From the Cornish Telegraph of 8 July 1857

BOROUGH MAGISTRATES' PETTY SESSIONS

TOWNHALL, Monday, July 6th.
Present:- W. Borlase and J. Batter, Esqs.

...

The Fireworks of St Peter's Eve

George Hemmings, landlord of the "Three Tuns Hotel," Edwin Paul Corin, draper's assistant, and James Runnals, son of Mr. Henry Runnals, merchant, appeared in answer to a summons, which charged them with wilful and malicious damage to the value of £5 to certain clothers the property of William Norton, of this town, ironmonger. All pleaded not guilty. MR. JAMES PASCOE appeared for the complainant; MR MILLETT for Messrs. Hemmings and Runnals; and Mr. R.A.G. DAVIES for Mr. Corin. The court was crowded in every part, and the greatest interest was shown in the proceedings during the four hours they lasted.

MR. PASCOE said:— May it pleased your worships, — My client, Mr. Norton has felt it his imperative duty to prosecute the three defendants in this case for injuring and destroying his clothes during the night of the 29th. ult. I have been retained for the complaint, and consider it my duty as briefly as I possibly can to place the circumstances before your worships and to ask your judgment thereon. I shall abstain from making any comment, or giving my own opinion on the subject, leaving you to form your own judgment on the evidence I shall submit. That evidence is such that I satisfied no doubt will be left on your worships' mind, and that you can come to no other conclusion but that the three defendants are guily of the charge brought against them. I did hope that my friends who conduct the case of the three defendants would have saved your worships' time by accepting the terms I proposed. I hope they will do so even now. Although the charge against them at present is only one of destroying clothes, other proceedings may be taken, but Mr. Norton will waive the whole matter if the defendants will say on the present occasion they regret what has taken place, and will pay for the damage Mr. Norton has sustained. We are ready and willing to accept that settlement of the matter at their hands. [Mr. Millett:— Go on.] On the night of the 29th of June last, an occasion which we know is generally celebrated in this town, Mr. Norton, accompanied by his two children of tender years, left his house and went to the Green Market to see a balloon ascend. After a time he determined to return home and on their way home, by way of Union-street, which is a back way, the first salute came from Corin, one of the defendants, who ran after Mr. Norton and his two little chidren, with a live hand rocket in his hand. Mr. Norton turned round to protect his children and held up his hand so to do. Mr. Corin did what he (Mr. Pascoe) was sure in better moments he much regretted — he burnt away his rocket and the attempted to throw it down Mr. Norton's throat. (Loud laughter.) You may laugh, gentlemen, but Mr. Norton has suffered most severely, much more, perhaps, that you imagine, and the defendants may congratulate themsellves that they are not here on a much graver charge, inasmuch as Mr. Norton has had a narrow escape for his life. I assert that Mr. Norton has been the subject of the most outrageous conduct, and I am equally surprised that respectable persons should have been found to behave so, and how that persons can give countenance to it. Mr. Norton is burnt by the rocket which Mr. Corin carries and is seriously injured. He leaves his two children and pursues the party, and overtakes him at Mr. Hemmings's, and there does what he has a perfect right to do — places this young man in the hands of the police. The police did not know him except by person and allowed him to escape. Mr. Norton waits there a considerable time to identify this young man and the police eventually accompany him towards his house, but on their way, and just around the corner of Union-street, he is set on by a number of persons, headed, I am sorry to say, by Mr. Hemmings, and comprising, amongst others, young Runnalls. Again my client receives considerable injury from burns, but he gets home and from information he receives is led to suspect an innocent party and goes in search of him. Discovering his error, and anxious to ascertain the name of the young man who first assaulted him, and whose person was well known to him, he again goes to the Green Market and stands under Mrs. Richards's "hope," in order to discover the party, when another attack is made upon him, and although he is doing nothing in the least offensive a most murderous fire is kept up on him, and it is really a matter of great congratulation that he did not suffer more severely. As it was, very serious injury was inflicted. I shall be told by my learned friends that Mr. Norton had no business in this place. I need not tell you, gentlemen, you who have had such a long experience on this bench and are so well acquainted with the law, that the mere act of letting off firewords in the town or highway is in itself a very serious offence, and subjects the offender to a severe penalty, but that law, as far as Penzance is concerned, is pretty nearly an anomaly and on Midsummer and St. Peter's Eves is set aside and fireworks are allowed by common consent on those evenings.

MR. BORLASE:— Not as far as we are concerned, Mr. Pascoe; we always give notice of its illegality.

Well, the law on the subject is disregarded on those evenings, but yet another law has taken its place. A law exists amongst those who amuse themselves with fireworks, that good feeling and what is called honourable conduct shall prevail one towards another, that no unfair advantage shall be taken, and that if rockets are put off it is to amuse or frighten, not to injure. There is a disposition not to carry out the thing with any hostile feeling, but this has been very much departed from on the present occasion by the defendants. My client on the other hand has acted in good spirit. Having suffered serious injuries he appeals to the good sense and good feelings of those who injured him, he wishes to meet them as man should meet man and neighbour neighbour. But if the hand he holds out is not accepted what does he fall back upon? He is then compelled to appeal to your worships for compensation. There are many other harsher steps he might have taken but he comes here as a neighbour and a tradesman of Penzance and assumes the mildest position he possibly could — he merely asks you for these damages. What the answer may be I do not know. Perhaps that fireworks are lawful on such occasions. Let that be. Perhaps that he brought it entirely upon himself. I apprehand that Mr. Norton has been guilty of no misconduct, and because he simply shws himself in a place of public resort is it to be tolerated that this sort of Lynch law shall be executed on him and go unpunished? Is it logic that a man shall be burnt into a right sense of what is just and proper? Perhaps it may be urgd that the policeman warned him to go home, but is it a sufficient answer to a case of this kind that a man shall be burnt because he does not obey a policeman's orders? Besides what is my rejoinder to that? That he actually was in search of man who had assaulted and injured him, and whom he had given once into the hands of the police but whom they had allowed to escape. If so what right had the other parties to molest him? I again repeat that I had hoped this case would not have been gone into, and I say, even now at the 11th hour, that if the defendants will only say that they regret what has taken place and are ready to compensate for the damage we will forego our complaint.

William Norton was then called:— I reside in Penzance. Early in the evening of the 29th of June, accompanied by my two little girls — one 11 and the other 13 — I went to the Green Market to see a balloon. We went up the back way. As soon as the balloon went up the fireworks began and as to see the balloon was the extent of our mission, I said "We had better be off home." We had gone two-thirds down Union-street when I heard somebody coming behind us and fireworks hissing. I turned round toprotect the children and Corin came up to me with a hand rocket. There were more beehind him, but I noticed him in particular. He immediately thrust the rocket at my throat, intending it to go into my face. I received a severe burn from that rocket, and my shirt collar was burnt right through. [Witness here shewed scars in his neck and a shirt, the collar of which had been burnt through.] He turned and ran towards the Green Market; I followed and secured him under Mr.Hemmings's porch, and handed him over to No. 2 policeman. I did not know his name at that time, but only his person. He was never out of sight. I said to the policeman, "I give this young man into your charge and shall require him tomorrow at your hands." He slipped away from the police — very fortunately, perhaps, for life or limb might otherwise have been lost. I have no charge against the police. I went away with Wallis down Union-street. At the upper part of it Mr. Hemmings with a mob followed me again. They had rockets all lighted. We were enabled to get home without any serious damage in that case. I don't charge Mr. Hemmings with that spite which the others exhibited. The party did all they could with fireworks, but nothing sly or cowardly. They smothered me, and gave me all the fire they could, but that I do not dwell so much upon. I smelt the powder pretty strongly but I didn't care much about that. I got home and had a communication made to me, in consequence of which I went to Mr. Prockter's. [It was explained to the Bench that Mr. Norton first suspected an assistant of Mr. Prockter's, but this turned out to be groundless.] I was perfectly satisfied I had made a mistake and then went to the Green Market to identify the one who first assaulted me. I went under Mrs. Richards's place, as I considered it was dark there and not conspicuous. I went a little way round the Green Market and cast my eye all over it. Whilst standing there I saw the young man and asked Wallis his name. He immediately gave me his name and we proceeded home. Just then, and before I could move away, I was covered with a murderous fire, and I don't think it possible any savages could have behaved worse than they did to me. Ths young man (James Runnalls) was amongst them. Some had two rockets alight, and one gave me a thrust in the side with a rocket. I cannot say Mr. Runnalls gave me that thrust, though I suspect it. So many were about me that I could not get relief, though parties wished to relieve me. I was under that fire ten minutes, and rockets were held directly against me, so that they burned right through. Perhaps 100 persons were about me but say 20. I can identify many of those persons, but more particularly James Runnalls, and I certainly think that I cannot be mistaken that he thrust it in my side. The other two I did not observe particularly in that attack, though I understood they were present. I kept my eye on the other young man, for I thought it exceedingly unhandsome. When I went into my house they rolled an inflamed barrel under the woodwork of the improvement now going on near my house. (Laughter.) I was severely injured in the side, and was under the care of a medical gentleman (Mr. Millett) for a severe burn. I consider I was within an inch of my life. [Mr. Norton here produced some clothes. He shewed the burnt tail of his shirt, and a pair of woollen trousers with a hole in them.] These clothes are useless to me. During the general attack in Union-street my clothes were burnt, but it is the injury in the side I complain of; if that burn had gone an inch or two further my life would have gone. — Mr. Borlase:— Did anything escape then or at any time to show that you were followed as Mr. Norton, and not as any other individual might be? — I believe they followed me on account of my taking Corin's name. My name was called out. The moment they set sight on me they all mustered and there was a general rush among them and discharge of rockets. — Cross-examined by MR. MILLETT:— There were not many persons in the Green Market when I first went there, and I had been standing about ten minutes when the first rocket was set off near me. Mr. Corin was not the first person. I say oung Mr. Branwell. After going home I returned to ascertain Corin's name. I did not see a number of servant girls and people standing anout Union-street; there might have been 10 or 12 people there: I considered Union-street a safe place for retreat. When a mob attacked me Mr. Hemmings was in the road and I was on the pavement. I undertake to say that a part of Mr. Hemmings's rocket burnt my clothes. I considered that he being a member of the Corporation he was the fittest person to bring up, or if one of the bench burnt me I would have brought him up. I had been in the Green Market about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, under Mrs. Richards's "hope" when the last attack was made on me. The police were standing near, and several people were on each side of me, as well as in front and behind. There were a great many assailants besides Mr. Runnalls, and they directed their rockets solely at me. I was perfectly quiescent on that occasion — as cool as I am now, except from the actual burning. I did not lay hold on Mr.. Runnalls, for he was dancing about and capering by. I should not like to swear that Mr. Runnalls's rocket actually burnt my side, but his was amongst the others and I thought he pushed it against my side. — By Mr. DAVIES:— Until I was assailed by Mr. Corin nothing unusual, or to be complained of, had occurred — nothing different to what unusually (sic) takes place on St. Peter's Eve, or what I might have done myself. When I had chased Corin and given him in charge I was not a little excited. I thought at first it was Mr. Prockter's young man. — Re-examined:— I was singled out for assault under the "hope." — Mr. Pascoe now wished to ask what amount of damage was inflicted on Mr. Norton's clothes on his second departure from the Green Market? — Mr. Millett obhected to this as new matter, and an attempt to supply a link in the evidence, previously wanting. — The bench disallowed the question.

P.C. Green, No 2:— I know young Mr. Corin now. I never took him in charge at all. Mr. Norton said take that young man in charge and I'll require him at your hands. I asked which young man and what for? Mr. Norton said "Do your duty." All this time Mr. Corin was not present. I saw him afterwards playing a rocket, but not against Mr. Norton, nor under the "balcony." Wallis and I put Mr. Norton home, or at least I went a part of the way with them. It was to protect Mr. Norton from the young men's rockets. I cannot single out any one except Mr. Hemmings. I have been in the force about four months. I did not see either Corin or Runnalls, when I protected Mr. Norton home, only Mr. Hemmings. In our protecting Mr. Norton we got the greatest share of the fireworks. My great coat was burnt. When Mr. Norton made the charge I thought him in a very excited state. and did the best I could to prevent a disturbance. — Cross-examined by MR. MILLETT:— I saw Mr. Hemmings and Mr. Norton in Union-street, and do not think Mr. Hemmings's rocket touched Mr. Norton, but the rockets were played fairly. — By the BENCH:— Mr. Norton walked in front of Wallis and me on his way home.

Martin Sampson:— I live in Penzance and remember Monday, the 29th. I saw complainant and his two little girls outside Mr. Ash's in the Green Market. As he was leaving Mr. Corin came up with a live hand-rocket, and ran down Union-street after them. He turned round and ran after Corin up to Hemmings's. No. 2 was there and Mr. Norton said "No. 2, take this man in charge." I don't think the policeman saw any man, for Corin was not near the policeman at all. I didn't see anything but fair play. The fire on Mr. Norton was bad, but worse upon the policemen, who were putting Mr. Norton home and when the fire came defended him. I should think Mr. Norton's coat would be singed, certainly to the amount of a penny. Wehn under Mrs. Richards's "hope" I saw Mr. Norton, but I cannot say that either of the defendants was present. — By MR. DAVIES:— I saw nothing unfair by any of these gentlemen. — By the BENCH:— I never saw Mr. Corin put a rocket in Mr. Norton's neck, but it might have been done without ms seeing it. Wehn Mr. Norton walked away the police were completely between him and the crowd, and I did not see his clothes burnt.

P.C. Wallis:— The first time I saw Mr. Norton was between the "Three Tuns" and Messrs. Davy's shop, and he then complained that No. 2 had not done his duty and that he was injured. The mob got about us so thick, and the cries were so loud to "throw him in a tar-barrel," that I advised him to go home, and went down Union-street, where I don't recollect seeing anyone, except Mr. Hemmings, with a live rocket. Mr. Hemmings was distant 10 or 12 feet from Mr. Norton. Three policemen sheltered him from any rockets that came along, but we were forcing him home, and told him if he did not go home he must take the consequences. I saw him down Union street, and as far as Mr. Beare's, and the next time I saw him at the police office. Afterwards I saw him under the "hope" in the Green Market and we had a good peppering there. He then pointed out young Corin and I told him his name. He never complained of his thigh having been burnt, but he mentioned about his neck th first and second times I put him home. I cannot recognise any one who was setting off rockets under the "hope," for there was a great smother and I was persuading Mr. Norton to go home. My coat was singed. I saw no tar-barrel put under Mr. Norton's door, nor never heard of such a thing. I cannot tell that Mr. Norton was singled out, for I have seen persons served as bad. I was served worse than Mr. Norton, though not burnt so much. I was served as bad as Mr. Norton (except the burns) on Midsummer eve. — By MR. MILLETT:— Mr. Hemmings said when he had his rocket lit, "Take Mr. Norton away; take him home." I do not consider Mr. Hemmings had anything to do with the mob or with the cry of "Tar-barrels." He kept back the crowd, and wished Mr. Norton to be put away. He might have come much closer to Mr. Norton with his rocket, if he had liked.

Superintendent Olds saw the injuries on Mr. Norton's left side on the night in question. — Cross-examined:— Did not know who did the damage, or whether it was done at all by fire-works.

Wallis recalled:— I did not see Mr. Runnalls under the "balcony."

A pause in the case here ensued. A witness, Charles Daniel, was absent, and a tailor could not be procured to speak to the amount of damage done to the clothes. Mr. Alex. Richards was in an adjoining room but declined coming forward. He was summoned, however, and then appeared. He estimated the clothes to have been worth £3 10s. and the shirt 5s. Now they were worthless. — Cross-examined.—Shirts are bought for 3s. 6d. but not like this one. The trousers were worth 23s. — After an interval of a quarter of an hour was called

Charles Daniel, who had lived nine or ten years in Penzance, and worked with Mr. Welch:— On the evening of the 29th heard a rush round Mr. Ash's corner, and saw a dozen persons play rockets round Mr. Norton. Sometimes you could scarcely see him for the fire. Mr. Hemmings, Mr. Corin, and Mr. Runnalls were there, and fired rockets. I thought it was very unfair — more unfair than I had seen for some years. — Cross.examined:— There is nothing uncommon in running down Union-street with rockets. — By the BENCH:— I heard several voices cry out "Put him home."

This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. MILLETT said the case, as opened up by his learned friend who appeared for the complainant, was certainly a mst formidable one, and if it had been properly supported by evidence — if it had been borne out in any way beyond the statement of Mr. Norton — he should have agreed with him that it was a very serious one indeed. If an attack had been made as described by his learned friend he should have admitted that Mr. Norton was perfectly justified in coming before the Bench to claim compensation for damages. But he took it that these hand-rockets, as far as his clients, Hemmings and Runnalls were concerned, had gone off in smoke. The only tittle of evidence against Mr. Hemmings was on the unsupported evidence of Mr. Norton himself. This was with the exception of the last witness, who spoke in general terms of his being among the crowd. The evidence, as far as he was concerned, rested entirely on Mr. Norton's statement, unsupported in any way — more than that, it was contradicted in most important points. His learned friend opened by saying that "Mr. Hemmings had made a murderous fire on this unhappy man" — "an onslaught had been made by Mr. Hemmings," &c. Now what was the fact? So far from Mr. Hemmings having made an onslaught they had it on the testimony of two policemen, who were more likely to have been cool on the occasion and to give accurate evidence, — that Mr. Hemmings, so far from rushing on complainant and "paying" him with a rocket in the murderous way described, continually said "Take him away." and actually kept back the crowd. Mr. Hemmings really assisted Mr. Norton, and then the latter turns round and attacks him as the ringleader of a mob, after he has done his best to protect Mr. Norton from being injured. There was nothing in the case, so far as he could see why Mr. Norton should have singled out Mr. Hemmings. He need not describe the acts and scenes of a Midsummer or St. Peter's Eve. Where a crowd collected, there the hand-rockets were played by the young men (rightly or wrongly he could not say.) Now this so-called attack was made in Union-street, but if Mr. Norton, as had been insinuated was a marked man on his evening, several opportunities had presented themselves of punishing him. The usual course was to light hand-rockets in the Green Market, and to depart in several directions. One of these was round Mr. Ash's corner, and young men continued running until their rockets were expended, and did not usually return to the Green Market until such was the case. There was nothing uncommon in their running three quarters of the way down Union-street, it was one of the runs for rockets, much more so than down Alverton-lane, and, therefore, Mr. Norton was only included in one of these general runs, and not made an especial mark. Mr. Norton had admitted that he was not a little excited, and, therefore, his evidence was to be considered, subject to that fact. Daniel only saw a part of the transaction, and, therefore, the main evidence came from the policemen, who clearly proved that Mr. Hemmings shielded and did not injure, kept back the crowd and did not urge it on — in fact did no damage whatever. Now, after this, it was a most imprudent thing for Mr. Norton to come out again into the Green Market and stand in a most conspicuous place, and by so doing to provoke a play of hand-rockets, but the rocketting which did follow was, as far as Runnalls was concerned, perfectly fair, on Mr. Norton's admission, for Runnalls danced by, and that was the action a man used when fairly setting off a rocket. Because Runnalls happened to be there and was well known, therefore he was the one who did all the damage. He (Mr. Millett) denied that his client burnt the complainant, and if he was burnt he provoked it himself. Mr. Millett concluded by some observations on the improbability that Mr. Norton had been in any way singled out for a particular attack, and by again urging the absence or any malicious spirit on the part of his clients and the groundlessness of the charge against them.

Mr. DAVIES said he appeared in a somewheat anomalous position. It was to plead for a client who had only done what it had been the custom and usage to do in Penzance from time immemorial, and what every Penzance man had done for generations and centuries past, unchecked when the thing had been done in a fair way. He accepted Mr. Norton's proposition — that he did not complain of the rockets for being set off in a fair but in an unfair way — but this was not a case of mere damage by rockets but of a wilful and malicious damage. He could not say that such a custom was strictly justified by law, but it had been carried on with good feeling and harmony without any bad results, not exactly countenanced by the magistrates and yet not openly put down, and, therefore, when he said that his client had been letting off rockets on St. Peter's day, he had done no more than every young man had done for generations past, and his act should not be considered unlawful. Diving the case into the three separate complaints by Mr. Norton — of damage by his client singly, of damage in Union-street, and of damage in the Green market — he commented on them singly. It seemed that on the evening in question wherever the rockets were, there was Mr. Norton, and it was his very glorious but somewhat injudicious charge that he had to thank for what ensued. He had himself to blame and nobody else, and in the Union-street and Green-Market affairs he was not specially marked out but only got a fair share of the rockets when they burnt thickest. With respect to the alleged particular assault by Mr. Corin, his client, it was unfortunate for him that he could not be called to give his statement on oath, but, through him (Mr. Davies) he desired most emphatically to state that he never did thrust his rocket into Mr. Norton's neck or treat him unfairly.

MR. BORLASE said:— It is a very difficult thing to deal with a case of this sort in Penzance, where every one is interested in it, and to divest oneself of strong feeling one way or the other. No dount about that. No doubt also that the case is looked on with very great interest by a great number present. Most fortunately, we are not here to-day to deal with Penzance custom. We are here today to construe an Act of Parliament, and to receive evidence as to an offence under that Act; and if the present case has been brought within the meaning of the Act, and damage has been proved, all we have to do is simply to estimate the value of the goods injured in this case, and, therefore, there is no occasion for any more feeling to be mixed up in the matter. The case is as simple as valuing the damage to a tree, a shrub, or any thing else. I believe both magistrates on the Bench are sorry that this case has been allowed to come into Court, for we consider it one in which an apology might very properly have been made, out of this Court. Mr. Norton, however, acted most injudiciously in going into the Green Market again that evening. But whatever the peculiar customs of Penzance may be, the persons and property of our countrymen must be protected in every part of England. As to the value of the property the advocates for the defence have not cared to assess it and we can draw no distinction between one of the defendants and another. Damage had been done by 20 or 30 persons, but these three were singled out and identified out of that number. Very possibly 20 or 30 more ought to have been here as well as these three, but because they are set here we are ot to delay the infliction of a penalty on those who have been clearly identified. Inasmuch as the counsel for the defendants have taken no pains to assess the amount of damage upon one or another, we give the damage to be divided among the three generally, at £3 15s., with the costs.

Mr. Norton held out his hand to the three defendants, but he was taken no notice of.