence of violence, I must say I see nothing in the enactment so to confine it. There may be a contrivance part of which consists in a resort to violence. But a mere act of obstruction, in the belief that the polling was over, would not amount to the offence charged.
Decision affirmed.
(a) The material points marked for argument on the part of the respondent were as follows:—“That the polling was irregularly held, both in respect of time and place, and was not a polling within the meaning of the enactment set out in the case: and that the things found by the magistrate to have been done by the respondent were not within the enactment in the Metropolis Local Management Act.”
A few things worth noting about the judgment itself:
The outcome is more nuanced than it first appears. The court answered the legal question in Buckmaster's favour — yes, obstruction by violence is an offence within the Act — but simultaneously declined to overturn the magistrate's finding of fact, because the magistrate had concluded that Reynolds genuinely believed the poll was already over (it being past 8 o'clock) and therefore lacked the criminal intent to obstruct. So Buckmaster won the point of law but Reynolds walked free on the facts. A frustrating result, though the legal precedent remained valuable.
The vivid detail in the case — Reynolds outside threatening "Come on; I know the law. It is past 8 o'clock," then throwing his legs over the table with thirty followers surging in behind him — is far more dramatic than the dry newspaper reports suggested.
Transcribed from the Google-digitised scan of the English Reports, vol. 143 (Common Pleas 21), pp. 25–28, held at the Internet Archive. The original pagination of the Common Bench New Series reporter is shown in square brackets within the text: [62] through [69]. Italic passages reproduce text italicised in the original report. The footnote marked (a) appears at the foot of p. 26 in the original.
The case was subsequently cited in R. v. Prince (1875) L.R. 2 C.C.R. 154 & 166, as noted in the headnote.
Several articles report the event and the later judgments. Here are a few:
BATTERSEA. ALLEGED DISTURBANCES AT THE ELECTION FOR VESTRYMEN.
On Wednesday, at the Wandsworth Police-court, Mr. Ingham granted a summons, upon the application of Mr. J. C. Buckmaster, one of the inspectors of votes at this election, against a ratepayer, accused of endeavouring by means of some contrivance to vote twice at the election. Mr. Buckmaster also applied for summonses against Messrs. T. A. F. Reynolds, Ing, and Chandler, for creating a disturbance at the election and endeavouring to obtain possession of the ballot-box. Mr. Ingham granted these summonses also, and made the whole returnable on Wednesday next. This matter has caused some interest in consequence of the summonses being the first taken out under the 21st clause of the Metropolis Local Management Act, which regulates the mode of conducting elections.
[BNA: Link.]
BATTERSEA. Attempt at the Election for Vestry.
On Wednesday, at the Wandsworth Police-court, Mr. Ingham granted a summons, upon the application of Mr. J. C. Buckmaster, one of the inspectors of votes at this election, against a rate-payer, accused of endeavouring by means of some contrivance to vote twice at the election. Mr. Buckmaster also applied for summonses against Messrs. T. A. F. Reynolds, Esq. and Chandler, for creating a disturbance at the election and endeavouring to obtain possession of the ballot-box. Mr. Ingham granted these summonses also, and made the whole returnable on Wednesday next. This matter has caused some interest in consequence of the summonses being the first taken out under the 21st clause of the Metropolis Local Management Act, which regulates the mode of conducting elections.
[BNA: Link.]
BATTERSEA. ELECTION OF VESTRYMEN AND AUDITORS.
As is usual in this parish the election for Vestrymen has been very strongly contested, and the proceedings connected with it have been of a noisy and tumultuous character. The meeting was held on Monday evening, at seven o'clock, at the Hall, and never before had there been such a large gathering inside the building. The gallery was crowded by non-ratepayers. Various election bills have been in circulation in the parish deriding the present officials, and calling upon the ratepayers to effect a change in the parochial government. Each side, therefore, brought down to the meeting their available resources, and the whole proceedings were of a most stormy nature. A policeman had been stationed at the door, and this gave great offence to an individual from St. George's end of the parish, who most vociferously denounced it as an insult to the ratepayers. To appease this person the door was shut, and, partial quietness having been gained, the business was commenced under the presidency of Mr. G. H. Simmonds, Rector's Warden.
There were 10 vacancies, eight from effluxion of time, the parties going out of office being Messrs. G. Alder, J. Allen, J. R. Burney, T. Gaines, G. Graham, D. Jones, H. Juer, and F. Seller, and two by death, one for two years in place of the late Mr. H. Smith, and one for one year in place of the late Mr. J. Roche.
Mr. Webster proposed Mr. D. Jones, and Mr. John Dobbin as inspectors of votes on behalf of the ratepayers. Mr. S. Poupart seconded Mr. Jones's proposal, and Mr. Bernard seconded the nomination of Messrs. T. A. F. Reynolds and S. Smith. The show of hands was in favour of Messrs. Jones and Dobbin, when Mr. Allen demanded a division. This resulted in these gentlemen being elected by 62 votes as against 31. The Chairman then appointed Messrs. Gregg and Buckmaster to fill a similar office on behalf of the Churchwardens.
Mr. D. Jones said that he had a list to propose, but before he did so he wished to state that he was no party man. He had no doubt but that Mr. Allen would second his nomination, because, three years ago, he supported the very same list. He then submitted, amid the greatest interruption, the following names for election: for one year, in place of Mr. J. Roche, deceased, Mr. H. Juer; for two years, in place of Mr. Smith, deceased, Mr. Alder; and for three years, Messrs. S. Poupart, G. Payne, J. Broad, N. J. Downey, J. R. Burney, S. Sellon, and F. Seller. Mr. Churchwarden Walton seconded the list, but in consequence of the great noise that prevailed, our reporter could not hear one word of his remarks.
Mr. Allen had another list to propose, and he asked their attention while he made his observations. That this was accorded need not be expected. The purport of Mr. Allen's remarks was to make complaints against Mr. Jones and Mr. Walton. He stated that ever since these gentlemen had been in office they had done nothing but insult the Vestry, by endeavouring to make out that all Battersea men were a set of roughs. The names Mr. Allen proposed were Messrs. Picking, W. Smith, M. Dowden, W. Wingate, W. Pinnock, W. Noble, J. Packer, and J. Allen, all for three years; for two years, Mr. T. Coggin, and for one year, Mr. J. E. Everett. Mr. Bernard seconded.
Mr. Jacob Hart then essayed to address the meeting, but commencing his observations by stating that he was one of the late Overseers, he was met by the cry of "question," and scarcely another word was audible. He was understood to complain about the alterations made by the Overseers in the rate book. He said that it was wrong in men assessing the parish to knock at the door of a house and ask what rent was paid, and that with respect to compound property, it was unfair for the Overseers to add an additional charge upon the assessment for every sixpence per week a landlord obtained upon his rent. Mr. Hurcomb loudly complained about his assessment having been increased, and desired the ratepayers to elect men who would relieve the poor tradesmen from their burdens.
The two lists were then put to the meeting for decision, when the Chairman declared that the largest number were for the list proposed by Mr. D. Jones. A poll was demanded on behalf of the other list, amidst a scene of hooting and shouting rarely witnessed at a public meeting. The following gentlemen were unanimously elected auditors: Messrs. C. Knight, D. Goran, G. Shaw, C. Wakes, and G. H. [Simmonds]. The Chairman announced the poll for the following day, and the assembly then dispersed.
POLL.
The polling took place the next day (Tuesday) at the Hall, opening at eight o'clock in the morning and continuing open till a corresponding hour in the evening. There was but little excitement till towards the close of the poll, when there was the cross-voting common at parochial elections. Each side had a list of the candidates printed, and went to the expense of cabs to convey voters to the poll, the supporters of Mr. Allen's list having engaged six, while the other side contented themselves with two. A large number of the residents drove up in their carriages and voted for the names proposed by Mr. D. Jones.
It was the intention of the churchwardens, apprehending that there might be a disturbance, to have declared the result of the poll from the window in front of the Lammas Hall, but Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, standing upon his right as a ratepayer, demanded admission to the house where the counting took place. The large room was therefore thrown open, and the ratepayers were admitted. At a quarter to nine the result was declared as follows:
The list proposed by Mr. D. Jones: Messrs. Henry Juer (one year), 196 votes; G. Alder (two years), 216; S. Poupart, G. Payne, J. Broad, N. Purdy, 119; J. Downey, J. R. Burney, 266; S. Sellon, F. Seller, 188. All the latter being proposed for three years.
The list proposed by Mr. J. Allen: Messrs. J. C. Everett (one year), T. J. Coggin (two years), W. Picking, 115; H. Smith, 114; J. Allen, 111; H. Dowden, 114; W. Wingate, 111; W. Pinnock, 111; J. Packer, 114; and H. Meadus, 114 (all the latter for three years).
The Chairman (Mr. Churchwarden Simmonds) declared the election to have fallen upon the names in the list proposed by Mr. D. Jones, and the proceedings then terminated.
[BNA: Link.]
BATTERSEA. THE DISTURBANCES AT THE POLL FOR THE ELECTION OF VESTRYMEN.
On Wednesday, at the Wandsworth Police-court, the summonses that had been issued, upon the complaint of Mr. J. C. Buckmaster, against Mr. John Hurcock, of Battersea Fields, one of the ratepayers of the parish of Battersea, for attempting to vote twice at the recent election of vestrymen, and against Messrs. T. A. F. Reynolds, Ing, and W. Chandler, for interrupting the election, came on for hearing. The Court was intensely crowded by ratepayers of Battersea, interested in the proceedings.
The case against Hurcock was first gone into. Mr. A. A. Corsellis appeared in support of the summons, and Mr. Day, instructed by Mr. Wilson, was counsel for the defendant.
Mr. A. A. Corsellis, in opening the proceedings, explained the mode of election, and produced a plan of the building in which the poll was taken. He also called attention to the 21st section of the Metropolis Local Management Act, where it was enacted that any person who attempted to prevent the purposes of the election should be liable to a penalty of not less than £10 or more than £50; or, in default of payment, a term of imprisonment.
Mr. John Charles Buckmaster, complainant, deposed that he was one of the inspectors of votes at this election appointed by the Churchwardens. He knew the defendant Hurcock, and upon the day of polling he came in and voted between eleven and twelve o'clock in the morning. He came in again later in the day, and just as he was about to put another paper in the ballot-box the Churchwarden (Mr. Simmonds), who was conducting the election, recognised him, and said, “Why, you have voted before.” To which Hurcock replied, “Oh, I thought you would have forgotten me,” and he then left the room.
Cross-examined by Mr. Day — He did not know that there were two parties in Battersea. There were two lists of candidates, one printed on yellow paper and the other on red. He voted for the yellow list. He would swear that Hurcock, when he came in the second time, did not say “I have voted before but have forgotten it.” The man had evidently been drinking, but he did not think he was drunk.
Mr. Henry P. Gregg, the other inspector of votes appointed by the Churchwardens, corroborated the last witness as to the fact that Hurcock attempted to vote twice, but fixed the time when he first voted at two o'clock, and when he came in again at about two or three hours after.
Mr. David Jones was an inspector of votes at this election, appointed by the ratepayers. He fixed the time when Hurcock came in first at as near noon as possible, when he deposited a red voting paper in the ballot-box, and he took down his name. The second time was about three hours after, and Mr. Simmonds only just prevented Hurcock putting another red paper in the box by covering the hole. When the Chairman taxed the defendant with having voted before, he at first denied it, but then pretended that he was under the impression that he was entitled to a second vote. When he was told he had only one vote he appeared satisfied at first, but before he left the room he attempted a second time to place another red paper in the ballot-box.
Cross-examined — He believed that Hurcock was well known in the parish, perhaps too well known (laughter). He voted for the yellow list, because he thought they were respectable men. He thought Hurcock sober when he came in the second time.
Mr. G. H. Simmonds, the rector's warden of the parish, corroborated that he was chairman at the poll, and confirmed the evidence of Mr. Jones as to what occurred the second time the defendant came into the room to vote. He did not remember the time, because there was no clock in the room, but it was while Mr. Walton, churchwarden, was out at dinner.
CCross-examined, this witness stated that he considered Hurcock must have been intoxicated when he attempted to vote the second time.
Mr. John Dobbin, inspector of votes at the election, corroborated generally all former witnesses as to the circumstances, and distinctly stated that when Hurcock came into the room he said, “I thought you would have forgotten me.” In cross-examination, this witness stated that he considered Hurcock sober when he came in the second time, although he might have been drinking.
Mr. J. Walton, parish churchwarden, was called for the purpose of fixing the time when the second attempt at voting was made, all the witnesses agreeing it was while he had gone to dinner. This fixed the time somewhere between two and five in the afternoon.
Mr. Day, for the defence, contended that the clause, with its penal provisions, was never intended to apply to a case like the present, where a drunken blacksmith, who had forgotten that he had voted before, went in a second time to vote. The clause enacted that any person who falsified any return by fraudulently representing himself to be a voter, or by any contrivance attempted to obstruct or prevent the purposes of the election, was to be liable to all the penal provisions of the statute.
The defendant did not forge or misrepresent himself, and he was well known in the parish, so that it was not likely he would have succeeded in voting twice if he had intended to do so. Mr. Day again urged that when Hurcock came in a second time it was likely that, being intoxicated, he had forgotten that he had voted before, and called for a dismissal of the summons on those grounds.
Mr. Ingham said that he did not know the result of the election, but the reds appeared to be in a minority; if so, the reds had tried putting two voting papers in the box, and that would have, doubtless, given them a majority, and so prevented the purposes of the election. He had no doubt, therefore, that the defendant was guilty of committing an attempt to prevent the purposes of the election, within the meaning of the Act, and he must pay a fine of £10, or be imprisoned for three months.
Mr. Day asked for a case for an opinion of the Court whether the statute would bear the interpretation put upon it by the magistrate. This was complied with, and bail having been put in the defendant was liberated.
The summonses against Messrs. Reynolds, Ing and Chandler were then called on, when only Mr. Chandler answered. It was stated that Mr. Reynolds had been arrested the previous evening, and a medical certificate was handed in stating that Ing was too ill to attend. Mr. A. A. Corsellis appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Day, barrister, for all defendants.
Mr. A. A. Corsellis narrated the circumstances, which will be best seen by the evidence. He remarked that Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, who was a lawyer, must have known better, and with him, therefore, the offence was greatly aggravated.
Mr. J. C. Buckmaster deposed that on the night of the poll, at about a quarter to eight, there was a great crowd round the Lammas Hall. Mr. Reynolds was in front and called out to Mr. Allen, Mr. Sargent, and two others who were behind, to come on. Reynolds then forced his way past two policemen who were at the door, and got across to the table where the ballot-box was, which was then removed either by Mr. Simmonds or one of the inspectors.
Mr. Reynolds called out to Ing and Chandler, “Come on, we'll show them. I know the law as well as they do; only want them to give me in charge.” The room, however, succeeded in being again cleared, but the voting was suspended for at least ten minutes.
C Cross-examined — He knew the time because somebody took out a watch and said it was a quarter to eight. Reynolds did not say it was past eight o'clock and it was time the poll closed. He was not friends with Mr. Reynolds, but he showed him to the sheriff's officer the previous evening, who arrested him. Re-examined — Mr. Reynolds was arrested at the suit of the Battersea Burial Board, of which he (witness) was a member.
Mr. David Jones confirmed Mr. Buckmaster, that Mr. Reynolds pushed past the police at the door, and said the vestry was open. A short time after the room was again cleared, votes were being taken. Mr. J. Walton deposed that at about seven o'clock in the polling day there was great excitement outside the Lammas Hall alone. At about ten to eight, Mr. Reynolds, followed by the two other defendants, pushed by the police, calling to the others to come on. There were five votes taken after the room was again cleared — four reds and one yellow.
The room had been taken by the churchwardens for the purposes of the election.
CCross-examined — He knew the time because he looked at his watch, and stated, in reply to questions from the magistrate, that it had been agreed in the earlier part of the day, between Mr. Reynolds and himself, that his (witness's) watch should guide the election, and his watch and the parish clock corresponded.
Mr. G. H. Simmonds, having given confirmatory testimony, said that he removed the ballot-box, and he remembered what had occurred with reference to Mr. Reynolds at a previous election. Mr. Day objected to this being taken as evidence. Police-constable Featherstone, 27 V, and Police-constable Billings, V, bore out the statements made by the former witnesses as to the conduct of Mr. Reynolds.
Mr. Ingham here intimated that he thought, under the circumstances, he ought to receive evidence as to the conduct of Mr. Reynolds at previous elections. Mr. J. C. Buckmaster was recalled and said that four years ago, when Mr. Reynolds was one of the inspectors of votes, he took away the ballot-box and no return was made, although from the account of the votes taken, the side taken by Reynolds was considerably behind the other. Cross-examined — Mr. Reynolds, although inspector of votes, had no right to take away the ballot-box.
He (witness) wrote the paper that Mr. Day held in his hand, and that had been circulated round the parish. The paper alluded to called Reynolds “the prig” (laughter), and the reference made to “pig” alluded to Mr. Reynolds's client. The person referred to as “Thomas Fitzjerry, the Jew lawyer” also meant Mr. Reynolds. When he called Mr. Reynolds a prig, he meant a dishonest man, and he should consider any man dishonest who had behaved as Mr. Reynolds had.
Mr. Clarke corroborated the last witness as to the conduct of Mr. Reynolds at the election four years ago. Mr. G. H. Simmonds again deposed that at the election last year Mr. Reynolds put his arm round the ballot-box and endeavoured to wrest it from him. This took place a few minutes before the close of the poll. In cross-examination, Mr. Simmonds said that on that occasion Mr. Allen was one of the inspectors of votes, and he believed that Mr. Reynolds was his legal adviser.
Mr. Ingham said that he thought there was evidence against Reynolds and Ing, who might have imagined, as Mr. Reynolds was a lawyer, they were not breaking the law in following him. The summonses against Chandler and Ing were then dismissed.
Mr. Day addressed the magistrate at some length for Mr. Reynolds, describing the conduct of Mr. Buckmaster as most malevolent and malicious in procuring the arrest of a man who was to answer a summons taken out at his instigation the next day. With respect to the charge, the learned counsel urged that Mr. Reynolds was only desirous of seeing that his party were fairly treated, knowing that all who had the conduct of the election were opposed to his side.
The poll should have been regulated by the parish clock; Mr. Reynolds doubtless believed it was time that the poll should cease. It was unlikely that Mr. Reynolds, as a lawyer, would be foolish enough to attempt to get possession of the ballot-box, exposing himself to such severe punishment.
Mr. Ingham felt the force of the learned counsel's remarks, and was willing to grant an adjournment so that Mr. Reynolds might be communicated with. Mr. A. A. Corsellis said it was the fault of Mr. Reynolds himself that he had been arrested. He had no one to blame but himself.
Mr. Ingham said that he need not go into that matter, and adjourned the further hearing for 14 days.
[BNA: Link.]
T. A. F. REYNOLDS AND THE BURIAL BOARD OF ST. MARY, BATTERSEA.
(Before Sir John Stuart.)
Mr. A. E. Miller moved to discharge a writ of attachment under which Mr. Reynolds was in custody. The facts appeared to be these. Mr. Reynolds was paid by the board a sum of money, but a petition was subsequently presented to tax the bill, and on taxation it appeared that he had been overpaid, and he was ordered to repay to the burial board the excess.
A copy of the order was served upon him, in which it appeared that the word “pounds” was omitted in the copy, though right in the original, and he was consequently arrested. It was submitted that this was an error which was fatal to the attachment. Mr. Malins and Mr. Bristow submitted that the objection had been waived. His Honour thought the error fatal, and discharged the attachment with costs.
[BNA: Link. Also Morning Herald, 16 June 1862 [https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002408/18620616/077/0007] etc]
Claude:
This is a very useful piece — it reveals that Reynolds had already been overpaid by the Battersea Burial Board and ordered to repay the excess before the ballot-box incident, and that Buckmaster (as a member of the Board) had arranged his arrest the evening before the adjourned summons hearing. The technicality over the missing word "pounds" in the copy of the order is exactly the kind of lawyerly escape Reynolds would have spotted and exploited.
"Taxing a bill" is a specific legal term that has nothing to do with taxation in the modern sense. It means the formal assessment and scrutiny of a solicitor's bill of costs by a court official called a Taxing Master.
When a solicitor submitted a bill to a client (or, as here, to a public body), the client could apply to the court to have the bill "taxed" — that is, gone through line by line by the Taxing Master, who would assess whether each item was reasonable and properly charged. Any items found to be excessive, duplicated, or unjustified would be "taxed off" — struck out or reduced. The solicitor would then only be entitled to the amount that survived taxation.
It was a standard protection against overcharging by lawyers, and was particularly important for parish and public bodies who were spending ratepayers' money. Buckmaster describes exactly this process in A Village Politician when he gets Reynolds's cemetery bill referred to a "well-known parish lawyer" who advises obtaining an order for taxation — and more than half the charges are taxed off.
In this case, Reynolds had already been paid before the taxation took place, which is why the order required him to repay the excess rather than simply reducing the bill before payment. That repayment order is what he had failed to comply with, leading to the writ of attachment — effectively an arrest warrant for contempt — under which Buckmaster had him arrested the evening before the adjourned summons hearing. Reynolds then escaped on the technicality of the missing word "pounds" in the copy of the order served on him. It is a beautifully Victorian legal tangle, and entirely characteristic of Reynolds.
WANDSWORTH. THE LATE PAROCHIAL ELECTION IN BATTERSEA.
Mr. Reynolds, the solicitor of Battersea, accompanied by Mr. Byerly, another solicitor, attended before Mr. Ingham with reference to the late proceedings in that court against Mr. Reynolds and others, for obstructing the election of vestrymen for the parish of Battersea.
It will be recollected that Mr. Reynolds did not appear to the summons, and it was stated by Mr. Corsellis for the prosecution, that he had been arrested on the previous night at the suit of the parish.
Mr. Byerly now stated that Mr. Reynolds was arrested upon an attachment from the Court of Chancery. It had since been discharged with costs. He applied to his worship to have the summonses heard upon an earlier day.
Mr. Ingham said they had been adjourned until Wednesday week. He wished to know whether there was any hurry for them to be heard.
Mr. Reynolds said there was no particular hurry. It had appeared in the newspapers that he had been apprehended, and he was only desirous of showing himself to the Court as soon as possible.
Mr. Ingham having complimented Mr. Reynolds upon having gained his freedom, allowed the summonses to stand for hearing on Wednesday week.
[BNA: Link.]
THE DISTURBANCES AT THE ELECTION OF VESTRYMEN. SUMMONS AGAINST MR T. A. F. REYNOLDS.
\n\n
On Wednesday morning, at the Wandsworth Police-court, Mr. Ingham was engaged for a long time in hearing the summons, adjourned from Wednesday the 11th inst., against Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, for interrupting the proceedings at the above election. Mr. A. A. Corsellis again appeared in support of the summons, while Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, upon this occasion, conducted his own case. As at the former hearing, the court was crowded with ratepayers of Battersea.
Mr. Ingham having informed Mr. Reynolds of the state of the case, and stated that he felt that as he (Mr. Reynolds) had been arrested the evening before the last day that the summons was heard, he felt it only fair to adjourn the case to give Mr. Reynolds an opportunity of calling witnesses in his behalf. The magistrate also stated that he had taken no notice whatever of the evidence adduced at the last hearing of what it was alleged Mr. Reynolds had done at former elections.
Mr. Reynolds intimated that he had several witnesses to examine, and requested that all the witnesses on both sides might leave the court. This having been complied with, the first witness called for the defence was Mr. John Nicholls, who stated that he was a collector of assessed taxes, and the person appointed to collect the votes at Battersea by the Wandsworth District Board of Works. He was present at the close of the poll at the election of vestrymen. He could not say that any person was prevented from voting. The entrance to the polling-room was very narrow, being only about five feet wide. He felt convinced that no person who went to record his vote was unable to do so. He saw no fear of any person running away with the ballot-box. He remembered Mr. Walton taking out his watch and something was said about the time, but he could not remember what that was.
CThe occasion took place about the time that an old man named Mr. Hall came to vote. He had a red paper in his hand; it was then stated that this Mr. Hall had not paid an old rate to Mr. Hillier. Mr. Buckmaster also said that this Mr. Hall intended voting yellow, and some one said that the voters were being tampered with. A policeman then took the door in consequence. The party paid his rates and voted red. There was some delay occasioned because Mr. Hillier could not at once find the account. Hall gave his vote while the hubbub was going on, and it was after Reynolds had been in the polling-room. He saw nothing like a contrivance in the room to deprive persons from recording their votes. He had been many years in the parish, and he never knew it before where the votes were taken without the public being admitted to the room. All the inspectors of votes were supporters of the yellow list.
CCross-examined by Mr. Corsellis — His impression was that Mr. Reynolds was one of those who forced his way into the room. He doubted whether it was before the poll closed that the police were forced from the doorway. He could not recollect hearing Mr. Reynolds say “Come on.” He could say that the police were forced inside the doorway; it appeared to him that they gave way to the pressure. He saw the people press against the table. Mr. Reynolds was one of those who were pressing against it. The police endeavoured to keep the people out; they were forced in. No person voted while this hubbub was going on; the ballot-box was taken away before any person could vote. He (witness) also took up his books and put them away, thinking they would be safer.
Mr. John Allen deposed that he had resided some years in Battersea, having been churchwarden of the parish, and was one of the inspectors of votes at the election last year. He then saw no attempt made by any person to run away with the ballot-box. He was present all day during the last election. He remembered Mr. Walton taking out his watch, and he believed Mr. Walton said that although it was past eight he would take upon himself the responsibility of keeping the poll open a few minutes more. He heard Mr. Reynolds ask for the key of the large hall. Even at the rush he saw no apprehension that a riot would take place.
Cross-examined — He saw the police forced into the room, or rather pressed aside. He was carried into the room by the mob outside. He did not see the table nearly upset; in fact he saw nothing upset. He did not get over the tables. He was forced into the room after the time the poll was declared closed. He did not hear Mr. Walton come out into the hall and ask if any person had voted. It was not necessary to get the key of the large hall to go into the room where the voting was being taken.
Henry Harvey, the keeper of the Lammas Hall, recollected Mr. Reynolds asking for the key of the large hall. He saw no violence during the day except that used by Mr. Seldon, who wanted to fight everybody. He was present when the rush took place in the passage. He saw the police pushed aside, but saw no violence. He heard Mr. Walton say that he should keep the poll open till ten minutes after eight. The rush took place directly it was mentioned that the poll was to be closed. Nothing particular was elicited from this witness in cross-examination.
Mrs. Harvey, wife of the former witness, generally corroborated her husband's testimony.
Mr. Henry Smith, the landlord of the Builder's Arms, one of the candidates on the list, was present at the close of the poll. He heard Mr. Walton just before the close of the poll ask if there was any person who wished to vote. Some persons then voted, and it was about five minutes after eight when there was a general rush. It was after the close of the poll that the police were forced into the room.
Mr. Thomas Oliver corroborated the last witness, stating that he was positive it was after the close of the poll that the police were forced into the room.
Mr. George Steer also gave similar evidence.
Mr. Ingham then proceeded to give his judgment. He said that he found the facts to be, that about a quarter before eight on the evening of the poll Mr. Reynolds was outside, calling “Come on,” “I know the law,” and expressions of a similar kind, and that Mr. Reynolds was heading the crowd who tried to get into the room. Whether, therefore, Mr. Reynolds was carried in by the crowd or not did not matter, as he considered him responsible for what took place. The facts, however, went a little further; not only did Mr. Reynolds enter the room, but put his legs across the table, the ballot-box was removed for safety, and one of the witnesses called for the defence admitted that he took his books off the table thinking they would be safer.
There could not be any doubt but that Mr. Reynolds was responsible for those lawless proceedings that then occurred, and a great deal of the evidence given for the defence explained that given in support of the complaint.
Whatever was the time, the churchwardens were the parties who were appointed by the Legislature to conduct the election, and they were the parties to make it eight o'clock; and although all the witnesses in Battersea said it was ten, if the churchwardens maintained it was eight, he should say that it was eight o'clock for all the purposes of the election, the churchwardens being liable to legal proceedings if it was shown that they wilfully lengthened or contracted the time of voting.
Then as to the legal point: if the Act said that a penalty was to be inflicted upon any person who obstructed the election, he should not have any difficulty in fining Mr. Reynolds. But the wording of the statute was very peculiar. It was, that a penalty should be imposed upon any person who endeavoured by contrivance to defeat the purposes of the election. It all depended, therefore, upon the meaning to be put upon the word “contrivance.” In another portion of the statute “contrivance” was interpreted to mean that any person who forged and falsely represented himself and did suchlike proceedings was liable.
He did not, therefore, think that, although Mr. Reynolds did what he might be liable for as a misdemeanour at common law, yet he (Mr. Ingham) did not think any reasonable person could say it was a contrivance to defeat the purposes of the election. Under those circumstances, therefore, he felt the present charge not made out, and he dismissed the summons, but he was willing to give the complainant a case for the opinion of a superior court.
Mr. Corsellis applied for a case.
Mr. Reynolds then applied for a summons against Mr. Buckmaster, the complainant in the last summons, for uttering a libel, citing words of which he gave evidence at the last hearing. Mr. Ingham said that he felt that Mr. Reynolds ought not to ask for a summons as it was partly his fault, Mr. Buckmaster not being told that he was not bound to answer the questions put to him. Mr. Reynolds said that that being so he would not press his application.
In some further conversation that took place, Mr. Ingham expressed an opinion that although Mr. Reynolds was guilty for what occurred, yet he (the magistrate) did not think that he morally intended any wrong.
The witnesses in the case of Hurcock, who was fined £10, or three months imprisonment, for attempting to vote twice at the election, were bound over to attend at the ensuing quarter sessions and give evidence upon the appeal that had been made on behalf of the defendant.
[BNA: Link.]
BUCKMASTER (APPELLANT) V. REYNOLDS (RESPONDENT.)
This was an appeal from the decision of magistrates. An information was preferred by the plaintiff, who was one of the inspectors of votes for Battersea, against the defendant, a solicitor, for interrupting and preventing the polling for the election of eight vestrymen for the parish of Battersea, and trying to get possession of the balloting-box.
It appeared that a poll took place for the election of eight vestrymen for the parish of Battersea, when there were two balloting-boxes, one for the "Red" party and the other for the "White" party. In the polling-room policemen were placed to prevent disorder, and it was alleged against the defendant that he, being at the head of a number of persons in favour of the "Red" party (who were losing the poll), broke into the room, declaring that it was after eight o'clock, sat on the table, tried to get possession of the balloting-boxes, and obstructed the voting for ten minutes.
The magistrate refused to convict, and the question now came before this Court. The Court were of opinion that the matter should be remitted back to the magistrate. Mr. Watkyn Williams appeared for the appellant, Mr. Day for the respondent. Judgment accordingly.
[BNA: Link. Also e.g. Daily Telegraph & Courier (London) - Saturday 15 November 1862]
Claude: This is the clearest and most readable summary of the Court of Common Pleas judgment of any of the reports so far — and it adds one detail not in the law report itself: that Reynolds "upset the table" as well as pushing aside the inspectors. It also captures the legal outcome with admirable precision: the court found for Buckmaster on the point of law, without saying the magistrate was wrong on the facts. A useful complement to the full law report.VIOLENTLY OBSTRUCTING AN ELECTION. Buckmaster v. Reynolds.
In this case, in the Court of Common Pleas yesterday, it appeared that at an election of vestrymen for the parish of Battersea, at which party feeling ran very high, towards the close of the poll, Reynolds, the respondent, a leader of the losing party, broke into the vestry room, at the head of about 30 persons, and upset the table, pushed aside the voting inspectors, and by this act the voting was suspended for about ten minutes. This had no effect on the election; but the respondent was summoned before Mr. Ingham, the police magistrate, on a charge of having, by “a contrivance attempted to obstruct or prevent the purposes of the said election,” contrary to the provisions of the Metropolitan Local Management Act (18th and 19th of Victoria, cap. 120, sec. 21). The magistrate dismissed the charge, but stated a question for the Court, whether an intended obstruction by violence of the proceedings of an election was an offence within the section. The Court were of opinion that it was. They did not say that the magistrate was wrong in dismissing the case, but on the question of law submitted for their opinion, they found for the appellant. — Judgment accordingly.
[BNA: Link.]
See also the full law report: Buckmaster v Reynolds (1862) 13 C.B. (N.S.) 62; 143 E.R. 25
Claude: I've silently corrected the OCR errors (tho/thero/waa etc.) but left the Standard's own "Nisi Prius / Common Jury" error alone — that's theirs to own, and worth noting if you quote it, since it suggests the reporter misunderstood the nature of the proceedings.
[BNA: Link.]