Categories ......
Back to History Menu  
Mattishall - Crime & Punishment
PLUS Interesting Newspaper Cuttings
1860 - 1879

ooking for a particular name? - You may want to consider using your browser's SEARCH or FIND facility as this is a long page.

1860: May 5 - Norwich Mercury:
Thomas Fisher, Labourer, of Mattishall, was committed for trial on a charge of stealing a donkey belonging to Benjamin Goodwin.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1860: Aug 11 - Norfolk News:
PIG DEALING - Thomas Salisbury, farmer, Weston, v John Murrell, dealer, Mattishall. - The sum claimed was 25s. According to the plaintiff's evidence, it would seem that on the 29th of September, 1854, he sold ten pigs to the defendant, at 10s, each. He had received £3 15s, leaving due the amount sued for, He made a memorandum of the transaction at the time, but had not brought it into court. The defendant said he had never bought any pigs of the plaintiff in his life. So far, indeed, from that being the case, the plaintiff had bought the ten pigs of him, but not paying for them, he took them away again. His Honor remarked that it was somewhat singular the plaintiff had given the defendant credit for money he had not received. However, he should like to see Mr Salisbury's books, for the production of which he would postpone the further hearing until October. The costs of the day to be costs in the cause.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1860: Aug 11 - Norwich Mercury:
THURSDAY - James Howard, dealer, of Mattishall, was summoned on a charge of furious driving. Police Constable Brown stated that on Saturday evening, while on duty in St. Giles', he saw the defendant driving a horse at a furious rate. He called on defendant to stop, but he did not do so. A man named Miles Pestall was galloping his horse and cart in front of the defendant, who seemed to be trying to overtake Pestell. Defendant denied that he wan going more than 6, 1/2 miles an hour. He said the constable was a good-for-nothing man, and would swear anyone's life away. Mr Browne asked what interest the policeman could have in bringing the defendant here if be had not been guilty of the offence with which he was charged? The Chief Constable stated that the defendant had been previously convicted of being drunk and incapable of taking care of his horse and cart. The Bench convicted the defendant in a penalty of 5s and 22s costs; in default of payment to, be committed for 14 days.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1860: Sep 5 - Norwich Mercury:
James Howard, Butcher of Mattishall, was fined 1s and 11s costs for having in his possession false and unjust weights.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1860:
Dec 26 -
Norfolk Chronicle: - EAST DEREHAM, THURSDAY, December 13. HOUSE-TAKING AND REPAIRING.
In the suit between Mary Culyer, widow, Mattishall, and George Frost, of "Mattishall aforesaid, gentleman," Mr. J. B. Chittock of Norwich, appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Drake for the defendant. The amount claimed was £7 7s., being a year's rent ending Michaelmas last. The defendant pleaded a set-off of £11 10s. 11d. for repairs done to the premises. The plaintiff deposed that Mr. Frost came to her on the subject of hiring a house and garden, about six weeks before Michaelmas, 1859. After some conversation, he agreed to give £7 7s of yearly rent, which, she consented to accept. Possession was to be taken at Michaelmas. He said something about repairs to the premises, but plaintiff told him she had only a life interest its the property, and she could not therefore afford to do much. Plaintiff did not authorise defendant to get anything done to the cottage. After he had taken possession, she saw something going on, which led her to go and ask defendant what he was doing. He said he would put her out of doors, and that he would do what he liked "for all an old woman." He subsequently asked her to sign a paper, which she refused to do. He said that then it would be the worse for her, and that he would live there as long as he liked, and do as he liked. There were repairs effected at her instance to the amount of £2 2s. When she asked him for the rent, defendant said no; and that if she dared to go on the premises, he would lock her up and give her in charge. He went on and said he would pull the house down, even though he made it cost her £50. He also turned about and sneered at her. [A laugh.] - In cross-examination, plaintiff said that Mr. Brastmett and Mr. Sendall were present when the defendant spoke about the hiring. She said she would order the repairs and defendant could deduct it of the rent. Hannah Groom, the plaintiffs sister, corroborated her evidence as to what Mr Frost stated when applied to for the tent.
The defendant deposed that he is a cabinet-maker residing at Mattishall. When he went to plaintiff to hire a house, she showed him one in an awful.' state of repair. There were ten or eleven squares of broken glass in it. When he spoke to her about putting it in "a thorough good condition," she said she could not afford it, as he might leave it at the end of the year. Defendant then stated that if she would do the stove, coppers, and oven, and paint and paper where painted and papered before, he would take a lease on it for five years. the plaintiff consented to this in the presence of Mr. Brasnett and Mr. Sendall. He subsequently employed a professional gentleman to draw up a lease as to the terms on which he had agreed to take the house; but when he asked her to sign it, she said she had been persuaded nut to sign anything. The repairs he had effected on the premises were to the amount specified in the set-off. - On being cross-examined, the defendant admitted that Mrs. Culyer had at first asked a yearly rent of £9. He said he never spoke to her all the time the repairs were going on, and they were finished before he took possession.
Archibald Brasnett, miller and baker, Mattishall, said he was called in as witness between the plaintiff and defendant. Mrs Culyer stated that she had let the house for five year. Some repairs were to be done, and defendant was to deduct it of the rent. Mr Frost was to do several things himself.
Edward Sendall, miller, Honingham, said he was the other witness. He did not hear Mr Frost point out what repairs were to be done, although it was stated he was to do them, and deduct the cost off the rent.
Stephen Webster, bricklayer, Mattishall, said he was employed by defendant to do the tiling. Mrs Culyer agreed to this, and that he was to be paid by the defendant. He would not have done it for the plaintiff herself.
Mrs Frost
, the defendant's wife, deposed to the plaintiff refusing to sign the agreement.
Mr Drake proposed to put in the agreement, to which Mr Chittock objected, as it was not signed ; but his Honour ruled that it was admissible. The document was then read by Mr. Drake, and stipulated that the house was let and taken for a lease of five years, on the condition that Mrs Culyer was to defray the expense of certain repairs which were enumerated - the defendant to pay the tradesmen's bills, and to be allowed to deduct the cost off his rent.
His HONOUR said that the set-off having been proved, judgment must he for the defendant, with costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1861: Jan 12 - Norfolk News:
THE MATTISHALL CHURCH-RATE CASE. This case came before the bench on Friday—the magistrates present being G L Press, G Hyde, and R C Browne. Esqrs, before whom Mr Jonathan Hatton, of Mattishall, farmer, appeared in answer to a summons obtained by the churchwardens of that parish, to show cause why he refused to pay 11s 1d for church rates, The form of notice and minutes of the vestry at which the rate was made having been produced. the bench asked the defendant, his reason for refusing to pay the demand of the church-wardens, Mr Hatton replied that he considered it an unjust claim. The Chairman, - Do you question the validity of the rate? M. Hatton - The amount is excessive, and a former rate is not yet collected. The Chairman - How do you show that the rate is excessive? Mr Hatton I am prepared to do so, sir, if necessary. It is not according to law. Mr Hatton then handed a document to the bench, of which the following is a a copy - "To the Justices of the Peace, sitting at East Dereham, in the County of Norfolk, on the 4th of January, 1861. - I, Jonathan Hatton, being summoned to appear before you for non-payment of a certain church-rate, for the parish of Mattishall, alleged to have been made on the 22nd of Nov, last, hereby give you notice, that being advised that the said rate is not made according to law, I hereby I formally dispute the validity, thereof, and require you to dismiss the summons, in accordance with the Act of 53 George III., chap,127, sec, 7. JONATHAN HATTON.“ - "Jan. 4th, 1861" The Chairman - You State that the rate has not been collected according to law, but you don't say how. Mr. Hatton, - I considered before I came here that the court could not adjudicate in the case. The ground on which I refuse to pay is, part of the parish are excused; and if one person can get off, surely another may. The sum asked for (£28) is many pounds over the sum wanted. The Chairman asked the churchwardens how much money was required for the parish use. A Churchwarden - About £17, but part of the parishioners have been excused, although rated, on account of poverty. Mr Hatton - Who is so poor that they cannot pay a three-halfpenny rate? I do not like to pay other peoples' share. If all paid, a penny rate would be sufficient. In answer to enquiries from the bench, Mr Edwards, one of the churchwardens, stated that no amendment was proposed at the time the rate was made; it was carried by a majority. Mr. Hatton - A protest was made: it was carried by a majority. Mr Hatton - A protest was made. The Chairman (to Mr Edwards) - When did you demand the rate from Mr Hatton? Mr Edwards - On the Monday before the summons was taken out - the 17th of November. Mr. Hatton - I shall certainly appeal to the Ecclesiastical Court if ordered to pay it. The bench after consultation considered that they could not adjudicate, and must therefore dismiss the case. Mr Hatton applied for costs, but they were re-fused.

This case was to run for many years and sadly developed into quite a landmark in Mattishall's social history - Johnathan Hatton would later be known as the 'Mattishall Martyr' - For the fuller story click HERE

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1861: Aug 14 - Norwich Mercury:
Mr John Lodge, farmer, of Mattishall, was fined 2s 6d., and costs, for furious driving.—A policeman proved that on the previous Saturday the defendant had driven down St. Benedict's Street at a very rapid rate,

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1861: Nov 9 - Norfolk News:
Elijah Goff, laborer, Mattishall, was with drunk and neglecting to look after his wagon and three horses on the Heigham-road, on the previous evening. The offence was proved by the Chief Constable, and the man was fined 5s., with 9s 6d, costs, or in default seven days' imprisonment.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1861: Dec 7 - Norfolk Chronicle:
RIDING ON SHAFTS WITHOUT REINS - John Deck, a carter, of Mattishall, in the employ of Mr Gilman, was charged with riding on the shafts of a waggon. - Police-constable Hartley said he was on the Dereham-road and saw him riding on the shafts of the waggon, and took his name. He had no reins except to the leading horse. - The defendant pleaded guilty, and said he had been in his master's service for the last sixteen years and never was before any magistrate in his life. - The Mayor: Have you a wife? - Defendant (with a sigh): I have, sir, and ten children alive, and I have buried seven. - he was fined 1s, and the expenses. - Philip Pigg, a youth, was charged with riding one of the horses drawing a waggon, and neglecting to put reins on the horses. - Police-constable Webb said he saw defendant riding on the horse and he refused to give him his name. - Mr Wilder, the defendant's employer, said this was the first time he had been placed in charge of a team, and he was sure he would not commit himself again.- After a short deliberation, during which Mr Betts expressed a hope that they would not let off a youth after fining an old man with a family, the bench dismissed the case with a caution,

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1861: Dec 7 - Norfolk News:
EAST DEREHAM - ACCIDENT - On Friday evening, the 20th ult, a man named Tice, of Mattishall, met with a severe accident, in this parish, with a timber gill, by which, in some unexplained manner, his ribs were terribly crushed. We believe that he remains in the town in a very precarious state.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1861:
Dec 14 - Norfolk Chronicle: - MANSLAUGHTER AT MATTISHALL.
George Basham (33), labourer, was charged on the Coroner's inquisition with killing and slaying Martha Howard, at Mattishall Burgh, on the 27th of October last. Mr Cooper prosecuted; and Mr Bulwer appeared for the prisoner.
William Howard, husband of the deceased said - I am a labourer, and live at Mattishall Burgh. The prisoner resides within 60 yards of my house. On the evening of the 27th of October, I was in my yard and heard a noise near the house of the prisoner - his wife and children were crying. I went to the road near the prisoners house, and him say, "Where's my knife, I will kill the little - - ," I called to the prisoner. He came to to me and asked what I wanted. I said to him, "I want to talk and reason with you," and he repeated his threats. I walked back to my house, and he followed me and struck with his fist four times. My wife saw him strike me. She was standing against my gate, and called out, - Don't strike him, Basham, he is an old man and a cripple." The prisoner said, "I will cripple you," and immediately struck my wife under the right ear with his fist. She fell on the fence. She got up, and he again knocked her down. I carried her into my house, and I left the prisoner on the road. I then placed my wife on a chair. She could neither raise hand nor foot. Mr. Taylor was sent for, and attended her till death. The prisoner was intoxicated. My wife was 60 years of age. - This evidence was confirmed by James Sendall. Mr George Taylor, surgeon, of Mattishall, deposed - On Sunday evening. October 27th, I went to Howard's. I saw the deceased. I contained her head, and when I pressed the right' side she flinched. Her left side was wholly paralysed. I attended her till the following Friday, when she died. On the following Monday I made a post mortem examination, and found the right lateral ventricle filled with coagulated blood, which was sufficient to have, caused paralysis and death. A blow upon the head might have occasioned the state of the brain I observed. Blows from a man's fist under the right ear might have caused what I observed. I had known and attended deceased before. She was a women of fair average heath.
Mr James Gowing, Mr Charles Edwards, and Mr Henry Beckett, farmers of Mattishall. were called by Mr Bulwer, and they gave the prisoner a high character for sobriety and inoffensiveness - The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
His LORDSHIP, in sentencing the prisoner, observed that drunkenness might be a palliation, but was no excuse for crime. It was a sad thing that the prisoner, who appeared to have never been drunk before, should, on the first occasions of which he broke through his habits of sobriety, have committed such a dreadful act as to strike an old women and kill her. It was also very shocking for a father to use such horrible language as he did before his own children, and threaten to murder them. A man with his violent temper never ought to drink, But for the recommendation of the jury, he (Mr Baron Martin) should have passed a very severe sentence, and he considered that he was showing hits great leniency in ordering him to be kept in prison for nine months, with hard labour.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1861: Dec 14 - Norfolk Chronicle:
BOOTS - Elijah Beckett, shoemaker, v. Sarah Ann Randall. - The parties in this case belong to Mattishall, the plaintiff suing for 9s. 6d, the price of a pair of boots which he alleged defendant purchased of him. - Miss Randall totally denied the allegation, affirming that plaintiff brought the boots to her room one evening, and that he gave them to her because he considered himself her acquaintance, which, however, he was not. (A laugh.) Still she accepted the boots conceiving that nothing was freer than a gift. (Renewed laughter) - His Honour said that plaintiff had positively sworn that defendant bought the boots, and he had not seen or heard anything which induced him to think that Beckett had not spoken the truth. Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs; the order of payment being fixed at 4s a month, which Miss Randall peremptorily insisted upon affirming she could not afford.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1861: Dec 14 - Norfolk News:
Elizabeth Edwards, widow, of Mattishall, was charged with deserting her four children on the 26th November, whereby they had become chargeable to that parish. Much artifice had been displayed by defendant (and a man with whom she was on intimate terms) to get rid of the children in question. but the Bench considered the desertion proved, and as an example to others of the defendant's class, ordered her to be imprison at Wymondham for seven days.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1862: Feb 22 - Norfolk Chronicle:
WEDNESDAY, FEB, 19th - Before S S Beare and J Betts, Esqs. HIGHWAY ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE. - John Chapman and Caroline Batson were brought up on remand on a charge of robbing, £8 5s 9d. from the person of Mr Howard, a butcher, of Mattishall, - The prosecutor stated that on Saturday he was walking down Goat-lane, when a female accosted him, and while they were conversing a man ran up and asked him what he was doing with her. He then felt the woman's hand near his pocket. The man then knocked him down and took his purse from him, and they both ran away. Prosecutor could not swear to the identity of the prisoners, but he had strong suspicions that they were the persons who knocked him down and robbed him. - William Brisley stated that he was in Goat-lane on Saturday night at about ten minutes to twelve, and saw the prisoners run away from the prosecutor.—The prisoners were remanded.

1862: Mar 15 - Norfolk News
Caroline Batson (25), prostitute, and John Chapman (24), fish hawker, were charged with stealing a purse containing seven sovereigns, two half sovereigns, and five shillings, from the person of James Howard. Mr C Cooper appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Simms Reeves for the defence. The prosecutor is a butcher living at Mattishall. Before leaving home on Saturday, the 15th ult., his wife gave him five sovereigns, which, together with some money he had previously, amounted to £8 5s. On arriving at Norwich he went to the Grapes. He left there at about 12 o'clock, and was walking near St Gregory's Church when the female prisoner solicited him to accompany her home. While they were talking, the other prisoner went up to them and asked the prosecutor what he was doing with the woman. The prosecutor replied, "Nothing and, the male prisoner then knocked him down. As soon as he could, he steadied himself by catching hold of the knob of a door, and called after the prisoners He was staying at the White Hart, but Goat-lane, where the robbery took place, was not the way to it. He had taken some drink, but was only "sharpish fresh." The prisoners were not with him more than one minute and a half altogether. William Beasley and Edward Fitt, who were acquainted with the prisoners by sight. deposed to seeing them run away from the prosecutor on the night in question. The prosecutor himself, however, was not quite certain of their identity. The Court found them GUILTY, and they were sentenced - Batson to nine months'. and Chapman to eighteen months imprisonment. A conviction for an assault was proved against Chapman, and several convictions against Batson for disorderly conduct.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1862: Feb 22 - Norfolk News
Elijah Youngs, of Mattishall Bergh, was charged with ill treating a mare on the 3rd instant, by compelling it, when in a weak state, totally unfit for work, and having a large raw place on its back, to draw a tumbril, heavily laden, on the public road. The facts were proved by police-constable Sparke, who stated that the animal was so weak and had such sore shoulders that it ought not to draw an empty cart. The defendant was convicted and ordered to pay a fine of 5s, and costs 13s.
or in default to be imprisoned for fourteen days, with hard labour.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1862:
Mar 16 - Norfolk Chronicle:
Jeremiah Hall (22), a labour, was indicted for stealing a leather tug and a leather thong, together of the value of Os., the property of James Howard, at Mattishall, on the 10th of Feb, last. Mr. Drake appeared for the prosecution; the prisoner was not defended. On Monday the 10th February last, the prisoner had occasion to go to the prosecutors, and after staying there some time he left. In the evening of the same day the prosecutor missed a thong and a tug, which be had seen safe on the premises in the morning. It was afterwards found that the prisoner had been seen with the tug in his precession, by Mr Allen, of Foulsham, for whom he works. Information was therefore given to the police, and he was taken into custody, and upon being searched the thong was found wound round his leg. The in defence, said he had no intention of stealing the tug and the thong, but only took them to use as a whip for his horses, he having left his own whip at home, and that be intended to return them the first opportunity: The jury acquitted the prisoner.
MORE - Jeremiah Hall was baptised on September 29th 1839 at Hackford, Reepham, Norfolk the son of Thomas Hall a labourer and his wife Dorothy Mary Ann Juby. In 1861 he was living with his widowed mother at Foulsham - he married Mary Ann Rutledge at Spalding in 1868 and in 1871 they were living at Cabbage Court Reepham.
James Howard was born about 1813 at Wymondham - on August 15th 1836, James a single man married Elizabeth Tyce a single women at Barham Broom. They lived at Mattishall where James was recorded as a 'Dealer' and later a 'Pork Butcher' and 'Poulterer'.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1862: Apr 5 - Norfolk News:
Gaskin Mann, and Henry Bayes, of Hardingham, were charges with stealing on the 21st ult, some pieces of leather, worth 3s belonging to Robert Johnson, of Mattishall, harness-maker. Both prisoners pleaded guilty and were each sentenced to seven days' hard labor in Norwich Castle.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1862: May 17 - Norwich Mercury: - COURT OF DIVORCE.
WEBSTER V WEBSTER - Mrs Webster prayed for a judicial separation on the ground of her husband's cruelty. The respondent denied the charge, and prayed for a restitution of conjugal rights. Dr Phillimore, Q.C., and Mr Settle were counsel for the petitioner, and Dr Spinks and Mr Drake for the respondents. The respondent had a small independent property, and he married the petitioner in June, 1834. They lived together at Mattishall and Tuddenham, and latterly at East Dereham, in Norfolk, and they had several children. He was a man of intemperate habits and of very passionate disposition, and he had ill-treated his wife during the whole of their cohabitation. He had repeatedly beaten her and kicked her, he had thrown a stone bottle and other things at her, had struck her with a poker, and had threatened her life with a loaded gun. She had from time to time left his house and gone to her family in consequence of his cruelty, but had returned upon his promises of amendment. She finally left in November, 1859. Her statements having been corroborated by some of her children and other witnesses, His Lordship decreed a judicial separation.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1862:
May 31 - Norfolk News:
Edward Dobbs, of Mattishall, innkeeper, (Ivy House, Welgate) was charged by Alice Adcock, 17 years of age, of the same place, single woman. with being the father of her illegitimate child born in April last. and the complainant therefore prayed for an order. The defendant was represented by, Mr. Atkins, of Norwich, and Mr. Drake, appeared on behalf of the complainant, who was subjected to a long cross-examination, which failed however to throw any doubt upon the. main part of her statement. This was afterward corroborated by several witnesses and the Bench made an order on the defendant at Is. 6d. per week.
MORE -
Alice Adcock went on to have two more illegitimate children, was Edward Dobbs the father of these also?
Edward died in 1877 age 51 although Alice had married in 1875 to Joseph Bowman and was living at South Green - All three of Alice's children took on the name Bowman
.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1862: Jun 14 - Norfolk Chronicle:
EAST DEREHAM June 6th - John Rowles, George Howlett, and Clement Norton, of Mattishall, Labourer's, for being drunk and disorderly at 2am on the 28th ult, were committed for seven days at Norwich Castle.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1862: Sep 06 - Norfolk Chronicle:
COUNTY PETTY SESSIONS. DEREHAM, August 29th. - Before B Gurdon, Esq, MP, Rev P Gurdon, E Hyde, Esq., R C Brown, Esq., and Capt. Bulwer, Jame Jarvis, innkeeper, of Hockering, was fined £1 and 16s, costs, for knowingly permitting drunkenness in his house on the 23rd ult. Thomas Stimpson, butcher, of Mattishall, was fined £I and 12s 6d, costs, for furious driving at East Tuddenham, on the 23rd ult.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1862:
Sep 6 - Norfolk News:
Henry Howe, of Mattishall, bricklayer, was charged, by police-constable Sparke, with being drunk and disorderly at Hockering Cock Inn, and refusing to quit the house when requested. De-fendant pleaded guilty, and was fined 5s, and costs 11s.

MORE - Henry Howe was born about 1803 - He never married - In 1861 he was a boarder at the 'Cross Keys' public house Mattishall Burgh where he claimed to have been born at East Tuddenham - in 1871 he was an inmate at the 'Gressenhall Work House' where he claimed to have been born at Mattishall. He was still an inmate in 1881, still claiming he was born at Mattishall but this time a widower! although there is no marriage record. He died as an inmate in 1887 age 84 - He was possibly the son of Reuben Howe and his wife Elizabeth Edwards and baptised at All Saints Church Mattishall on April 18th 1808.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1862: Nov 1 - Norfolk Chronicle:
EAST DEREHAM, October 24th - Henry Youngs, Benjamin Rackham, Arthur Cole, and Robert Cole, were each ordered to pay 6s 6d, for wilfully damaging a walnut tree, on the 19th instant, the property of Frederick Edwards of Mattishall Burgh.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1862: Nov 26 - Norwich Mercury:
East Dereham, November 24th - George Culyer, labourer of Mattishall, was fined 5s and costs 17s, for assaulting William Francis, on the 7th instant.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1862:
Dec 27 - Norfolk News:
Mary Fisher, the wife of James Fisher, of Mattishall, laborer, was charged by John Wright senior of the same place, farmer, with an assault which dated as far back as the 22nd of October last. Complainant stated that on the day in question, he and his man were putting some thorns into a fence, at Mattishall, on his (complainant's) property, when the defendant came and pulled the thorns out as fast as they were put in, at the same time asserting that the fence belonged to her, and that complainant had no right to put the thorns there. Defendant also took complainant's fork and pointed it near his face, saying, "I'll face the devil, it is my fence, and you shan't lay any-thing here." In answer to a question put by defendant, the complainant said, You had a foot-road there to your cottage. but you had no right t use it. The bench, after considering all the circumstances, and that the fence in question appeared to be boni fide in dispute, thought they had no jurisdiction, and accordingly dismissed the case. The defendant was also summoned to answer a similar charge on complaint of Mr Wright's man (William Francis); but after the above decision. no evidence was offered and the information with-drawn.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1863: Apr 15 - Norwich Mercury:
George Tofts, merchant of Mattishall, was fined 1s and 19s costs, for assaulting John Howard, of Mattishall.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1863:
May 2 - Norfolk News:
William: Pond, of Mattishall, pig dealer. Frederick Neal, of Reepham. pig dealer, and Robert Rollin, of East Dereham. butcher were charged with obstructing the pubic highway in East Dereham, by leaving their horses and carts in the street on market day, the I0th ult. Each defendant made some excuse about having left for only a few minutes, but they were all informed that the nuisance had increased so much of late, that examples must be made as warnings to others. Fined 1s. each, and costs 8s.6d

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1863: May 16 - Norfolk Chronicle:
William Whiterod, labourer of Mattishall was fined 5s, with 9s 9d costs and 1s damage, in default seven days imprisonment, for wilful damage to to a fence at Mattishall, the property, of the Rev Mr Cooper on the 26th ult.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1863:
Jul 11 - Norfolk News:
Charles Fisher, of Mattishall, butcher,was charged by Superintendent Amis, as inspector of weights, &c.. with having two unjust weights on his premises at Mattishall on the 16th ult. Defendant pleaded guilty. Re was reminded that this was not his first appearance on such a charge, but, in consideration of him being an old man, the Bench, would not be harsh with him on this occasion, in the hope that it would really be the last time. Fined 1s. and costs 11s. Robert Keeler, of the same place, grocer, was charged. with having an unjust weighing machine. viz, a false and unequal balance to a beam and scales. Defendant entered into an explanation of the circumstances under which he recently came into the occupation of the premise, &c, which, although it did not exempt him from legal responsibility in the matter, did much to mitigate the offence He was therefore fined the small sum of Is. and costs 13s.

MORE: We assume this refers to Charles Fisher senior as he had a son, also Charles who worked with him - Charles Fisher was born Charles Dade Fisher, baptised on May 16th 1779 at Mattishall, son of John Fisher and Mary Dade. Charles married Sarah Fuller on March 26th 1806 at All Saints Church Welborne. The couple had at least 10 children all baptised at All Saints Church Mattishall where Charles was a butcher on Church Square/Norwich Road. Sarah died in 1830, Charles in 1868.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1863: Jul 25 - Norfolk Chronicle:
James Skillings, labourer of Tuddenham, was charged by William Lovett, of Mattishall, with assaulting him on the 14th July - Case dismissed on payment of costs, 4s 6d.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1863: Oct 31 - Norfolk Chronicle:
THREATINING TO KILL A WIFE - Alfred Hatton, baker, of Mattishall, was charged by his wife, Sarah Lee Hatton, with assaulting her, and threatening to take away her life, on the 20th inst. It appeared from the evidence that the defendant, who had frequently behaved in a very violent manner towards his wife, on the night in question, about ten o'clock, had threatened to murder her, and on her endeavoring to escape with her child from him, he had brought up a loaded gun from down stairs and said he would shoot her. Complainant was in bed at the time, and in consequence of his threats dared not leave the house. He was somewhat the worse for liquor, but not drunk. In the morning she left home, and took refuge in the house of the Rev H Kiddle, where she still remained. The Rev H Kiddle, Independent minister, stated that the gun had been brought to his house, and he had put down the ramrod, and found it loaded; but what with he could not say, not having drawn out the charge. The prisoner was bound over to keep the peace towards his wife - himself in £100, and two sureties in £50 each.
The Hatton's problems do not end here - Sarah Lee Hatton brings another case on Sept 3rd 1864 (below)

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1863: Nov 28 - Norfolk Chronicle: - PETTY SESSIONS
FRIDAY, Nov 20th - Before Rev P GURDON (Chairman), Capt. BULWER, G HYDE, Esq. and G L PRESS, Esq.
STEALING FROM AN EMPLOYER. - James Cole, team-man, of Mattishall Bergh, was charged with stealing on Friday, 13th inst., six bushels of barley, the property of Mr Frederick Edwards of the same place. - Mr Edwards deposed, that going into his saddle-house he found under some hay a sack containing about two and a half bushels of undressed barley, upon which discovery he sent for police-constable Sparkes, who took prisoner into custody. Prisoner was one of the men employed by him to cart the barley from the stack, where it was being threshed, into the barn. [A sample of the stolen barley was produced and compared with some taken from the bulk.] Cole confessed to him (the prosecutor) that be had taken the barley, but said it was for his horses. He (prosecutor) replied, that it was strange that he (prisoner) should have taken some home as well, if he intended it only for his horses. - Police-constable Sparkes deposed to having been sent for by Mr Edwards, said charging the prisoner with the theft of the barley and secreting it in the collar-house of prosecutor. Prisoner acknowledged to him he had stolen some, and going with Sparkes pulled out a sack from under the hay containing about three bushels. Sparkes then went to search prisoner's house and found in his sleeping-room about a bushel and half a peck of barley. The prisoner pleaded guilty; - Mr Edwards having stated that the prisoner had been in his employ two years, and that he had never cause to question his honesty previously, the bench awarded him the lenient punishment of two months' imprisonment with hard labour in Norwich Castle.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1863: Dec 12 - Norfolk News:
Stephen Gapp, of Mattishall, labourer, was summoned at the instance of Sarah Ann Randall, of the same place, single women, who charge him with being the father of her illegitimate child. The bench dismissed the case.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1863: Dec 26 - Norfolk Chronicle:
DRUNKENNESS - John Howlett, labourer of Mattishall, was charged by Police-constable Sparke, with drunkenness and indecent behaviour, near the Swan, Mattishall, on the 16th Oct last, was committed to Norwich Castle, for seven days.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1864: Jan 23 - Norfolk Chronicle: - PETTY SESSIONS. FRIDAY 15th
AN UNLUCKY DOG - John Leeder, of Mattishall, dealer, was charged by Mr Frederick Nelson Edwards, of the same village, farmer, with unlawfully using a lurcher dog for the purpose of taking game on the 5th inst. Mr Edwards said, on Tuesday week he was in his meadow, when police-constable Sparke, who had come up to speak to hum, said there was a dog running a hare. Witness looked round and saw a lurcher dog chasing a hare from a turnip field into a wheat piece, and from thence across the road into a gravel pit, where the dog lost it. He saw defendant leaning against a gate in the road, and looking after the dog. Witness, before he saw defendant, heard someone encouraging the dog on, and the voice came from the direction in which he afterwards saw the defendant. He could not swear it was defendant, but he saw no one else on the road. He went up to defendant and told him that he had "put his foot into it," and he replied that he did not know the dog was there. Police-constable Sparke also saw the dog running the hare, and heard someone cheering the dog on. The voice and clapping of hands which he heard came from the road where he saw only the defendant. - By defendant: he did not see Brighty and Jarvis on the road; they were in a contrary direction. Defendant said he never saw the dog (which had been given him to keep a week or two, as there was a dispute as to its owner), or knew that it was running a hare. He did not cheer it on, but Jarvis told him that he did so. He wished to have the case adjourned that Jarvis might be called. Sparke, recalled, said he saw Jarvis in the presence of the defendant, and he said he never saw the dog. The case was adjourned.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1864: Jan 30 - Norfolk Chronicle: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20th.
Before CAPTAIN BULWER - William Beckham, late of Mattishall Bergh, labourer, was brought up on a charge of neglecting to maintain his wife and family, being quite able so to do, whereby they had become chargeable to that parish. The defendant was apprehended at Guisburough, in Yorkshire, where he had been at work for the last twelve weeks, at very good wages, and it appeared that during that period he had sent his wife, whom he had left behind him at Mattishall Bergh, the sum of 30s. only. Within the last few days his wages had been increased to something like 5s per day. He said he was going to send for his family. He was sentenced to 14 days hard labour at Norwich.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1864:
Apr 9 - Norfolk News - MATTISHALL - DISGRACEFUL PROCEEDINGS.
On Tuesday last, the village of Mattishall, which has recently been prominently brought forward by the notorious church-rate proceedings, was the scene of a most disgraceful disturbance in connection with the election of a churchwarden. The poll was fixed by the vicar at the Swan Inn, between the hours of ten and four o'clock. The adjournment of the vestry to this place had been protested against by the liberal party, and most likely a question will be raised upon this point as to the validity of the election. It was arranged that none but ratepayers should vote, but this condition, it is said, was afterwards broken by the vicar. The reports which have reached us charge the supporters of Mr Edwards with intimidation and other unfair and illegal acts. From one o'clock up to the close of the poll voters for Mr Hatton were insulted by drunken fellows, who flourished their sticks, and yelled, shrieked, and groaned in a most horrid manner. An intoxicated ruffian was swearing and using the foulest of language, sometimes staggering into the room where the polling was going on to the great annoyance of the voters. There were numerous instances in which Hatton's supporters were collared by people who bawled out, "You must vote for Edwards," and who then introduced then into the room as "Another voter for Edwards." At the close of the poll it was arranged that two half-barrels of beer should be brought into the street to be given to these who had voted for Edwards - and thereupon a scene took place which baffles all description. Some half drunken wretches having bored holes through the ends of the barrels put their months to the holes and sucked out the beer, while others got it out of the taps and drank till they could drink no more. Even young children were made beastly drunk. A band of music arrived from Hockering. An effigy meant for the independent minister, dressed in a black coat and trousers, and a chummy hat, was carried round and round the church by the drunken rabble, headed by the band, and then burned. A tea-pot was tied round the neck of the effigy, and as the crowd followed it, many blasphemous threats were uttered. A fresh order for ten shillings' worth of beer having been given, the rabble started off in procession, stopping at the houses of many of the Hatton party, yelling and swearing, and sometimes throwing missiles at the doors. On arriving at the residence of the Rev H Kiddle another effigy was exhibited. The rev gentleman calmly walked out of his study and crossed the road, but his present, checked for a time the violence of the mob. On returning to the town, however, every person with whom the rioters came into contact was insulted notwithstanding the remonstrances of the curate whose voice was drowned by hisses with which the crowd received his observations.
The night was finished up with ravelling, fighting and dissipation, to the great annoyance of the peaceful inhabitants of the village. Two persons in particular are said to have been most seriously outraged during the disturbances. We have the names of the persons who are said to have been at the bottom of these infamous proceedings; and if they don't come before the public in another form, we may ourselves give them the publicity they deserve. It is only right for us to add that the above report comes from persons who no doubt were aggrieved by the proceedings. We have every reason to believe that the report is unexaggerated, but as we trust that we shall always deal faithfully with facts, if the vicar or his friends have anything to say, our columns are open to them.
This sad episode in Mattishall's history became known as the 'Mattishall Churh-Rate Case' of which Jonathan Hatton was set an example of, the result of which, he lost everything and was ruined. Although he did eventually get recondition and financial compensation from local people and the 'Liberation Society' the stress had taken its toll and he died shortly after, - for more on his story click HERE.

Following on from the above....
1864:
Apr 20 - Norwich Mercury - PETTY SESSIONS:
Friday. [Before G L Press, Esq. (Chairman), Captain Bulwer, and George Hyde. and R C BROWN, Esqs.]
THE PROCEEDINGS AT MATTISHALL. - The greater part of the day was occupied in hearing cases of assault, which arose out of the recent proceedings in the village of Mattishall. The first case taken was - Frederick Edwards, farmer, of Mattishall, charged by John Beckett, coal carter, of the same place, with assaulting him on the 10th of April. Mr Chittock, of Norwich, appeared for the complainant and Mr Drake for the defendant. Mr Chittock said on Monday, the 4th inst, the election for a parish churchwarden of Mattishall took place, and upon that occasion a candidate was proposed by the Church, and another by the dissenting party. One was Mr Edwards, and the other Mr Hatton. Upon a poll being taken, Mr. Edwards was declared to be elected church warden, and to celebrate their triumph, they carried an effigy round the town and burned it. He should show that there were two effigies carried round and burnt. After the first had been burnt, some persons, who appeared to be very liberal, gave three half barrels of beer to such persons as liked to partake of It. One of the persons who appeared to be very forward in all these proceedings was the defendant. He went round the town with the first effigy, and, having partaken of the beer, he followed the second. When the second effigy was about a hundred yards from Mr. Kiddle's house, complainant did throw a sod at it. It did not strike anyone, and that was the only sod he threw the whole time the effigy was being carried round the town. Defendant then 'struck complainant, blackening his eye, which was the assault complained of. Complainant, a lad, stated that on Monday, the 4th inst, a good deal of rioting took place at Mattishall Mr William Edwards the successful candidate, was uncle to the defendant. After the close of the pull he saw an effigy carried past his house by young Edward Edwards. Defendant was walking behind shouting "Kiddle-a-wink," &c. The effigy was dressed in a suit of black, and a white cravat, and when the procession drew near the Rev H Kiddle's house, complainant threw a sod at it, but it passed over, not striking anyone. When about 30 or 40 yards from Mr. Kiddle's house, a lad named Laing pulled a sod from the roadside, gave him half of it, and threw the other half at the figure, but could not strike it. Defendant then turned round and struck complainant on the temple with his fist, knocking him backwards. His eye was slightly blackened from that blow. He then informed his father of what had happened, and they both went up to defendant, who said to Mr Beckett "I will serve you the same. I will knock your b— skull off," at the same time "drawing his guard." By Mr Drake - Did not see a sod strike Edwards; nor the dirt on his back and neck. Saw only three or four sods thrown; there might have been more. Edwards did not tell him not to pull his father's bank about when he had the sod. He did not know what he was going to do with the sod he had in his hand; he might have thrown it at the effigy. Edwards never said anything to him or Laing about throwing sods - he near said “If you don't leave off throwing those sods I will serve you out." Young Osborn, who was walking with Edward’s called out.
William Laing, of Mattishall, the lad who was in company with complainant, said he saw the first effigy that was carried round on the 4th instant. After that effigy was burnt he saw two half barrels of beer brought out against the church wall. Defendant was present and had some beer. After they had refreshed themselves they had a band and went to Mr Culyer’s, where they had another effigy, and when nearing Mr Kiddle’s house Beckett threw a sod at the image which was dressed in black with a good sized white neck tie. There was a paper upon it, with the word "Kiddle-a-wink," it was said that it was intended for Mr Kiddle; it was burnt. A tea pot was tied round the neck, because he (Mr Kiddle) was a teetotaller. There was no name upon the first effigy. Witness picked up a sod and gave Beckett half, but be did not throw it.
By Mr Drake, - He heard the people say it was intended for Mr Kiddie. Edwards said it was Mr. Kiddle, and halloed “Kiddle-a-wink" They said it was Mr Kiddle, and “let us go to his house and give him a groan” Mr Edwards and all the church party called out "Here comes Kiddle." Witness threw two or three sods, Beckett threw one; he did not see anyone else throw any. - Henry Beckett said his son (the complainant) spoke to him about being struck by Edwards. When he asked Edwards the reason why be did so, he replied that he would serve him the same, and knock his b— head off in about two minutes. His son's eye was blackened. - Cross-examined - Edwards did not say he would serve him the same if he threw sods at him. He did not complainant had thrown sods at him. He offered no justification whatever for striking the boy.
Mr Drake said he should contradict the statement which had been made. He should show that on that occasion those boys followed that procession - for a lawful or un-lawful purpose it was unnecessary for that matter to inquire into - and that they, during the whole time of the procession, were continually throwing sods of grass amongst the crowd, until at last it became to great a nuisance that Osborne, at all events, expostulated with then. He should show also that Beckett threw one of those sods, which hit Mr Edward, in the back of his neck, and Mr Edwards turned round - having before cautioned him - and struck at him. James Osborne, of Mattishall, who was walking beside defendant in the procession, said Beckett and Laing, who were in the crowd, threw sods. Edwards told them to leave off several times, but they continued "sodding.' Beckett threw one after Laing, and it hit Edwards on the head. Edwards "dropped unto him" once, and said, "Now you have got it." Witness saw Beckett throw that sod. - Cross-examined, - Some dirt fell upon witness when they were throwing at the figure. - Thomas Brasnett, and another witness named Vincent, corroborated. - Case dismissed.
George Edwards, of Mattishall, farmer, pleaded not guilty to a charge of assaulting Nicholas Tofts, a young man, a cattle dealer, of the same place, on the 4th inst.
The same legal gentlemen appeared as to the last case. - Complainant and defendant were in the kitchen of the George Inn, Mattishall, on the polling day. Defendant got up, as complainant thought, to go, but as he passed him he cheered and put his head close to his seeming as though he meant to spit upon him. Edwards repeated this conduct over the settle, and then returned to complainant, round whose neck he put his arms and rubbed his coat buttons against his face. When defendant knocked his hat off, he said to "Go on you silly —." Defendant said, "I will put you up the chimney, or on the fire, which you like." He told him which he liked, and thereupon defendant said he would "give him one," and struck him on the head. He had not given defendant the slightest provocation. Cross-examined, - Defendant swore at him, but he did not abuse defendant when he left the kitchen. He never told the defendant that he would pull him for it, and if he could do more to him than the magistrates he would do it. Culyer was not present, and did not say, "You can do nothing to him, be hasn’t hurt you, or imitated to do so." He did not tread upon defendant's toes, act rudely to him, or touch him with his stick. Francis Palmer was in the George public house at the time in question, and saw Tofts and defendant. After defendant sat upon complainant's knee and rubbed his face, complainant used the expression before stated, when witness said, "Don't fall out." - Cross-examined, - He did not see Culyer present, he had been there. They had been talking about Whigs and Tories, churchmen and dissenters, but witness added, "If you are a Whig and I'm a Tory, that is no reason why we should fall out." (Laughter.) Witness thought it was a lark, "But larks," he observed with good humour, "sometimes turn out to be linnets," (Laughter.)
Mr. Drake called for the defence. - Charles Culyer, who said he was in the George at the time complainant and defendant differed upon the election question. When Edwards was leaving the room Tofts said, "Go on you ---." Edwards returned and took him by the neck and said he would put him up the chimney, "but," witness added with naïveté, “he didn’t." Edwards just brushed Tofts' face and said, I have a good mind to hit you but I won't." After that Tofts said if he could he would pull him to a higher Court than the magistrate. - This case was also dismissed, the magistrates thinking it a trumpery charge.
There was a further charge of assault laid by Nicholas Tofts against the same defendant. - Mr. Chittock appeared for the complainant; and Mr Drake defended. - The particulars of this assault are shortly these - Mr Tofts, on Sunday, the 8th of April, after the summons was served in the last case, saw George Edward's in Mattishall. He did not speak to him, but defendant, without any provocation, spat upon his face and blew his nose upon his coat. He did not speak to him at all. Charles Fisher corroborated. - Mr Drake said Edwards was smoking his pipe at the time - so he said - and did not intend to do it. They had had complainant before them in a previous case, and did not believe his testimony, and he put it to them whether it was at all probable he had told the truth in the case before them. Mr Tofts and Mr Fisher's father were each summoned with reference to the church rates - Mr. Chittock, - What has that to do with it Mr Drake said it showed the animus will which these cases were brought before the Bench, and he added they were not to perpetuate parish feuds by giving the triumph to either party. He asked them therefore to dismiss the summons.
Fisher (recalled) said defendant went up to complainant, and commenced the assault, - Fined 5s, and £1 1s. 6d costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1864:
May 7 - Norfolk News:
John Overton, of Mattishall, labourer, was charged by Pleasance Hunt of Hardingham, single women with the paternity of her illegitimate child. Mr Drake appeared for the defence, but an order was made at 1s 6p per week plus costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1864: May 21 - Norfolk Chronicle:
George Culyer, labourer. of Mattishall, was charged by Ann Francis with having assaulted her on the 9th April. Mr Drake appeared for the complainant. - The parties are neighbours, and it appears some squabble arose about the fastening of a door, when defendant had the hardihood to strike the complainant, who is an elderly woman, in the mouth which bled from the blow, adding that it would have served her right had he knocked all her teeth out. Defendant, who must be rather an eccentric character. as he appeared to treat the matter as a trifle, was fined £1, and 12s 6d costs; in default, 21 days imprisonment. He chose the latter.

The same defendant was charged by James Wicks, farming bailiff to Mr F Taylor, of Thurston, with unlawfully and maliciously throwing down a certain wall, on the property of Mr Taylor. Defendant contended that the wall was built on lands which belonged to his occupation, and Mr Drake, who appeared for the plaintiff, defined the wall as the boundary. As defendant stated that he could bring witnesses to prove that he had aright beyond the wall, the case was allowed to stand over for a month.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1864: May 21 - Norfolk Chronicle:
MEAL AND BRAN. - William Murrell, merchant, Yaxham, v. William Goffe, farmer and carter, Mattishall.—The sum sued for was £2 Os 9d. The defendant, an old man, had great difficulty in stepping into the witness-box, on entering which he was asked by his Honour if he owed the money. - Mr Goffe: "I owe some of it, sir; and as to the rest, I know nothing about it." On behalf of the plaintiff, a witness from his mill deposed that the goods were delivered to order of defendant's son, who asked them in his father's name, and to whom credit was given. - His Honour: "It is not to be permitted that a man is to go about with his father's horse and cart, and obtain goods in his father's name; and when his father is applied to for payment, to say that the goods were for his son. It is my duty to stop such practices, and therefore you (defendant) will have to pay the mosey immediately." - Judgment for the plaintiff with costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1864: May 28 - Norwich Mercury: POLICE - Friday (Before R C Browne Esq.)
ALLEGED ROBBERY BY A SON - John T Lodge (18), Thomas Eke, and Christmas Toffts, dealer of Mattishall, were charged, The former two prisoners with feloniously stealing 3 cwt, of hay, the value of 18s, the property of John Lodge, and the later with receiving the same, well knowing it to be stolen.
The prosecutor is a firmer, of Mattishall, and John T Lodge is his illegitimate son, About five o'clock on the 16th inst, when he went into his yard he observed some hay on the road leading from his stack yard, into one adjoining, and thence to the turnpike road. Knowing that he had given no directions, for hay to be taken away in that direction, he followed the track and observed the same description of hay on the road from the spot along the turnpike road for about twenty yards, when it continued down the Mattishall Bergh Lane, as far as the turn by the Cross Keys public-house, and then round into Tofft's yard. He had seen the trace of nothing but hay on the road. Whilst in the lane by the cooper's shop, he saw plainly the track of two wheels, and from that spot he continued to trace both hay and cart wheels until he followed them into Tofft's' yard. He saw Toffts and asked him if he had had any hay that morning? He he had not. Prosecutor walled a little further, and seeing a cart with a rope tied to it, said, Yes you have here's' cart that brought it." He did not recollect that the prisoner mad any reply, but he (prosecutor) went and looked into his hay-house and saw and saw six trusses of hay. Toffts was present when he found the hay, and he believed that he told him, "There's the, hay." Tofft's said, "What hay I have got I have bough, and paid for, and Horne the shop-keeper, saw me pay for it." His son had nothing whatever to do with the hay, not being employed to cart or truss. The distance to Toffts house from the premises from which the hay was stolen was 200 yard. He was quite certain the hay he found on Toffts premises was his; it was mixed with red and white clover (commonly called suckling), and was remarkable hay. He had only that morning cut up that stack for his own use, and was not aware any had been previously cut, but it might have been, as he gave orders when he left home the previous Saturday that if his people wanted any more hay for the stack, they begin that stack. -

Cross-examined by his son. - when did you pay me for the last fortnight's work? - You have not worked a fortnight for me for many weeks. -
Have you paid me the harvest wage, you engaged to pay me? - To the best of my knowledge I have paid you.all I owe you.
Did not you engage me for £6 for my harvest wages. - Yes, I did, and have paid you, I think, as soon as harvest over.
Re-examined. - He had maintained and lodged his son wherever he had thought fit to go to his house, and, further, had always paid his tradesmen's bills.
Cross-examined by Toffts. - He did not know that he had any dispute with him. He (prisoner) did not go up to the barn door with him and say ."Here's your hay," Nothing was said about changing a sovereign to pay for the hay. He recollated prisoner saying that he paid 15s a cwt. for the hay, but he did not know that there was more or less than a cwt. -
William Gunton
said. - On the previous Monday, before five o'clock on the morning, when he was on the turnpike road, when be saw the prisoner Lodge come out of his father's gate with a truss of hay no his back. Prisoner passed close by him, and turned down the lane leading to Mattishall Bergh. -
John Bowles said he went, between three and four o'clock on Monday morning, to cut a truss of hay at his masters (the prosecutor's), but before be began to cut, he noticed that about 5cwt had been already cut and taken away. About fire o'clock, he and another man went into the 'George Inn Yard' for some beer, but previous to that, he saw the prisoner Lodge turn his pony out and enter the stack-card. W hen they returned, he missed some hay, but he did not know bow much might have been taken by Watson and Overton for the horses. On the same day he saw some hay at Toffts' house, and he helped to load it on the cart - that was the hay produced. -
William Gunton
recalled, said he saw the prisoner Lodge return to his father's premises after he had taken the truss down the lane, and carry away a second truss of hay. On both occasions prisoner was followed by Eke, who also carried away two trusses of hay. -
The case was adjourned till Tuesday when
James White, labourer, said he was employed by prosecutor to assist John Bowles in tying up some hay which he was cutting and trussing on Whit-Monday morning. he also saw young Lodge before they went to the George public-house.
Evan Sparke said about a quarter to five, as he was going out crow keeping, he saw Bowles cutting hay and James White, tying it up. At that time he saw the prisoner's Lodge and Eke, go into prosecutor's yard by his barn, which adjoined the stack yard. About ten minutes afterwards he saw them on the turnpike road with a truss of hay each on their backs.
Archibald Brasnett
, baker, said about seven o'clock on Monday morning, as he was going down Mattishall Bergh Road, he saw the prisoner Lodge with a horse and cart in Stimpsons yard. There was a small quantity of hay in the cart. The horse in the cart belonged to Toffts.
Daniel Richmond said - Between five and six o'clock in the morning of the day in question he was standing near the George public-house, when the prisoner Lodge told him to go down to Toffts, and tell him to send his man and a horse and cart after 3cwt. of hay, adding that be should be in the street.
Witness went to Toffts and delivered the message, and Toffts replied that his man was not there. He hadn't got any hay for his horses, but as he wanted some badly, he (Lodge) would have to go down with it.
Police-constable John Sparke, said he went in company with prosecutor to Toffts' house, and in his hay house saw six trusses of hay, which prisoner said were his property. The sample of hay produced from the stark and the stolen hay corresponded. Toffts said he bought the hay of the prisoner Lodge for 5s per cwt.
William Horne, shopkeeper, said he knew Toffts, and remembered his going into his shop between seven and eight on the morning in question. He wanted change for a sovereign, which he gave him. Prisoner put 5s into his pocket, and carried the remainder in his hand. He did not see young Lodge then, but shortly after they both entered his shop, young Lodge wanting some tobacco. In answer to Toffts, Lodge said. "I must mind how I lay out my money. I've got only 3s out of this for my Whitsun holidays." Prisoners were committed to take their trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

The verdict...
1864:
Jul 2- Norfolk News:
The chairman remarked that with regard to the prisoner Eke, he thought the evidence clearly did not show that he had any knowledge that the hay was stolen. the had been employed, no doubt, to help Lodge to rob his father, but was evidently quite unconscious of what he was doing. He (the chairman) should therefore recommend the jury to acquit the prisoner Eke. The evidence against Toffts was rather stronger, as there were the facts that he denied having bought any hay on the morning in question, and that it was Tofft's horse in the cart which was met on the road with the hay. Against those facts there was the evidence which led them to suppose that Tofffs had given a fair market price for the hay, which a man buying stolen property would not be likely to do, and also the testimonials as to his character. The case, altogether was one of great doubt, Eke and Toffts were acquitted, and Lodge, who had pleaded guilty, was sentenced to four months' imprisonment with hard labor.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1864: Jun 1 - Norwich Mercury:
DRUNK - Lambert Bowman, pig dealer, of Mattishall, was charged by police-constable Pease with being drunk at Dereham, on the 13th May. He admitted the offence, and, of course, expressed contrition. The Bench fined him 5s, and 14s, costs, which was paid by a female in Court.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1864: Jun 01 - Norwich Mercury
A "LITTLE" TOO MUCH. - Leonard Norton, of Welborne, wheelwright, was charged by police-constable Sparke with drunkenness and indecent behavior at Mattishall, on the 14th May. Defendant pleaded guilty to the first offence, believing he had a little too much. He was so tipsy that he did not know whether he acted indecently or not; upon being advised, he also pleaded guilty to that offence. It appeared that defendant was lying very drunk in the Town Lane, Mattishall, with his clothes disordered. - He was fined 10s and 1s, costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1864: Jul 2 - Norfolk Chronicle:
James Lebbett, blacksmith, of Mattishall, was fined 5s and 11s costs, for drunken and indecent behaviour, at Mattishall on the 20th instant.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1864: Jul 9 - Norwich Mercury:
PETTER SESSIONS - Monday - Edward Dobbs, innkeeper, of Mattishall, was fined 5s and 14s costs, for being drunk and using bad language at Swatnton.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1864:
Jul 23 - Norfolk News:
William Matthews, farmer, Lyng, v. William Goff, carter, Mattishall.—The sum claimed was £2 15s., for damages done to a dog-cart by the defendant running into it. Mr. Matthews said that the affair took place in the evening, but it was not dark. Defendant was driving a two-horse heavy tumbril, the wheel of which he hooked on to the wheel of his cart, which the collision sent back, together with his horse, some twenty yards; and had it not been for the protection afforded by a railing he would have been precipitated into a ditch. Defendant was summoned before the magistrates, by whom he was convicted of furious driving; but although nine month had elapsed since then. he had not made any effort to pay the damage done to the cart. Goff (who is a very old man) declined to be sworn, merely remarking that he had not seen any damage done to the dog-cart. Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs; order of payment, £1 down, and the balance by £1 a month.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1864:
Aug 13 - Norfolk Chronicle:
Dobbs & Dobbs v. Lodge. - This was an action by the plaintiffs, who carry on business at Mattishall, to recover of the defendant, a farmer in the same parish, the sum of., £5 Os. Id. for wheelwright's and blacksmith's work. Mr Drake appeared for the plaintiffs, whose case was spoken to by Mr E Dobbs; on the conclusion of whose evidence his Honour asked the defendant if he had any questions to put to the plaintiff. Mr Lodge: my daughter keeps my books. - His Honour: I dare say she does, and it's very kind of her; but have you any question to ask Mr. Dobbs? - Mr Lodge (with an amazing elongation of countenance): Something very serious has happened. - His Honour: Perhaps there has; but have you any question to put to the plaintiff? - Mr Lodge went on to say that he had a contra claim on the plaintiffs, when he was interrupted by the learned Judge, who reminded him that he had not pleaded a set-off. - Defendant I am pleading a set-off.—His Honour: But you are too late to do it now. You should have done it five days ago. - As Mr Lodge said he had no witnesses, his Honour observed that the action was virtually undefended, and gave judgment for the full amount, with costs, and an order for immediate payment. - What the "something very serious" was, alluded to by Mr Lodge, did at transpire.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1864:
Aug 20 - Norfolk News:
James Howard, of Mattishall, was charged with being drunk and furiously driving on St. Giles Road, Norwich on Saturday evening. A cabman named Bales, stated that as he was driving home on Saturday evening from Earlham. he met. the defendant with his wife and child driving a pony cart at a very furious rate; he endeavored to get out of his way, but defendant came in contact with his fly, and broke the spring. The cart was turned over, but fortunately the occupants were not injured. Corroborative evidence having been given, defendant was fined 16s, and costs, which was paid.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1864: Sep 3 - Norfolk Chronicle:
Alfred Hatton, baker, of Mattishall, who appeared before the Dereham bench of magistrates on the 23rd of October last, for ill-usage to his wife, and was then required to find sureties for his good conduct towards her, was this day brought up on the charge of, on the 24th ult., threatening to cut his wife's throat and otherwise assaulting her. Complainant also stated that on the previous Sunday her husband had turned her out of his house at eleven o'clock at night, and threatened to burn her wearing apparel, a threat which she had every reason to believe he had since carried out. Under these circumstances the complainant wished the magistrates to bind over her husband in additional securities. The case was remanded in order that an arrangement proposed by the husband and his friends, namely, that he should allow his wife £5 to purchase new apparel, that he should give up to her half the furniture, and allow her 5s, per week for her maintenance, might be carried out.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1864: Sep 03 - Norfolk News:
George Edwards, of Mattishall, was charged by Henrietta Jary, of the same place, single woman, with an assault on the 20th of August. Mr Drake appeared for defendant. It transpired that the alleged assault arose out of some joking and playing between complainant and defendant, the former waiting at the time for some gleaning. Evidence was given on both sides, from which it appeared that there was great blame both ways, and that the complainant's demeanor and language was anything but creditable. Case dismissed.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1864: Oct 22 - Norfolk Chronicle:
William Wilkinson, labourer, Mattishall Bergh, was charged with an assault with intent, &c., upon a child named Susan Budd, of East Tuddenham, on the 12th inst. The prisoner, who seemed a somewhat imbecile man, was committed for trial.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top
1864: Oct 22 - Norfolk News:
Counterfeit Coin - Thomas Sexton (26), fish-seller, pleaded not guilty to uttering a false counterfeit coin, resembling a shilling, at East Dereham, on the 30th of September, 1861; also with having uttered another counterfeit shilling on the 7th October., at East Dereham. Mr C Cooper prosecuted, and Mr Simms Reeve defended. On the days mentioned in the indictment the prisoner was offering herrings for sale at a stall in Dereham marketplace, and amongst his customers on the 30th of September was a woman named Fisher, who is the wife of a laborer at Mattishall. She purchased six-penny worth of herrings, and gave a shilling in payment, expecting to receive sixpence in change. Prisoner said he had not a sixpence with which to give change, and withholding the shilling, he suggested that if the woman would give him 2s. more he would give 2s, and her own shilling change. Mrs Fisher readily gave him half-a-crown, and the accused then gave her three shillings, one of which it afterwards transpired was counterfeit. Another case of uttering was proved to have taken place on the 7th of October, the sufferer being on this occasion a woman named Baxter, who received a base shilling in change. - The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the prisoner was sentenced to twelve calendar months' hard labor.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1864: Nov 19 - Norfolk Chronicle:
Christmas Tofts, dealer, Mattishall, was charged by Supt. Amis with haying in his possession and using the following unstamped weights: Four 56lbs., one 28lb., one 14lb., one 7lb., one 4lb., one 2lb., and one 1lb. The weights were quite correct in other respects. Fined 1s. and expenses 11s. Defendant: - "But what about the weights?" - The Bench: - "The weights are forfeited." - Defendant then requested that the case might be adjourned until next petty sessions, that he might employ a solicitor, but was told the case was already decided. The magistrates had no power to return the weights as the act of parliament declared them to be forfeited. - Supt. Amis said he would represent the case to the Chief Constable (Col. Black), who alone had the power of returning the weights, but defendant was by no means satisfied, and declared that he would have the matter set right if it cost him £100, or even if he sold all he had, including the horse he rode upon.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1865: Jan 14 - Norfolk News:
John Beckett, of Mattishall, coal carter, was charged by Fanny Woodhouse, of the same place, single-woman, with being the father of her illegitimate child. Mr Drake appeared for the defendant. This was the complainant's second appearance in court under similar circumstances, and her answers on cross-examination in the present case were given in a manner not likely to produce a very favorable impression on her side. At the conclusion of the evidence tendered on her behalf, the bench were of opinion that there was not sufficient corroboration, and consequently dismissed the case.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1865:
Jun 3 - Norfolk News:
John White, of Mattishall Bergh, farmer, was summoned for having a gelding straying on the highway in Mattishall, on the 18th inst. He was fined 1s. and costs 8s. 6d.
Francis Palmer, of Mattishall, labourer, was charged by the above John White with being drunk at Mattishall. Case dismissed.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1865: Jan 14 - Norfolk News:
Richard Gathercole, of Mattishall. laborer, was brought up in custody, on a charge of stealing 4lbs, weight of pork, of the value of 2s 4d, the property of William Horne, of the same place, grocer. It appears that the prisoner, who is well known to the prosecutor, had been absent from Mattishall for 14 or 15 years, and on his return, a few days since. called at prosecutor's shop and asked for a gift of bread and cheese. The prosecutor very kindly complied with the request, and a few minutes after the prisoner had left the shop the prosecutor missed the pork in question. and gave information to the police, who found the prisoner at a public-house with the pork in his pocket. He, the prisoner, now pleaded guilty to the charge, and after being censured for his ingratitude, was sentenced to three calendar months' hard labor at Norwich Castle.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1865: Feb 25 - Norfolk News:
William Watson Townshend, of Mattishall, farmer, was brought up on a charge of supplying a certain noxious thing with intent to procure abortion. G S Tinker, Esq.. appeared for the prisoner. It appeared that a young women named Catherine Hutson, of Yaxham, went to Townshend's house at Mattishall and asked him for some medicine to set a young woman all right who was afraid she had been ruined. Townshend replied, "I can give you something to do that but you must keep it a secret: this isn't the first by two or three - one in particular." He also said that he hadn't got any stuff then, but she must met him at Dereham on the following Tuesday. Hutson accordingly kept her appointment and received from Townshend two bottles each containing liquid, with directions in writing to this effect - "One wine glass full out of the larger bottle and a teaspoon full out of the smaller, to be taken every night." He said he had got the stuff from a chemist in Dereham, and charged her 5s for it, which was payed at once. She had also given him a shilling when she went to his house at Mattishall. The evidence of the conversation at Townshend's
house was fully corroborated by a young women named Randall, who lives next door, and who said she could hear directly what passed. Mr Tinkle crossed-examined to some extent, but failed to shake her testimony in this respect. He also asked Hutson to state who the young woman was that wanted the medicine, when she replied it was no other person than herself - that she took some of the mixture the first night, but a great deal of it had been accidentally spilled. Other evidence was given respecting a supply of "mistletoe" which the prisoner had obtained from a farmer at Yaxham, stating that he wanted it for a young heifer. It was also proved that be told a person named Ramm, at Hockering, that he had been applied to by a parson's maid who had been "playing the fool"
Under all the circumstances, the Bench decided to commit the prisoner for trial at the Norwich Sessions, but on urgent appeal of his solicitor, allowed him to be bailed in his own recognizance.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1865: Jul 1 - Norfolk Chronicle:
Petty Sessions. - On Friday, Leonard Norton, wheelwright, Welborne, was charged by police-constable-Sparkes, with being drunk on the 21st inst, at the Swan public-house, Mattishall, and refusing to leave when desired to do so by the police officer. Police-constable-Sparkes, deposed that, though he had seen defendant drunk scores of times, he was worse this time than usual. As an old offender defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of £1 and 13s, costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1865: Nov 4 - Norfolk News:
John Hill, of Mattishall, yeoman, was charged by Lambert Bowman, of Mattishall Bergh, laborer, with an assault at East Dereham, on Friday, 29th September, and a counter charge was made by the former against Bowman for being drunk at the same time and place. After hearing the evidence on each side, the bench convicted both parties. Hill for the assault, 1s, fine and costs £1 4s 6d., and Bowman for drunkenness, 5s fine and costs £1 6s 6d.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1865:
Nov 18 - Norwich Mercury:
William Townsend, of Mattishall, farrier, was charged by police-constable Sparks with being drunk and of riotous behavior, in it on Saturday, the 4th inst. Defendant at first admitted that he was a " little freshly," but he eventually plead guilty to the charge, and was fined 10s, and costs 7s. 6p - Townsend was also charged by Mr Ezekiel G. Read, of Mattishall, farmer, with using threatening language to him on the same Saturday. The defendant was ordered to be bound over in the sum of £5, with two sureties in the like amount to keep the peace for six calendar months.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1865:
Nov 18 - Norwich Mercury:
William Tilney, of Mattishall, was charged for driving his horse and cart furiously with his waggon and horses on the public highway at Mattishall called the Welgare Road. He was 5s., and costs 10s. 6d.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1866: Jan 13 - Norfolk Chronicle: PETTY SESSIONS
FRIDAY, JANUARY 6th, - Elijah Beckett, shoemaker, Mattishall, was charged by police-constable Sparks with being drunk and using filthy language at Mattishall, near "The Ringers," on the 26th December last. He was fined 5s., and 11s, costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1866: Feb 24 - Norfolk News:
SALTER, SIMPSON, AND BACON. V. WILLIAM AND EDWARD DOBBS.- The plaintiffs, who are the well-known auctioneers at Attleborough, sued the defendants, who are brothers, and wheelwrights at Mattishall, for £3 17s, including balance on a returned acceptance, legal expenses, &c. Mr Bacon appeared for the firm but the defendants not answering, judgment was found for the amount claimed, with costs, and an order for immediate settlement.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1866: Apr 28 - Norfolk Chronicle:
Samuel Earle of Lyng, and William Earle of Mattishall, chimney-sweepers, were brought up under remand, charged with stealing on the 9th instant, at Bawdeswell, about a pound of bacon, the property of Mrs Middleton. It appeared that on the night of the 9th, the prisoners called at the Bell Inn, kept by Mrs Middleton, and at about twelve o'clock some mischievous person put the lights out, and prisoners were directly seen to cut two slices from the bacon, which was hanging in the kitchen. Information was given to police-constable Woods, who apprehended prisoners on the charge. They were convicted, and in consideration of having been in custody a fortnight, were sentenced to one week's imprisonment each, with hard labour.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1866: May 26 - Norfolk Chronicle:
George Ayers, of Mattishall, farmer, was charged by police-constable Sparke, with removing two cows on the highway at Mattishall, after sunset, on the 3rd of May, contrary to the order of her Majesty's Privy Council, &c. Defendant pleaded guilty, and was fined 1s and costs, 12s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1866: Jun 23 - Norwich Mercury:
John Earl, of Mattishall Bergh, chimney sweep, summoned for allowing two asses and one mare to stray on the highway, in that parish, was fined 1s, 6d., and costs 6s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1866: Jul 7 - Norfolk Chronicle:
INDECENT ASSAULT - Edward Daynes, 15, labourer, who pleaded guilty to indecently assaulting Susanna Johnson, aged eleven years, with intent to ravish her, at Mattishall, on the 13th of April, 1866, was sentenced to six mouths' hard labour.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1866: Jul 28 - Norfolk Chronicle:
Petty Sessions - On Friday before G Hyde and A. C. Spurgeon, Esqs., - George William Cullyer, labourer, and Hannah Cullyer, his mother, both of Mattishall, apprehended by warrant, and charged by William Francis, of the same place, labourer, with stealing from his garden half-a-peck of growing potatoes, his property, on the 18th July, doing damage to the amount of 6d., were ordered to pay the damage; and fined 2s, 6d, and costs, 18s, each, in default, George Cullyer was committed for one month's hard labour. Hannah Callyer was allowed fourteen days to pay.

1866: Sep 01 - Norwich Mercury:
Petty session.—Hannah Gulyer, of Mattishall, widow, was summoned for non-payment of a fine and costs in which she was convicted some weeks since, and had been allowed a short time for payment, but had taken no further notice of the matter. She was committed for one month.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1866: Sep 15 - Norfolk News:
John Leeder, dealer, Mattishall, paid 8s, costs, for assulting James Howard, on the 5th instant.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1866: Oct 13 - Norwich Mercury: THURSDAY
Before R W BLAKE, T. BRIGHTWELL, and J G JOHNSON, Esqs.- William Osborne, alias Toffs, labourer, of Mattishall, was charged with assaulting police-constable Clitheroe whilst in the execution of his duty, on the 4th inst. The officer, who was on duty on the day above named on the Dereham Road, saw a waggon and three horses proceeding at so rapid a pace as to appear to be dangerous to the public. He, therefore, called upon him to stop. Defendant complied with his request, and when ask to give his name began to whip the horses In order to get away. The officer seized the reins, and said he should not go until he gave his name, whereupon defendant struck him on the head with his whip.- The defendant pleaded that he did not strike the officer intentionally He was fined 1s, and 18s 9d, costs; in default seven days.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1866: Nov 24 - Norfolk News:
SAMUEL BRUTON. laborer, Mattishall, v. HENRY MEACHEN, laborer, Yaxham. - The amount sought to be recovered in this suit was 10s., the value of a pair of sheets which the defendant was asserted by the plaintiff's wife to have detained. Mrs Bruton said that the sheets, which were made of very old hemp, were lent shortly after last Whitsuntide; and although she had applied for them since, Mrs Meachen refused to give them up. - The defence, if such it can be called, was exceedingly "cool." Mrs Menchen admitted getting the sheets on loan, but no time was set in which to return them and as soon as she had done with them they would be returned. - On Mrs Bruton complaining that when she made application for the sheets they were always dirty, the defendant's wife said that they had only been requested back three times; and whenever, as she had before stated, she had done with them, she would wash them and send them back. His Honor: " That is very good of you." Mrs Bruton said that they had been applied for four times in all, once by the constable of the parish. The Court deciding in favor of the plaintiff, Mrs Bruton asked an order for 2s, a week. which Mrs Meachen said she could not pay. His Honor (to defendant's wife): "You have nothing to do with it except getting your husband, who will have to pay, into trouble for If he does not pay, I will send him to prison again and again if necessary. Of course, if the sheets are returned in proper condition. the damages will be nominal." Mrs. Menchen left the Court with all the air of an injured woman.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1867:
Feb 9 - Norwich Mercury:
MATTISHALL FIRE. - Early on Tuesday morning a stack of hay the property of Mr Edward Hoy, of this parish, farmer, was discovered to be on fire. Although every possible effort was made to subdue it, the stack, which was worth upwards of £50, was completely destroyed. A police-constable had passed by the spot a very short time before, when everything appeared safe. A man named George Basham, a labourer, residing in the pariah, has been taken into custody on suspicion of having set fire to the stack, and will be brought up before the magistrates at East Dereham to-day (Friday.)

1867: Feb 23 - Norfolk News:
George Basham, of Mattishall. was brought up from Norwich Castle, charged with setting fire to the hay stack, at Mattishall, as detailed in last week's issue. Mr Saunders, solicitor, appeared for the prisoner, but was told by the bench that the examination would be a private one, according to the custom of the Dereham magistrates, and that he could not be allowed to cross-examine witnesses or even be present. Mr Saunders said he could not, of course, expect an exception to be made in his case, but he had pleaded before many benches of magistrates, and this was the only one in which such a rule prevailed. After a brief discussion, the bench so far relaxed their rule as to allow Mr. Saunders to be sent for before his client was asked what answer he had to make to the charge. As the examination was private we can only report that Basham, was committed to take his trial at the next Assize., bail, not being allowed.

1867: Mar 30 - Norfolk Chronicle:
ARSON AT MATTLSHALL. George Barham (38), labourer, on-bail, was indicted for feloniously setting tire to a stack of hay, the property of Edward John Hoy, at Mattishall, on the 5th February last. - Mr Blofeld appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr Drake defended. The prosecutor deposed that on the day in question he had been away from home, and did not return until midnight. Shortly after he got home he was alarmed by a neighbour named Edwards, who told him that there was a fire in his yard. He went out and saw a hay stack about 600 yards from him in a blaze. It had been raining during the evening, and the ground was in a good condition for retaining footmarks, and some were noticed by the police, who covered them up to preserve them. His LORDSHIP thought that Mr Blofeld had better withdraw the prosecution, as he (his lordship) could not sentence the prisoner without feeling a qualm, for the crime was serious and the evidence slight. A formal verdict of " not guilty" was returned.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1867: Mar 30 - Norwich Mercury:
William Earl, of Mattishall, chimney sweep, was charged with cruelly beating three asses with an ash stick, at the parish of East Dereham, on Friday morning. The case was proved by police-constable Layner and Superintendent Antis, and the defendant was fined 5s, and costs 17s. In default he was committed for fourteen days' with hard labour,

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1867: Apr 6 - Norfolk News:
Richard Spinks, laborer,- Mattishall, charged by Thomas Howe, of the same place, tailor, with assaulting him on the 20th March, escaped with payment of the costs, 12s,. 6d., the complainant withdrawing the charge.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1867: May 18 - Norfolk Chronicle:
Harriet, wife of James Cole, was charged by Louisa Finch with assaulting and beating her at Mattishall Bergh. The parties reside near each other at Mattishall Bergh, and are connected by marriage, the mothers of Finch and the defendant having married brothers. From the plaintiff's statement the quarrel appears to have arisen from the little boy of Cole having been enjoying him self with a swing on Finch's mother's garden gate. Some words arose among the women and afterwards the men became mixed up in the quarrel and words were soon followed by blows. Plaintiff tried to separate the two men when defendant struck her on the face, tore her dress, and pulled the hair off her head. Plaintiff produced a small handful of hair; this, however, defendant claimed as her own, but upon its being compared with the plaintiff's it was evident she was the rightful owner. Defendant was sentenced to pay a fine 5s, and 19s. costs, and declining to do as was sent to Wymondham Bridewell for seven days.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1867: Jul 6 - Norfolk Chronicle:
CHARLES SMALLS, brickmaker, Mattishall, v. FRANCES SMALLS brickmaker, Welborne.—This action, between two brothers, was brought to recover the sum of £26 7s. ld., balance of an account for work and labour said to be performed by the plaintiff for the defendant. Against this the defendant pleaded a set-off of £52 4s. for the use of a horse for tubing earth, Etc. A large number of witnesses were in attendance on both sides, and Mr R T Caney, of Norwich, and Mr Empson of Dereham, were the advocates concerned for the respective parties; but on the case being called, it was intimated that an arrangement had been made to submit the whole of the matters in dispute to arbitration, the decision of the arbitrators to be final, and the award to be delivered before the August Court.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1867: Aug 10 - Norfolk Chronicle:
James Howard, of Mattishall, fowl dealer charged with negligently driving a horse and cart on the turnpike in the same parish, so as to cause hurt to a female passenger on the said turnpike, who it appeared was knocked down and her back injured, pleaded guilty, and was fined 10s, and costs £1 6s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1867: Oct 19 - Norfolk Chronicle:
John Lodge, of Mattishall, labourer, was charged by Police-constable Sparke, with being disorderly in the public inn called the Ringers, at Mattishall, on the 7th inst., and refusing to quit the house when requested so to do by the landlord. Defendant was fined 5s., and costs, 16s. 6d.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1868: Jan 4 - Norfolk Chronicle:
Jonathan Meachen, 20, carpenter, surrendered to his bail, upon a charge of violently assaulting and inflicting grievous bodily harm on William Phillips, by kicking him on the head, at Yaxham, on the 7th December, 1867. - Mr Carlos Cooper prosecuted, and Mr Simms Reeve defended the prisoner. The prosecutor was a labouring man, of Mattishall, and the prisoner a carpenter, and son of the landlord of the Lord Nelson public house, at Yaxham. On Saturday, December 7th, the prisoner went into the Lord Nelson rather "freshly," and stayed there a short time and left after having a dispute with the prisoner's father. The prosecutor returned in the evening between eight and nine o'clock, and sat down in the kitchen and had some conversation with a man named Webster. The prosecutor had occasion to leave the room, and on his return he found that his seat had been taken by a man named Brand, who upon being requested to give up the seat declined. Prosecutor remonstrated with him, and attempted to strike him. The prisoners father and another man got hold of Phillips and removed him from the kitchen, and a struggle ensued, and the prosecutor fell down, when it was alleged the prisoner kicked him on the head in such a violent manner as to render him insensible for about twenty minutes, and ill for about a week. The prosecutor gave his evidence in a very unwilling manner, and it was suggested by the counsel for the prosecution that he had been tampered with by the prisoner's friends. - The defence was that the prosecutor was drank, and in a row fell down upon the door scraper, which caused the wound the prisoner was alleged to have inflicted. - The case lasted several hours, and the jury after a somewhat deliberation returned a verdict of, Not Guilty.

A fuller report of the case
1868: Jan 4 - Norwich Mercury: - CHARGE OF VIOLENTLY ASSAULTING AT YAXHAM.
Jonathan Meachen (20), carpenter, surrendered his bail to a charge of violently assaulting and inflicting grievous bodily harm upon William Phillips, a labourer, by kicking him on the head, at Yaxham, on 7th December last. A second count in the indictment charged the defendant with the commission of a common assault. Mr Cooper prosecuted, and Mr Reeve defended the prisoner. The prosecutor, who resides at Mattishall, was at the Lord Nelson public-house, Yaxham, kept by prisoner's father, between six and seven on the evening in question. He left the house for a short time, and on his return found his seat occupied by a man named Brand, and as he would not budge he sat down upon his knees, for which he received a punch from Brand. Prosecutor then struck at Brand whereupon prisoner's father seized him by the collar threw him down, kicked him in the body, and dragged him out of the house. Whilst lying outside some person kicked him on the back of the head with so much violence that he was rendered insensible, inflicting a wound about two inches in length from which the blood flowed profusely. When he began to revive be was assisted borne, where he remained for a week suffering from the effects of an assault, from which he had not now recovered. Prosecutor admitted that he was intoxicated at the time the assault was committed. In cross-examination, prosecutor said he was not aware that the Meachen entertained any ill feeling towards him. When he got outside the house he had a struggle with prisoner's father, and they both fell to the ground. Some of the persons at the Lord Nelson said his head was cut by his falling against the scraper. In re-examination, prosecutor said he was certain he was kicked on the head. Alfred Daynes gave corroborative evidence, stating that after prosecutor had been thrown down in the public-house by the prisoner's father, prisoner kicked at the lower part of his body but missed him, his foot striking the settle. With an oath prisoner threatened to kill prosecutor, at the same time kicking him violently on the body. Prosecutor was then dragged out of doors, and witness, who followed, there saw him struggling with the elder Meachen, and both fall to the ground, when prisoner kicked prosecutor at the back of the head, saying that he had settled old —. Witness then went up to prosecutor, who appeared to be in a dying state. Murrell Brown, a lad, deposed that when prisoner returned to the house some men said to him,"You have done a nice job for yourself !" when prisoner replied, "What the h— is the use of kicking if you don't make him feel." Shortly after witness went out of doors, and while he was there the prisoner came out and enquired in foul language, where was the blood about which so much noise had been made? In cross-examination, witness said the origin of the disturbance was Phillips sitting upon the knee of the man Brand. Walter Webster, in his evidence, proved hearing prisoner use threatening words towards prosecutor, and seeing him kick him when taken outside by Meachen the elder, upon the back part of the head.
When prisoner got indoors he said he had settled the old -. Mr Reeve, on behalf of the defendant, urged that the wound inflicted upon the head of the prosecutor was not inflicted by the defendant, but that, when struggling with the defendant's father, outside his house, they both fell, the defendant falling upon the scraper, which caused the wound. Mr Reeve then called several witnesses to the defence, who were certain that the defendant never kicked the complainant. One of them, Benjamin Wyatt, said he saw the prosecutor fall with his head quite upon the scraper, and that he had also seen blood upon the scraper. The scraper was about a foot from the door jamb. The other witnesses corroborated different parts of the evidence of the last witness, they having seen only different portions of the scuffling. The Jury, after a long consideration, returned a verdict of not guilty.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1868: Mar 7 - Norfolk Chronicle:
Petty Sessions. - On Saturday - James Baron Muskett, of Mattishall, carpenter, was charged by his brother, George Muskett, of the same place, miller, with wilfully damaging a window belonging to his dwelling-house by throwing a stone through it, and breaking a pane of glass. The alleged injury was committed on Valentine's night, about nine o clock, when, according to the evidence, the defendant was seen to walk up to the complainant's gate and throw a stone at the door, and subsequently two or three more in the same direction. He then threw another, when the witness heard the glass rattle. There was another person with him, but the witness did not see that person throw a stone. Defendant pleaded not guilty but after hearing the evidence, the bench convicted him in the penalty of 6d., damage 9d., and costs 17s, 6d.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1868: Apr 4 - Norfolk Chronicle:
HAY - Mr Feltham appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Saunders for the defendant, In the action, John Colls, farmer, Welborne, v. Christmas Tofts, merchant, Mattishall, brought to recover a claim of £7 18s 3d., balance alleged to be due on on purchase of three tons of hay, at .£3 10s, per ton. The defendant paid £5 16s 3d, into court, so that the amount in dispute was really restricted to £2 3s. After evidence had been adduced on both sides, his Honour said that he thought Mr Tofts had paid in as much as he had any right to do, and therefore gave judgment in his favour, with costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1868: Apr 15 - Norwich Mercury:
James Howard, of Ber Street, tripe dresser, was charged with stealing a gang of bullock's feet, value 1s, 3d., the property of Thomas Fisher, dealer, of Mattishall. Prisoner had been in the habit of buying feet of the prosecutor. On Wednesday last prisoner went to prosecutor's cart at the yard in Bethel Street, where the prosecutor put up, and took a gang or four feet, and told him that he should come for some others. Prosecutor subsequently went to the prisoner's stall in the Market Place, and asked his wife if she was willing to pay for them. She said she knew nothing of the transaction, and refused to pay. He then gave information to the police, and the prisoner was taken into custody. Prisoner was discharged.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1868:
May 28 - Norfolk Cronicle:
Christmas Toffts, farmer, of Mattishall, was summoned by John Colls, farmer. of Welborne, for abusing and assaulting him at the Fountain public-house, St. Benedict's, Norwich on Saturday night, May 9th. Mr Linay (Mr Sadd's) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Alexander Woods, attorney, from Mr Emerson's, defended. It appeared that the defendant was some time since sued by the plaintiff in the County Court when the latter was successful, and this appears to have caused an ill-feeling that manifested itself on the night in question by the defendant using some violent and threatening words, " squaring up" to the defendant, and finishing by striking him on his head. This was clearly proved by the plaintiff, but the defendant alleged that owing to the short notice he had had of the case, he had not been able to secure the attendance of a person, who was present and who could prove that no blow was struck, and nothing done beyond "squaring up" as it was shown, however, that the summons had been served in ample time to enable the defendant to subpena witnesses, and as the case was clearly made out, the Bench find him £1 and costs, or in default of payment 14 days imprisonment. The money was paid.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1868: Jul 18 - Norfolk News:
Christmas Tofts, of Mattishall, corn merchant., was charged by police-constable Sparke with using a light cart, his properly, on the turnpike at East Dereham. without his Christian names &c, &c, being painted thereon, as required by statute. The Bench fined the defendant 1s., and costs 12s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1868: Aug 29 - Norwich Mercury:
Mary Adelaide Bowles, of Mattishall, was charged by Joseph Wodehouse, of the same pariah, and also by Margaret Woodhouse, his wife, with two separate acts of assault stated to have been committed at a public house, where the parties met on the night of the 7th inst. The defendant pleaded guilty to the assault on the man, but denied the other. The Bench, however, fined her 1s, and costs 11s, for the first offence, and ls, and costs £1 12s 6d., for the second. A counter charge of assault, preferred by the defendant against Mrs Wodehouse, was dismissed.

On the same day....
Amy Ann Godfrey
, of Mattishall, was charged with assaulting Laura Osborn, a child ten years of age, and a young woman named Esther 0sborn, a sister of the latter, was charged with assaulting Mrs Godfrey. In these cases the Bench dismissed the charge against Esther Osborn, and fined Mrs Godfrey, for the assault upon the child, 1s, and costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1868: Oct 3 - Norfolk News:
THE PETTY SESSIONS were held on the 25th ultimo, before the Rev P Gurdon (chairman) and other magistrates. Christmas Tofts, of Mattishall, corn merchant, was charged with having had between two and three score sheep, his property, found straying on the public highway at Mattishall on Sunday, the 13th of September. There was also a second charge against him of having released the same sheep from the place where they had been impounded for being found straying as above-named, the person finding them not knowing at the time to whom they belonged. After hearing evidence on both sides, the Bench fined the defendant 1s, in each case, with total costs 17s, 6d.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1868: Oct 17 - Norfolk News:
Christmas Tofts, of Mattishall corn merchant, and Charles Osborn, of the same place, laborer, were charged with trespassing in search of game on land in the occupation of John Mann. Mr J Saunders appeared for the defence; and after hearing all the circumstances, the bench dismissed both cases, it appearing that Mr Tofts, who holds a license to kill game, was merely in pursuit of a wounded partridge, which he had shot on land where he had permission to go, and that Osborne was a servant in his employment at the time.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1868: Oct 24 - Norwich Mercury: - THURSDAY
(J G JOHNSON, Esq, in the Chair) James Howard, of Mattishall, dealer, was charged with being drunk and incapable of taking care of himself, PC, Pike, on Wednesday afternoon, saw the defendant on St. Giles' road driving a horse and cart. The horse was going on the wrong aide of the road, and the officer then found that the prisoner was asleep. With some difficulty he awoke him, and found he was under the influence of drink, and took him into custody.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1868: Nov 7 - Norfolk News:
PETTY SESSIONS - On Tuesday (before H W B Edwards, Esq., and the Rev C B Cooper) John Howard, laborer, Mattishall, was committed for twenty-one days, in default of paying 10s, for negligently driving a waggon with two horses at Honingham on the 3rd ultitmo.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1868: Nov 14 - Norfolk Chronicle:
Petty Sessions, - On Friday, before B Gurdon, Esq., chairman, and other magistrates, Christmas Toffts, a Mattishall, corn merchant, was charged by Edward Daynes, of the same place, labourer, with striking him on the side of the head and using threatening language towards him, whereby he prayed for sureties of the peace. Mr Saunders appeared for the defence. After hearing evidence on both sides, the Bench ordered the defendant to enter into recognisances with two sureties to keep the peace for three calendar months.

On the same day......
Robert Cole, of Mattishall Bergh, labourer, was charged by William W Townshend, of the same place, farrier, with an assault by throwing a stone at him, and was fine 10s, and costs £1.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1868: Nov 14 - Norwich Mercury:
Charles Osborn, of Mattishall, labourer, and Elijah Beckett, of the same place, shoemaker, were charged by George Muskett, of Mattishall, baker, Osborn with stealing a wooden cask, value 4s., and Beckett with receiving the same, knowing it to have been stolen. In consequence of the absence of a witness, the case was adjourned, the defendants being discharged on bail.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1868: Nov 28 - Norfolk Chronicle:
Alcock, of Mattishall Bergh, labourer, was summoned for having unlawfully in his possession certain underwood, namely, some young whitethorn bushes of the value of 3s., the property of — Evans, Esq., but as the defendant had expressed much contrition and hitherto borne a good character, the Bench, at the request of the complainant, allowed him to be discharged on payment of the costs, 8s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1869:
May 22 - Norfolk News:
Petty Sessions were held on the 14th instant, before the Rev P Gurdon, chairman, and other magistrates. - Robert Dack, of North Tuddenham, farmer, Robert Brown, of East Tuddenham, farmer, John Earl, of Mattishall Bergh, chimney-sweeper, and William Earl, of Mattishall Burgh, chimney-sweeper, were charged with allowing animals to stray on the highway, and were fined in various amounts.
Charles Ayres, of Mattishall, laborer, was charged by George Ezekiel Read of the same parish, farmer, with leading a horse on the footpath by the side of the turnpike, road.in Mattishall, "made and set apart" for the use and accommodation of foot passengers. For the defence a person employed as "a road man" on the turnpike was called and stated that there is no public footpath "set out" on the road in question, but that the public have made and use rather more path on the opposite side of the road to that on which complainant was walking. Upon consideration of all the circumstances, the Bench dismissed the case.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1869:
Jul 31 - Norfolk News: EAST DEREHAM, MONDAY, July 26.
"CURSES LIKE CHICKENS GO HOME TO ROOST!" - Emma Sussens, spinster. East Tuddenham sued William Howes, carrier, Mattishall, for the recovery of £1? 13s. for lent money. The appearance of the litigants, two young and respectable-looking people. Indicated that the action had a significance not ordinarily implied in a suit to recover the amount of a a simple cash accommodation. The plaintiff deposed that the money was lent on three separate occasions, the first time being when the defendant said he he required it as he had changed his trousers and left his purse behind. Nobody was present at the loans. In reply to his Honor, the plaintiff said she had not applied to the defendant for repayment before putting him into Court; and being further questioned why she had not done so, she hesitated, and seemed singularly "confused." The defendant in his turn looked equally flabbergasted, and the innocent demeanor of the pair caused a general titter amongst the audience. The Judge repeating his enquiry why she had not it given the defendant an opportunity of settling the matter without a resort to litigation, the plaintiff replied, "Because he was the father of my child, and I did not like." Defendant: "She could not prove it, for when before the magistrates she had not a leg to stand upon." His Honor: "No corroborative evidence? (Laughter) was yours a covered cart?" (Renewed laughter). - Mr Howes, did not deny receiving the money, but said it was in payment of Miss Sussens fare to Norwich, she having been in the habit of riding with him without settling at the time. - His Honor said he hardly knew what to do in such a case, the parties contradicting each other so plainly. He would give the plaintiff judgment for £1.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1870: Jan 8 - Norfolk News:
Asserted Turkey Stealing - John Dack (42), fowl-dealer, was indicted for stealing ten turkeys, of the value of £7, the property of Mr John Vincent, farmer, North Tuddenham, on the 15th of December last; and a second count in the indictment charged the prisoner with receiving the fowls knowing them to have been stolen. Mr Carlos Cooper was the prosecuting counsel, and Mr J Collyer (for Mr Simms Reeve) defended. The facts appeared so fully when the case was recently before the magistrates, that it is unnecessary to reproduce them at any length. It was shown that the prisoner, who lived at Mattishall, about a mile-and-a-half from North Tuddenham, had been to the prosecutor's some three weeks before the date of the alleged robbery, with the object of turkey-buying; and it was the theory for the prosecution that he thus had the opportunity of making himself acquainted with the method of carrying out the felony. When the poultry were missed, the prosecutor went to Norwich, where he made the discovery that the prisoner had sold nine turkeys to one Thomas Crotch, fowl-dealer, Heigham; and on seeing them, he identified two of them as his property, and two of them, he said, he could swear to, as he had seen and fed them daily for six months before they were missed. Information of the circumstance having reached the County Police Station, Sergeant E Garrod saw the prisoner, who at once acknowledged that he had sold some turkeys to Crotch. Upon being asked where he had them from, he replied that he had purchased them at Fakenham, but neither knew the man he bought them of, nor the price be paid for them; and this pretended ignorance led Garrod to take him into custody. For the defence, Mr Collyer admitted that although the case against the prisoner might not be free from doubt, yet that it was not sufficiently strong to warrant a hostile verdict. The jury, without a moment's hesitation, convicted the prisoner, who, after a suitable admonition, was sentenced to four months' hard labor. On the application of Mr Cooper, the fowls seen at Crotch's were directed to be restored to the prosecutor; and that of £5 6s, found upon the prisoner when he was apprehended, the sum of £4 17s, was ordered to be returned to Crotch, that being the amount he paid to the prisoner for the turkeys. The Court gave it to be understood that it was in its option to accede to such a request; and it did so in this instance because there was no reason to believe that Crotch, who was a regular fowl-dealer, had given an unfair price for the turkeys.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1870: Feb 12 - Norfolk News:
Thomas Fisher, skin-buyer, Mattishall, was charged with stealing two skins from the Wheat Sheaf public house, Bethel-street. Although taken from the Wheat Sheaf, the skins were claimed by Robert Hartliment, fishmonger, as his property, The answer to the charge was, that the skins were not taken with a felonious intent; and in his address to the Bench on behalf of the prisoner (a highly-respectable looking man), Mr Linay made some severe comments on the conduct of Hardiment in dragging an honorable and honest man before the Court, when with a very little trouble, he might have seen that it was only an unintentional error which had been committed by Fisher. The case was dismissed.
MORE - Born Thomas Isbel Fisher on June 7th 1815 at Mattishall Burgh the son of William Fisher and his wife Ann Isbel. He married Hannah Bowels September 25th 1836 at Mattishall, they had no children.

The case:-
1870:
Aug 20 - Ipswich Journal: - SENDING BAD MEAT TO MARKET.
On Wednesday Thomas Fisher, a kackerer carrying on business at Mattishall, was summoned before Sir S H Waterlow at Guildhall. London, for sending three-quarters and a half of beef to the London market for sale as human food, the same being diseased, unsound, unwholesome, and unfit for the food of man. From the evidence of Mr Baylis, who prosecuted on behalf of the Commissioner of Sewers, it appeared that the animal belonged to a grazier in the neighbourhood of the defendant, and I being affected with lung disease, he sent for the defendant to kill it for the dogs. The meat was dressed and sent to London, but when it arrived it was entirely unfit for food. On behalf of the defendant, it was contended that the meat was fit for human food when he sent it, but that the hot weather had made it become putrid. He considered it a clean, healthy beast, and too good for the dogs; but when it was opened he saw that, it had fallen from its having a nail in its heart. To inflicting punishment upon defendant, Sir S Watertow said he was reluctant to send a man like him to prison, but be must fine him the full penalty and costs, £20 fine and £5 5s, costs, or in default one month's imprisonment. Not being aisle to pay the money, the defendant, said he must serve the month.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1870:
Feb 19 - Norfolk News EDWARD DOBBS V WILLIAM MURRELL AND SON
This was an action to recover £14. Is. 5d. on account stated. Mr Stanley appeared for the plaintiff, a wheelwright. and living at Mattishall; Mr Saunders being for the defendant, merchants in a large way of business at Yaxham and Dereham. His Honor gave judgment for the plaintiff for £10 with costs of one witness.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1870: Jul 23 - Norfolk News:
EAST DEREHAM - The Petty Sessions were held on the 15th instant (W E Bulwer, Esq, in the chair), when William Burrows, of Mattishall, sawyer, was charged by Lucy Ann Middleton, of the same parish, with using threatening language towards her, whereby she had been put in fear of bodily injury. Mr H Feltham, of Hingham, appeared for the defendant, and after hearing all the circumstances the Bench dismissed the case.

On the same day.....
Edward Culyer
, of Mattishall, farmer, was charged by Police-constable Andrews with allowing fourteen sheep to stray on the public highway called "The Hall Road," and was fined 1s, and costs 5s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1870: Aug 6 - Norfolk News:
William Townshend, of Mattishall, farrier, was charged with assaulting Susan Edwards, of Mattishall Bergh; but after hearing all the circumstances, the Bench dismissed the case.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1870:
Sep 3 - Norfolk News:
REMINISCENCE OF ELECTION ROW - The claim in the action, William Henry Lenton, chemist, Dereham, v. John Edwards, saddler, Mattishall, was 4s, 6d, for work and labor as an apothecary. Mr Edwards put in no appearance. It seemed that on the day of last South Norfolk election, in which be took considerable interest, the defendant allowed his feelings to get the better of his judgment, and under the influence of being at least seventy-five per cent. "on," was hurried, either with or against his will, into a row-inclined mob, where he had the misfortune to get his head broken, In this deplorable plight, he went or was taken to the shop of Lenten, where, surrounded by an anxious crowd of spectators, the the wounded top-piece was dressed with the skill and care for which the plaintiff is well-:mown. For the moment, gratitude was the ail-absorbing sentiment of Mr Edwards soul, and it found expression in a promise of payment "next week" Not keeping his word, Mr Lenten, fearing the patient might be worse, went to see him at Mattishall, when, instead of
receiving his money, he only received, if not actual kicks and cuffs, an unpleasant amount of insolence. Naturally enough, the plaintiff thought this was "to bad;" and time failing to bring Mr Edwards to a healthier state of mind, the law was evoked to enforce payment of a debt which most men would have been only too happy to have discharged without the creditor's resort to compulsion. The plaintiff having described the defendant, as a master saddler, his Honor gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs - so that Mr Edwards, instead of escaping with an outlay of 4s 6d., will have the satisfaction of paying something nearer 30s, than 20s.!

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1870: Oct 22 - Norfolk News:
William Horne, of Mattishall, grocer, was charged by the Inspector with having had in his shop on the 26th ult, an unjust weight intended to represent a 4lb weight. The defendant, in extenuation, gave an explanation of the circumstances under which the weight came into his possession, and was fined 1s and costs 12s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1871:
Apr 4 - Norwich Mucury -
THE MATTISHALL TRESPASS CASE
This case, the facts of which our readers have already been acquainted by the reports of the proceedings before the Dereham Bench of Magistrates, came before his Honour, Mr Edward Spark., of Mattishall, gentleman, having taken out summonses against several of the men, claiming damages in respect of their conduct on the occasion complained of. Mr T C Blofeld for the plaintiff and Mr I Chittock for the defendants, - A test case was first proceeded with. Mr Blofeld, in opening, the case for the plaintiff, said the action was brought for injury done to building materials upon Mr Sparke's land, by throwing them from one place to another. Mr Chittock said he came to answer a case of doing damage to cottages. His Honour' said damages was a large word. Something more specific ought to have been mentioned in the summons. He, however, had the power of amending the summons if he thought proper, and he thought that the damages should have been claimed for trespass. Mr Blofeld then proceeded to detail the facts of the case, and then called Mr John Whiting, manager to Mr Skipper, who produced a plan of the cottages to which the plaintiff ordered his master to make additions. In answer to Mr Chittock witness said be had only known the property about a year. He had not examined the ground when the additions were made to the buildings, and could not say if they were built over old foundations. Mr. Sparke the plaintiff said he owned property at Mattishall. Up to March 25th he was one of the overseers of that parish, and had been so for the past nine or ten years. He bought the cottages in question in April, 1878, from Phillip Tooley’s executors. It was copyhold, and he was admitted in January, 1877. Behind the cottages was a coal shed, and from the west corner of cottages to the south side of the coal shed were two gates connected with each other - one 5ft, and the other 9ft, wide. At the further end were some rails, and this quite enclosed the yard. At the north-east corner was a fence, which ran to some property belonging to another person. From the time he purchased the property to the time of the claim being made, no person had claimed or used the property but himself. He knew it when it was in the occupation of Tooley, which extended over six years, and the property was in the same state then. In September last he arranged with Mr Skipper to add to the extent of the cottages at the back eight feet. Behind them were some sheds occupied by himself, and in which some cows were kept. The work was commenced in September, and for the purpose of facilitating the work the gates were taken down, and the materials used in the erection of the buildings were carted through. In December the roof had been got on, and the building was covered in, and it was not until then that a claim was made to a portion of the land. Then two men, by the names of Pond and Land, went to see him, and the former said he was come to show Land the land belonging to the poor of the parish, and upon which the defendant had encroached. Pond said Land was the secretary to the Agricultural Labourers Union. Plaintiff told him he was not aware that he had made any encroachments. When he bought it, it was not represented to him that it belonged to the parish. The matter then ended, and on January 4th a quantity of manure was lying is the yard. On that day he left home, and upon his return he found it had all been thrown against the cow-house, which it blocked up. In the shed there was one cow, and before it could be milked all the manure had to be removed. A quantity of paving stones had also been taken from the place where he had them placed, and thrown in the pig-house. Bricks and tiles and other building materials left in the yard were thrown - some into the cart lodge and others against the pantry. The material was broken, and some of the doors, together with the jamb, damaged. The scaffolding was also removed, and some of it broken. A few days after, a pariah meeting was held, at which he did not attend, and on March a number of men came to his premises, and, armed with pickaxes, &c., pulled the newly-formed building down. He took proceedings against the men, and when the case came on before the Magistrates, they dismissed it on the ground that a question of title was raised. He heard that the parish claimed a right to the land, but during the time he had been overseer, and the property was in the hands of Mr Tooley, he never had heard that the parish claimed it. He had known the property for the past twelve years. Although he not build upon the property immediately he purchased it, yet he used it for the purposes of his trade, and the tenants of the cottages had paid the rent. Some of the alterations were executed by contract; others were not. The bricks and tiles were provided by him the former he made himself. He had not built on the old foundations. Mr Chittock - When before the Magistrates you admitted you had done so, Plaintiff - I did no such thing. Of course there is some concrete stuff running over the yard, but I have seen no foundations. In answer to further a questions, be said he might have built upon the site where the old cottages stood. He could not find the foundations, and he had not had them pointed out to him. He extended the building eight feet. He was in possession of his admission to the land, but the document did not state how wide it was, and there was no copyhold description. Mr. Gowen, one of the churchwardens, together with the Rev I M Du Pont had spoken to him on the subject claiming the land as the property of the poor of the parish, but that was not until after the building was covered in. The latter said a deputation had waited upon him in reference to his build upon the land, and that they considered an encroachment had been made upon their rights, and he (plaintiff) then agreed, upon their proving their right to the land, either to take it down, pay ground rent, or make compensation. He did not say that he had only taken three or four feet. Mr Du Pont and Mr Gowen expressed their satisfaction and promised to investigate the matter, but from that time until now he had heard of no decision being arrived at. His Honour remarked that it the land was a copyhold belonging to the overseers they must be admitted to it as plaintiff had. He was of the opinion, for the purposes of the day, that it was an unjustifiable trespass for any individual to do all this damage. It would not do to allow a parishioner to go and act in this way. If there was a right then the Churchwardens must bring an action against Mr Sparkes for trespassing and building on parish property. Such acts as had been committed - if allowed to be repeated - would bring a village to a state of anarchy. He should not decide upon the right of the parish to the land, and should give no opinion thereon. The men acted unjustifiably as individuals, and had no right to do that; therefore they are responsible for damages. Mr Chittock - Adjourn it for three months. Mr Blofeld - That alone will be of no use. I want to stop these practices. These men themselves cannot undertake to do so for the poor of the parish. His Honour - If it was one individual I should enjoin him not to do so again.
Mr Chittock - The parish do not mean to let Mr Sparkes have the land. His Honour (to Mr. Blofeld) - You want a fine, and you shall have it. Whether there is a right or not is another question, and can be settled at another time. I hope, however, that after the decision that I shall give, the men will have sufficient good sense not to attempt to do this damage. The question I now decide upon will not touch that of title, but of trespass. Mr Chittock - There is no proof that any one of these men did the damage; they are not joined together as defendants. His Honour - That, however, that will apply to the matter of costs. I shall not inflict a flue upon each individual. Mr Chittock – I’ll take a verdict against one man. His Honour - This is taken as a teat case, and I shall give judgment for plaintiff for 5s and costs. The other cases will be dismissed. I do this without I giving an opinion on the question of title.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1871: Jun 17 - Norwich Mercury: - JURY CASE
Burroughs v. Sparkes. - Plaintiff is a brickmaker, living at Sprowston, near Norwich, and defendant is Edwin Sparkes, farmer, living near Mattishall, and the claim was for some bricks which plaintiff made for defendant. There were a great many witnesses in this case, which occupied the Court chief part of the day. Mr Carlos Cooper, for plaintiff ; and Mr Simons Reeve, for defendant. About the 24th of July, complainant was called upon by a man named Murray, who said that Sparkes wanted to see him. In consequence of that plaintiff went to the Grapes Hotel and saw Sparkes there, who told him that he required 100.000 bricks, to be made from some earth on his land. The plaintiff very naturally enquired what he would be expected to find. He was told by defendant that he would be required to find coals and wood, and that defendant would do all the carting required. The plaintiff asked 16s,
per thousand, to which defendant rather demurred, and it was ultimately arranged that plaintiff should supply them for 15s 6d per thousand, and a contract was drawn up there and then and signed by the plaintiff. It was in the, following form : - "Norwich, July 27th, 1868. Memorandum - Between Edwin Sparkes and Thomas Burroughes. To make 100,000 good clamp bricks, of good quality, the said Thomas Burroughs to supply all materials except carting." Plaintiff at first, said that only two clamps would be required, but afterwards he told defendant that be should be obliged to have four clamps. When plaintiff went to Mattishall with some of his men and one named Morris, he complained of the earth, from which be said he should never be able to make good bricks, as it was too late in the season. Defendant said, "There is the earth and I want the bricks, and I don't want to learn to be a brickmaker." Plaintiff thereupon entered into a sub-contract with Morris, plaintiff, agreeing to find coals and wood, paying him 10s, per thousand. The first clamp, which consisted of 23,500, and valued at £18 4s 6d, were good bricks, and were all need, as was also the second clamp, which contained 24,000. The third clamp, containing 25,000, however, did not suit the defendant so well. He complained of their being soft, and the bricks were accordingly reburnt. Complaint was again made because of their being blistered. Plaintiff then told defendant the season was so wet, and it was too late in the year to make good bricks. He said had the earth been dug the preceding winter, and exposed to the action of the air, it would have been much better suited to make bricks, as it would then have been more plastic. The fourth clamp, which was bunt in November, and contained 24,500 bricks, were so bad that the defendant refused to accept them. It was said that they would do very well for inside work; and were known as "salmon." This clamp contained two-thirds hard brick, and and one third "salmon." Defendant had "drawn" the third and fourth clamps himself, the bricks were blistered. Before any of the bricks were burnt plaintiff very candidly told defendant that he required some money, and defendant gave him a cheque on the 6th August, for £5, on the 20th August another cheque for £10; and on the 20th December £10, in all £25. The total claim with £2 for coals, was £74, 17s., but the plaintiff admitted a set off of £25, the amount of these cheque, and various small items which went to make up a total set-off of £32, 4s. 10d., thus reducing the balance due to plaintiff to £42, 12s. When the fourth and last clamp was ready for use, plaintiff told defendant he should be glad if the balance due to him were paid. An appointment was made at the Bell Hotel, and on the following Saturday plaintiff met defendant there. Defendant then said he should pay to more whatever, and referred him to Mr Culley, his solicitor.
Evidence wes given on the plaintiff's part to show that the work was done in a workmanlike manner, that no time was lost on plaintiff's part, and that the bricks were of as good quality as could be possibly made with the earth.
For the defence, it was contended that the bricks were not of good quality, and witnesses were called whose testimony went to show that the bricks were "not good clamp bricks, of good quality," as mentioned in the contract. A brick was shown in Court, made from the same earth since defendant left, which it was admitted by the plaintiff was a decent sort of a brick. The architect, Mr John Bunn, employed by the defendant on the Malt-House for which the bricks were required, had condemned the bricks as being unfit for building schools at Mattishall.
Mr Cooper then addressed the jury, contending that the defendant was not bound to supply better bricks than could be obtained from the earth at Mattishall. Under any circumstances, the defendant was bound to pay for the two fret clamps, all of which be had used.
His HONOUR., in summing up, said there was only two questions for them to decide.

With regard to the first and second clamps which had been taken by defendant and used, it would be really quite contrary to all ordinary business transactions if a person, after purchasing and using the brinks, were allowed to come into the Court to have them valued. His Honour then went on to say that had defendant not burnt the third and fourth clamps, he would have been liable for an action for breach of contract, knowing as he did that the weather was so unfavorable to it. Then, too, the bricks did not belong to plaintiff, they were made on defendant's estate, for economy no doubt, and if plaintiff had wished to move them, or to sell them to somebody else for a higher price, defendant would have said he was trespassing, and that he was taking away his property. Defendant had really taken possession of the brinks by the fact of his having "drawn" them.
The jury, after a short consultation, gave a verdict for plaintiff, the full value on the first and second clamp, and 11s, per thousand on the third and fourth clamp.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1871: Jul 15 - Norfolk Chronicle: - Laying the Foundation Stone of a National School at Mattishall.
Thursday week was an attractive and indeed an eventful day in the ordinarily quiet village of Mattishall. It was the occasion of the laying of the foundation stone of a National school for the poorer people of that and the adjoining parish of Mattishall Burgh, and as the most fitting form in which to honour the event, the worthy and esteemed vicar, the Rev J M Du Port, held a special choral service in the church, in the afternoon. There was as excellent attendance at the service, the congregation including many ladies and gentlemen, principally residing in the neighbourhood. On entering the church a feature of interest presented itself in the font, which was most elegantly decorated with ferns, exotica, choice pot plants, and roses, whilst the general appearance of the church showed to those who had not recently visited it, that it has undergone several improving changes. Four choirs, numbering about eighty voices, took part in the service - namely, Hockering, Brandon Parva, Carlton, and Mattishall. As the clergy entered the church in procession, the hymn, "Come ye faithful, raise the anthem," was sung, and the prayer, were in toned by the Rev P P Owyn and the Rev W T Moore. The lessons were read by the Rev E Gurdon and the Rev J E Cooper. The anthem was taken from Psalm cxvii, "O praise the Lord all
ye heathen," and the hymns before and after the sermon were, "Jesus, our hope, our heart's desire," and "The Church's one foundation." Throughout, the singing was very creditable. The Psalms were chanted with fair accuracy as to time, whilst, generally, it was apparent that the members of the choirs have been taught not merely to sing music correctly, but also to appreciate the value of a clear articulation and an intelligent sense of the meaning of the words. The sermon wan preached by the Hon, Canon Hinds Howell from the 1st Lesson for evening service, Proverbs xxii, 6. - "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." The rev, gentleman commenced his remarks by pointing out that the Bible is very different from every, other book, not only in its old quaint language, and in the subjects with which it treats, but also in the way in which it comes home to us and opens our hearts, showing us what we are; one time it fills us with fears and sadness, and at another time with hope and joy. It was adapted to the wants of man either in seasons of mirth or of dark and gloomy trouble. This adaptability arose from the fact that it is the Word of God. But there was a mysterious peculiarity in Gods Word which, perhaps, we had not sufficiently considered - that there should be so much in it about children. We are always meeting with them in some way or another. They occurred over, and over again in the historical books; the Psalms were full of them; they furnished the prophets with their commonest images, and, above all, they occupied a most conspicuous place in time teaching of our blessed Master, Jesus Christ, who blessed them and said that except a man become as a little child he could not enter into the kingdom of heaven. It was because little children were Christ's brethren and because Christ Himself for their sake became a little one that so much was said about them in Holy Scripture. And they were in this special manner Christ's brethren because of holy Baptism in which, having been born in sin and being children of wrath, they were made members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven. After speaking upon the solemn view of holy baptism given in Holy Scripture, Mr Hinds Howell adverted to the laying of the foundation stone of schools for this and a small neighbouring parish. In a few short months, he said, those schools would be open, and the question in these days of rebuke and ungodly teaching was forced on the Church, "How shall we best keep alive the gift of the Spirit given in baptism to Christ's little ones? - how shall we be of one heart with our holy fathers who sleep around us?" - but in training up our little ones in paths of peace and pleasantness, and by training each child in the way in which he should go, so that when he was old he would not depart from it. Trouble was upon the earth and restlessness and perplexity; men were looking out for some great thing, and they who would adhere to the ancient landmarks in Church and State were full of trembling. Only one Power could bear them up against the ungodly teaching of the day, and he earnestly exhorted the members of the Church to have no differences, no diversity of opinion, no party animosities, and no cruel misunderstandings with each other. The children of the Church must be educated and the education must be that of baptized souls. The Church Catechism must be the model of their teaching, - the Church Catechism for Church children, - and it was their duty to see them so trained that no promise or vow should bo neglected or forgotten. In the baptismal service the Church provided that the children dedicated to God's service should "be taught the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and be further instructed in the Church Catechism set forth for that purpose." And why was this? Because the provision was always made for the child that when merging into man he should be brought to the Church's chief minister, the Bishop, to be confirmed, so soon as the child could say those things above set forth. The rev, gentleman from these premises argued that it was the duty of the Church to provide her children with a religious and Church education, and that although she did not state the time that education was to begin she implied it in the charge she gave. He also directed attention to the fact that it was impossible to say what spiritual work God might do in the heart of the youngest child, and next proceeded to contend that children should be taught to be Churchmen as well I as Christians. Adverting to the recent legislative change with regard to education, he inculcated the duty of the Church upholding her own teaching to, the utmost of her power, and on this point he quoted the words of the Bishop of Winchester: - "Education without particular religious teaching is a fog, a smoke, a sham." There could be, the preacher continued, no education without religion. The one principle on which we ought to begin, to carry on, and to finish the education of children must be built on the teaching of God's Church. I say of Christian children generally, whatsoever the quality of their education in other respects, it is above all things necessary that they should be trained in the fear and love of God. Are they not baptised by one baptism in the faith of one Lord, in the communion of one Christ, and for what purpose is their baptism if no pains are taken to train them up according to their privileges? Will it not rather add to the weight of what they have to answer for, - will it not increase their sinfulness, - if they are suffered to grow up as if they were not pledged to holiness of life, and what shall hinder them from growing up in ungodliness, unless they are trained in the ways of God's truth! What shall make them, when they come of age, likely to act up to the character they took upon themselves in holy baptism, unless there has been anxious attention paid continually to those blessed truths contained in that model of Christian education, our own Church Catechism." The rev, preacher concluded an able sermon by some practical remarks addressed to parents and children as to their duty with regard to the schools when built. The collection amounted to £11, 4s, 03/4d.
The clergy then left the church in procession, and with the congregation proceeded to the "School-field," which is situate most conveniently near the church, next the turnpike-road. Several flags indicated that something unusual was going on, and the people for whose children the school is be built were fully represented. Mrs Paddon gave the site, and the cost of the school, which will accommodate 175 children, is estimated at £800. Of this amount about £400 has been subscribed, Mr and Mrs Edward Sparks of Gunthorpe giving £125, Mr Donne and the vicar £100 each, and the Rev M J Anderson £30. The farmers will do the necessary carting. After the stone and building had been dedicated by Mr Du Port, the stone was laid by E B Sparks, Esq., and the hymn "Come, sing with holy gladness " (Appendix, "Hymns Ancient and Modern") was sung. The benediction was afterwards pronounced and the ceremony was at an end.
The following clergymen were present, in addition to those mentioned as officiating at the church: - Revs, M J Andersen, J B Johnson, W C Davie, B Cooper, F B De Chair, J Durst, B J Armstrong, A B Crosse, J Rust, T Marsh, C Joyce, T L Fellow, H Daveney, and A B Slipper. Among the other visitors were Capt and Mrs Bulwer, Mrs and Miss Edwards (Hardingham), Mrs Coliett and Miss Hosts, Mrs Garden, Mr and Mrs Carthew, Mrs Burst, Mrs Millett and party, Miss Evans, Miss Pourice, Mrs and Miss Gwyn, Mrs Cooper, &c. It only remains to add that the hospitality for which Mattishall vicarage bears so good a name, was not wanting on this occasion.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1871: Sep 16 - Norwich Mercury:
Charles Small v. Edward Sparkes, - plaintiff is a brickmaker, at Mattishall, and defendant is a merchant, of the same place. There was a cross-summons in which Small was sued by Sparkes for damages sustained by breach of contract. Mr Sparrow was for Small and Mr Culley was for Sparkes. In February, 1869, defendant spoke to plaintiff about the making some bricks from some earth about half a mile from the defendant's house at Mattishall. It was a verbal agreement, and plaintiff was to be paid 14s, per thousand for clamps, and 18s, per thousand for kiln. Some misapprehension seems to have existed as to the number of the bricks to be made. About 35,000 bricks had been made by plaintiff when defendant ordered that no more should be made, as the bricks were not good. About March, however, in the following year, complainant again spoke to defendant about the earth left unmade up, and it was agreed that the defendant should again go on with his brickmaking, the arrangement at that time being that the bricks should be paid for as the bricks were burnt. About 60,000 had been burnt, but the defendant not fulfilling his part of the contract by immediate payment, plaintiff, was obliged to discharge his men, being unable to pay them. In the cross summons Sparkes asserted that 180,000 bricks were to be made, and that payment was to be made at the completion of the contract. Small claimed £14, 7s, after allowing a set-off of £5, which Sparkes had paid him, and £1, 5s, for carting of coals. His HONOR said as there was no written contract, and as there was an improbability in the case, he must take a common sense view of the case, and suppose that Small would have been anxious to have executed the larger order, had it been expressed. He gave verdict for complainant in the first summons, and a nonsuit was entered in the second.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1872: Jun 22 - Norwich Mercury:
John Leader, of Mattishall, cow doctor, was charged by pc-Clarke, with being drunk at Dereham, on the morning of Saturday, the 1st inst, and was fined 5s and costs 17s 6d.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1872: Jul 6 - Norwich Mercury:
William Frost, of Mattishall, shoemaker, for being drunk at Mattishall, on Sunday 16th ult, was fined 5s, and costs 12s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1872:
Aug 24 - Norwich Murcury
INQUEST. An inquest was held in this parish on Monday last, before R T Culley, Esq, the body of Jesse Bruton, aged 24 years. The deceased was subject to fits, and on Saturday last was found dead in a ditch of water by the side of the road, and from the position in which the body was found, there was no doubt the deceased fell in whilst in a fit, and was suffocated. The jury returned a verdict accordingly.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1872:
Sep 28 - Norwich Mercury:
Edward Sparks, of Mattishall, farmer, was summoned by one of his harvest men, named John Arterton, respecting a dispute between them as to wages. On hearing the particulars, the Bench ordered the master to pay the sum of 30s., making up a total of £5.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1872: Dec 11 - Norwich Mercury:
JOHN HOWARD - Mattishall, dealer, sued CHARLES YOUNGS, East Dereham, coal seller, for 12s. for breach of contract. The plaintiff said the defendant agreed to sell him a quantity of apples, but that when be went for them they were refused him by the defendant's wife. He did not see defendant till a week after, at Norwich, when he told him that his wife had refused to let him have the apples. Defendant said previous to this the plaintiff, when he had come for another lot of apples, had taken more than his measure, and he had not given the price agreed upon. His HONOUR said the plaintiff ought, when the wife refused him the apples to have immediately sought out the defendant, but having let a whole week pass, he must give a judgment for the defendant.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1873:
Sep 27 - Norwich Mercury:
Thomas Howlett, of Mattishall, blacksmith. charged by Timothy Meachen, of Yaxham, landlord of the Lord Nelson Inn, with being disorderly on his premises and refusing to leave, was fined 2s 6d, and costs 15s. 3d. Charged with assaulting George Brand, of Yaxham, labourer, at the same time and place, was fined 2s. 6d. and costs 12s. 9d.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1873: Oct 18 - Norwich Mercury:
SAMUEL BLANCH, blacksmith, Mattishall, v. HENRY BRAND, labourer, Hockering. - In this action the amount sought to be recovered was £1 12s, being namely, 2s, due on a coat, and 30s, for loss arising out of the exchange of a donkey for a pony. Blanch got the pony, to which he gave a woeful character. Although it had been warranted sound by the defendant, it was so unsound and rickety that when it essayed to move along it, fell down, several people having to be employed in lifting it up. The plaintiff told his tale with an air of seeming sincerity and truthfulness; but failing to convince His HONOUR that he was entitled to anything on account of the pony, he only got judgment for the 2s, remaining unpaid on the coat.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1874: Jun 13 - Norwich Mercury:
Thomas Earle, of Mattishall, chimney sweep, and Alfred Webster, of Mattishall, labourer, for being drunk and disorderly on the highway at Mattishall, were each fined 5s., and costs 16s. - William Phillips, of Mattishall, labourer, for a like offence was fined 5s., and costs 12s. - Edward Murrell, for being disorderly at the George Inn at Mattishall on Whit-Sunday, and refusing to leave, was fined 10s, and costs 18s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1874: Sep 5 - Norwich Mercury:
John Dack and James Dack of Mattishall Bergh, for allowing cattle to stray, were severally fined 1s and costs, 5s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1874: Dec 26 - Norwich Mercury:
John Dack, of Mattishall Bergh, fowl dealer, charge by John Culyer, of Mattishall, innkeeper, with being drunk on his licensed premises The Ringers, and refusing to leave, was fined 5s with costs £1, 12s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1875: Jan 9 - Norwich Mercury:
Harvey Cole of Mattishall, labourer. was charged with cruely ill-treating a horse at Whinbergh on December 2nd by working it when in a weak condition, and having a large raw wound on its shoulder, and was fined 10s and costs 19s 6d.
The same day - William Earl and Thomas Earl of Mattishall Bergh, labourers, were charged by Matthew Greenwood with trespassing in search of rabbits on his land at Mattishall on December 17th, and were each fined 1s and costs 15s 9d.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1875: Jun 5 - Norwich Mercury:
William Frost, of Mattishall, shoemaker, for being drunk on 17th ult., was fined 5s, and costs 13s, - John Dack, of Mattishall Bergh, fowl dealer, for allowing his horse to stray, was fined 2s, 6d. and costs 5s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1875: Jul 31 - Norwich Mercury:
William Eke, of Yaxham, labourer, for being drunk on the public highway at Mattishall on the 8th inst, was fined in his absence 10s, and costs 18s. - James Howard, of Mattishall, fowl dealer, for allowing his mare to stray, was fined 1s, and costs 5s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1876: Jan 15 - Norwich Mercury: - COUNTY COURT - Thursday
Before EDWIN PLUMER PRICE, Esq., Q.C., Judge. - W K Francis, auctioneer, Dereham, v. John Osborne, innkeeper, Mattishall. - Mr W A Barton, (of Wright and Barton), appeared for the plaintiff in this case, which was brought to recover the sum of £21, the price of a filly sold at an auction. Mr Osborne had given notice of his intention to defend, but he made no response. His HONOUR said that under the new roles in the County Courts, defendants, by giving notice, gained so much time that in the meanwhile they were able to do away with their goods, and thus defeat their creditor's claims. Mr Francis said that was just what the defendant had done. His HONOUR inquired whether the defendant had not left as much undisposed of as might suffice to cover an execution. Mr Francis said he was not sure about that, but if the defendant were committed to prison for six weeks, he would soon pay the money. (Laughter.) His HONOUR said he could not make an order for imprisonment at that stage, but he would not hesitate as to which he ought to do if the defendant did not pay the money due by him to the plaintiff, for whom there would be judgment, with costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1876: Jan 15 - Norwich Mercury:
JOHN HUTSON, painter, Yaxham, v. JOHN EDWARDS, harness maker, Mattishall - This was an action in detinue with reference to a set of harness, the price of which was £3, 5s. It seemed, from the plaintiff's statement, that he paid for the harness when it was brought to him, but as it was too small the defendant took it away again and did not return it, nor let the plaintiff have his money back. The defendant signified his willingness to furnish the plaintiff with a suitable set of harness, if time were allowed him, and the case was ordered to stand adjourned with that object.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1876: Jan 29 - Norwich Mercury: - MATTISHALL
Meritorious Conduct - On Monday night last, as a gentleman was traveling from East Tuddenham to Welborne, he lost a £5 note. It was picked up by one William Turner, a lad from Diss, who is staying at his uncle's, at Mattishall, and who restored it to the owner. He received 5s, reward. Great credit is due to William Turner for his promptness and integrity.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1876: Jun 3 - Norwich Mercury:
William Townshend, of Mattishall, farrier, for assaultingThomas Howe, was fined 1s, and costs 14s, 6d.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1876: Nov 29 - Norwich Mercury: - A DRUNKEN MAN'S MISADVENTURE
Frederick Green (22), groom, was indicted for feloniously assaulting William Isbell, and stealing from his person the sum of 12s., his money, at East Dereham, on the 27th of October. Mr B Reeve prosecuted; and the prisoner was undefended. William Isbell said he was a carpenter, living at Mattishall, about four miles from Dereham. Between two and three o'clock on the above day he went to Dereham, having 30s, in gold in his pocket. During the coarse of the afternoon he paid 10s. on account of a coat, and 6s, 6d, on a pair of boots. He then made visits to a series of public-houses, and stayed drinking in the Bull till twelve o'clock. Green, who was at the Bull, and who had known him a long while, drank with him. At the time of leaving the Bull, Isbell said he was not sober. Green followed him out, and walked close behind him as far as the King's Head. At the time of leaving he had 12s, in his purse in his right trouser's pocket. Green was close to him at the time he put his money into his pocket after paying for some beer. At the King's Head, which is on the Norwich Road, prisoner halted, and Isbell continued on his way towards Elwin's, at which spot he observed the prisoner and two others coming up behind him. He commenced running, and the men started after him, and after passing the railway crossing he laid down against the palings inside the coal yard, thinking that they would pass him. This, however, they did not do, but entering the yard, they "fell upon him," one getting hold of his hand, and kicking him, another lying upon his legs, and another took the purse and money out of his pocket, and after emptying it put it back. They interrupted his view by pulling his arms over his eyes. Prisoner was one of the men. He was kicked in his back and very much bruised. After putting back the purse the men kicked him and said
"Go home you -- ." They then went away. During the assault, the men said "As how I was on their master's premises." After leaving him the men went townwards, and he went towards his home, but on going across some fields he laid down and went to sleep, and got home about four o'clock in the morning. He went to the Bull the next evening and there made known his loss. On the following Monday morning he was at home, and Green and a man named Chambers came there. Green, who is a Dereham man, said he was come to know what witness had been talking about him. To that Isbell replied, "That you will have to make out, you see how you have been knocking me about," and added that he was going to get a warrant out for him in the afternoon, for knocking him about and robbing him of 12s. To that Green replied, "No, pray don't do that, I'll pay you any money," and Isbell said, "If you bring the money back you took oat of my pocket, I'll say no more about it." Green then left, and returning in about a couple of hours he laid the money upon the table, saying, "Now, we are all right." He did not prosecute, and he did not desire to put the law into motion. The other men were strangers, and he could not say whether Chambers was one of the men or not. Cross-examined by the prosecutor - I did not go into the King's Head. PC- Cooper, stationed at Dereham, said it coming to his knowledge that Isbell had been robbed he made enquiries, then reported it to his superintendent, under whose directions he procured a warrant and apprehended the prisoner, who said, "Oh, I have settled that matter with Isbell, I gave him twelve shillings rather than I would go before the magistrates again, and I will swear I never touched him."Prisoner was employed in various jobbing ways in Dereham. This was the case for the prosecution, and the statement of the prisoner when before the magistrates was read. "I did not do it, although I gave the man the twelve shillings. I never knocked him about, and I did not take any money from him. I have nothing else that I wish to say about it. Chambers, Alfred Took, me and another man helped this man up, and he gave Took a shilling for helping him up. I will like to call them as witnesses." These witnesses were now called: - A lad named Took, a tailor, said he was going home on the Friday night in October from the Greyhound public-house, and when passing Elwin's place he new Green and Chambers standing there. They both said to him "There a chap gone up there who says we have been robbing him" Witness said "oh," and further on happened with Fred Bidewell, who was also going home. Green and Chambers came op behind. All went over the railway, and hearing some one stumbling about in Mr Young's coal yard, witness and Bidewell went in the direction of the noise, and there found Isbell lying with his face flat to the ground. Green and Chambers were behind at the time. Witness asked him his name, and than Chambers got hold of his arm, and led him, with the be witness' assistance, into the road. Isbell then said no "I'll give you a shilling not to knock me about." A little further on the road, he pulled some money out of his left-hand trouser's pocket, and gave witness a shilling. The money was loose. Chambers and witness were then alone with him. Isbell then went home. Afterwards Green took the shilling from witness, and gave him a sixpence, witness was to give Bidewell half, and Green to give Chambers half. Bidewell did not take his share, but Chambers did. When Isbell left them, he had some more money in silver in his pocket. Cross-examined - He had not been drinking with Green on this night. The man might have been knocked about and robbed before he came up with Green and Chambers. Bidewell was also called and said that hearing a scuffle, he went with Green to see what was the matter. He found Isbell standing against a lamp post, and Green struck a light, and threw it unto Isbell, and then he struck him with his fist. Isbell ran away in the direction of the railway, and witness and Green followed, but at the crossing they lost sight of him. They, however, found him, and as Chambers and Took were leading him away Green kicked him in the back. Isbell then said that he would give them a shilling if they did not knock him about, and Took said that be was not going to knock him about. Bidewell left to go home then, but was called back and told by Green that they had got 1s, over. Isbell said that there was 3d. for each of them. He did not take his 3d., but gave it to Took. Green and Chambers he left in the road, when he went home. Cross-examined - Did not see Isbell do anything to cause Green to throw the a light upon him, and then to strike him. Witness said that Green ought not to have thrown the man about. Did not hear Green say that night that Isbell charged them with robbing him, but Chambers said so. Henry Chambers, another of the party out on this evening, was also called. He and Green went into the Bull to have a pint of beer, and there they met Isbell. When they left at twelve Isbell stumbled down as soon as be got out. They picked him up and led him to Norwich Road corner, where they left go of him, and he fell down again. They then led him as far as the King's Head, which he persisted in entering. After having a pint of drink they came out, and Isbell again fell down. Leading him a little further, they bid him good night, but presently Took and Bidewell called out that a drunken man had entered the coal yard. They returned and found Isbell in Mr Young's yard; and he then said that if they picked him up and led him a little way on the road he would give them a shilling. They did so, and Isbell gave them a shilling which was divided between them. Bidewell did not take his share. Cross-examined. - He never saw Green throw a lighted match at Isbell, and neither did he see him strike it. He probably should have seen it had it been done. Did not see Green kick Isbell. He did not happen to get 6s, that night. Green asked him to go along with him just down to Mattishall. He knew what he was going for, because he heard so on Saturday. He did not know, that he was pointed at as one of those which robbed Isbell. Green was witness' brother-in-law. His (witness) mother went and borrowed the money to be taken to Isbell on the Monday morning. Mr Reeve commented upon the evidence adduced on the part of the prisoner, and said there was an endeavor in this case to frustrate justice. He did not wish to make any bones in the matter, but the theory of the prosecution was that that witness who was last in the box with his brother-in-law and the prisoner were the persons who committed this robbery. He pointed out the conflicting statements in the evidence of the three last witnesses, and their inconsistence, after which, were his Lordship summed up, the foreman expressed an opinion that the witness Chambers ought to have been at the bar by the side of the prisoner. His LORDSHIP then said, that in considering the evidence they must bear in mind that the evidence of Isbell was entirely uncorroborated as to the robbery, and they must also remember that it was the evidence of the man who was at the time considerably advanced in drink. The jury found a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1877: Dec 12 - Norwich Mercury: - MATTISHALL
INQUEST— An Inquest was held on Saturday morning, before R G Oulley, Deputy County Coroner, on the body of Robert Safrey, aged fifty-one years, a labourer in the employ of Mr Henry Utting of Hockering, farmer. On the preceding day the deceased was in charge of a waggon and three horses, two of the horses being abreast, and while going past Mattishall Church the horse on the off-side started off, and the deceased, who walking on the near side, attempted to cheek it, and was thereby thrown or fell down, the wheels of the waggon passing over the upper part of his body inflicting injuries from which he died in about twenty minutes. A verdict of "Accidental death," was returned.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1879: Apr 30 - Norwich Mercury: - NORWICH, MATTISHALL, AND SWAFFHAM ROAD
Mr C S Read, M.P., representing the pariah of Honingham, said this road was the great main road to the North. With regard to through traffic, he remarked that if there was a considerable amount between Lynn and Swaffham and Downham, there was far greater amount between Dereham and Norwich. They had not the advantage of having a railway parallel with the turnpike, as was the case in other parts of the county; and, inconsequence there was a great deal of through traffic, still between Norwich and Dereham. This traffic consisted of merchant's wagons, laden with coals, &c., brewers' drays, carriers carts; and at this time of the year there was an enormous traffic in sheep and cattle from Norwich market to Lincolnshire. The rates had increased three-fold since the roads had been repaired by the parish. Mr Gurdon - Had you not a considerable sum given you when the roads were disturapiked? Yes we had but that was spent long ago. To go along sixteen miles of good road between Norwich and Dereham they paid a toll of 3d., and were very well satisfied in days gone by. I was not possible now-a-days to get gathered stones, of which in many places there were plenty to gather, as the labourers were so well employed that the women would not go out to work, and the children, happily, were at school. It was only by a rare chance that they could get stones gathered on Saturday - no other day. The road from Dereham to Norwich was essentially a main thoroughfare and if any road in the county was to be made a main road this road ought to be so made. In reply to a question, Mr Read added that no doubt if there were a railway parallel with the road, the traffic upon it would be very much lees than it is now.
Mr Rinder
, of Bowthorpe, said that in his pariah there was 1 1/2 mile of diaturnpiked road, and in his opinion this ought to be a main road. It cost about £20 last year, and material for repairs was difficult to get. The traffic was very heavy, and was extra-parochial.
Mr. Sparke. of Mattishall, said that before the roads were distumpiked, the highway rate in his parish was 2d. in the pound, but now it was 4d. They received £60 from the trustees when they went out of office, and this had been spent upon the road, which was now in a very moderate condition. They had seven miles of ordinary roads in the parish, and these cost no more than the highway. There were roads leading to the railway stations at Thuxton, Yaxham, Hardingham, and Kimberley, over which roads there was a very heavy traffic from parishes outside Mattishall. On other roads, too, there was heavy through traffic to Shipdham and Watton. In reply to Mr Read, he said the turnpike ended at Yaxham, but the traffic went on beyond, to Shipdham and elsewhere. Mr Gurdon remarked that if there was any road that ought to be a main road, this appeared to him to be the strongest case of any. There was an immense amount of traffic between Norwich and Dereham, and there was as little railway accommodation as in any district in the county.
Mr. Sparke, in reply to the INSPECTOR, said that what he had stated would apply, though not so strongly, to the Hingham road as well as to the Mattishall branch.
Mr Warren, of Dereham, said the cost of the turnpike road in the parish of Dereham was £90 per mile. They had recently placed on the road 150 tons of granite bedded in gravel from the Scaring pit, and it appeared to have formed a solid crust. One quarter of a mile of this road cost as much as a mile of ordinary road. It ought to be made a main road, but in his opinion there were other roads which required equal consideration. The traffic passing through Dereham was very large - the quantity of stock from Norwich being enormous.
Mr. Nankeville, Surveyor of Dereham, said the difference in cost of the disturnpikcd roads as compared with the ordinary roads was the difference between £88 per mile and £17 per mile.
Mr G H Cooper, while endorsing what had been said by Mr Warren, added that in addition to the distitrnpiked road there were others in Dereham
which ought to be made main roads. Mr Wilson, of Scarning, said that in his opinion the traffic had increased since the turnpike road running through this parish had been disturnpiked. The average rate in the parish for roads had been 3d. in the £. Last half-year the cost of the turn-pike road, 3 1/2 miles, had been £63; whereas for 18 miles of ordinary road the cost was about £4 per mile per annum on the average. There was a large agricultural district beyond Scarning, the traffic through which parish was almost entirely extraparochial. The road in question ought to be made a main road.
Mr Boddy
, of Great Fransham, said that through his parish there was 4, 1/2 furlongs of disturnpiked road, which cost during the past three months £28, 5s. for repairs - but £17 of this was in consequence of a bridge having been damaged by the floods. The ordinary highways in the parish cost £12 per mile for the past twelve months. There was a good deal of through traffic from Dereham to Swaffham along the road in question, which ought, in his opinion, to be made a main road under the Act of Parliament. Mr Leveridge, of Hockering, gave evidence agreeing with the testimony of previous witnesses.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1879: Aug 13 - Norwich Mercury: - EAST DEREHAM
At the PETTY Sessions on Friday - present: Lieut.-Col. W E G L Bulwer and Chas North, Esq. - Robert Wright was charged with assaulting Mr Sparks, farmer, of Mattishall. Mr Saunders for the defendant. Complainant deposed some years past he and Mr Matthew Yull, farmer, of Mattishall, had had money transactions, and last year, there being a balance in favour of complainant, they agreed that he should turn a flock of sheep on to Mr Yull's pasture; the sheep were to be fed there, and sold as they were fit for market. All the money received, after deducting the original price paid for the sheep, with six per cent as complainant's profit, was to go to Mr Yull account in liquidation of his debt. In pursuance of this agreement 222 sheep and lambs had been sold; and on the 1st of August inst., complainant, with John Osborne and Beckett, visited the farm to remove some more of the sheep, but Mr Yull refused to let them be taken away. Complainant persisted that the sheep were his, and went with his two servants to the field in which they were, with the intention of driving them out, whereupon Mr Yull sent the defendant to prevent the sheep being taken of the farm. Defendant found Osborne and Beckett in the field driving the sheep towards the gate, which the complainant hold open. The former attempted to close the gate, and crushed the
complainant in so doing; afterwards, it was alleged, seizing him by the collar to drag him away from the gate, and striking him in the face. Defendant then closed the gate and locked it, and witness, to enable the sheep to be removed, threw the gate off the hinges, and was again assaulted by the defendant. He was unable to get the sheep away, as several of Mr Yull's other men came up, and complainant and his men withdrew. Complainant then went to see Mr Yull, but the latter would not be seen, though witness could hear his voice in the house. Mr Saunders said he was instructed to deny the assault; but even if the assault was committed, he urged that it was perfectly justified, as it was committed by the defendant in pursuance of his master's orders, and in protecting his master's freehold. As long as the master paid the rent of his farm, no one had a right on it without his permission, and the complainant was a trespasser at the time the assault was alleged to have been committed. As a question of right of property was involved, he submitted that the magistrates had no jurisdiction; to prove a bone-fide right, Mr Matthew Yull, farmer, of Mattishall, was called, and deposed that the defendant was in his employ as engine driver. On the 1st of August last witness saw the complainant and two men and cautioned them all to go off the farm, or he would pull them for trespass. Complainant refused to go and persisted in removing a number of sheep, which witness claimed as his property. Witness accordingly sent Wright and Woodhouse, two of his man, to prevent the sheep being taken away. The Magistrates, after a consultation with the Clerk, agreed that they had no jurisdiction in the matter, and dismissed the charge.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1879: Dec 24 - Norwich Mercury: SOUTHBOROUGH
NARROW ESCAPE - On Thursday last a wheel-wright from Mattishall had a narrow escape from death. He was felling a tree on Mr Whiterod's farm, when the tree suddenly and unexpectedly fell, knocking the man down, and falling on his head, but, strange to say, be did not appear seriously hurt, otherwise than having sustained some bruises about the bead.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]

 

Back to History Menu  
   
If you are viewing this site through someone else's browser then refresh here:-
http://www.mattishall-village.co.uk