While John Buckmaster was fighting to save Wandsworth Common, he was simultaneously engaged in exposing the parish solicitor of Battersea — Thomas Andrew Fitzgerald Reynolds, born in Copenhagen in 1819, grandson of Thomas Reynolds the United Irishman and informer. The sources below document the full arc of the Reynolds story.
>p>Claude: This belongs in the sequence alongside the Morning Post and Morning Advertiser reports of the same proceedings from July 1850 — a third account of the same dramatic scene. The Shipping and Mercantile Gazette version is the most concise of the three, but captures the essential absurdity: Reynolds, insolvent and imprisoned, preferring to “rot in prison” rather than comply with the court's requirements, and being duly obliged.IN RE T. A. F. REYNOLDS.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Law, on Wednesday.) — This insolvent, whose case had been before the court on several occasions, appeared for his final order. In the course of the case he became excited, applied several offensive epithets to the parties before the court, complained of his treatment, and expressed his determination to rot in prison rather than again apply. — Mr. Commissioner Law, who had bestowed great pains on the case, could not prevail with the insolvent to restore order, and he was remanded to prison for an indefinite period.
[BNA: Link.]
EXTRAORDINARY SUICIDE OF AN ATTORNEY’S CLERK.
Last evening Mr. W. J. Payne, the deputy City coroner, resumed and concluded an inquest at St. George’s Workhouse, Mint-street, Borough, on the body of Thomas French, aged 41 years, who committed self-destruction in a coffee-shop in Friar-street, Blackfriars, a few days since. Deceased was in the employ of Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, an attorney, of Chancery-lane, and on Wednesday, the 30th ult., he gave deceased 6d. to issue some county court summonses, and make inquiries. Deceased, however, got rid of the money, and did not issue the summonses.
For some cause unexplained deceased did not sleep at home on the following Saturday night, and spent the next day with a friend, whom he promised at night to meet at ten o’clock next morning. Deceased went to Long’s coffee-shop in Friar-street, Blackfriars, and asked for a bed, for which he paid 1s. On going into the bed-room he asked for a tumbler, and the servant took him a coffee-jug, which was found the next morning to have contained laudanum.
On being called next morning he was found quite dead. A post-mortem examination proved that death had been caused by laudanum. Evidence was given to show that there had been some quarrel in the family, and that deceased had been depressed in spirits since he met with an accident by which he lost one of his legs. The jury returned a verdict of “Temporary Insanity.”
[BNA: Link.]
BANKRUPTCY.
T. A. F. Reynolds named as a bankrupt.
[BNA: Link.]
Claude: So this is the original publication of the requisition and the board meeting that followed it — 21 October 1856, reporting the meeting of 15 October. The June 1857 version we transcribed earlier was evidently a reprint or repeat reference. This is the correct dating. Reynolds signs the requisition on 1 October 1856, just nine months after his appointment as magistrates’ court solicitor in January 1856 — already embedded in the local governance structures of Wandsworth.MEETINGS OF THE BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEES.
The meeting was then made special in accordance with the following requisition:—
To A. A. Corsellis, Esq. We request you to call a special meeting of the Wandsworth District Board of Works to be held at Bollingbroke-house on Wednesday, October the 15th, at five o’clock p.m., for the purpose of revoking the following resolutions agreed to on the 27th February last.
“Resolved — That the ordinary meetings of the board be held on every Wednesday, at a quarter past three in the afternoon, until further arrangements.
“Resolved, — That the ordinary meetings of the standing committees be as follows:—The Finance Committee on the first Wednesday in the month; the Sanitary Committee on the second Wednesday in the month; the Roads and Lighting Committee on the third Wednesday in the month; and the Sewers Committee on the fourth Wednesday in the month; and that such meetings be respectively held at two o’clock.”
And of considering the propriety of agreeing to the following resolution — That the ordinary meetings of the board be held on every alternate Wednesday, at a quarter past three o’clock. And further to agree to a resolution fixing the times of the meetings of the above committees.
Signed, Robt. H. Tolcher, T. A. F. Reynolds, James Davidson, Frederick Sellar, and Robt. Williamson. — Oct. 1st, 1856.
Mr. Tolcher moved that the rescinding of the existing resolutions which were in opposition to the propositions in the requisition. The motion was carried unanimously.
Mr. Tolcher next moved that the board meetings should be held fortnightly. — Seconded. Mr. S. Wood argued against Wednesday, urging that it was generally inconvenient. He moved that the days of the week be put in nomination successively. This was done, and the votes were as follows:—Monday, 1; Tuesday, 7; Wednesday, 16; Thursday, 0; Friday, 6; and Saturday, 0. The Chairman pronounced that the majority of votes was in favour of Wednesday. He then put the motion as a substantive proposition, when it was carried that the board should meet on every alternate Wednesday, the votes being 21 against one.
In regard to the hour, Mr. Tolcher moved that the hour of meeting should be four o’clock. — Seconded. Mr. Nottidge moved that the present hour of meeting should be retained, namely, a quarter past three. — Seconded. Mr. Davidson suggested that half-past two would be a good time, as there was a train due at a quarter past. The motion for retaining the present hour received 13 ayes, and 10 noes, and was afterwards affirmed by the same number.
The next subject was as to the days on which the committees should meet. It was ultimately agreed that the clerk should have discretionary power to call the first meeting of the several committees, and that the committees should then arrange for themselves as to their future meetings.
[BNA: Link.]
Claude: A significant find — this is Reynolds being formally elected as one of the eight vestrymen for Battersea in May 1857, named in full as “Thomas Andrews Fitzgerald Reynolds” on the first list of nominees. So at this point he was not merely the parish solicitor but an elected vestryman in his own right, with a direct vote in parish affairs. This explains much about the depth of his entrenchment in Battersea governance before Buckmaster began to dislodge him. Also notabl e is the appearance of George Finch and George Ayles among the elected auditors — both men who would later be on the opposite side from Reynolds in the disputes of the early 1860s.BATTERSEA. ELECTION OF VESTRYMEN.
On Thursday, a meeting of the parishioners of St. Mary, Battersea, duly qualified according to the provisions of the Metropolis Local Management Act, was held at the Old Infant School, Green-lane-road, for the purpose of electing eight fit and proper persons as vestrymen, and five auditors of accounts.
Mr. William Picken (churchwarden) took the chair.
The Vestry Clerk (Mr. George Chadwin) read the notice calling the meeting, which was signed by Messrs. William Picken (churchwarden), and R. W. Brocking (sidesmen). It set forth that, at a vestry previously held at the Old Infant School, the following vestrymen were determined, by lot, to go out of office in May, 1857, and, if qualified, they were capable of immediate re-election:—Mr. Edward Pain, Mr. F. Parsons, Mr. W. Garrat Baker, Mr. W. Bridge, Mr. G. Bass, Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, Mr. W. Benjamin Curtis, and Mr. James Noble.
There were two lists of names given in nomination; the first list being as follows:—Messrs. H. Pariss, Thomas Andrews Fitzgerald Reynolds, James Purdy, Stephen Neate, William Bridge, W. Benjamin Curtis, James Gamman, and T. Reeve Denny.
The second list had in it, as will be seen, three of the names of the former list:—Messrs. Benjamin Curtis, F. Parsons, W. J. Baker, Jonas Broad, H. Pariss, G. Finch, T. R. Denny, and Wm. Evill.
A short discussion took place, relative to whether the names should be taken as lists, or individually; and, upon a show of hands, there appeared — For taking the names as a list, 28; against it, 16. The names were accordingly put to the meeting as a list, and the following gentlemen were declared, by the chairman, to be elected, if no poll was demanded:—Messrs. H. Pariss, James Purdy, T. A. F. Reynolds, Stephen Neate, William Bridge, W. B. Curtis, James Gamman, and T. R. Denny.
A poll not being demanded, the following gentlemen were chosen as auditors:—Messrs. George Finch, George Ayles, Henry Carne, John White, and Michael Dowden.
Previous to the meeting separating, a plan was laid upon the table, relative to an alteration which was proposed to be made at Price’s Patent Candle Manufactory, situate in the York-road, and it was decided that the vestry agreed, as far as it was in their power, to that plan, although the question will again come before the select vestry, on the 3rd inst.
A vote of thanks was passed to the chairman, and the proceedings concluded.
[BNA: Link.]
BANKRUPTCY.
T. A. F. Reynolds named as a bankrupt. Address given in connection with a sale of furniture.
[BNA: Link.]
BATTERSEA.
Battersea, geographically considered, is one of the most quiet parishes within ten miles of the metropolis. If the position of a locality, therefore, could ensure parochial tranquility, it would most certainly be considered one of the very few favoured spots where the man of retirement might enjoy a state of perfect unanimity with all the inhabitants. But whether it has been owing to the obnoxious effluvia from the Chemical Works, which no doubt operates most powerfully on the human system, or from any other cause, it is quite evident that there has been for a length of time a predisposition to disquietude very prevalent in this parish. We shall not be sorry for it if the effect is to promote its prosperity. Stagnant water is injurious, and a little agitation purifies the stream and gives value to it. We will abandon all metaphors, however, and at once come to realities.
It is not our intention to discuss now the merits of the different questions that have created contention in Battersea. We shall advert to only one subject, and make but a few remarks in connexion with it. Many of our readers will remember that the parishioners of Battersea formerly possessed certain Lammas rights, which enabled them from the 3rd of September to the 13th of November to turn out horses, &c., on the unenclosed lands in Battersea, but which lands were purchased by the Battersea Park Commissioners for the purpose of the park. The sum of £1,000 was paid by them to the Churchwardens for the extinguishment of the right on the part of the parishioners. A committee was appointed at a Vestry meeting to consider the best means of appropriating the compensation fund, and they recommended that it should be expended towards the erection of a building where the parish business might be carried on, lectures delivered, &c., and that it should be called the “Battersea Lammas Hall.” This report was approved by a majority of the ratepayers that voted on the occasion, and a number of Trustees were then appointed to act in concert with the Churchwardens in carrying out the desired object.
We had looked and asked in vain for the “Battersea Lammas Hall,” and it was only the other day that the cause of the delay in building it was unfolded to us, by the perusal of a calm and dispassionate pamphlet containing a statement of facts for the consideration of the ratepayers and parishioners on this very subject, which has been just published by T. A. F. Reynolds, Esq. It is stated that the present Churchwardens had been excluded from the meetings of these Trustees on the ground that “the word Churchwardens used in the resolution appointing the Committee was meant to designate the then but not future Churchwardens.” This, assuming it to be true, appears to have been a most extraordinary objection.
But the principal cause of the delay seems to have arisen from a desire on the part of a considerable portion of the ratepayers that the £1,500 should be devoted towards the erection of a Cemetery, as a Lammas or Vestry Hall was not now required, according to their statement, nearly all the parish business being carried on at the Board of Works for the Wandsworth district, under the Local Metropolis Management Act. It is now, we believe, decided that a Battersea Lammas Hall is to be erected. We hope soon to see a commodious and ornamental building erected for the use of the inhabitants.
The greatest boon that has been conferred upon these localities is the new bridge, the park, and the railway station, all now open for the public use. A few years will work wonders in the regeneration and improvement of the neighbourhood, part of which was the focus of pestilence, and the sink of iniquity.
[BNA: Link.]
BATTERSEA.
Yesterday, a vestry meeting for the above parish took place at the Evening School-room, for the election of a churchwarden and other parochial officers for the ensuing year. The Rev. J. Jenkinson, rector of the parish, occupied the chair.
After some discussion of a not very dignified character, it was proposed by Mr. Henry Poriss, and seconded by Mr. J. Purdy, that Mr. William Picking be elected as churchwarden. Mr. Graham moved, and Mr. Poupart seconded, that Mr. Jacob Hart was a proper person to be elected as churchwarden.
On the motion of Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, a division took place, the result of which was greatly in favour of Mr. Picking, who was then declared elected; but Mr. Graham, one of the supporters of Mr. Hart, together with some others, demanded a poll, when Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds said that a poll could not be legally granted on such occasions as the present. The only time a poll could be demanded was at the May Meeting.
At this juncture the words from opposing parties became very high, which even extended to personal remarks. Order having, however, been restored, the Chairman said that, while he occupied the chair, he could not grant a poll, as he was informed by Mr. Reynolds that it was not legal. The election of vestry clerk was then proceeded with together with other officers; and the meeting broke up with thanks to the Chairman.
[BNA: Link.]
BATTERSEA RATEPAYERS’ PROTECTION SOCIETY.
A meeting of this society took place on Tuesday evening last, at Mr. Sharman’s, the Duchess of York, Nine Elms, Battersea. This was the first meeting that had been held in this district of the parish, and the proceedings were principally confined to an exposition of the objects contemplated, the admission of members, &c. Mr. Parsons was requested to take the chair. He then stated that it was the duty of the ratepayers to watch over the expenditure of the parochial money; to elect those into office who will attend strictly to the interests of all the inhabitants; to see that property was fairly rated according to the value thereof, and to afford advice and to give protection to the parishioners generally. The society might be considered at present as a little plant, but it would soon grow up and increase in strength, and he believed that it would be productive of great advantage to the parish. Several persons were then admitted as members, and the business of the evening terminated.
In the morning of the same day a Vestry meeting for the above parish took place at the Evening School-room for the election of a churchwarden and other parochial officers. The Rev. J. S. Jenkinson, the vicar, occupied the chair. It was proposed by Mr. H. Poriss, seconded by Mr. J. Purdy, that Mr. Picking be elected as churchwarden. Mr. Graham moved, and Mr. Poupart seconded it, that Mr. Jacob Hart should be elected to the office. On the motion of Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, a division took place, the result of which was greatly in favour of Mr. Picking, who was declared duly elected. A poll was then demanded, but it was declared that a poll could not be legally granted on such occasions as the present. The only time a poll could be obtained was at the May meeting. This decision occasioned very high words, but ultimately order was restored, and the election of Vestry Clerk, &c., was proceeded with, and the meeting broke up with a vote of thanks to the rev. chairman.
[BNA: Link.]
BATTERSEA RATEPAYERS’ PROTECTION SOCIETY. THE LATE ELECTION FOR VESTRYMEN.
On Tuesday evening last a meeting of this Society took place at Mr. Harrison’s, the “Prodigal’s Return,” Bridge-road, Battersea. Mr. Farmiloe in the chair. Several highly respectable gentlemen were admitted as members.
Mr. Hart congratulated the meeting on the number of ratepayers that had voted for the nine new Vestrymen which were proposed by the Society, but it appeared that although they had a large majority there were certain parties who were determined, if possible, to keep the parish in subjection to their will. Battersea was now awake, and parishioners would henceforth not submit to be governed by any one individual or small clique of self-interested persons.
It was necessary to state that, when the ballot was demanded, there were four Inspectors of Votes appointed, and the following are copies of their returns, addressed to the Churchwardens.
27th May 1858. We, the undersigned, being Inspectors of Votes, duly appointed, did, on the 29th day of the month, proceed to examine the votes deposited in the balloting-box, and have decided upon whom the aforesaid election has fallen, and the following is a list of the persons chosen by the said parishioners: H. Juer, 175; W. Hewer, 135; S. Poupart, 155; H. Stares, 135; John Buryne, 155; F. Wilks, 135; George Finch, 135; Jonas Broad, 135; H. Passmore, votes in place of H. Spencer. Signed, Henry Juer.
The above was the Society’s list. We next have the report of a second Inspector: I, the undersigned, being Inspector of Votes duly appointed, &c., having examined the votes, am unable to decide upon or deliver to you a list of persons chosen by the parishioners to act as Vestrymen, by reason of numerous legal difficulties suggested by Counsel and my own mind. Signed, Stephen A. P.
But now comes Reynolds and Co.’s list with the report: We, the undersigned, &c., having examined the votes taken at a poll in this parish at the late election of Vestrymen, having had Counsel read to us, having considered the matter, return the following list of persons, as chosen by the parish to act as such Vestrymen, as having the largest number of votes, and we return them accordingly as elected, viz.:—G. Lambert, James Walton, W. B. Henry Whiting, 79; S. Smith, Thomas Dives, W. Hewer, H. Carle, in place of H. V. Spencer, deceased. A number of votes having been disallowed on the ground of irregularity, and otherwise informally. Signed, T. A. F. Reynolds, Samuel Smith.
Mr. G. Finch was quite prepared to take a part in the proceedings of the next Vestry in spite of all intimidation. He gave his opinion notwithstanding any contrary one from the Battersea attorney, whose conduct reminded him very much of “the old man of the sea,” who clung so close to the shoulders of poor Sinbad the sailor that he was nearly strangled by him; but at last Sinbad adopted an effectual course by which he got rid of him and saved his own life. Now, the Attorney-General to whom he had alluded stuck equally tight to the backs of the ratepayers, and must be thrown off or there would be no liberty or peace in the parish. (Laughter, and cries of Hear, hear.)
Mr. Stewart approved of what Mr. Finch had just stated. They should remember that the Anti-Corn-Law League was commenced by a few individuals, but its stupendous operations soon became known to all classes of the community. He declared, as a solicitor, that the poll was illegally conducted. Great credit was due to the Society.
Mr. Buckmaster alluded to the conduct pursued by Mr. Reynolds towards the ratepayers, and especially at the recent election and the day of polling. The ballot-box had been as good as closed to him before the proper hour, and the voters had been thus prevented from balloting. He moved the following resolution, when several persons at the same time rose to second it, and it was unanimously carried: that the members of this Society are of opinion that the conduct of Mr. Reynolds, during the late election of Vestrymen, in obstructing the ballot and using unbecoming language to the ratepayers, deserves the severest reprobation of this meeting.
[BNA: Link.]
WANDSWORTH — YESTERDAY. BURNING A SOLICITOR IN EFFIGY.
William Wilcox, a labourer, appeared before Mr. Ingham, to answer a summons charging him with having used abusive and insulting language to Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, solicitor, of Battersea, whereby a breach of the peace might have been occasioned. The defendant pleaded not guilty.
The complainant stated that there had been a great deal of excitement in the parish of Battersea, in consequence of certain proceedings at the vestry meetings. Witness, who was solicitor to the parish, had been carried about in effigy, and afterwards burned and buried. On the afternoon of Thursday, the 26th ult., he was walking along the High-street, with Mr. Smith (a late overseer), and another gentleman was following behind, when he heard a person, who was identified by Mr. Smith as the defendant, call out, “There goes two rogues, and there is another following.” The words were coupled with most offensive expressions. He took no notice on that occasion, but on the following Saturday evening, while returning home with his mother and a large Australian dog, the defendant repeated the language, which was of a worse description. He returned to where the defendant was standing with a number of other men, and upon getting his name he found that it was the same person who had insulted him on the Thursday.
The defence set up was that Mr. Reynolds was under the influence of liquor on the Saturday, and that his dog ran against his (the defendant’s) wife, and frightened her. Mr. Reynolds denied that he was intoxicated, or that his dog ran against the wife. It was from these annoyances that he wished to be protected, for he did not know where they would end. He had no dog with him on the Thursday.
Mr. S. Smith, the late overseer of Battersea, was called to prove the use of the insulting language on the Thursday, and a man named John Taylor was examined by the defendant to show that Mr. Reynolds was intoxicated on the Saturday, and that his dog frightened the wife.
Mr. Ingham asked the last witness if he assisted to burn Mr. Reynolds in effigy. Taylor said he never saw it. Mr. Ingham then asked if he saw Mr. Reynolds’s effigy dragged about in a cart. Taylor answered that he did not help to do it, as he was in town that day.
Mr. Ingham said it was clear the dog had nothing to do with the matter, and that the feelings exhibited by the defendant arose out of the parish affairs. This kind of conduct must be put a stop to, but if the defendant promised not to repeat it, he would only order him to enter into his own recognisance to keep the peace for six months. The defendant consented, and was then bound over, but was locked up in default of paying 4s. costs.
[BNA: Link. Also: London Evening Standard, 9 September 1858.]
We the undersigned, trading under the style or firm of R. F. Beioley and Son, at Canterbury, in the County of Kent, as Drapers, Silk Mercers, &c., have this day mutually DISSOLVED the Partnership existing between us. All Debts due to, and all Claims against the said Partnership, will be received and paid by R. F. Beioley, Senior, who will alone carry on the said business for the future.
R. F. Beioley, Sen.
R. F. Beioley, Jun.19th May, 1859.
Witness — T. A. F. Reynolds, Solicitor, 67, Chancery Lane.
R. W. Fletcher Beioley, Solicitor, 84, Basinghall Street, London.[BNA: Link.]
BATTERSEA.
A public meeting took place on Monday night at the Swan Tavern, Bridge-road, Battersea, for the purpose of adopting measures for establishing a Rifle Corps for Battersea and district; Mr. Robert Story in the chair.
Mr. J. Allen, the secretary to the movement, stated that he had been promised by Mr. Baker, of the Cedars, Battersea, that he would guarantee all the money required, or, with the influence of himself and friends, lighten the burden which otherwise would press upon the movement (hear, hear). He (Mr. Allen) would request them shortly to form a committee to carry out the details of the movement.
Mr. Haldain, jun., one of the South Middlesex Corps, attired in the uniform, attended the meeting for the purpose of giving any information required, and in the course of a somewhat lengthy address he pointed out the best means to adopt in forming the corps, and the necessary steps to be taken. He further observed that many young men were loth to join the corps, fearing the expense was great, but he begged to add that such was a mistaken notion, for in the corps in which he was they required but a guinea per annum, with no entrance fee, whilst the uniform would cost about £4. He should advise that when several names were upon the list they should then go round for subscriptions, for without that aid the movement would die out, as it was by no means self-supporting.
Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds then moved, “That the committee formed this evening be a preliminary committee to call a meeting, and to take such steps as they may deem necessary.” Mr. Allen having seconded the resolution, it was carried, and the following gentlemen were elected as the committee: Messrs. G. Finch, Baker, Cross, J. Dagnete, and T. A. F. Reynolds.
Several other gentlemen having addressed the meeting, preliminary matters were arranged, and several members enrolled, the proceedings, which lasted to a late hour, concluded, thanks being passed to Mr. Allen, the secretary, and to the chairman.
[BNA: Link.]
THE OVERSEERS OF BATTERSEA AGAIN.
At the Wandsworth Police-court, on Thursday, before Mr. Dayman, Mr. George Ayles, one of the overseers of the parish of Battersea, appeared to answer a summons taken out by Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, solicitor, a ratepayer of Battersea. The summons charged Mr. Ayles with having refused to allow Mr. Reynolds to inspect some rate books for the years from 1856 to 1858, with the view of making extracts from them, whereby he had rendered himself liable to a penalty. Mr. Reynolds appeared in person to support the summons, and Mr. Bickley was present on behalf of Mr. Ayles. There was a large number of the Battersea people present to hear the proceedings.
At the request of Mr. Bickley, the witnesses on both sides were ordered out of court.
Mr. Reynolds said that this was a summons taken out by himself as a ratepayer of Battersea, and he relied upon the 161st section of the Metropolis Local Management Act, which stated that the rates collected under the Metropolis Local Management Act should be subjected to the same provisions as the poor rate, and under the Poor Law any ratepayer was entitled to examine and inspect the rate-books. He had made application to Mr. Ayles, and had been refused, and hence the present summons.
Mr. Bickley argued that under the clause of the Metropolis Local Management Act referred to the local rates were not put upon the same footing as the poor rate. He read the following extract from the clause:—“and all such rates shall be allowed in the same manner, and be subject to all the same provisions in relation to appeal and to excusing persons from payment on account of poverty and otherwise, as the rate for the relief of the poor in the same parish.” He contended that under this provision there was no power to inspect rates.
The magistrate, however, decided against Mr. Bickley, but of course would be willing to grant a case for the Court of Queen’s Bench, as it was a point that ought to be decided.
Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds was then sworn. He said that he called upon Mr. Ayles between ten and eleven o’clock one morning, in company with Mr. Neate. He (witness) said to Mr. Ayles, “I have called upon you as an overseer, myself being a ratepayer, for you to allow me an inspection of the rate books in your possession.” He answered, “I decline to speak you; you have come with a witness: I’ll have nothing to do with you.” As he (witness) was walking out of the shop, Mr. Ayles added, “I’ll see you in private, if you please.” He and Mr. Neate then walked off.
Cross-examined — He did not ask to see the rate-books from 1856 to 1858, but he asked for the rates made under the Metropolis Local Management Act. He could not swear that Mr. Ayles spoke to him when he said, “I’ll see you in private, if you please.” The words might have been addressed to Mr. Neate. At present, he did not hold possession of any rate-books, and he had never done so, except when employed and paid as solicitor. He could swear that he did not know there was any dispute in the parish as to who was churchwarden.
The Magistrate intimated that he must adjourn the further hearing of the case, and no harm could arise from it, as his decision would only be with a view of taking it to the Court of Queen’s Bench. Mr. Reynolds hoped the other side would be satisfied with the magistrate’s decision, and reminded his worship that there was a penalty for not allowing this inspection. The Magistrate said that, of course, as this was only trying a right, the penalty should, he considered, if proved, be merely nominal. The further hearing was then adjourned till Thursday next.
[BNA: Link.]
THE RIGHT OF RATEPAYERS TO INSPECT RATEBOOKS.
The summons taken out by Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, solicitor, of Battersea, against Mr. Ayles, one of the overseers of the parish, came again before Mr. Dayman, the Police magistrate at Wandsworth, on Tuesday last, according to adjournment. It will be remembered by our readers that the summons stated that Mr. Ayles, as overseer, “having the custody of divers rates made under the authority of the Metropolis Local Management Act for the purposes of the said parish, from the year 1856 to 1858 both inclusive, did unlawfully refuse to permit the said T. A. F. Reynolds, a person rated in and for the rates, at a reasonable time to take copies and extracts from the said rates.”
The case was adjourned because the magistrate had not time on that day to hear the whole of the evidence that could have been given upon that occasion.
Mr. Stephen Neate said that he resided in Battersea, was one of the sidesmen, and had been for many years an overseer. He went with Mr. Reynolds to the defendant’s house, when the complainant asked to see the rate books. Mr. Ayles said to Mr. Reynolds, “I shall not speak to you; you have a witness here.” Mr. Reynolds said, “I brought him with me to look at the rate books.” Mr. Ayles then said, “I shall not speak to you in the presence of a witness; I will speak to you privately if you like.” He believed these words were addressed to Mr. Reynolds. He then said to Mr. Reynolds that it was of no use waiting there, and they both left.
Mr. Griffin, of Battersea-square, said he was one of the collectors of rates of Battersea. He had seen the rate books in question in the possession of Mr. Ayles about six weeks ago. Cross-examined — He could not say to a week; but it was not more than eight, and then upon one occasion Mr. Ayles asked him to take them away with him.
Mr. H. W. Webb was a carpenter at Battersea. He saw Mr. Ayles about eight days ago, and that person told him that Mr. Reynolds called at his house with a person named Neate, and that he (Mr. Ayles) objected to show the rate books to Mr. Reynolds, because that gentleman brought a witness with him. Cross-examined — He never had seen Mr. Reynolds to speak to him till the previous night, when that gentleman brought him a subpoena to attend the court and give evidence upon what he (witness) had told Mr. Allen.
John Allen was churchwarden of the parish of Battersea. Mr. Reynolds then asked this witness whether he was present at a meeting of the Board when a certain resolution was passed about the rate books. Mr. Bickley objected to the question. His client was not present, and what was said in his absence was not evidence. Mr. Reynolds did not wish to occupy the time of the Court any longer. That was his case.
Mr. Bickley said that he should not call any witnesses, but ask the magistrate to dismiss the summons. He observed that his client had been summoned for refusing to allow Mr. Reynolds to make extracts and copies of the rates, whereas the evidence only went to show that Mr. Reynolds applied for an inspection, and the summons therefore might be dismissed upon those grounds.
Mr. Reynolds contended that under Jervis’s Act evidence might be taken in enforcing the summons. Mr. Dayman remarked that as there was a penalty he must be very particular.
Mr. Bickley again contended that the words “and otherwise” in the 161st section of the Local Management Act only had reference to the power of appeal and excusing from poverty, and did not include the whole of the provisions made in respect of the poor rate.
Mr. Reynolds asked the magistrate to give him a case. Mr. Dayman had great difficulty in doing that, because there was a doubt as to what the words “and otherwise” meant, and also upon the offence not being according to the summons. After some further discussion between the parties engaged, the summons was dismissed.
[BNA: Link.]
BATTERSEA. THE BOARD OF CHURCHWARDENS AND OVERSEERS AND THEIR COLLECTOR.
On Thursday, at the Wandsworth Police-court, before Mr. Dayman, the adjourned summons against Mr. C. F. Jones, one of the collectors of the local rates of this parish, taken out by the Overseers to compel him to deliver up certain books alleged to be in his possession, came on again for hearing. On Thursday last seventy-eight books were given up to the Overseers, but Mr. Jones refused to give up the pocket assessment and collection books, alleging that these were necessary to protect himself and his sureties. The magistrate, when called upon by Mr. Bickley, who attended for the Overseers, to make an order for these books, refused to do so, but adjourned the case for the books to be compared with the rate book, in order that the Overseers might have a correct list of all persons in arrears. Since the last summons the old Overseers have gone out of office, and fresh ones, with one exception, have been appointed to fill the office.
When the summons was called on, Mr. Hillier, one of the overseers, asked that the summons against Mr. C. F. Jones should be again adjourned for a week, in order that a proposition, which was made by Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, the solicitor for Mr. Jones, might be considered by the new Board of Overseers.
Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds observed that since the last adjournment the old Overseers had gone out of office, and he wished it to be distinctly understood that whatever propositions might be acceded to, it was not to affect in any way the claim of Mr. Jones for poundage upon uncollected rates. If the new Overseers continued in the proceedings they must commence de novo. Mr. Hillier stated that the Overseers were willing to take the list as presented to the magistrates upon the previous Thursday and make up the accounts from them, without prejudicing in any way any other claim Mr. Jones might have upon them. Mr. Reynolds agreed to that proposition, and Mr. Dayman adjourned the further hearing till Saturday, stating that if this course was agreed to by all parties neither need then attend, and the summons would fall through.
OPEN VESTRY MEETING. — ELECTION OF CHURCHWARDENS.
On Easter Tuesday, at twelve o’clock at noon, a meeting of the inhabitants of this parish was held at the School-room, Green-lane, convened according to a notice, signed “John Allen, churchwarden, Stephen Neate, sidesman,” “to proceed according to annual custom to the election of churchwardens, sidesmen, auditors, vestry-clerk, organists, and beadles for the ensuing year.” The meeting was very numerously attended, and the proceedings, as is usual in Battersea, were marked with those evidences of party spirit so common in the transaction of parochial business. The chair was occupied by the Rev. J. S. Jenkinson, vicar of the parish.
The notice convening the meeting having been read, Mr. Alder took objection to the notice as not being legal; it was only signed by one churchwarden. Mr. A. A. Corsellis said the notice was perfectly legal as far as being signed by one churchwarden, but it was illegal as it had not appeared upon the church doors three clear days after a Sunday. Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds argued to the contrary. The notice had been up three clear days, namely, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, and that was quite sufficient. The Chairman said the question was entirely one of law, and therefore he was not competent to decide.
The names were about to be put to a show of hands, when it was suggested it would be better that a division should take place at once. This course was adopted, and, after some confusion, the numbers were declared to be for Mr. Walton, 44, and Mr. J. Allen, 30. Mr. Dowden then demanded a poll on behalf of Mr. Allen.
Mr. A. A. Corsellis urged that the poll should properly take place in Easter week. Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds argued to the contrary. He contended that the next week would be the most suitable time to the inhabitants. The Chairman saw there was a doubt, and in order to be within the law he fixed the following Friday and Saturday as the polling days.
MEETING OF THE ELECTED VESTRY. — EXTRAORDINARY PROCEEDINGS.
The Elected Vestry of this parish met at the Lammas Hall, King-street, at half-past nine o’clock in the forenoon of Easter Tuesday. The Vestry-Clerk (Mr. G. Chadwin) having read the notice convening the meeting, said that he regretted to state that in the original notice of the Vestry placed on the door of the Lammas Hall, he had made a mistake stating the time of meeting to be “seven o’clock in the evening” instead of “half-past nine o’clock in the morning.” As soon, however, as he discovered his mistake, which was on the previous day (Monday) at twelve o’clock, he corrected his error and put up a proper notice.
Mr. Allen remarked that an opinion had been taken, and that was to the effect that the present meeting was illegal. Considerable debate ensued. Mr. Alder moved that Mr. James Walton be appointed Churchwarden for the year ensuing, and the motion was carried unanimously. The Chairman nominated Mr. G. H. Simmonds as his warden for the year ensuing.
The Vestry-Clerk rose and said that he never felt more painful feelings than he did at that moment. He assured the meeting in a most solemn manner that the error was entirely unintentional. Mr. Graham said that after what had occurred in reference to Mr. Chadwin and the rate books, which Mr. Chadwin said were taken out of his office without his consent, he was justified in saying that Mr. Chadwin had lent himself to that party which had been injuriously affecting the interests of the ratepayers. However, he was now willing to accept Mr. Chadwin’s apology. The Chairman thought that after the solemn assertion of Mr. Chadwin, they might believe the mistake, although a very grave one, to have been purely unintentional. The proceedings then terminated.
[BNA: Link.]
NOBLE v. NEAL.
Mr. A. Haynes, of Wandsworth, for the plaintiff, in stating the case, said that the present action was brought to recover £2 15s., for three acres and a half of grass, sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. The money not being paid, Mr. Noble instructed Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds, an attorney, to apply for the money, and received a reply from Mr. Neal admitting the debt. Mr. Reynolds was then called as a witness, and deposed to the statements made by Mr. Haynes. His Honour gave judgment for the full amount, allowing costs.
[BNA: Link.]
RANELAGH YACHT CLUB.
The March meeting of the above club was held on Wednesday, March 12, at the Swan Tavern, Battersea; Mr. Ingram Pick in the chair. The following gentlemen were elected members — Messrs. William Brigg, 1, Victoria-grove, West Brompton; Henry Chawier, West Hove, Brighton, cutter yacht Fox, 35 tons; G. Valentine Davies, 9, Cambridge-terrace, King’s-road, Chelsea; John Henry Fiebler, Nelson Lodge, Trafalgar-square; Thomas Heifor, Burn Grove-place, Sheffield; Joseph William Reynolds, 11, Gloucester-street, Pimlico; T. A. F. Reynolds, Bridge-road West, Battersea; William Roberts, Lansdowne Lodge, Church-road, Brixton; George Baxter Smith, 1, Walpole-street, Chelsea; William Gray, Markham-square, Chelsea.
Mr. Pick was elected Vice-Commodore by acclamation. Mr. Pick said: I am much obliged for the manner in which Mr. Keen has proposed me, and to Mr. Hampton for seconding me, and am deeply indebted to you all for the kind and cordial manner in which you have received my name… I can see no reason why this club should not rise to be second to the Royal Thames Yacht Club, avowedly the greatest institution of its kind in existence, and I repeat that it only wants members and officers to support one another and to exercise their combined influence to produce such a result.
Mr. Keen then moved that the annual subscription be one guinea, to commence in January, 1863. Mr. Britain seconded the motion, which was carried. Some other alterations were made in the laws and sailing regulations.
[BNA: Link.]
TROTT v. BODDY.
The plaintiff is an ironmonger, in business at Battersea, and the defendant, a carpenter, residing in the Orchard, Wandsworth. Mr. T. A. F. Reynolds was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Michael for the defendant. The plaintiff’s attorney said that the action was brought to recover £7 15s. 6d. In September last year, Mr. Da Silva, a gentleman residing at Wandsworth, requiring a conservatory to be erected to his establishment, issued a specification and invited tenders for carrying out the work. The plaintiff sent in a tender to execute it for £76 15s., and an arrangement was made with the defendant to do all the carpentering necessary for £11. Subsequently an agreement was drawn up, signed by both parties, in which Mr. Trott was to execute his portion of the work for £65 15s., and Mr. Boddy all the carpentering for £11. The defendant, however, went behind his client’s back and received the £11 from Mr. Da Silva, and hence the present action.
His Honour said that it was quite clear that the plaintiff had paid the defendant money upon the understanding that he was to receive the whole of the money from Mr. Da Silva, and he, therefore, had the right to recover the amount so paid to the defendant in error. Judgment was for £7 9s. 6d., allowing costs.
[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. 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 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. Allen had another list to propose: 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.
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. 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 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. 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. FRAUDS 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 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. Cross-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.
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. 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. Mr. J. Walton deposed that 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. Cross-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. 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 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. Cross-examined — 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). 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.
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.
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.
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.]
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.
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, 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. He could not say that any person was prevented from voting. He saw nothing like a contrivance in the room to deprive persons from recording their votes. All the inspectors of votes were supporters of the yellow list. Cross-examined by Mr. Corsellis — His impression was that Mr. Reynolds was one of those who forced his way into the room. 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 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. Cross-examined — He was carried into the room by the mob outside. He was forced into the room after the time the poll was declared closed.
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 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. 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 and 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.
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. 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. 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 for uttering a libel. 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: Daily Telegraph & Courier, 15 November 1862.]
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
Bankruptcy: Bell's Weekly Messenger - Saturday 29 October 1864: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001286/18641029/070/0008: "T.A.F. REYNOLDS, Cecil-street. Strand, solicitor"
Bankruptcy: Morning Herald (London) - Wednesday 21 December 1864 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002408/18641221/104/0008: "IN RE T. A. F. REYNOLDS. The bankrupt was described as a solicitor of Cecil-street, Strand, and had also resided in the neighbourhood of Chichester. He came up for examination on accounts showing an indebtedness of 1622 7 ., of which 13441. is due to unsecured creditors, against assets returned at 3771. Mr. Robertson Griffiths and Mr. Bagley appeared for creditors; the bankrupt was not represented. An adjournment was ordered for a cash and deficiency account; also for an ac ount of certain furniture disposed of by the bankrupt in July last. Adjourned accordingly. "
Insolvent debtors' dividends: London Evening Standard - Wednesday 15 March 1871, https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000183/18710315/024/0005: "T.A.F. Reynolds, late of Montague-st, Russell-sq., attorney, div. 3s 7d-any Tuesday, at the Provisional Assignee's Office, Portugal-st."
Death announced: Home News for India, China and the Colonies - Friday 11 January 1878, https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0003281/18780111/107/0028: "Jan. 1, T. A. F. Reynolds, late of Kilkee Castle, Kildare, 59"