STORMY VESTRY MEETING AT BATTERSEA.
A public meeting of the ratepayers of Battersea, was held in the Infant School, Green-lane-road, Battersea, on Thursday evening, for the purpose of electing nine members for the Vestry, and five auditors of accounts . . . .
[Source: Link]
London Daily News — Thursday 9 September 1858
WANDSWORTH.
[PB: Ibelieve this and some other references may have been copied in full to the WC Database.]
London Daily News — Thursday 9 September 1858
WANDSWORTH.
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, a 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, ye and afterwards burned and buried.
On the afternoon of co Thursday, the 26th ult., he was walking along the High- C, street, with Mr. Smith (a late overseer), and another Ci 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 P(?? words waco ceuplc d with most offensive H expressions,of the took no notice on that occatriccui, but on the Sc following Saturday evening, while returning home with his P mother and a large Australian dog, the defendant repeated I the language, — which was of worse description.
He then returned to where the defendant was standing with a number 2( ef other men, and upon getting his rame bie found that it Cc was the same person who had insulted him on the Thursday. 9id
The defence set up was that Mr.?? was under the Iinfluence of liquor on the Saturday, cand that hi dog run against his (the defendant's) wifle, an,, frightened her. Mr. Reynolds denied that he Wats intoxicated, or that his 3" d,,g tan against the wife. It wccs frees these annoyances B that he wished to be protected, fir he did not know where l~ they would end. He had mcidog-with him on the Thursday. 4, 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 bc Saturday, and that his dog frightened the wife. Air. Ingham asked the last witness if he assisted to burn B Mr. Reynolds in effigyF Taylor said he never saw it. at Mr. Ingham then asked if he saw Alr. Reynolds's effigy dragged about in a cart? Taylor answered that he did not help to do it, as he was b- in town that clay. Mr. Ingham said it was clear the dog had nothing to do 0 with the matter, and that fthe feeliicgs exhibited by the de- P fendant arose out of the Parish aff~ira This kind of conduct moont be put a stop to, but if the defendant promised not to ri repeats it, he would only order him to enter into his own recognisanee to keep the peace for six months. a The defendant consented, and was then bound over, but was lucked up in default of paying 4s. costs.
[BNA: Link.]
[Source: Link]