Categories ......
Back to History Menu  
Mattishall - Crime & Punishment
PLUS Interesting Newspaper Cuttings
1880 - Onward
Page Still under Construction

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

1880: Jan 7 - Norwich Mercury:
William Tilney, labourer, Mattishall, was charged by John Hill, with assaulting his son Robert, a boy or twelve years. The evidence showed that on December 16th defendant went into the School-yard at Mattishall, and asked where the boys named Gapp was, he then struck complainant on the back with a stout stick and threw him down. When remonstrated with he threatened to throw complainant over the hedge. Complainant did not give any kind of provocation, but he believed some of the boys had been interfering with defendant's boys. Defendant did not appear, and was tined 10s, and 14s, 6d, costs; he was allowed seven days to pay it in. In default of payment twenty-one days in Norwich Castle.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1880: Apr 21 - Norwich Mercury: EAST DEREHAM
At the PETTY SESSIONS on Friday - Thomas Earl, labourer, Mattishall, was charged with assaulting Philip Osborn, of the same place, at the Swan Inn, Mattishall, on March 24th. Mr Henry Feltham, of Hingham, appeared for defendant. This case was adjourned from the last sitting. Defendant appeared at the time, and wished to have the case settled out of Court, but the Magistrates would not allow this. From the evidence it appeared that the parties were drinking together, and having quarreled over some slight matter, complainant used very offensive language to defendant and put himself in a fighting attitude. Upon this the defendant struck complainant in the face and knocked him down. The Magistrates told defendant that he appeared to be the aggressor, and as he had already received £1 from complainant to settle the matter, they decided to dismiss the case, and recommended him to keep away from public-houses in future.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1880: May 22 - Norwich Mercury:
BEWARE - During the last few days, several robberies have taken place in this neighbourhood. On Sunday evening the parish church seems to have either been broken into, or out of, but the latter, it is expected, as the glass that was broken all lay out side, and the place made was large enough for any one to get through. The person who broke out must either have been asleep when the congregation left on Sunday evening, or they must have secreted themselves. Nothing has been missed. A message was sent to the Super-intendent of Police saying that the church at Mattishall had been broken into the same evening, and that a quantity of money was missing.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1880: Jun 16 - Norwich Mercury:
Jessie Becket, dealer, Mattishall, was charged with assaulting a lad named Herbert Fish, on May 28th, by pushing him into a pit of water, about two feet deep. It was stated by the boy and his mother that the defendant purposely pushed him into the water, but this defendant denied. Sarah Tilney stated that she saw the boy slip into the water as he was trying to catch some fish. The Chairman told complainant's mother that it was one of the most trumpery cases that had over come before them, and they should, therefore, dismiss the case upon each paying their own costs of 2s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1880: Jul 10 - Thetford & Watton Times: - MATTISHALL
ACCIDENT. - On Saturday last as the son of the Rev G Giles, Congregational Minister of this place, was playing in a meadow, he was accidentally kicked by a pony, and received a fracture of the jaw. Under the skilful treatment of Mr G Taylor, surgeon, the little sufferer is progressing favourably.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1880: Oct 9 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal: - MATTISHALL - A GOOD SAMARITAN
On Tuesday evening last, as a lady was driving from Mattishall toward Yaxham, she noticed by the light of the carriage lamps something, which, on closer scrutiny, proved to be a man lying in the rain and slush across the road. The man was asleep, and the lady tried to arose him, but being unable to do so - the man's somnolence being due to an overdose of strong drink - the lady went to a farm-house close by and obtained help. The man ought to be impressed with this escape.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1880: Nov 20 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly: - EAST DEREHAM. COUNTY COURT
County Court Thursday (Before T R BENNETT, Esq , Deputy-Judge) STEPHEN WEBSTER, bricklayer, Mattishall, v. ROBERT MEDDLETON, carpenter, of the same place. - The claim in this case was for £15, and the particulars set forth that the defendant trespassed and committed injury on certain lands of the plaintiff, on or about the months of January and February, in 1878, by filling up and obstructing a ditch, throwing down and taking away part of the soil forming a bank, cutting down and injuring a live fence by cutting of the branches of certain trees the property of the plaintiff. In this case, which lasted for a long time, and which was the only one which occupied the attention of the Court, Mr Vores appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Cozens- Hardy for the defendant, the evidence adduced being as follows: - Plaintiff said he had lived at Mattishall all his life, and first went to the house, when he bought it, in l856. During that time he had always been in the habit of trimming the fence which belonged to his house, and the cottage adjoining trimmed their fences. The defendant never interfered with this until about November, two years ago; he then took one of the banks and filled up a ditch belonging to plaintiff. In January, l879, defendant cut the fences and branches from some trees, and cut down a beech tree and carted it away. Cross-examined - Plaintiff said he repaired both sides of the fences in question, trimmed them up as he pleased, and repaired the bank. He had never been complained against for doing this although he did it every year. He did not know that for a period of twenty years the defendant had been in the habit of repairing the fence, nor that he had placed any obstruction against it. The soil which defendant removed was not soil that had been placed there by himself, and it was not soil but the bank that had been renewed. There was a private road running near one of the fences, and it was repaired by one of the plaintiff's tenants. The ash tree was worth more than five shillings, and defendant did not improve the fences by what he had done. Robert Fitt stated he had been a tenant of the plaintiff for eighteen years, and during that time he had cut and trimmed one of the fences in question. No one else ever did this, and he had never seen Middleton repair, claim, or place any obstruction near the fence. Mr Middleton had a shed on one side of the road near one of the fences. In answer to Mr Hardy, the witness said, while he was tenant of the property, he did not know that there was quantity of rubbish placed near the banks by the tenants of Mr Middleton, but, in reply to His HONOUR, he admitted that the shed was occupied by the defendant. John Drew stated he was tenant of the plaintiff about twenty-eight years ago, and lived there about twelve years. There was a ditch between Mr Middleton and Mr Webster's property about a foot wide, just room enough to get a spade in to clean it out Mr Webster and witness always cleaned out the ditch, and the fence was also trimmed by him. He always considered that the fence be-longed to the plaintiff. Mary Ann High, another tenant, deposed that she had trimmed the fence of the cottage, and had never seen Middleton do anything to it before 1879. Mr Cozens-Hardy said he should show by calling the defendant, that when he was a tenant thirty-four years after made the ditch himself, and cleaned it out, therefore he contended that the presumption raised by Mr Vores fell to the ground. The defendant also put up a shed and placed piped in the drain, and trimmed the fence on his own account. Mr Cozen-Hardy said he also put in the award of the Commision trimmed the fence on his own account. Mr Cozen-Hardy said he also put in the award of the Commissioners, showing that the repairs should be done by him. With regard to the other fence he would call defendant, who would state that he had trimmed and repaired it. He also claimed the beach and other trees as his property, and was prepared to swear that no question was raised as to his right to the property until the last year or so, and the whole question would show that this was simply a matter of title. Mr Cozens-Hardy then called the defendant, who proved making the drain and further stated that he trimmed the fence and did the necessary repairs to his side of them. In the year 1859 he purchased the property adjoining the plaintiff's, and since that date he had also kept in repair the fence on the north side of plaintiffs garden. The latter had never repaired it, but defendant had for the last twenty years. In answer to his HONOUR defendant said he simply repaired the fence in order to keep his right to it, and it was the same with regard to the trees. The soil he had taken away had been placed there by him, and he had with regard to the trees. The soil he had taken away had been placed there by him, and he had injured the fence in no way. The fence on the east side was standing on the level soil, and to make it there would be no need to take soil to make a bank. With respect to the road, be had never seen the plaintiff's cottagers repair it. His HONOUR said he could not understand how the defendant repaired a fence near which be had not a yard of land and to whom it was of no use. Mr Cozen-Hardy put in the Commissioners' award, in which it was stated ‘William Allen, a former owner, was entitled to re-pair the fences. In answer to Mr Vores, the defendant said be did not know why he did not assert his right to the ditch and fences prior to 1879, but he cut down the ash tree to improve the fence. Mr Cozens-Hardy next called a drain-man named Gunton, who deposed to making the drain for the defendant, and three other witnesses in support of his argument. His HONOUR said that he would take time to conbider the evidence that had been given on the respective sides, and would give judgment at a future Court.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1880: Dec 11 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal.
FATAL ACCIDENT - An inquest was held on the body of a man named William Osborne, at the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, before the Coroner (E S Bignold Fag), on Saturday. The evidence of a wheelwright, Charles Skipper, showed that the deceased was about forty-one years of age. On Wednesday last, he and Osborne were at work together sawing down a large ash tree at Mattishall. When they had it sufficiently as they thought, they endeavored to pull it over with a rope. They failed at this and resorted to the saw again, when without any warning, the tree swayed over and crushed his companion's leg very badly. He was taken home as quickly as possible, and Mr Taylor, the surgeon, sent for. On Thursday morning, the doctor recommended that he should be taken to the hospital. The house surgeon (Mr S H Burton) deposed that when deceased, who was a particularly fine-framed and healthy man, entered the hospital, he was suffering from a severe compound fracture of the left thigh and of the right fore arm. The injuries to the thigh were such that amputation was the only chance of saving his life. This operation was performed, and the man rallied a little at first, but then sank gradually, and died at eight o'clock the same evening. A verdict was returned of " Accidental death."

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1880: Dec 22 - Norwich Mercury:
George Cole, labourer, Mattishall Bergh, was charged by deserting his wife and five children whereby they became chargeable to the common fund of the Union. Defendant pleaded guilty, but in extenuation made a statement of his wife's misconduct as the cause of his going away. He was willing to take all the children and maintain them, but he could not live with his wife, as she caused him to be always in trouble. The Magistrates recommended the parties try to make some arrangement in order that they might live on better terms in the future, and they retired in company with the Mater of the Workhouse for that purpose. On returning in a short time, the man said he would remove his wife and family from the Workhouse, and take them again. The Magistrates therefore, dismissed the case on payment of costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1880: Dec 25 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
Henry Eke, of Yaxham, rat-catcher, and John Osborn, of Mattishall, mole-catcher, were charged with stealing from the person of John Culyer, monies to the value of £8, 10s. William Guymer, of Dereham, labourer, was charged with receiving a half-sovereign from John Osborn, knowing it to have been stolen. Prisoners were brought up on remand, and the Superintendent of Police now asked that the prisoner Eke might be discharged, as he had no evidence against him. He was then discharged. Prosecutor, an innkeeper. said on the morning of December 10th, when he went to the Windmill Inn, Garvestone, he had a purse containing the money in his left hand trouser's pocket. About one o'clock he went to sleep with his arms on the table, and his head laid on his arms. There were in the kitchen at that time Guymer, Osborn, Eke, and a man named Pallent. He awoke in about half-an-hour, and found that his money was gone. Eke, Osborn, and Guymer were in the room when he awoke, and he said, "One of you have robbed me of all I had, none of you, shall leave the room." He sent Eke for a policeman. While he was gone Guymer stripped off his clothes. He had a half-sovereign, a sixpence, and a half-penny, which he laid on the table. Cross-examined by Osborn - I don't know how much drink I ordered, I stood treat for those who came in. I don't know whether I gambled that day. I took a sovereign out of my pocket by mistake, and put it back again. I had the £8, 10s, in my possession for two or three days. I did not leave the room when I awoke. By Guymer - I don't remember whether I tossed you for beer. Henry Eke said he met Culyer on the road, and they went to the Windmill Inn. Culyer went to sleep in the house. After he had been asleep about ten minutes, Osborn went and sat by his side, put his hand into prosecutor's pocket, and took his purse out, then put it into his own pocket, and left the room. In about five minutes, be brought the purse back, and put it into Culyer's pocket. Osborn called witness out of the room, and said to him, "There was 38s. in the purse, so here is 10s, for you, you don't say anything." Witness replied. "That is not mine, and I won't have it." They went back to the room, and Culyer awoke soon after. Guymer said, "I'll toss you for a quart. "Osborn said he would lend him a penny to toss with, but Culyer said "No, I have plenty of money of my own," and put his hand into his pocket, and found he had none. He said, "I am robbed," and asked witness to go for PC Atkins. John Pallent corroborated. He admitted receiving half a sovereign of the money from Osborn, while Guymer gave him another half sovereign to change for him. The Magistrates did not consider there was sufficient evidence against Guymer to sent him for trial, and, he was therefore discharged. Osborn, who reserved his defence, was committed for trial.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1881: Jan 19 - Norwich Mercury:
John Osborne was charged with being drunk and refusing to quit the Ringer's Inn, Mattishall, when requested to do so. Sarah Culyer, wife of John Culyer, landlord of the house in question, said that on the 6th inst , defendant went to her house and asked for a half-pint of beer. As he was drunk, she refused to serve him, and asked him to leave. He walked to the door, and then turned round, and as witness thought he was going to strike her, she gave him a push, and he fell down in the passage. He remained there about ten minutes, and would not leave. Witness sent for a policeman, but defendant left before the policeman arrived. Defendant denied being drunk or refusing to leave He said he went to the house and ordered the beer, and the landlady called him a thief, and ordered him to go out, he turned to go, and she pushed him, and his foot caught against the threshold, causing him to fall. Complainant's daughter corroborated her evidence and added that defendant was drunk at the time. He was fined 5s, and costs 17s.

On the same day.....
Walter Wier, of Mattishall, was charged with allowing a cesspool on his farm premises, situated at Mattishall, within the Sanitary Authority of the Milford and Launditch Union, to overflow and run into the highway, and thereby cause a nuisance. Mr W E Clarke, inspector of nuisances, prosecuted. Defendant promised to abate the nuisance, and the Magistrates adjourned the case for a fort-night,to enable him to do so.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1881: Jan 29 - Norwich Mercury:
BAD WEATHER - Mr Coates, of Hardingham, was driving along the Reymerston Road when his van got stuck fast in the snow. He himself was nearly overwhelmed with the snow, and, but for two men coming to his rescue, and digging him out, he would have been buried alive. At Mattishall a traction engine was buried in the snow; and at Litchain a man from Shipdham was obliged to leave his cart, and has not found it yet. Large numbers of skaters have resorted to Saham and Scoulton Meres, both of which are completely frozen over. On Tuesday a skating match, in the presence of an immense number of persons, was held at the former.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1881: Mar 26 - Norwich Mercury: - ALLEGED ENCROACHMENT IN BUILDING AND ITS RESULTS.
Some months ago Mr Edward Sparks, a maltster and merchant of this place began the erection of a new house, partly on land his own property, but encroaching, as is asserted, partly on parish land to the extent (as alleged by the parishioners) of three feet ten inches. Mr Sparks being one of the trustees of the said parish land previous to his commencing the erection of the buildings, and before any expense had been gone to by him some of the parishioners waited upon him and pointed out that, that in their opinion, he was encroaching. The building was, however, began at once and carried on till completed. On Monday last, after notice had been given, a number of the parishioners assembled, proceeded to the spot, and at once commenced the work of demolition of that part of the premises which they assert stood on land, the property of the parish. Mr Sparks was present, as was also a number of the County Constabulary to preserve the peace. One of the party, engaged in the demolition of the building was. it is said, assaulted, and had to seek medical advice, but is not seriously hurt, The proceedings attracted a very great crowd, who seemed to enjoy the affair.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1881: Apr 13 - Norwich Mercury: - ENCROACHMENT ON PARISH LAND AT MATTISHALL
James Large, William High, Thomas Fisher, James Fisher, Edward Daynes, Alfred Daynes, Matthew Howard, Walter Webster, Albert Land, Thomas Jarry, William Pond,George Daynes, Arthur Daynes, and Howard Wyatt, were charged that they did unlawfully and maliciously, on March 21st, do damage to certain real property of a private nature, to wit, certain brick buildings, the property of Edward Sparkes, of Mattishall, exceeding the sum of £5. Mr Culley appeared for complainant, and Mr Chittock for defendants.
Mr. Sparkes, stated that he was a farmer and landowner, residing at Mattishall. In or about the year 1876, he bought of Tooley's trustees certain real property, situate in Mattishall. The property, which is still in his possession, consists of two cottages and a shop, and abuts on the highway on the south, and the pariah coal-house on the north. About the month of September last he commenced some improvements to the property by taking the roof off the cottages and shop, and adding two new kitchens on the north side, which extended about eight feet beyond the old line of buildings. The new roof was put on about a fortnight before Christmas, and the windows were also put in. When he bought the property there was no fence running from east to west, but there were some pailings running from the north-west corner of his buildings to the south-corner of the coal house, which was standing in the same place, when he bought the property. His cottages had back doors and windows on. the north before the alterations, but there was no enclosed backyard. He had exercised rights over the piece of disputed land ever since he had had possession. On or about the 10th of March he received a notice from the hands of the parish countable. The notice was as follows:

MATTISHALL
MEETING OF PARISHIONERS - March 8th, 1881.
Notice to EDWARD SPARKE, Esq.
We, the undersigned, being householders and residents in this parish, finding you have caused to be errected certain brick walls with appendages thereto, on a piece of land four feet wide and nineteen feet long, more or less, belonging to us, as parishioners of this parish, without our consent, and against our oft-expressed wish, this is to give you notice that unless the sadi walls and appendages be taken down and removed within seven days of this date, it will be our painful duty to remove it, and take the materials for having been put to the troublel and exspence, through loss of time, in doing it. signed of behalf of this public meeting
EDWARD DAYNES,
WILLIAM HIGH,
THOMAS FISHER,
THOMAS JARRY,
ALBERT LAND,

On Monday, March 21st, at about twelve o'clock at noon, he saw several of the defendants on the spot, and around the parish coal house. He saw James Large knocking with a pick at the north wall of the cottages. William High also had a pick, and was doing the same thing. Thomas Fisher had a fork, and was knocking the wall down, and several of the other defendants were also injuring the wall with various instruments. Albert Land was reading directions, from a paper how the others were to proceed in pulling down the wall. Thomas Jerry put a ladder up against the building, which complainant took down again. Complainant had been one of the parish overseers of Mattishall for nine or ten years continuously, and he had not given any authority to defendants to pull down the building, but endeavored to prevent them doing so. Since he had been in possession of the cottages he had never paid anything to the pariah authorities for the piece of disputed land, and he did not know they had any claim on it. The first intimation he had to an objection to the building was in December.
Cross-examined by Mr Chittock My attention was not called to any foundation which I built over, but I discovered some. It may be about four feet from the new wall where I noticed the foundation. If there had been a building on that spot where I saw the foundation running east to west, it would have left a passage about four feet wide between the building and my cottage. Since I have owned this property I have exercised rights over the disputed land. I have used it for storage and have put heaps of manure on it a great many times. About the 4th January the manure was thrown off it. I had uninterrupted use of it before that time. At the time the work of demolition was going on there were about 200 persons present. Several police officers were there. Complainant struck at a pick one of the men was using, but he accidentally hit the man, and the superintendent of police ordered him not to strike any of the men. I have looked at the map, and find that the poor land contains six rods. I do not consider that the coal-house covers six rods. The piece I purchased, described, as Tooley's, is ten rods. I have had my property measured, but have not yet ascertained the measurements of it. Complainant and several witnesses were then examined as to which of the defends were present, and took part in destroying the property. The hearing of this evidence resulted in the Bench dismissing the charges against Alfred Daynes, George Daynes, Arthur Daynes, Albert Land, and William Pond.
George Smith, labourer, stated that he had lived in Mattishall for 36 years. He did not remember, any cottages ever standing over part of the disputed land.
John Edwards, harness maker, who had had 19 years' acquaintance with the property, part of which he had owned, said during that time the parish did not exercise any right, over disputed Property.
John Whiting, building surveyor and building manager to Mr Robert Shipper, builder, Dereham, stated he superintended the work at Mr Sparkes' cottages. on April 5th, he valued the damage, and injury to the brickwork and the woodwork of those cottages. He estimated the damage at £5, 16s. 8d.
Mr Chittock, in his defence, said at the time the property (now Mr Sparkes') belonged to Mr Tooley, between that property and the parish cottages, there was a passage about four feet wide, which led to the back parts of his property. In coarse of time, the pariah cottages fell into decay, and a fence which enclosed the pariah land, when the cottages became unoccupied, also went to decay, and the land to all appearance got into one piece. When the cottages were pulled down, the parish coal-house was built, but a coal-house equal to the length of the three cottages was not required, and so a space was left at one end between Mr Tooley's property and the coal-house. The foundation now existing there was the foundation at those and showed that the poor land extended to distant. Therefore, if Mr Sparkes build a wall upon other persons property, the bricks and mortar no longer belonged to Mr Sparkes, but to the persons on whose property they were placed, so that it came to this, that Mr Sparkswas now prosecuting persons for pulling down their own wall. Mr Sparks, knew very well when he was building that wall, that he had no right to build it, and these people said, "As Mr Sparkes had built on our property, we will knock the wall down" He should call witness who lived in the place a great many years, to prove that this land did not to Mr Sparkes, and he trusted the Bench would dismiss the case.
Mr Chittock than called Joseph Knights, shoemaker, who said he had lived in Mattishall about fifty years, and he had known the piece of land belonging to the poor on which the coal-house now stands from the time of his going to Mattishall. At that time there were three cottages standing upon it. The wall of the parish cottages on the south side was about forty feet from the nearest part of Tooley's cottages, leaving a passage leading to the back of the cottages, and to some sheds. There was no cartway to the sheds. When he first knew the property it was enclosed by battens. He had lately measured what, from his recollection, was the size of the parish land and found it to be 23 yards 4 inches in length from north to south, and 23 feet in depth from east to west. The coal-house le 42 feet 3 inches by 13 feet 9 inches. The cottages were inhabited by poor inhabitants. They ceased to be occupied about 36 years ago, and the coal-house was built about 26 years ago. He had often exercised rights over the ground round the coal-house by walking over it. He knew the wall Mr Sparkes built when he enlarged his cottages. He built about 3, 1/2 feet over a portion of the land on which the parish cottages formerly stood. Witness had seen the foundation of the south wall of the cottages and found that Mr Sparkes had built about 3, 1/2 feet beyond it. The defendants are all poor inhabitants of Mattishall, and received parish gifts. Cross-examined - The coal-house was not built on any part of Tooley's land. I believe some income has been derived by the parish from the disputed piece of land within the last 25 years. Re-examined - I remember a vestry meeting being called at the Swan Inn. The clergyman of the parish was in the chair, and the business was about the encroachment on the parish land. The first proposition that was made was that the matter should be settled by a money payment from Mr Sparkes; an amendment was put that the building should be pulled down, but it was finally revolved that the Charity Commissioners should be communicated with. To that communication a reply had been received.
James Cowing said he was one of the church-wardens of Mattishall. He had distributed gifts to the poor. The defendants received the gifts. There were entries in the parish books of rents received The books produced showed two entries of rent of land at the end of coal-house, received on January 2nd, 1851, and January 5th, 1851. Cross-examined - The churchwardens had nothing to do with pulling down the building. A vestry meeting was held about Mr Sparkes encroachment, and witness spoke to him about it, and he then said he was only going to take about three feet.
Edward Fitt said he had lived in Mattishall about eighty years. He remembered the three parish cottages. At the time they were standing there was a passage about three or four feet wide between them and Tooley's cottages. He had seen the foundation of the parish cottages, Mr Sparkes had built over them about three or four feet.
Further evidence corroborating the above was also given by other old inhabitants of the village. After full consideration, the CHAIRMAN, said the Bench did not consider that the complainant had shown sufficient possession of the land to entitle him to take those proceedings, and the case would be dismissed. At the same time they must strongly disapproved of the conduct of defendants, who might find themselves prosecuted under another charge.

The Final Outcome....
1881: Dec 17 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
THE TRASPASS AT MATTISHALL - The plaintiff, Mr. Edward Sparke, farmer, of Mattishall, sued ten defendants, residents in Mattishall, for the sum of £15, 16s, 8d., for having committed wilful and unlawful damage. injury, and spoil to, and committing trespass upon certain private property. cottages, buildings, and premises, situated in the parish of Mattishall, The names of the defendants are Albert Lane, Thomas Jetty, James Fisher, Thomas Fisher,William High, Matthew Howard. James Large, Walter Webster, Edward Daines, and Alfred Daines. Mr Blofeld (instructed by Mr R T Culley, of Norwich) was counsel for the plaintiff; and
Mr J C Chittock represented the defendants. Mr Blofeld said the matter had been adjourned from time to time in the hope that some arrangement would be come to. but though the parties had nearly agreed to arbitration, they could not altogether come to a settlement, so that the case now came before the Court. The only question which seemed to him to present itself was whether Mr Sparkes was entitled to compensation for having a portion of his property pulled down. In 1876 the plaintiff purchased two cottages at Mattishall, at the back of which was situated the parish coal-house, and the dispute was as to the yard behind, which the plaintiff maintained he bought when he purchased the cottages, but which certain inhabitants of the place contended was the property of the parish, and went with the parish coal-house. In December, 1880, the plaintiff commenced a small building on his property, some eight feet deep and twenty feet in length, and the contention on the part of the defendants was that four feet of this stood on ground belonging to the parish. In the course of the building, certain building materials on the spot were broken and damaged; and on an action being brought against the parties who were concerned, judgment was entered for the plaintiff for 5s. On the 8th of March, however, a notice was sent to the plaintiff, signed by several inhabitant, of the parish, stating that as the plaintiff had erected a brick wall, with appendages thereto, on a piece of land four feet wide and nineteen feet long, more or less, belonging to the parishioners, without their consent, the latter desired to intimate that if this building were not taken down within seven days. it would be their painful duty to remove it, and take the materials for their trouble. To this Mr Culley had sent a letter saying that if this action were carried out, it would be at the risk of the patties who might be concerned in it.
Mr Chittock believed that this was before the warning had been given to the defendants in the case which had been adjudicated upon.
Mr Blorfield went on to say that on the 21st of March a great number of persons assembled on the spot, among whom were the defendants and a number of them with pickaxes and other implements, pulled the building down and destroyed it. This was the cause of the claim now made. Though he believed he was quite able to show Mr Sparkes' title to this land, he should decline to go into the question of title in this case, as It had been laid down that the fact of a person having a possessory right was abundantly sufficient to warrant action against trespassers or wrong-doers, unless the defendants justified their action under the authority of someone who was shown to be the owner of the property. The Plaintiff had this building from September 1880 until March 1881, being in undisturbed possession during that time; and it would not be pretended that the defendants were authorised by the vicar or churchwardens in their action. As to whom the land in question belonged to he believed that it could be proved that it was part of the plaintiff's purchase; but the plaintiff had always said that, in the event of arbitration, he would, if it was found that the land was not his, agree to pay a rent to the parish or buy it.
Mr Chittock said an agreement of reference had been drawn up referring the action and the ownership of the property to arbitration, and in the event of the property being found to belong to the parish. it would be determined what the plaintiff should pay for it.
His HONOUR said it was very proper to refer the question of ownership; but he did not think it would be fair to the plaintiff to refer this action, for the plaintiff was in the position to claim his damages in what was practically an undefended case, and then leave the other point to arbitration.
Mr Chittock thought if one matter went to arbitration the whole should go.
His HONOUR said there was a bond fide dispute as to the ownership. which should be settled by arbitration; but it would be a mockery to refer what was practically an undefended action. Of course in the event of the arbitrator finding against the plaintiff, there would be to obtain the agreement of the parishioners to a request that the Charity Commissioners would convey the property to the plaintiff for the sum which might be awarded.
Mr Blofeld said that would be an easier matter if the parties having control of the land were the vicar and churchwardens; but in this case the parishioners' consent was to be obtained. and they might be stirred up by agitators.
His HONOUR said if the consent of the parishioners was difficult to obtain, the Court of Chancery might help the plaintiff in the matter if an adequate price were offered; and as that would be a very costly proceeding, he hoped the parishioners would see that there should be no opposition to the course the plaintiff had expressed his willingness to pursue, if the question of title were decided against him.
Mr Chittock said the plaintiff built, after the notice not to do so; and he had no doubt that the building was on a part of the parish property.
Ultimately, on the suggestion of HONOUR, Mr Chittock and Mr Blofeld consented to judgment for the plaintiff for £10 and costs; the matter of title to be referred as above-mentioned.
Mr Chittock then asked that two of the defendants should be struck out, as Albert Land and Alfred Daines were not concerned in the affair, as he was instructed. Mr Sparke said he saw both the men present when the damage occurred, but he could not go into particulars, as 100 people were there at the time. He saw Land reading a notice regarding the action of the people. Upon this it was agreed that the name of Daines should be struck out, but thatLand's name should remain in the information.
His HONOUR said that the consent of the plaintiff to take £10 as damages was very handsome; but if he had put his damages at a higher figure he (His Honour) would have given them, as this was a very high-handed proceeding. As to the reference of the title, he hoped that matter would be satisfactorily settled, and that this would end the feeling which had been exhibited in the parish.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1881: May 7 - Norwich Mercury:
At the Petty Sessions on Friday - Edward Sparks, farmer, Mattishall, was charged on the information of James G Tooley with removing 80 sheep in an area declared by an Order in Council to be infected with foot-and-mouth decease, without a licence from the Local Authority. Mr Sparrow, of Norwich, appeared for complainant, who is a farmer residing at Mattishall. About 9am on the 16th April he was on the highway at Mattishall and saw a lad named William Smith a defendant's employ, driving a large number of sheep. He noticed that some of the sheep were very lame, and was therefore induced to ask the lad if he had a licence for their removal. The boy replied he had not, but that his master had one at home. Complainant communicated with the police, but afterward, determined to lay the information himself. Defendant pleaded guilty, but in extenuation said he had filled up a declaration paper, and left instructions for his man to got a licence before removing the animals, but he neglected to do so,The Magistrates imposed a fine of 7s and 13s costs.

Counter claim
James G Tooley, was then charged by Edward Sparke with furiously riding a horse on the highway at Mattishall. Mr Sparrow defended. Complainant stated between six and seven o'clock in the evening of April 22nd he was going into his yard and saw defendant riding up the road on a horse. He rode past complainant and then turned the horse round and went back again. He was riding very fast, and complainant had some difficulty in getting out of his way. Cross-examined - I do not know the mare he was riding. Defendant lives in the same parish as myself. I have not the slightest ill-feeling against the defendant. It did not occur to me that the mare was running away. I do not know how many miles per hour he was going, but he was going so fast as to be dangerous if anyone had been on the road. I the 26th I was served with a summons to appear here to answer the charge just heard against me. I took the summons out on the 27th. Several witnesses who had seen defendant riding at different points, stated that it was a young horse he was riding, and that it was fresh and prancing about the road. One witness said, the horse appeared to be running away. The case was therefore dismissed.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1881: May 7 - Norwich Mercury:
George William Culyer, of Mattishall, was charged by Frederick Francis, with wilfully injuring certain seed turnips, doing damage to the amount of 5s. They were growing in a garden in plaintiff's occupation, and defendant chopped them down with a spade. Defendant was committed to Norwich Castle for seven days, in default of paying damage and costs amounting to 16s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1881: Jun 7 - Bury and Norfolk Post - SAD SUICIDE OF A FARMER.
On Friday morning quite a gloom was cast over this village by a report which unfortunately turned out to be true, that an aged man named Edward Cullyer, a small farmer, had been found dead in his orchard, with his bead shattered to pieces, and with a discharged gun lying beside him. It appeared that Cullyer had been in his usual health and nothing particular had been notice about him. He was 80 years of age, and had been married upwards of half a century, during the whole of which time he has lived in the same farm. He leaves a wife, for whom great sympathy is felt. On Friday evening R T Culley Esq., Coroner, held an inquest at the Eight Ringers Inn, and the following evidence was given:-
Harry Curtis (grandson of the deceased) said the remains the Jury had viewed were those of his grandfather. That morning deceased got up as usual at four o'clock, and on witness going into the orchard he was startled to see his grandfather lying there with a gun beside him. Witness ran indoors and gave the alarm. He then went for his uncle, John Cullyer. Dr. Taylor was called in, and pronounced life to be extinct.
Mr E Hoy, watchmaker, was next called, and said he assisted to remove the body of the deceased into the house. He found deceased lying on his back in the orchard, with a a gun beside him, and through the trigger guard was placed a stick, by which means he supposed the gun had been fired. Mrs. Cullyer, wife of the deceased, said she could assign no cause which might have led the deceased to take his life, as there was nothing that she knew of that troubled him, and he was in no financial difficulties.John Cullyer also gave evidence about removing the body, and the Coroner having summed up, the Jury returned a verdict of " Suicide during a state of unsound mind "

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1881: Jul 23 - Norwich Mercury: - ACCIDENT TO A BICYCLIST
On Friday evening an accident occurred to Mr Edward Hoy, Clockmaker. Mattishall as he was riding a bicycle. He was going down a hill at Honiugham, when his break would not act, and the bicycle was upset on going over a large stone. Mr Hoy was violently precipitated into the road, his hands and legs being very much cut.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1881: Jul 27 - Norwich Mercury:
William Bailey and Frederick Francis, were charged by William Drew, dealer, Mattishall, with assaulting him at the Eight Ringers Inn, Mattishall, on July 15th. The evidence showed that complainant was drunk at the time the alleged assault took place, and that he had committed the first assault. The Bench dismissed the case.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1881: Oct 29 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
George Smith, in Custody, was brought up for having in his procession at Mattishall on Thursday, 20th October, a new pair of cord trousers and a new razor, and not being able to give a satisfactory account as to how he came by them. Superintendent Symonds asked for a remand until inquiries could be made. Prisoner now stated that he bought the articles at St. Athens, and gave an address to that effect. Remanded for a week.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1881: Nov 23 - Norwich Mercury:
George Cole, Lindo Norton, George Reeve, William Howes, and Thomas Jeary, all of Mattishall, charged by the attendance officer (Mr W E Clarke) with neglecting to send their children to school, were each fined 5s.
Similar cases against Joseph Woodhouse, William Tilney, and Samuel Bunn, also of Mattishall, were dismissed.
In the cases of James Howard, Charles Osborn, and Hardy Cole, also all of Mattishall, the Magistrates granted an adjournment to obtain medical certificates for alleged illness.

The outcome.......
1881:
Dec 7 - Norwich Mercury:
The cases against Hardy Cole, Charles Osborn, and James Howard, were dismissed upon the production of the doctor's certificate.
William Tilney, of Mattishall who did not appear, was fined 5s, for the same neglect.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1881: Dec 28 - Norwich Mercury:
William Drew, of Mattishall, was charged with allowing his horse to stray on highway at Mattishall. Fined 2s 6d and 4s 6d costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1882: Feb 14 - The Ipswich Journal:
NORFOLK AND NORWICH ASSIZES - NISI PRIUS COURT.
FRIDAY, February 10th. (Before The Lord Justice Cotton.) BREACH OF PROMISE 0F MARRIAGE - Burton v. Howlett. - This was an action for breach of promise of marriage. The plaintiff was Miss Julia Dunthorn Burton, of Mattishall and the defendant Mr Fred Howlett, farmer and merchant, Yaxham. The claim was for £200.
Mr Bulwer, Q.C., MP., and the Hon. J DeGrey (instructed by Messrs Chittock and Woods) were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr Day, Q.C., and Mr Blofeld (instructed by Messrs Sadd and Linay) were counsel for the defendant. Mr Bulger, Q.C., in opening the case for the plaintiff, said Miss Burton was 25 years of age, was the daughter of a gentleman who had retired from business, and resided at Mattishall. He was told that the plaintiff was a young lady of considerable personal attractions, who, from her character and position, might reasonably aspire to he defendant's wife. Defendant was 30 years of age, and carried on an extensive business at Yaxham as a corn and seed merchant, and also farmed there 100 acres of land. The plaintiff met the defendant at the home of Mrs Hoy, defendant's sister, but it was not until February last that the defendant paid the young lady any marked attentions. After a party at Mrs Hoy's on the 13th of February last, defendant drove the young lady home. Shortly after that defendant proposed to her to go to the circus at Norwich. The young lady, with great propriety, said that she would accompany him provided someone went with them, and she suggested that his sister should go with them. That was agreed to, and they went to the circus. The acquaintance continued upon affectionate terms until March, when defendant, on the occasion of driving the young lady home from Norwich, came to the point and proposed marriage. To induce her to accede to his request he pointed out to her the position she would occupy as his wife in a pecuniary point of view. Defendant said that he was better off than any young man in that country - perhaps a pardonable exaggeration under the circumstances - that he had £14,000 or £15,000, a good business, and all he wanted was a wife to help him to spend it; though no doubt he would have shown more prudence if he had said he wanted a wife to help him to keep it. Plaintiff was not prepared to consent at once to the offer; she wished to consult her father and mother, and promised to give him an answer in the course of the week. She consulted her father and mother, who thought the match was a desirable one. Plaintiff went to stay with her brother at Scarning, and defendant called upon her and arranged to drive her home. In the course of the journey defendant pressed the young lady on the interesting question propounded the previous week, when she consented to become his wife, After the acceptance he was invited by Mr Burton to stay to supper, when he answered that he might as well as he was going to be one of the family. In due course defendant received an invitation to visit plaintiff at her father's house on the Sunday following. The invitation was accepted. There were subsequent visits, and visits to friends on either side. On Easter Sunday the young people had a little chat together apart from the rest of the family, during which he presented her with an engagement ring, which was afterwards a subject of discussion in the family circle, where defendant produced another corresponding ring, which he said he should wear, as he thought they ought to have them alike. On the following Sunday defendant drove the plaintiff to see his mother, and introduced her as his future wife, Defendant's mother kissed the young lady, said she was glad she had come, and that she would have to try to get a house near them. Subsequently plaintiff accompanied defendant to Norwich, Dereham, and Lowestoft, and eventually it was arranged they should go to London in July to buy the furniture, while the mother was to go there to purchase the wedding dresses and the household linen. The marriage was to take place at Michaelmas, and Llandudno was to be the place at which they were to spend the honeymoon. During the courtship defendant told plaintiff that he had ordered a four-wheeled carriage for her at Dereham, showed her a pair of hansom horses in his stables, which were for the carriage, and told her that he desired she should dress well, The learned counsel then read the correspondence that passed, and noting, that one the early letters was signed "From your loving boy Fred" he said that was how the defendant always described himself, and no doubt truthfully.

The following were amongst the letters read by Mr Bulwer:

Yaxham, June 8th, Thursday -
My dearest Julia, - I was so pleased this morning to have a letter from you, and I have been reading it over and over again. I am going down to Mattishall this afternoon, and shall call and see your father and mother, and shall ask to let you stay another week, and I hope, dear, by that time the Lowestoft air will have made you, quite well again. I thought I should have seen you on Tuesday morning to see me off. Did not start from the hotel until the last minute, thinking every moment you would call, but no Julia turned up. Write and let me know, darling, if you are going to stay next week; if so, I will come over. I hope you are enjoying yourself, and the weather is warmer than it is here. Was awfully cold last night coming home from Watton. I am so pleased that your darling Nettie sent me a kiss. I should have given her one before I left, only I forgot it. Give her a nice one for me. You know what I call kissing, and hope Mr and Mrs Ward are quite well. Give my respects and thanks for their kindness. Now, I must say goodbye. I'm now off to Dereham. Had a horse let out of the stable last night, and it is badly hurt. I wish I was with you, dear but don't think I shall be able to come on Saturday, but, perhaps, on Sunday will write you. I hope the pain is better, dear, and I wish I could give you a sweet kiss; or a dozen or two. Good-bye, from your loving boy, FRED

Sunday night, Yaxham, June 12th, 1881.
My Dearest Dacky Darling. - I was so pleased to have a letter from you again, and I should have written you on Saturday night, but did not get home time enough to post it. I should have come over on Saturday had I not received your letter. I am so glad to hear that you recovered from your illness, and that you are quite well again; that I shall see when I come on Thursday. Shall I come over to Lowestoft or meet you at Norwich, and what time is your train. Have been to church this afternoon, Am quite miserable -(Laughter.) The learned Counsel confessed himself unable to fathom the meaning of this extraordinary statement, and hoped it was not the effect of the sermon. (Laughter.) The letter proceeded as follows
could not go on to Mattishall on Thursday. Have been taking stock. I thick I am going to London to-morrow, and I have been asked to go to the Ascot Races, but shall not go. Don't fail to write, dear, else I shan't know what time to come. Good-bye. Will tell you more when I see you.
From your loving boy FRED.

Yaxham, June 24th, 1881
Dear Julia,—Received yours this morning, and am going to drive my sister to Norwich this morning. Shall call at I0:30. I have bad a very bed cold, but I thought I should have come down on Tuesday night, but could not get down, and then I thought you did not care for me after I spoke to that young lady at Lowestoft on the pier, and I should not have come down until I had heard from you as I thought you were very much annoyed about that affair. From your boy, FRED

Queen's Head Hotel, July 11th, 1881, Tuesday night.
My dearest Julia, - Just e word, dear, to say that I am enjoying myself proper, but there ere no golden-haired girls about - (laughter) - neither are there any nice people at Yarmouth. Just home from the races, Got on very well. I have a friend from London staying with me, and he is going to stay for a fortnight. Will you come over on Saturday? Shall come here on Friday morning. Come down to Yaxham, and I will drive you home. Shell get home (Dereham) soon as I can. Write and say if you are getting on all right, dear. Now going to have dinner (6:30). From your loving boy, FRED.
Sunday Night, Yaxham, 31st.

My dearest Julia, - Just a word, dear, to say that I was coming down at three o'clock this afternoon, but the weather was so bad, kept on raining all the afternoon, and I thought I would come after tea, but it rained so hard had to give up coming altogether. You see, dear, that I did not go to Yarmouth. Was coming as you wished me to come. Hope you are in a better mind than Friday night when I left you. You made me so cross? I am off to Yarmouth by first train in the morning until Thursday. Shepherd is out for a week's holiday. Will you come and have some tea on Thursday, and all the Frills. Write and let me know to the Queen's Hotel by return of post. Good-bye. From your loving boy, FRED.


The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff - damage, £150.
It appears matters went on smoothly until August, when some little misunder-standing occurred at Yarmouth, and Fred ceased paying attention to and visiting Julia.
Julia Dunthorn Burton was the daughter of Henry Burton born Scarning, a Grocer and Draper of Church Square Mattishall and his wife Mary Philo - they married Nov 6th 1851 at Mattishall - Mary was the daughter of Wace Philo, Burcher of Mattishall.
It is unclear what happened to Julia
Fred Howlett was the son of Thomas Howlett born Billingford a Coal and Corn Merchant of Station Road Yaxham and his wife Sarah Hornigold
Fred eventually married a Lily Jane Alcock born London in the March quarter of 1898 at Camberwell, London - They lived at Yaxham where Fred was a Caol Merchant.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1882: Jul 5 - Norwich Mercury: DEATH IN PRISON WHILST UNDER REMAND.
Supt, Symonds, reported to the Bench the death of William Fenn, of East Tuddenham, a prisoner who had been remanded to appear before them on that day. A summons was taken out some months since against Fenn for committing a breach of the peace on Frederick Edwards, of Mattishall. He failed to appear in answer to the summons, and a warrant was issued for his apprehension; but as he had absconded, the warrant could not be executed at the time. He was recently arrested at Costessey for an offence, and committed by the Justices of the Peace at Wymondham to Norwich Castle for 14 days. Sept Symonds, of Dereham, upon learning that Fenn was incarcerated in Norwich Castle, caused him to be again apprehended at the Castle on the expiration of his sentence on the 19th ult. On the 20th ult, he was brought before Captain Hyde, at Dereham, and remanded to Norwich Castle until the Petty Sessions to be held on the following Friday. At this time prisoner looked, very unwell, and was asked by Supt Symonds if he felt able to undertake the journey, and offered him the option of staying at the cells until he was better. Prisoner, however, preferred to go to Norwich, and was accordingly sent in custody of a constable by a fast train, and a cab was procured to remove him from the station to the Castle. On the Friday a medical certificate was received stating that prisoner was too ill to attend on that day, and the case was adjourned until Friday last. Prisoner, however, died in the Castle on the previous Monday, the 26th inst. Deceased was only 27 years of age. He had, however, been a notorious character, and had spent a considerable portion of his life in prison.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1882: Jul 12 - Norwich Mercury:
Daniel Hewett, of Mattishall, was charged by Thomas Earl, of the same place, with laying certain meal, prepared with poison, on the highway. Mr Henry Felthamprosecuted. On the 19th ult, prosecutor said he was standing by his shed door with his dog. Defendant was on the road, and the dog ran out of the shed up the road. Defendant then threw something down, the dog ate it, and then directly afterwards fell dead. The dog up to then had been healthy. Prosecutor took the dog to a horse doctor and had it opened. The contents of the stomach were sent to Mr Sutton to have it analysed. The substance was sent just as it was taken from the dog. Mr Felthamhere handed Mr Sutton's certificate, giving the result of the analysis. but the Magistrates refused to receive it as evidence. John Lender, Mattishall, horse doctor, stated that on the above date he took two small pieces of cake from the body of a dog prosecutor brought to him dead. Witness could not say whether they were poisoned. The body was free from irritation or marks. Mr Felham remarked that strychnine would not produce any irritation in the body. The Chairman said the case would have to be dismissed for want of evidence.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1882: Jul 15 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
POLICE - On Saturday, John Leader, of Mattishall, farmer, for being drunk on the highway at East Dereham, on Friday evening, was fined 5s and costs 11s 6d.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1882: Jul 22 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
Thomas and Elijah Earl, brothers, fishhawkers, Mattishall Burgh, were charged with being in unlawful possession of game at Mattishall, on the 7th inst. Mr Daly defended.PC Tann stated that when on duty at Mattishall, on the above date, about four o'clock in the morning, he heard a cart coming along, and saw defendants in it. Elijah Earljumped out and came in direction of witness with a bunch of hogweed. Witness went to the cart, searched it, and found four bags, which contained 29 rabbits, 5 hares, four nets (one 55 yards, two 70 yards, and one 85 yards long), and 23 loose stakes. Witness took possession of them. The game was fresh killed, and some were warm. The nets were also damp and had blood on them. Defendants had two dogs with them. In reply to Mr Daly, he said defendants were both in the cart when he first saw them on the high road. Mr Daly contended that there was legally no crime. It was no offence to have nets, and as to the game, defendants were taking it to Norwich market which was nothing strange for a fish-hawker to do. The Chairman read a long list of previous convictions against the defendants, and said the Magistrates had no doubt but that the nets were used for an unlawful purpose. Defendants were each fined 20s. and costs, 12s. The game was ordered to be disposed of and the nets destroyed.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1882: Aug 5 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
George William Culyer, of Mattishall, was charged with assaulting Charles Norton, also of Mattishall, on the 22nd inst. Complainant said that he was walking along quietly when he was struck by the defendant suddenly with a stick, which rendered him insensible. Defendant stated that complainant came through his yard at ten o'clock at night, and he asked him what business he had there, upon which complainant rushed at him, and defendant struck him in self defence Complainant then knocked defendant down, fell on him, and bit a piece out of his lip. Some amusement was caused in Court by defendant wanting to produce the "piece of lip," which was wrapped in a piece of paper, and carried in his waistcoat pocket. The Chairman said the defendant had pleaded guilty to striking complainant, and urged provocation, of which there was which there was only his own evidence. He would have to pay 11s costs, and be fined 2s 6d; in default of payment defendant would be committed for seven days.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1882: Aug 27 - Norwich Mercury:
William Eke, machinist, Yaxham, Robert Greenwood, farmer and machine proprietor, of Mattishall, and George Rye, pensioner' were charged with being drunk and disorderly at the Lord Nelson Yaxham, on the 12th inst. PC Tann, proved seeing the two last defendants very disorderly, and Robert Bailey gave evidence as to Eke'sdisorderly behavior. Defendants pleaded guilty, and Eke, who had been previously convicted, was fined 10s. and 11s. costs, or fourteen days, and the other defendants 5s, and 7s, 9d. costs each, or seven days' imprisonment.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1882: Sep 9 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal: - GRIMSTON
At the Perry Simons on Monday - present: Sir W H B Ffokes, Bart., M.P. (in the chair), and G B Ffolkes and J Coldham, Esq. - Thomas Earl, fish hawker, Mattishall Burgh,Elijah Earl, of the same place, Noah Wright, labourer, of Lynn, and John Smith, of the same place, were summoned by Charles Henry Jackson, of West Newton, game-keeper to H R.H the Prince of Wales, for unlawfully taking rabbits in a certain close of land, the property of the Prince, at about midnight on the 9th of August. The same defendants were further charged with a similar offence on land the property of Mr Fernley Knight, Castle Rising, on the 9th of August. There were five persons implicated in the case, but the fifth man did not appear. Mr T M Wilkin prosecuted. At the outset, Mr Wilkin applied to the Magistrates to have the information amended as againstNoah Wright and John Smith, to as to incorporate therein the fact that they had both been previously convicted for a similar offence. The application was acceded to PC Claxton said - All the prisoners were at Castle Rising early on the morning of Wednesday, the 9th of August. They had two carts, each of which was drawn by a pony. I saw the two carts put by two of the prisoners into a field. Subsequently four of the men went ahead with two sacks. One man stopped behind with two dogs - a lurchcr and a terrier. They walked on the grass by the road sides, and went across the road through a gap into the plantation - the first plantation over the bridge going by Rising. I saw them set four nets in a grass field. It was a starlight night. I secreted myself in a ditch. About fifteen minutes after the the nets were set I saw a man - one of the five I had previously seen at Castle Rising - in the middle of a field hunting with two dogs. He then joined the men with the nets. I saw the men take up the nets. I was within six yards of the man when the last net was taken - that nearest the road. I saw the men put three rabbits into one sack and two nets into the other. All five men came out of the field on to the side of the road, and went back to the carts. Smith got into one cart. I followed them. Two men were in one cart and three in the other. They went in the direction of Wolsey's mill. Witness stated that he watched them to Mr Wright's, rabbit warren, where they repeated their performances. The nets they afterwards secreted in some barley stacks, and Wright and the two Earls left. He then seized the nets, of which there were 300 yard, though not without being threatened by Smith. PC. Palmerproved seeing the defendantsEarl driving two'carts, along the road towards Castle Rising at 10:10 on the night in question; and John Frost, fisherman, Lynn, said thatWright and Smith breakfasted at the Dog and Duck, on the morning of the 9th of August. For the charge of trespassing on the Prince's estate, Noah Wright, who had been several times previously convicted, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, and ordered to pay £1 5s 9d, costs, or a further fourteen days; the other defendants were sentenced to three mouths, sod ordered to pay 18s 9d, costs, or a further fourteen days. For the second offence Wright was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment, directed to find two sureties of £5 each to keep the peace for twelve mouths, and to pay 13s costs, or another seven days; the other defendants were ordered to be imprisoned for seven days, to find similar sureties, and pay the costs. Mr Wilkin stated that the prisoners and the man not in custody came from Norwich, and they were Part of a gang of poachers, some of whom resided in Castleacre and others at Norwich. The Norwich men were sent to Babingley, and district, as it ,was thought they would not be identified; and he (Mr Wilkin) was in a position, if it had been necessary, to trace them from Norwich to Wymondham, thence to Hingham, from there to Hockham, Wretton, Buckingham, Tofts, Lynford, Stoke, Fordeston Cap, Lynn, and dually to Batingley and Castle Rising.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1882: Oct 25 - Norwich Mercury:
William. Eke, machinist, Yaxham, Robert Greenwood, farmer and machine proprietor, of Mattishall, and George Rye, pensioner, were charged with being drunk and disorderly at the Lord Nelson Inn, Yaxham, on the 12th inst. PC Taun proved seeing the two last defendants very disorderly, and Robert Bailey gave evidence as to Eke'sdisorderly behavior. Defendants pleaded guilty, and Eke, who had been previously convicted, was fined 10s. and 11s, costs,, or fourteen days, and the other defendants 5s, and 7s. 9d, costs each, or seven days' imprisonment.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1883: May 9 - Norwich Mercury:
Daniel Hewett, of Mattishall, was charged by Mr W E Clarke, School Attendance Officer, with neglecting to send his child to school. Defendant's daughter appeared on his behalf, and stated that the boy had been kept away for half-days on Wednesdays by his father. Defendant would be fined 1s, and 4s, costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1883: Sep 5 - Cambridge Independent Press: - ELY DIVISION
Aug 31 - John Clements, Mansfield, Yorkshire, and William Aylmer, Mattishall, Norfolk, two tramping dealers in earthenware, were charged with violently assaulting, at Ely Trinity, on Saturday, the 29th ult., John Bradford, late of the Royal Artillery, and Edward Noble, laborer, Ely, by knocking them down, kicking, and otherwise ill treating them, Bradford being rendered insensible for some time. - The defendants were each sentenced to six weeks imprisonment at Ely, with hard labour.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1883: Sep 26 - Norwich Mercury: - EAST DEREHAM.
At the PETTY SESSIONS on Friday - Thomas Fisher, of Mattishall, local preacher, was charged , with assaulting Thomas Beckett. Complainant said that on the 11th inst. he came from a friends house, and met defendant with two other men. They said "Good night." Complainant did not reply. Defendant then poked complainant in the neck and said "Take that." Still complainant did not speak. Defendant then got hold of complainant, twisted him round, and stuck his head into the hedge. Some children, close by, began to shriek, and defendant said, "If I was alone I would break the beggar's head." Defendant then pushed complainant down, knelt on him, and took his head between his knees and almost stopped his breath. Defendant then tore a rug belonging to complainant. Complainant had never quarreled with defendant before, nor did he say anything to him now. Defendant made a long statement, in which he denied assaulting defendant. He said he was going home with some friends when "something " came by in a long rug. Defendant and his friends were frightened. They said, "Good night," but received no reply. Defendant then tried to see who "it" was, and in a struggle they both rolled into the ditch. Defendant did not know it was, complainant. George Lusher, of Mattishall said he was with defendant on the above date in the evening. They saw "something" on the road covered up. They spoke, but received no answer. Defendant then tried to uncover the "something," and "it" and defendant rolled over unto the bank. The "something" did not speak at all. Witness did not know what "it" was. They were very much frightened. The Chairman said the Magistrates were all agreed that complainant had acted in a foolish manner. They were sorry he did not know better. He (the Chairman) was glad that in Mattishall there were persons like defendant who had courage, and were not afraid to solve a mystery. The case against defendant would be dismissed.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1883: Nov 17 - Norwich Mercury:
James Websdale, professional tramp, belonging to Mattishall, was charged by pc. Shreeve with begging at Southrepps on the previous day, and was committed for fourteen days with hard labour.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1883: Dec 15 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal: - MATTISHALL
SUDDEN DEATH - On Sunday last, a young man named Southgate left his house in his usual health to attend the service at the Congregational Church. He had not walked far when he was seen to stagger and fall. He was conveyed Home, and a messenger dispatched for Dr Taylor, but in half-an-hour he expired. The cause of death was apoplexy. Great sympathy is felt for the bereaved parents.
This appears to be Robert Southgate age 29, the son of Robert Southgate (snr) a farm labour of Yaxham Road, Mattishall and his wife Mary

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1883: Dec 23 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal: - EAST DEREHAM
At the PETTY SESSIONS on Friday - Elizabeth Ann Neave, of East Tuddenham, was charged with keeping a male servant without the necessary license. This was an adjourned case, and was admitted by Mr Neave, last week, as identical with his own reported at the previous session. The Chairman said they had no option in the matter; he should be glad when the law was altered in the smatter. Defendant must be fined 1s and costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1884: Jan 30 - Norwich Mercury:
Albert Jeary, aged 13, of Mattishall, was charged with assaulting Anne Talbot, an assistant teacher at the Mattishall School, on the 24th inst. Complainant said defendant came back after leaving school on the 23rd inst., and used bad language. He was punished the day after, and on leaving school he slapped her face twice. Defendant said he did hit complainant. Complainant said defendant was a bad boy at school, and had been so since be bad been there. PC Tann said defendant's father was dying, and his mother was very ill, and that was the reason they were not present. Defendant was a very bad lad. the whole family was on parish relief. Defendant appeared very frightened and cried. The Chairman said the case was proved. If defendant had been older, he would be sent to prison. He was sorry be could not order him to be whipped. The case would be adjourned for one month, to see how defendant behaved.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1884: Apr 26 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
Theodore Wagg, of Mattishall, labourer, was charged by Mr Peter Miller, Excise officer, with keeping a dog without a license. Defendant did not appear. Mr Miller proved seeing the dog on defendants premises. Mr Mackay said defendant was fined list year for a similar offence. The Chairman said defendant would be lined 25s., and 20s costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1884: Jul 5 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
WOMEN'S QUARRELS - Julia Symonds, of Mattishall, was charged by Lydia Beales, of Mattishall, widow, with assaulting her on June 12th. Complainant said that on the morning of the 12th June defendant, who lived next door, abused her. Defendant then threw a handful of stones at complainant, and one hit her. Defendant called complainant ugly names. Mary Ann Parling, of Mattishall, said defendant and complainant had a quarrel on the above date. Defendant threw stones at complainant and hit her. Another witness was called by complainant, but she knew nothing about it. Defendant made a long statement in the course of which she said she did not know how she annoyed the old woman. Defendant had been annoyed many times by defendant. The Chairman said it was a disgraceful case of quarrelling between women. It was a vary trifling assault. Defendant would be fined 1s., and complainant and defendant would each have to pay 9s, cost.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1884: Jul 5 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
INDECEINT ASSAULT ON MARRIED WOMEN - William Parling surrendered to his bail on an indictment for indecently assaulting a married woman named Annie Gunton, at Welborne, on the 10th May last. Mr Gurden appeared to prosecute, and Mr Blofield represented the prisoner. Prosecutrix, whose husband is a bricklayer living at Mattishall, has known the prisoner for some time past, and, whilst walking on the road from Mattishall to Tuddenham on the day in question, prisoner suddenly came up to her from behind. He put his arm round her neck and kissed her, whereupon she slapped his face. He next seized her by the waist and threw her on the ground, and having placed one of his bands on her mouth, he raised her clothes. She shrieked out, and he then put both hands over her mouth. She called for her husband, whereupon prisoner ran away, and prosecutrix gave information of what had occurred to Mrs Brand, her husband's daughter, the first person she saw. In cross-examination proserutrix said she had acted as charwoman to prisoner's mother, and had set down at the same table with prisoner at several times. She had never given him any encouragement, in fact, had never spoken to him when in his house. Upon this she was positive. She was not walking with prisoner on the road when he slipped behind her. Prisoner had never kissed her before that day. Evidence having been given by Mrs Brand of prosecutrix coming to her on the day is question in a distressed condition, and complaining of being assaulted, Mr Blofield, for the defence, submitted that no assault had been committed, and that prosecutriz had given prisoner encouragement to joke with her, and this was all he did. Prisoner's mother was called, and deposed to having seen prosecutriz "larking" with her son, and to having cautioned her against doing so. On the day in question prosecutriz came to her and said that prisoner had kissed her on the road, whereupon she tell amongst some furze, which caused the scratch upon her chin. The witness added that prosecutrix's husband was 66, and she was only 25 years of age. The learned CHAIRMAN having summed up the evidence adduced, pointed out the variations, and interpreted the law upon the case, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and prisoner was discharged.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1884: Sep 10 - Norwich Mercury: - SELLING AND HAWKING TO0BACOO WITHOUT A LICENCE - HEAVY FINES
William Harmer, of Mattishall, was charged by Mr William D Mackey, Excise Supervisor, with hawking and selling tobacco without the necessary license. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Mackay said there were two charges against defendant. In the month of April last, defendant called on a person named Melton, and asked for an order. Melton inquired what goods defendant had to sell, and defendant replied cigars. Defendant then went to a cart and took a box of cigars from it, and eventually sold the box to Melton for 5s, 6d. Mr Culyer, of Mattishall, also held receipts for cigars. bought of defendant on several occasions. The cigars sold to Culyer were not previously ordered by him. Defendant called, offered, and sold the cigars, taking the money at the same time. William Melton, licensed innkeeper, of North Tuddenham, said defendant called on him in April last, and represented himself to be in the cigar trade. Witness bought a part of a box of cigars and paid for them. In answer to defendant, witness said defendant did say he was representing Boswell and Baxter, of Norwich. Defendant now put in a note or memorandum to show that he was the agent of Messrs. Boswell and Baxter. Mr Mackay said defendant, if agent, had no right to sell his samples. He might show his samples and take orders, but the goods would have to be sent from his employers. The agent would have to send the order to the firm he was soliciting orders for and the goods supplied by them. Captain Hyde - Then you contend that no traveller can deliver excisable goods and take the money? Mr Mackay - That is so, sir. Defendant maintained that there was a great doubt in the matter, and he hoped for the sympathy of the Magistrates. He was acting as agent for Messrs. Boswell and Baxter. Defendant was further charged with selling tobacco, at Mattishall, on the 16th of April last, without a license. Mr Culyer, wife of John Culyer, licensed innkeeper, of Mattishall„ said defendant sold her two boxes' of cigars on the 16th of April for which she paid him 16s. - 7s, 6d. for one box and 8s, 6d. for the other. Defendant gave receipts for the money, which were now produced. In reply to defendant, witness said defendant said defendant said he was an agent of Boswell and Baxter. She had heard defendant also soliciting orders for spirits, Mr Mackay - it is fortunate for defendant that be is not also charged with selling spirits without a license. Defendant contended that, if he had erred, it was in innocence. He left himself in the hands of the Bench, from whom he was sure he would obtain fair judgment. The Magistrates clerk (Mr B H Vores) said the Magistrates had power to mitigate penalty in the first offence. Mr Mackay said defendant was liable in the first case of £100, and in the second £50. After consultation, the chairman, addressing the defendant said that the Bench had agreed that the charges were amply proved. Defendant had defrauded H M Revenue by hawking and selling tobacco or cigars which was absolutely prohibited. He also cheated small homes in village who had paid their licenses to sell tobacco. There was undoubtedly a good deal of this sort of thing going on, in the country, and offenders were difficult to catch. When one was caught, however, a severe penalty had to be inflicted. Defendant would now be fined £10 in each case, and 18s, 9d, costs in each case. In default of payment in each case 21 days imprisonment.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1884: Sep 10 - Norwich Mercury: - A TROUBLESOME SHIPDHAM LAD WHIPPED
Charles Pooley, a lad, of Shipdham, was charged with stealing a Dutch cheese, the property of Messrs. Charles and Henry Grimmer, of Shipdham. Charles Grimmer, grocer and provision merchant, said on the 2nd instant he missed two Dutch cheeses from his warehouse. The same day prisoner was brought to his premises by PC Rayner, and he admitted taking one of the cheeses, and begged witness to let him off. Witness had occasionally employed defendant. PC Raynor said he went to the house where the boy lived. Defendant was there with his mother, In reply to witness defendant said he got the cheese out of the warehouse window. Another boy unfastened the window, and defendant put his arm through and got the cheese. Defendant. who was crying, said he only knew about one cheese. He got it out of the warehouse at night, and hid it up till next day. The Chairman said the boy seemed to be a bad boy, and the Magistrates had received a very bad account of him. This was a disgraceful offence, and defendant seamed to a boy who could not keep his hands off other people's goods. Defendant would now receive twelve strokes from the birch rod. Defendant was removed crying bitterly.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1885: May 2 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
INCAPABLE - Thomas Earl, of Mattishall, fish merchant, was charged by PC Read with being drunk whilst in charge of a carriage at Dereham on the 20th inst. Prosecutor said that at 11 p.m, on the above date he was on duty at Dereham. He saw a horse and cart coming through the Market, and a man lying on the top of the cart, which was loaded. The cart wheel came in contact with the pavement, and the horse stopped. Witness went up and shook the man, who was in a state of drunkenness; and as he was too drunk to see after himself witness led the horse and cart to the Police Station. Defendant was lifted out, he being so drunk that he could not stand. Defendant denied the charge. Superintendent Symonds said that on the above date he was at the Police-Station when defendant was brought in. When locked up defendant made a deal of noise and swore very much. Witness went and advised defendant to cease. Defendant refused, and was very violent. Defendant said it was all false that had been said.Superintendent Symonds produced a long list of previous convictions against defendant. The Chairman said defendant would be fined 20s and 17s. costs, or 28 days' imprisonment. The police, very properly took.notice of such cases as this.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1885: Aug 12 - Norwich Mercury:
William Parling, of Mattishall, labourer, was charged with committing wilful damage to certain barley, the property of Mr Tooley, of Mattishall, causing damage to the amount of 10s. James G Tooley, said he noticed a deal of damage had been done to his barley, but he did not see defendant commit the damage. Much grass had been cut, and the barley stamped down. Matthew Howard said on the 11th ult., he saw defendant in complainant's field tying up a bundle of grass. Robert Gunton said that he saw defendant in complainant's field with a fork and reap-hook. Robert Palmer corroborated. Defendant denied all knowledge of the matter, and said he had never cut any of complainant's grass. J Meachen, farmer, Yaxham, said defendant came to his premises on the morning of the 11th, and stopped and helped him. The Chairman said the case was clearly proved. Defendant would be fined the damage, 10s, and costs 21s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1885: Aug 22 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
Elizabeth Pitchers, married woman, of Mattishall, was charged with assaulting Julia Laing, married woman, of the same place, by throwing dirty water upon her on the 8th inst. Defendant said the water went on complainant accidentally. There was a cross-summons in this case, Laing being charged with assaulting Pitchers on the same date.Mrs Laing said defendant threw a whole pail of dirty water over her deliberately, and not accidentally. Mrs Pitchers was then sworn, and she said Mrs Laing threw her down on the stones and "beated" her shamefully. This occurred after the "accidental" throwing of the water. The Chairman said the case was a very disgraceful one, and one such as frequently came before the Magistrates by women who lived next door quarrelling. The cases would be dismissed, and each would have to pay 8s, 9d, costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1886: Mar 27 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
It is with regret that we have this week to record the burial of one of the oldest inhabitants of this parish. The late William Harmer was a resident of this parish for 52 years; 42 years postmaster, which position he held with satisfaction to his fellow parishioners, and for 39 years parish clerk; also one of the founders of the Loyal Donne Lodge of Odd-fellows, likewise P Grand Master of the district. The members of the lodge attended in a goodly number, and the respect in which the deceased was held was fully testified by the farmers, tradesmen, and others attending.
MORE - William Harmer was baptised on February 17th 1811 at Swardeston, Norfolk, the son of Thomas Harmer a Shoemaker and his wife Ann Eglinton. What brought him to Mattishall is not known but at sometime before 1835 he married Jane Gaskin who was born at Whitby, Yorkshire. William and Jane had a son William Harmer born July 26th 1835 who was baptised at All Saints Church Mattishall, entry 708.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1886: Mar 31 - Norwich Mercury:
FOWL STEALING - Charles Rye, of Mattishall, was charged with stealing two fowls, value 5s., the property of Mr R Norton, of the same place. Walter Webster was charged with receiving one fowl, well knowing it to have been stolen. Mr H Feltham appeared for Webster. Robert Norton, of Mattishall, innkeeper, said on the 22nd inst he saw his fowls all right. He had six hens and the cockerel, seven in all. On the following morning he missed two, a cockerel and a hen. PC, F Tann, of Mattishall, said that on the 23rd inst. he went to prisoner Rye's house, and inside he found a fowl, which was plucked, also a quantity of feathers. The fowl and feathers were in a cupboard. Witness asked prisoner about the fowl. Prisoner said, "It's a bad job; I stole it. It's no use telling any lies about it." Witness then took him into custody. Witness then went to prisoner Webster's, and asked him if he had been in company with prisoner Rye on the previous night. Prisoner said "Yes" Witness said," I suppose you heard that some fowls were stolen; do you know anything about them?" Prisoner replied, "That he did not." Witness left, but returned and searched the premises, and he found some feathers in the garden. Prisoner said,"He knew nothing about either feathers or fowls." Witness again left, and then went back again, and said "He should arrest prisoner on a charge of receiving fowls well knowing them to be stolen." On the following day when prisoner was about to be placed in the cells Rye said, in the presence, of the other prisoner Webster, "I may as well tell the truth about this matter," and he than said how he got the fowls, and that one of the fowls was taken by Webster. Prisoner Webster then said, "I'll tell the truth as well," and he then admitted taking a fowl from Rye, and after he found there was a row be threw the fowl away. John Gunn, a small lad, of Mattishall, step-son of prisoner Rye. said he was at Mr Norton's on the 22nd. Rye and Webster were there. He saw Rye get two fowls and put them in his pocket. Rye gave Webster one when he met him as they were going home. Rye told Webster not to say anything about it. Both prisoners, pleaded guilty. Mr Felthamaddressed the Magistrates on behalf of Webster, and asked them to inflict a fine instead of imprisonment. Webster was a family man, and Rye, if convicted, would lose a pension. Supt Symonds said that Rye was a pensioner, and Webster was the father of 10 children. The Chairman said they were sorry to see prisoners before them on such a charge. They had pleaded guilty and would be committed for one month.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1886: Jun 12 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal: - EAST DEREHAM
At the Petty Sessions on Friday - Matthew Greenwood, Mattishall, was charged by George Greenwood, of Garvestone, with an assault at Thuxton on the 30th ult. Mr James Saunders supported the information, and Mr J C Chittock defended. There was a cross-summons in this case, defendant charging complainant with an assault, cruelty to sheep, and using threatening language, George Greenwood, of Garvestone, farmer, said be knew a road leading from Thuxton to Garvestone. It was a private road and repaired by the occupiers of adjacent land. The parish had never repaired it at all. On the 30th ult. complainant saw defendant driving sheep up this road. Defendant had no land adjoining this road. Complainant stopped the sheep, and said to defendant, " You old muck, I want have your sheep here." Defendant afterwards struck complainant with his hand. Defendant had a stone in his hand at the time. Complainant did not hurt defendant's sheep, nor did be kick them. In answer to Mr Chittock, complainant said that Mr Taylor occupied land adjoining this road. When he first saw the sheep they were on the road against Mr Taylor's occupation. Complainant would not swear he used bad language to defendant. He threw stones at defendant's sheep, but he did not think he threw so large a stone as that produced.Mr Chittock addressed the bench on behalf of defendant, and said the question of right to use the land had nothing to do with the case. Defendant was driving his sheep along the lane, which was bounded by land occupied by Mr Taylor. Complainant threw large stones at the sheep, hitting them, also hitting defendant. Complainant then wanted to fight defendant but he refused, Complainant afterwards attacked defendant, who called out for help and then other persons come up. Mr Geenwood, said he had leave from Mr Taylor, to feed in the lane adjoining which Mr Taylor had land,, and on the above date he was driving sheep there, his son being with him. Complainant called out, and swore at defendant. Complainant threw large stone. at the sheep, and one hit him (defendant) on his hand. The stones were thrown overhanded. Defendant picked up the large stone (produced), it being one of those that complainant threw. He told complainant he should take care of the stone to produce before the Magistrates at Dereham. Complainant afterwards got hold of defendant's ear and hair, and said, "You old b---, I'll let your - out." Defendant called out for assistance, as he did not know what complainant was going to do. Defendant. was afraid of bodily harm from complainant, a who had frequently threatened him. Henry Davey, of Thuxton, corroborated defendant's statement, and said he saw complainant throw the stone produced, and he saw it hit one of defendant's sheep on the head. In reply to Mr Saunders, witness said he was confident as to the identity of the stone produced. Maria Davey, wife of last witness, corroborated. Mr Francis Oddin Taylor, of Thuxton, said defendant gave him the stone produced to keep for him. He heard defendant call out for help, saying complainant was killing him. Witness had given defendant leave to feed the sheep in the lane against which he had some Land. The Chairman said the Magistrates had decided that the case was a trifling one, and both cases of assault would be dismissed. Complainant would be convicted of cruelty to animals, and would be fined 20s, and 22s. costs. It was a pity that the parties, being relations, should quarrel, and especially on a Sabbath morning. Each would have to pay his own costs in the assault case.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1886: Jul 3 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
William Parling, of Mattishall, charged by PC William Howard, with allowing a horse to stray on the highway at Mattishall on the 11th inst. Fined 1s and 4s 6d costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1886: Oct 23 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
Elizabeth Parling, of Mattishall, was charged with assaulting Ellen Louis Harmer, a young girl of the same place on the 11th inst. Complainant said she lived with her mother at Mattishall. On the above date in the morning she went into a house which defendant's son had occupied. The house was empty, and it belonged to witness' father. Whilst there she heard Mrs Parling say, "Come on, butcher them Jack." Defendant then got up a ladder, looked in at the bedroom with a knife in her hand, and called out, "Let me in, or I'll smash the glass." The door of the house was locked. The window was broken and defendant was trying to get in. Complainant tried to keep it shut. Defendant thrust her knife through the window and threatened to cut her hands off. Complainant was frightened and let go, and defendant rushed in, saying, "Get out of here or I'll do for you" Defendant afterwards got hold of complainant, shoved her, and threatened her again. Defendant again shook complainant and pushed her out of the house. The house was left empty, but the key was not delivered up. Complainant got Into the house by her brother getting in and unfastening the door. Ellen Harmer, mother of complainant, said that she was going to occupy the house in question. Defendant was told to give up the key to witness. The key was tendered to her husband's step-mother on the same morning. As soon as witness knew the key had been tendered she went with her children to take possession of the house in her husband's name. Witness corroborated complainant's evidence as to what occurred afterwards. It was about 10.45 a.m, when witness went to the house, which was quite empty. Up to Michaelmas defendant's son was in possession of the cottage. Defendant had no right with it at all. Defendant said her daughter-in-law told her to keep the house, and see that Mrs Harmer did not get in. Mrs Harmer and children did get into the house, and defendant told them they had no business there until past twelve o'clock. Defendant did try to get in and succeeded, but she never touched complainant. She had not a knife in her hand when inside. Her son was tenant of the house in question, which defendant said was not empty. John Bennington, of Mattishall, corroborated. The Chairman said there was conflicting evidence in the case. The complainants were clearly in the wrong in entering the house before the time was up, especially as defendant's son had property inside. The assault was trivial, and the case would be dismissed.

This seems to be part of the above case.....
1886: Oct 23 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
William Parling, Mattishall, was charged with using threatening language towards William Harmer on the 11th inst., at 12 p.m. Complainant said that defendant threatened that, although complainant was landlord, if he went onto the property, he would "corpse" him. Complainant was afraid defendant would carry out his threat, and he asked that he might be bound over to keep the pence. Defendant's daughter corroborated. Defendant denied the offence, and called witnesses. The case was dismissed.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1887: Apr 23 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
MATTISHALL - Mr JESSE RIVETT, the rural postman for this neighbourhood, retires from his office after a period of nearly 50 years' service. He discharged the duties of that office sometime before the 'Penny Postage' came into operation The inhabitants think he is deserving of some token of respect for his long and faithful services, and the Rev G Giles has consented to receive subscriptions for the purpose.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1887: Jul 9 - Norwich Mercury - MATTISHALL
The Jubilee was celebrated here on Thursday, June 23rd.After the service in the church all assembled in a spacious granary, kindly prepared by Edward Sparke, Esq, were under the presidency of the Vicar, (the Rev A T Hunter), nearly 700 parishioners partook of a dinner of meat, plum pudding, &c. After which the company ajourned to Mr Hoy's meadow for athletic sports. On returneing to the dinner room, tea was served till late in the evening.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1887: Jul 13 - Norwich Mercury:
SWINE FEVER - Frederick Dobbs, of Mattishall, was charged with moving a pig, and he pleaded guilty, and said be was sorry for the matter. Superintendent Symonds said the pig was moved within a week after the notice was served, and was moved to another farm and mixed with other pigs. The Chairman said the only way to stop this kind of think was to impose heavy penalties, and this the Magistrates were determined to do. He would be fined £5, and £1, 8s, costs. The full penalty is £20.


*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1887: Nov 2 - Norwich Mercury:
EAST DEREHAM - At the Perry Sessions on Friday - Edward Sparke, of Mattishall, was charged with removing certain cattle from an infected area, in contravention of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act. Mr George King Wales, of Dereham Inspector, said on the 29th September her was given information that defendant's premises was infected with cattle disease. Witness went to defendant's and found a steer so affected. Witness ordered the animal to be slaughtered, and gave Mr Sparke a declaration the next day. Defendant had since removed stock from the premises. Defendant said he was not aware that he could not remove the stock. He had acted in ignorance. PC Southgate said on the 14th instant, in the morning, he saw four cows and one bull removed from defendant's premises by a lad on the high road; and the lad (Symonds) proved he removed the cattle by defendant's order. Fined £5 and £1, 14s, costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1888: Jul 7 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
HIS WEAKNESS WAS WATCHES - William Cook (53), labourer, pleaded guilty to obtaining by false pretences a silver watch, a steel chain, with a steal watch-key attached, value £3, 10s., the property of Thomas Mansell, with intent to cheat and defraud in of the same, at Fakenham. on the 26th March last. There were two other indictments against prisoner, to which he also pleaded guilty, of obtaining under similar pretences a watch and chain of Edward Sussens Hoy, value 30s., at Mattishall, and a silver watch and metal chain, value £1, 16s., of William Greef, at Castle-acre. Mr F K North held the brief for the prosecution, and PC Baldwin stated that the prisoner was a tramping labourer, and that be came from Wells. He was about committing a fourth offence when be was apprehended upon the description which the officer had sent out of prisoner, who was now sentenced to prison for five months. He bad been a month in custody.


*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1889: Nov 2 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
William Tilney, of Mattishall Burgh, William Osborn, Daniel Hewitt. Susan High, George Cook, John Edwards, _ Murphy, Alan Dunthorne, William Drew. and William Howes, of Mattishall, were summoned by William Edgar Clarke, school attendance-officer, for neglecting to send their children to school. In Cook's case a doctor's certificate was produced, and the case dismissed. Dunthorne's was discharged upon the understanding that the child attended school regularly in future. The other defendants were severally fined 1s, and 4s, costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1890: Oct 18 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
THEFT FROM CARRIER'S CART - Charles Turner, living in Pipes Yard, lower Westwick Street, and William Newman, living at 6, Barker's Yard, in the same street, both schoolboys, were charged with stealing a pair of horse-clippers, value 6s, 6d, the property of William Howes, carrier, of Mattishall on Saturday last. Prosecutor said he placed the clippers wrapped up in a parcel, in a box, in his carriers cart at noontime on Saturday last. Soon after 3 o'clock he missed them, and gave information at the Police-station were he found the boys in custody, and the clippers in Inspector Mason's possession. George Shreeve, assistant to Mr Cross pawnbroker, of Pottergate Street, identified the clippers as a pair that Turner had offered in pledge When asked how he had come in possession of the article, he at first said he had been sent by his father, but afterwards, in the presence of Inspector Masson, who had been sent for by the witness, he said he would tell the whole truth, and declared that he and his companion Newman had gone down a yard in Theatre Street, and had taken the clippers off a window where they were lying. Neither the parents nor the boys had anything to say. The Magistrates required the lads to produce a security of £5 each for their good behaviour for six months.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1891: Jul 25 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal: - MATTISHALL
A SAD ACCIDENT on the 10th inst, befell a man named John Gathercole, in the employ of Mr Francis, of this parish. The deceased, who was a sober and industrious man, fell from a load of hay, a distance of some 15 feet, and injured the spine and sustained severe internal injuries. After lingering for some days he expired on the 17th inst. An inquest was held on Monday last, and after carefully investigating the case the jury returned a verdict of "Accidental death."

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1891: Aug 22 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
Jacob Hatton, Mattishall, was charged with being found drunk on licensed premises on the 24th July. PC Southgate, said at 8 pm, on the day mentioned be saw defendant lying apparently asleep, on a form in the Gross Keys Inn, Mattishall Burgh. Defendant afterwards asked for some beer, but the landlady refused to serve him, saying he had already had too much. After some persuasion defendant got up and went out. He was very drunk and stumbled about. Defendant, who had previously been cautioned, did not appear. He was fined 5s penalty, 16s costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1892: Nov 19 - Norwich Mercury: - NO DAMAGES PROVED
SPARKES v LEMON. - Mr Edward Sparkes, Mattishall, merchant, sued William Lemon, brickmaker, Welborne, for £5 damages for breach of contract, Defendant pleaded a counter claim of, for work done. Mr Vores, appeared for plaintiff, Mr Reeve represented defendant. Plaintiff is the owner of land at Mattishall, and in the spring of 1891 he had raised sufficient earth to make 14,000 bricks. He saw defendant and entered into an agreement with him to raise some more earth and make 30,000 bricks., 14s. per 1,000 was the price agreed to be paid defendant. Defendant started on the work, and continued for two months, but he suddenly left, having in the meantime drawn £3, 7s, 4d, on account. After the man had left Mr Sparkes, was left without a man, he could not get one, and the bricks remained unmade for a considerable time. The sum of £5 was claimed as damages, and there was a counter-claim, amounting to £4, 14s., due for bricks he had made. In cross-examination plaintiff admitted that defeadant said if he took the job on he should have to draw some money on account. Plaintiff payed him £3 odd, and plaintiff asked for some more, but he refused because defendant had not left the work in a proper state. He could not sat if defendant had cast and prepared sufficient earth to make 10,000 bricks. A man by the name Neave, ultimately took the work up for 12s per 1000. He would not swear that defendant said he would do no more work if he did not pay him more money. Mr Reeve, could not see where the loss came in. Plaintiff had actually got the work finished for 12s per 1000. His HONOUR also failed to see where plaintiff had suffered any loss and he should not nonsuit the plaintiff, with costs. Mr Sparke was a litigous man, he was never satisfied except when he was in Court, and he (his Honour) had hoped plaintiff had had enough of the law. (Laughter.)

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1892: Dec 14 - Norwich Mercury:
BURGLARY AT MATTISHALL : BURIED TREASUE - Frederick Fox, fish hawker, aged about 19, was charged with burglary at the house of Mrs Jane Godfrey, widow, of Mattishall, on 28th November, and with stealing therefrom a number of coins, amounting to £5, 14s, 3d, and a tin box, the property of Anna Maria Godfrey. Prisoner has been lodging with a Mr Godfrey at Mattishall, He is a sun of the poor follow Fox who was killed at Scarning by the fall of a tree about three years ago, and which sad event so unhinged his wife's mind that she was shortly afterwards taken to the Asylum, where she still remains an inmate.
Anna Maria Godfrey said she lived with her mother at Mattishall. On the 29th November she had some money in a wooden box. There were two sovereigns, a five-shilling peace, and some lose silver; she could not say how much. Inside this wooden box was a tin box containing two shillings, one of them a Jubilee shilling, about 100 sixpences, and 57 three-penny pieces She saw the money safe about 2 p.m. on the 29th November, and had counted it all except the sixpences. She looked the wooden box and put it into a drawer in the kitchen. About 4 o'clock she and her mother went out, leaving the house alone She locked the entrance door, with a padlock. About 9 o'clock they returned, and found the door fastened as they left it. She unlocked the door and went into the house, and then noticed that the candlestick and matches had been removed from the place where she left them. This led her to make a search, and on going to the drawer she found the wooden box broken open, and all the money, except a shilling and a two-shilling piece, which were lying on something in the drawer, gone. The tin box was also missing. The same night she gave Information to the police, and on the following Thursday PC Southgate came to the home and compared a piece of iron, which he brought with him, with marks on the door post. It corresponded
exactly. On the following Sunday, December 4th, she saw the tin box is the hands of PC Southgate. It then contained two shillings (one dated 1887), 105 sixpences, and 57 threepenny pieces. He also showed her two sovereigns, half-a-crown, and a sixpence. The tin box produced in Court was the one she missed. Prisoner hired a shed of her mother, and occupied it as a stable. By the Bench - Prisoner never did any work for her mother, and was not likely to be acquainted with the place where the money was kept. There was another shed between that hired by the prisoner and the house. PC Francis Southgate said on November 29th, about 11 pm, he went to the house of Mrs Jane Godfrey, and an examination showed him that the staple had been drawn from the outer door post. A small piece of wood was broken away from the post just below the staple, and the staple was bent as if it had been knocked. He also saw a mark on the post as if something had been pressed against it. On the 1st of December, in company with PC Nobbs, he searched a heap of stable manure lying against the prisoner's stable door, and found the piece of iron produced. They compared it with the staple in Mrs Godfrey's door-post and also with the indentation in the wood. The bent part of the iron fitted the staple, and the and the flat part corresponded with the indentations. There were bright marks on the iron where it had been knocked or rubbed against something hard, and it had apparently but recently been placed where found. About 8 o'clock next morning he saw prisoner in his stable, and after cautioning him in the usual way, showed him the piece of iron, and told him that he found it in the manure heap. When asked to account for its being there prisoner said, "I brought it from Mr Godfrey's shed to take a trap down," at the same time pointing to a rat trap lying in the shed. "I threw it out with the manure as I did want it any more"
He then asked prisoner if the iron was bent when he threw it out, or straight. Prisoner replied, ”Bent as it is now." Afterwards witness showed the piece of Iron to prisoner's landlord, Mr Godfrey, who recognised it as a piece that belonged to him. It was straight when he last saw it. Witness subsequently arrested prisoner and conveyed him to the lockup at East Dereham, and on Sunday, the 4th inst., saw him in the cell, and asked him how he accounted for the five shilling piece he paid Mr Rae on Tuesday night, the 23th of November. Prisoner said, "I took it on my round somewhere, I shan't tell you where." The same day, with PC Wilkin, witness went to the prisoner's stable at Mattishall and found the tin box, now produced, buried under a tub in the stable. It contained a Jubilee shilling, another shilling, 105 six pence's., and 57 threepenny pieces. He also accompanied PC Wilkin to the prisoner's cart-shed, which was on other premises. Behind the shed they found buried in the earth two sovereigns, half-a-crown, and a sixpence. The coins were loose and were about an inch below the surface.
PC Wilkin said on Sunday last, about 1 o'clock, he visited prisoner in the cell at Dereham police-station, and as he was going out of the door into the passage prisoner called him back and said, "I find it no use; I shall have to be locked up; I'll tell you where the money is." Witness went indoors and returned with a piece of paper, and after giving him a caution took down to writing the statement which prisoner made, and which was as follows:- "I do not want to see any one else locked up. I got the box out of the house and put it under a tub in my stable, with the money in just as I took it out of the house. The other money is behind my cart-shed in the ground."Witness read the statement over to prisoner, who then offered to sign it, and did and did so in his presence. He now produced the statement. With PC Southgate he after-wards went to the places indicated by the prisoner and found the money.

Prisoner had nothing to sat in answer to the charge and was commited toi trial; bail being allowed

The final outcome......
1893: Jan 6 - Diss Express:
NORFOLK QUARTER SESSIONS - Frederick Fox, a fish hawker, age 19 pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking into the house of Jane Dunham Godfrey, at Mattishall on November 29th, and stealing therefrom £5, 16s, 9d. It was stated that his mother is in an asylum and his father was killed some years ago while taking down a tree at Scanning. He was sentenced to three month's imprisonment.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1893: May 17 - Norwich Mercury:
SERIOUS CHARGE OF EMBEZZLEMENT AGAINST AN ODDEELLOWS' SECRETARY.
At the East Dereham Petty Sessions on Friday - Frederick Fitt, Innkeeper, late of Mattishall, was charged on remand with embezzling moneys belonging to the Loyal Donne Lodge, M U I O F., to which society he had acted in the capacity of secretary. The precise charges were that be embezzled £1, 4s 1d, in January in 1892, £11, 3s, in February 1893, and on divers other days, and various other dates divers sums amounting to in the aggregate to £40, 3s, 6d.
The case caused some amount of interest in the district, and there was a large attendance of the public in Court.
Edward Sussens Hoy, who lives at Mattishall and is by occupation a watchmaker, said be was the present secretary at the Loyal Donne Lodge, No. 4086, Manchester Unity. He produced the certificates of registration, bearing the seal of the Registrar of Friendly Societies and minute book. Prisoner was formerly the secretary, and was appointed in November, 1889. Witness was then a member. Prisoner continued secretary until February 25th of the present year.
Witness was present at the lodge meeting held on February 18th, which prisoner attended. and the latter arranged to meet the officers of the lodge on the following Monday, at 6 o'clock, for the purpose of an audit of his accounts, but he did not keep the appointment, nor had witness seem him in the parish since February 18th. On February 25th, witness was appointed secretary and then received the contribution and cash books, which he now produced.
By General Bulwer - The secretary had sole charge of these books, and received contributions one a month. The accounts were audited at the end of the year, but at anytime a member could look at the books. Very rarely however, was a request made for inspection.
Witness, continued his evidence in chief, pointed out entries in the cash book, some of which ware in prisoner's handwriting, whilst there were also corrections of figures in witness's handwriting. The total sum entered by the prisoner as having been received at the lodge meeting during the year 1892, was £130, 6s, 5d., of which £4 13s, was for levies. At the end of each lodge night it was prisoner's duty to hand over the money received to the treasurer. Witness could not find any entry in the cash book having regard to
the contribution for William Bowles, but two letters (produced) bearing dates 16th November and 21st December, were in prisoners handwriting. In the first defendant stated that the amount due on Bowles account was £1, 8s, 1d, and the second was a receipt for £1, 4s, 1d, and contained a wish that the persons on to whom it was sent might spend a happy Christmas. Witness also produced another receipt given by defendant in February, 1892, for £11, 3s, for sick pay due and funeral allowance to a deceased brother Richard Pearce. No entry for this amount was to be found in the cash book as having been received from the Secretary R V Rayner, of the Loyal Agincourt Lodge Wymondham. When prisoner was called upon to meet the officers Donne Lodge in February he had in his hands unaccounted for £52, 10s, 7d. This included sums received and entered by prisoner, the other sums that had been received and not entered.
Prisoner had no questions to ask witness at present.
Kingsdon Wells, a cooper, living at Peterborough, said he was Secretary of the Venue Lodge, M U. On November the 16th, he received a request from prisoner for £1, 4, 1d, and this sum witness sent to Fitt by postal order the next day. The receipt (produced) dated November 21st was received by him from prisoner.
Mr R V Rayner, a solicitors managing clerk at Wymondham, said he was Secretary of the Loyal Agincourt Lodge at Wymondham. In February 1892, he sent a cheque for £11, 5s, to the prisoner at Mattishall, as the Secretary of the Donne Lodge. It was to pay the balance of a funeral claim and sick pay in receipt to a late brother, Richard Pearce, The claim (produced) he received from Fitt, the cheque (produce) he sent, and received by post from Fitt the receipt dated February 20th, which was also produced.
Walter Middleton, a carpenter, living at Mattishall, said he was treasurer of the Loyal Donne Lodge, which office he had held since 31st December 1891. The book (produced) showed the amount he received from the prisoner during the year 1892 for contributions was £108, 0s, 11d. The sum received in January amounted to £2, 9s, 11d: February £3, 0s, 3d: March £13, 14s, 3d: April £6, 2s, 10: May £3, 3s, 4d: June £14, 6s 7d: July £5, 19s 3d: August £7, 12s, 9d: September £9, 16s, 1d: October, two sums £12, 16s 1d, and £5, 7s, 10d: November £9 15s, 4d: December £13, 6s, 5d. This made a total of £108, 0s, 11d. Witness did not find any entry of £16, 13s, 6d, as having been received by prisoner from other lodges. On February 18th last prisoner promised to attend a meeting of the lodge officers on
on the following Monday, but the appointment was not kept. They waited for him from 5:30pm until 8pm. One of the auditors was sent after him, but he could not be found, and witness had not seen prisoner since. On December 24th witness gave prisoner another £12 in cash to remit to other lodges, prisoner having sent a written "demand" for it.
This was the case for the prosecution and the caution having been duly administrated, prisoner said he should reserve his defence. He should however, call witnesses at his trial to prove the trustees had offered to settle the matter. He was willing to pay.
The Magistrates committed prisoner for trial at the Quarter Sessions.
Prisoner said he had seven little children, and on their account he asked to be admitted to bail.
Supt Chambers, reminded the magistrates that prisoner absconded as soon as a warrant was issued, and he was only arrested after a diligent search and inquiries had been made as to his whereabouts.
Prisoner said he only went to Norwich with his family.
Mr Arthurton, who laid the information on which the warrant was granted, said prisoner was given time so that he could make arrangements to pay the money, but he had not done so. Prisoner's Mother that morning had said the money would be paid, but he informed her the matter was now in the hands of the polce.
The Magistrates said the matter could not be settled now in the way suggested.
Bail was granted - prisoner in £50, and two sureties of £20 each. The police must be satisfied as to the qualifications of the sureties that might be forthcoming.

The final outcome......
1893: Jun 30 - Diss Express:
Frederick Fitt, secretary of the Royal Donne Lodge, Manchester, Unity of Oddfellows, at Mattishall, pleaded guilty to embezzling various sum of money in January and February 1892, amounting to the value of £53. He was sentenced to hard labour for six calendar months.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1893: Jun 17 - Norwich Mercury: - COUNTY COURT - Thursday
A FATAL TECHNICALITY - CHASTON v SPARKE - George Frederick Chaston, merchant's assistant, and infant suing by father and next friend, claims £12, balance of wage from Edward Sparke, farmer and merchant, Mattishall; and also claims £20 as damage., caused to him by defendant through false representations and promises, causing plaintiff to leave his situation in London, and return to the service of defendant; and also for loss of wages through his being out of a situation from the time of leaving the defendant, owing to defendant refusing to pay him reasonable and proper wages . £15 was paid into Court by defendant's solicitor (Mr H B Caney), who put in a defence of tender. Mr Chamberlin, of Yarmouth, was solicitor for plaintiff, and to-day Mr T C Blofeld (instructed by Mr Culley) appeared for Mr Sparke.
Mr Chamberlin opened the facts at considerable length, and said much would depend on the correspondence. The plaintiff was the son of Mr George Chaston, who occupied a responsible position at Lowestoft as Superintendent of the Gas and Water Company. The families of Chaston and Sparke had been on very friendly terms, and at Easter 1888, plaintiff, being a boy 15 years of age, entered defendant's service, to assist him in the business of a farmer, and also to assist in a small wine and spirit store defendant had. The young man gave the greatest satisfaction, and remained in defendants service till February 1892.
His HONOUR did not think there was any necessity for the lad to sue by his father for wages.
Mr Chamberlin
said it was not quite clear whether and infant could sue for damages sustained by reason of defendant's action and therefore, he thought it best to sue by his nest friend. Considering a narrative of the facts, Mr Chamberlin said in January 1892 defendant thought that he should like to have a relative named Giles, who was then in India, come to Mattishall to conduct his business, and he accordingly sent him £140 to bring him and his family and act as his farm bailiff. Giles arrived in due course with his wife and five children, and duly took up quarters with the defendant. At that time blain tiff was receiving wages of £3, 10s. Defendant gave the lad notice in January, and his left his employment in February. He could not get his wages, but negotiations were re-opened, and the plaintiff received £3, 10s, not for three month's salary but for the last month he was in defendant's employ.
Mr Blofield, said as three month's notice to leave was given, and in consequence of a communication from the father the lad left immediately and really no wages was due.
Mr Chamberlin, disagreed with that position of affairs, and said after the lad had left defendant's employ he went to London and obtained a situation with a Mr Woodward, at a salary of 30s a week. Soon after, it appears, Mr Sparke got wrong with his relation, Mr Giles, and in August 1892 - just before harvest, defendant was in urgent necessity of an assistant, and he opened negotiation with plaintiff's father to get him back to Mattishall. On August 15th, defendant, through his wife wrote to plaintiff's father requesting him to write to Fred (plaintiff), asking if he would like to come back. Gile, defendant said had deceived him and something must be done, and at once and he should be glad if Fred could come back at the earliest date. In a postscript defendant said if the lad had a permanent situation it would be out of the question to ask him to leave it. In reply Mr Chaston said he had seen his son's master, who happened to be in Lowestoft, and would release the lad at once. He felt sure his son would come back if there was future prospect for him. If an arrangement could be made he (the father) would run over and see defendant. Defendant replied a
cknowledging the letter, but as to arrangements said that matter required further consideration. The question was really as to salary. A personal interview ensued. Mr Chaston pointed out that his son had a permanent situation in London, and ultimately defendant and plaintiff should come at man's wages and guaranteed to enter into an agreement to that effect. At that interview the cheque for £3, 10s, for the months wages was given. The lad acknowledged receipt of this cheque, and promised to come at the earliest possible date, and subsequently the father wrote defendant, stating the lad would come to him on the following Wednesday, and his future welfare he left with Mr and Mrs Sparke. The agreement could be made when he (defendant) felt disposed. Plaintiff thereupon left London, and entered defendant's employ. He managed Mr Sparke's business, and had the general superintendence of the place. By October 11th plaintiff had been in his employ for seven weeks, and the defendant gave his a cheque for £9, 10s, which was at the rate of 10s a week. His board and lodging, which he had at defendant's expense, was reckoned at 12s per week, which in total amounted to 22s every week. Plaintiff was willing to go on with this arrangement. Matters went on till January, when a quarter had elarsed, and then instead of being paid at the rate of 10s per week, as the £3, 10s, totaled, a cheque for £3, 10s, for the 13 weeks was presented to him. This he refused, and the lad's father wrote complaining of the fact that Mr Sparke had not fulfilled his promise as to the agreement. On three separate occasions defendant made appointments to meet the plaintiff's father at the Bell Hotel in reference to the matter, and Mr Chaston attended but on the occasion of these visits defendant was suffering from such headaches that he could not discuss any business. Mr Chaston got very disgusted, and at last had an interview with the defendant at Mattishall, but nothing substantial came of it. On the day following Mr Chaston wrote reminding defendant of the contents of his former letters asking for the lad to return to his place at Mattishall and he should come back as a man; and he also said he (defendant) could have his services if a guarantee was given of five years. Defendant replied that a guarantee of five years employment was out of the question and the wages above the amount offered was out of the question. Under the circumstances it was impossible the lad should remain with him any length of time. Mr Chaston wrote back that he should advise his son to give notice to leave, and this the lad did on March 1st. Mr Chamberlin contended that his client had been driven out of service at London to take defendant's engagement, and that he was entitled to not only salary, but damages. This defendant had admitted by paying £15 into court, which was £3 more than salary due. The young man had been out of a situation since March 31st, and he asked his Honour to say that £20 were not excessive damages. Mr Blofield, contended inasmuch as £15 had been paid into court the wages claim was practically settled. We regards to the claim for damages, he urged that an action must be brought for deceit, and to succeed in such and action misrepresented of facts must be proved. No misrepresentation had been proved in this case, and therefore defendant was untilled to verdict. Several legal authorities were quoted and his HONOUR said he agreed in this case an action did not lie. But he would take time to consider the law if necessary. Mr Chamberlin said there was no necessity for a postponement if his Honour was against him. His HONOUR could not see any misrepresentation of fact. Mr Chamberlin, - But the defendant offer to take the lad back as a man.
His HONOUR - Yes, at wages he might consider reasonable.
Mr Blofield - He had 10s a week, and received board and lodgings.
After further argument, His HONOUR said that, exercising the best of his judgment, he must say that an action did not lie; and therefore, plaintiff was only entitled to the amount paid into court, Defendant must pay the costs.
Mr Chamberlin, hoped these would not be imposed, but his HONOUR said he did not like and would not interfere with such a matter.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1894: June 16 - Norwich Mercury: - EAST DEREHAM -COUNTY COURT—THURSDAY
BOWMAN v. LUSHER - An action was brought by Ernest Bowman, Mattishall, dealer, against George Lusher, junr., Mattishall. dealer, to recover £2, due on the vale of horse. Defendant pleaded a counter claim of £6, 15s., being £6 damages for breach of warranty on the sale of a mare, or the return of a horse and 15s., the keep of plaintiff's mare from April 23rd to 4th June, 1894, being six weeks, at 2s, 6d, per week. Mr H B Crowe (Mills and Reeve, Norwich), appeared for the defendant. Plaintiff said on the 23rd of April last, he exchanged with defendant a brown mare for a brown horse, defendant agreeing to pay him £2 extra. He had not, however, carried his promise into effect. In cross-examination plaintiff denied that he warranted his mare quiet in harness. Mr Crowe - That is the issue, Plaintiff further said in croes-examination that when the exchange took place, defendant asked him to trust the £2 till the following Wednesday, and he would call upon him and pay as he came from Norwich. As he did not do so, he (plaintiff) went to his house, and defendant was then trying to attach the mere to a cart. Plaintiff asked him whether be was afraid to do this, and he replied that she showed signs of kicking. Questioned by his HONOUR, plaintiff' said before the exchange took place he and defendant drove the mare between three and four miles, and each took turn at driving. He put the mare in harness in defendant's presence. After they had driven some distance defendant asked whether it was drivable, and he replied in the affirmative, and that it was all right with him. He also told "defendant" that the animal was quiet, and that it never kicked with him. He did not, however, give a warranty. His Honour - But it was a representation that it was drivable, and it is proved it was not drivable. Although, perhaps, it was not equal to a warranty, yet it amounted, as I say, to a representation. Plaintiff has admitted enough to show that he committed it himself to a statement, first that it had never kicked with him, and secondly that it was drivable. In his Honour's opinion an animal that kicked was not drivable. He would, however, hear the defendant. Lusher then said he agreed to pay £2 in addition to the exchange on condition that the mare was quiet in harness.
Whilst they were driving he told the plaintiff that he wanted the mare to take butter and eggs about, and if it was not quiet it was not worth 3d, to him. Plaintiff said he would not sell the mare quiet in harness. On the day following the exchange he was trying to attach the mare to his cart, when Bowman came into the yard. The mare showed signs of kicking, and plaintiff said, "Stand out of the way, I will harness the mare." He thereupon tied one of the fore feet, and put her into the shafts. After patting her he took the line off, and said if she did him (defendant) a particle of damage he would stand responsible for it. The mare, after that, went pretty well, but set out kicking when they touched the harness to remove it. In cross-examination, defendant said he was positive plaintiff said the mare was quiet in harness. His HONOUR - If plaintiff said it was drivable, I take it that he meant quiet in harness. Plaintiff said the mare had been turned out. His HONOUR - And that would make defendant more cautious. Defendant denied that he said the mare must be a very bad kicker or so low a sum would not be charged for her. By His HONOUR - Plaintiff said he had had the mare in his possession about fortnight when the exchange took place. His HONOUR held that a prima facie case of warranty had been made out. Edward Reeve said he was in defendant's yard when the latter was trying to put the mare into the cart. Bowman came in, and yoked her, and then put her into the shafts, saying that she was quiet, and if she did any damage he would, be responsible. He had previously seen the plaintiff trying to get on the animal's back when it shrieked and kicked. Plaintiff said that was nothing to do with the driving. His HONOUR held that plaintiff had failed in his case, there was a warranty, and judgment trust be given for the defendant. The counter claim was then proceeded with. Mr Crowe said the price of the mare was really £8, because Lusher valued his horse at £6, and agreed to pay £2 extra. Lusher then said that he told Bowman, shortly after the exchange, that he should not pay him the £2, as the mare was not quiet, and he thereupon threatened to bring an action for the recovery of that sum. He (Lusher) offered to return the mare, as it was no use for his business, but Bowman refused to accept it. On the following Monday, however, Bowman came into his yard and told him to send the mare up. He (Lusher) said he would do so, and sent to Swanton Morley for the mare, where it was turned off - a distance of 14 miles, there and back - but, upon its arrival at Bowman's premises, he refused to take it in, saying it should have been there at one o'clock. It did not arrive till two. He (Lusher) told him if he persisted is his refusal he he should take the mare to Foulsham Fair and sell it. He took It to the fair, remaining there all day, but in consequence of its condition be could not get an offer. It had hurt its legs. His HONOUR said Lusher ought to have submitted it to auction - that was the usual way - and then he could sue for the difference between what he gave, with the expenses, and the amount it realised. Surely the mare was worth something, even dead, for hounds' food? (Laughter.) Bowman - He let her down, and cut her knees. His HONOUR - Which shows she was not drivable. He would give a verdict in Lusher's favor, on the claim and suggested £3 damages on the counter-claim. Lusher said be would accept the £3, and judgment was entered accordingly, Bowman being ordered to pay in a month, together with the costs, including extra solicitor's fee.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1895: Mar 23 - Norwich Mercury: - CHILD KILLED AT MATTISHALL
Information reached the County Coroner (H R Culley, Esq.) shortly after noon today (Friday) that a child, seven years of age, had been ridden over and killed on the road at Mattishall this morning. The name of the unfortunate little one was not disclosed, but an inquest on the body will be held.

The outcome......
1895: Jun 14 - Diss Express: - MANSLAUGHTER
Henry Thurlow, alias Monk, 47, a showman, was charged with the manslaughter of Dorothy Drew, a child of seven years of ago. The evidence showed that on March 22nd, the child, who was deaf and dumb, was walking towards Mattishall. The prisoner was galloping about on his horse without saddle or bridle, or halter, and when he reached the child the horse knocked her down, breaking three ribs, and doing other injury to her The father of the child picked her up, and took her to the doctor, but she died on the way there. - The Judge said it was not necessary to prove wilfulness; it was quite sufficient to show that the prisoner had been guilty of gross and culpable negligence. - The jury found the prisoner guilty and asked the Judge to make some allowance for the fact that the child was deaf and dumb. - A police-constable said the prisoner travelled with cokernuts and swing boats. and was a teetotaller - The Judge sentenced prisoner to four months' imprisonment with hard labour, dating from the day of his arrest.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1895: Sep 11 - Norwich Mercury:
A DEFECTIVE DRAIN - Robert Sheringham, farmer, of Mattishall, was summoned by the Mitford and Launditch Rural District Council for not complying with a notice served by them under the Public Health Act complaining of a nuisance arising from a detective drain and the want of a cesspool thereto. Mr Walter Edgar Clarke. Inspector of Nuisances for the Milford and Launditch Urban District Council, explained the circumstances of the case to the Bench. The drain in question is on a farm belonging to the defendant, and in the occupation of Mr Juby, Mr Clarke thought the fault really rested with the tenant. The defendant said as far as possible he was willing to abate the nuisance. The Bench decided to adjourn the case for a mouth. In the meantime defendant is to have the drain attended to.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1896: May 30 - Norwich Mercury: - CURIOUS BURNING FATALITY AT MATTISHALL
On Thursday the County Coroner (H R Culley, Esq.) held an inquest at Mattishall upon the body of Ann Leeds, aged 87, who had been found by her daughter, Rachel Ann Leeds, of Runhall, single woman, in a helpless condition, at her house, with her clothes burnt, on Monday afternoon. Rachel Leeds said the deceased lived with her son, Henry Leeds. Witness used to go every day except Sunday to attend to the wants of the house and her mother. She last saw the deceased in good health on Saturday night at her house, and on Monday afternoon, when she returned to the house of the deceased she found her lying on the floor of the kitchen. Deceased said, "I am very glad you have come." Her clothes were burnt. With the assistance of Mrs Leeds, a neighbour, she washed the deceased, and got her to bed. Deceased was burnt on her arm, heal, toes, and back. Witness got the doctor to the deceased the same day. Deceased died the next day at midnight, up to which time she was conscious. Deceased did not say that her son had ill-treated her. Deceased said that she was injured by the burns on Sunday night. There were no bruises on her body. Deceased never complained of witness' brother's conduct. The deceased used to fall about and had some bruises about three months ago on her face caused by her having had a fall at that time. Deceased was very feeble in consequence of their age. Hannah Maria Leeds, the neighbour of the deceased, who was called in by the last witness to assist in attending to her gave corroborative evidence, and added that the deceased had told her that her son had kicked her on Sunday night. Some bruises were on her legs, and witness asked how they were caused. She replied that her son had kicked her on the Sunday night. She did not say that the son had kicked her on any other part of the body beside the legs, which were black from smoke, in consequence of the stockings having been burnt off. Henry Leeds, Mattishall, farm labourer, said he lived with the her, whom he left her at home in her usual state of health on Sunday night at 6:20 o'clock, and returned about 10 o'clock, when he found the deceased sitting on a stool and resting the other part of her body on the floor. There was nothing then burning, and the room was full of smoke. He tried to get deceased up to bed, but she said she was to be let alone. He remained with deceased all night. She refused to allow him to get assistance. At six o'clock he went to work. He did not tell the neighbours of the condition of his mother because she had said there was no occasion to do so, and that his sister would be there early. He did not kick the deceased on Sunday night as stated by the last witness. He was not drunk when he returned home on Sunday night, and he did not think the deceased was seriously burnt. Death from accidental burning was returned.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1896: Jul 11 - Norwich Mercury: - A BAD START
Walter Harrison Campbell, alias Robert Leggett, described as of the Cape Mounted Police, was indicted for unlawfully and knowingly by false pretences obtaining £20 from Frank Neave with intent to defraud him of the same, at Mattishall Burgh on June 20th. He was further indicted for unlawfully and knowingly, by false presences, obtaining a waterproof overcoat from Walter Basey, with intent to defraud him of the same, at Mattishall Burgh, on June 20th, 1896. Prisoner pleaded guilty to the first indictment, and not guilty to the second.Mr North held the brief for the prosecution, and said, with the approval of the Court, he did not propose to proceed with the second charge. The Court agreed to the proposal, whereupon learned counsel said the offence to which the prisoner had pleaded guilty was a particularly dirty fraud. (The facts of the case have so recently been reported that it is unnecessary to repeat them.) The Court sentenced the prisoner to an incarceration in Norwich Prison for nine months.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1896: Aug 8 - Norwich Mercury
SANITARY - Mr G E Smith (the Chairman of this Committee) reported that they, had had more cases of infectious disease brought before him that day then ever before. At Mattishall there were five cases of typhoid fever at a farmhouse and all recovered. The outbreak was attributed to the bad supply of water, and the analyst stated that it was unfit for drinking.
Mr Clarke (the Inspector of Nuisances) remarked that the owner had promised that a new well should be constructed, and the people had been instructed not to drink the water. It was therefore suggested that the matter should stand over till the next meeting.
SMITH also reported that three children in one family, living on Gately Common, had died from diphtheria.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1896: Sep 12 - Norwich Mercury:
ACCIDENT - Mr Albert Empson met with a severe accident on Wednesday afternoon at Mattishall, near the South Green Farm. He was standing by the side of a horse and trap when some guns were discharged by a firing party, and fearing the animal would bolt he started forward to catch its bridle, and in doing so stumbled and fell heavily upon his right wrist. He, however, stuck to the reins, and was drugged a few yards along the road. Whether the wrist is broken, or only very severely sprained, has not yet been ascertained on account of the extensive swelling.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1896: Nov 7 - Norwich Mercury: - STEALING A BICYCLE AT MATTISHALL
Ernest Woodrow (26), carpenter, pleaded guilty for that being the bailee of a bicycle, value £5, the property of James Bramball, he did fraudulently convert the same to his own use at Mattishall, on the 11th September. Sentence deferred.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1896: Nov 14 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal
DISGRACFUL DISCLOSER AT MATISHALL - William Edgar Stackwood, dealer, of Mattishall, was charged with neglecting to abate a nuisance caused by overcrowding in his cottage at Mattishall, as required by a notice served upon him on September 29th. Messrs. Hubbard and Copeman, chairman and vice-chairman respectively of the Milford and Launditch District Council, at the Instance of which the body the proceedings were instituted, retired from the Bench during the hearing of the case. Mr Edgar W Clarke, Inspector of Nuisances to the District Council, explained to the magistrates the facts, and a shocking state of affairs was revealed. It transpired that there had been twelve persons sleeping in two bedrooms, one of which contained only 983 cubic feet, and the other only 280 cubic feet. The Inspector said, "300 cubic feet was required for each person. and consequently there was only capacity in the two rooms for four persons." On the 11th October witness found the number sleeping in the house had been reduced to 10. Two of the children lodged with a neighbour, one George Smith. Witness saw the Council were not desirous of pressing the case as it was exceedingly difficult for the defendant to to find a suitable cottage. The defendant, who appeared a hard-working, straightforward man, in his defence stated, that he had observed the notice that had been served on him and had mitigated the nuisance by lodging two of his children out. Unfortunately for him one of his son, happened with a nasty accident a mouth ago, and he had been ordered by his medical adviser not to move his son. His eldest son was 18 years of age and had regular employment. Mr Clarke suggested that the defendant should sleep four children downstairs, or, better still, lodge another out and sleep three in the living-room below. The defendant thereupon described to the Bench the dilapidated condition of the doors of his cottage, which rendered them dangerous to health to those sleeping in cold weather near such draughts. They were so bad and past repair, inasmuch as defendant's landlord had intimated his intention of reducing the cottage to a thing of the past. The Chair-man said the Bench did not by any means wish to be hard on defendant They recognised that he had been endeavoring to meet the requirements of his large family, and consequently they would adjourn the case for a month. In the meantime they would advise the defendant to obtain a more commodious cottage, and until he could obtain such dwelling they recommended that he should try to lodge a third child out and sleep three others in the lower room.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1900: Jan 20 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal
PROPOSED LIGHT RAILWAY FROM NORWICH TO DEREHAM.
The concluding meeting of the series of village meetings addressed by Mr H L Godden, railway engineer, of the firm of Jay & Godden, was held in Hockering School on Thursday evening. After the Chairman had explained the needs of the district, and the benefits the proposed railway would confer on all classes of the community, and the financial and engineering aspects of the case had teen explained by Mr. Godden, a resolution in favour of such a railway was passed without a single dissentient voice. A committee was formed to assist in carrying out the project, consisting of the Rev Dr Kingsmill, Messrs W A Blyth, Alban Cole, T Fisher, J Ramm, and Sidney Savory, to represent Hockering; and Messers Coe and Gay to represent Mattishall Burgh. A resolution was passed in favour of having station both in Hockering and Mattishall Burgh or Mattishall, which the Chairman said was possible, provided the stations were not too elaborate and expensive.
This has been included as an interesting fact and at this time there is no other place to put it - Mattishall nearly had a railway station!!

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1900: Feb 24 - Norwich Mercury: - WIDOW BURNED TO-DEATH AT MATTISHALL
The County Coroner (Mr H RCulley) held an inquest at the Ivy Cottage Inn, Mattishall, on Friday, as to the death of Jane Godfrey, aged 92 years, who was found dead in her house the previous day. - Hannah Godfrey, granddaughter, said she was 17years of age, and had resided with the deceased, who was 92 years of age. She had been a widow for the past 18 years and had been in receipt of parish relief. The deceased enjoyed fairly good health, but during the past four years had not been able to walk. Her eyesight was also defective. Witness last saw the deceased alive about 12 o'clock on Thursday. She left the house to go to Mr Beckett's shop, a little less than half a mile away. The deceased was then sitting in the armchair, and was going to do her hair up. Witness returned to the house at 1 o'clock, and upon opening the door found the room full of smoke. Witness immediately closed the door and ran for Mr Vince, who lives near by. She was subsequently informed that her grandmother had been burned to death. She had very often left the deceased alone. When she left the house on Thursday she noticed the fire was all right, and did not think for one moment that deceased would take any harm. Besides going to the shop she called upon a Mr Nelson and also Mr Daines.
How do you think deceased's clothes got on fire? - I think she most have been getting from one chair to another, and in so doing her clothes got alight.
Had she any poker or stick she could have stirred the fire with - Yes, there was is poker.
William Vince, ex-police-constable, of Mattishall, said he lived about 100 yards from the deceased's house. About 1:30 on Thursday afternoon he heard the last witness screaming on the road, and when he spoke to her she said her grandmother's house was on fire. He went to the house at once, and when he opened the door he found the deceased and the chair ablaze, the flames nearly reaching the ceiling. He obtained two buckets of water, and extinguished the flames. The deceased was lying with her feet towards the fireplace. The woman was quite dead, and he could see she was fearfully injured, her lower limbs being burned quite away. From what he saw be thought the deceased was combing her hair, as he saw two combs lying on the floor. He believed the deceased was getting from one chair to another when her clothes caught fire. The granddaughter attended to deceased very satisfactorily.
Dr W H G Williams, Mattishall, said he had seen the deceased repeatedly during her life. On Thursday he was called to the home, and found the deceased had been fearfully burned. Her clothes, which were of flannel, would not burn rapidly, and it would take quite an hour to produce such extensive burns. The bones were practically reduced to charcoal. It was not advisable for a person of such age to be left alone.
The jury returns a verdict, "Accidental death."

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1900: Dec 8 - Norwich Mercury: - TRESPASS
James Ibill, labourer, Mattishall, was charged by Frederick John Capp, farmer, Mattishall, with trespass in search of rabbits at Mattishall on Monday the 18th inst. Defendant pleaded guilty. Complainant stated that he saw defendant go on to his land with a dog. He went to bank and tried to get a rabbit out of a hole, complainant shouted to defendant, who ran away. He afterwards saw defendant, who admitted to being on the land. Defendant wa fined 12s., including costs, or seven days.

On the same day.....
Robert Woodrow
. farmer, Mattishall Bergh, was summoned by PC Sainty for driving without lights, at Mattishall on the 24th inst., he was fined 5s, including costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1901: Dec 7 - Norwich Mercury: - A PUBLIC HOUSE BRAWL
John Greenwood, farmer, Yaxham, was summoned by James Meachen, fowl dealer, Mattishall Burgh, for stealing a hare, value 2s, 6d., at Mattishall on the 20the isnt. Mr B Vores, appeared for defendant. It appeared that about 10pm, complainant was at the Eight Ringers' public-house at Mattishall. Defendant was also there with others. Complainant had a dead hare in his inside coat pocket. About 10 o'clock he left the puplic-house and got into his cart. Directly after the defendant took the hare from his coat pocket. From other evidence it seemed that the hare had been thrown about in all directions, and that the whole company was having a game with the complainant, treating the matter. James Isbill afterwards found the hare lying on the ground in the yard, and threw it into Hewitt's garden. Defendant brought the hare back, and offered it to William Kelvey who refused to take it. George Blanche, Garvestone, landlord of the Windmill Inn, stated that between 10 and 11 at night defendant called at his house and gave him the hare. Hewitt came the next night, and witness gave it to him. Defendant said the hare was one they had been larking with "Old Yellop" meaning the complainant, The Chairman said the Bench were quite satisfied there was no case of wilful larceny, but only a puplic-house brawl, and the case would be dismissed.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1902: May 24 - Norwich Mercury
MATTISHALL BRASS BAND - is open to receive engagements for the coronation. For terms apply W Tilney, Mattishall Burgh, Dereham

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1902: Nov 7 - Diss Express: - SUFFOCATED BY A WASP STING.
On Tuesday Mr H R Culley, County Coroner, held an inquest at Hockering, relative to the death of Edward Blyth, aged 75 years. Pamelia wife of William Blyth, landlord of the Cock Inn, Hockering, said the deceased was her husband's father. On Thursday he came in about 11:30 and asked witness for half a pint of beer. Witness served him in a half-pint earthenware mug and left him sitting in the bar. - William Arthur Blyth, son of deceased, said he saw him sitting in the bar drinking some beer. Witness saw him pick a wasp from the floor and show it to Mr Hoy who was in the bar, but did not hear what he said. Witness left the house, but his daughter shortly afterwards called him back, saying deceased was very ill. Witness found him sitting in a chair in a dying state. Mr Hoy showed him the 'sting of the wasp he had taken from deceased's tongue. Deceased died in a few minutes. - Edward Sussens Hoy, watchmaker, Mattishall, said when he went into the Cock Inn deceased showed him a wasp which he said had stung him. He said he was stung in the tongue, and asked witness to look at it. Witness saw the sting in the tongue and pulled it out. Witness went into an adjoining room and on going back found deceased leaning back in his chair apparently breathing with difficulty. His tongue was protruding. and he was gasping. Deceased died in a few minutes. - Thomas Howard Barnard, dealer, of Hockering, said he loosened deceased's collar and waistcoat to give him a better chance of breathing, but without effect. - Dr Griffith Williams of Mattishall said from the examination of the body he was able to state that death was due to suffocation, caused by deceased's tongue having swelled in consequence of the sting. The jury returned a verdict in actor dance with the medical evidence.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1902: Dec 19 - London Daily News: - THE GOVERNESS'S THREAT
Miss Elizabeth Johnson, a governess at Mattishall School, East Dereham, Norfolk, deosed to writing ten letters a day for two weeks on behalf of the company, and at the end of that time, when she applied for her remuneration, a list of questions was forwarded to her. In reply she wrote informing the company that she had witnesses to prove that she had faithfully complied with the conditions of the appointment, and threatening them with legal proceedings if the money was not sent to her. The letter continued:
"I think it shameful that I should have to get up these dark mornings at five o'clock and often four in older to devote 3 1/2 hours before breakfast to writing letters for your firm and then to be put to all this trouble. I have written to teachers all over England, and ever since I have received several letters asking if I have received my payment."
Mr Calvert, - When you sent in a claim for payment you were asked if you had performed all the duties, and you refused to answer those questions.
Witness - Yes, because I had promised to comply with the condition, and the sending of the postcards with the names and the addresses of the persons to whom I had written was sufficient to prove that I had done the work.
Detective Yard gave the result of his observations which he had kept upon the prisoners since September last. He had on several occasions seen them leave the office arm in arm and visit restaurants together. The prisoners were again remanded.

Miss Johnson (with many others) had fallen victim to a national scam..... details below.....

Leslie Travers, an American, descried as a clerk of Upper Gloucester Place, London and Rose Hudson, a bookkeeper, living with her parents at Waldermar-avenue, Fulham, were charged with fraudulently obtaining money for persons in connection with the 'Trafalgar Novelty Company', Trafalgar Buildings, Charring Cross. Mr Muskett said the man formerly lodged with the female prisoner's mother. He came from America and took offices at Trafalgar-buildings, Charing Cross, where, it was alleged, he had carried on these frauds. He sent out circulars headed. "The Pen to Mightier than the Sword," and stating that the Trafalgar Novelty Company wished to engage correspondents at home for a period of three months at a salary of 20s. a week. The correspondents were to write ten copies every day (excepting Sundays) of a letter which was enclosed and send each copy by post to a friend or other people. Every night a post card was to be sent to the company containing the names and addresses of the persons to whom the letters had been sent. The letter which they had to copy and send out was one explaining that anyone who wished to earn £1 a week without interfering with present occupation should apply to the Trafalgar Novelty Company. A condition precedent to their being appointed was that they should pay a sum of 10s, 6d,. in return for which they received a gold nib fountain pen or nickel watch. In addition to the £1 a week for writing letters they were to receive 5s, a week for the postage. There was also contained in the circular an offer to increase the salary in cases where the correspondents' services had proved quite satisfactory. At the top of the circular was an illustration of Trafalgar Buildings, but the company only occupied one room there, having taken it in September last. The whole business, continued counsel, was carried on by the prisoners and two clerks. Persons who replied to the letters NEVER RECEIVED ANY MONEY. Those who were not satisfied were called upon to answer a string of ridiculous questions on oath, which, of course, they declined to do. The whole business was a FRAUD.
Travers pleaded guilty at the Old Baily and was sentenced to twelve months hard labour - Rose Hudson was discharged.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1903: Jul 25 - Norwich Mercury: - FARMER'S TRAGIC DEATH AT TUDDENHAM.
An inquest was held on Saturday afternoon at the Bull Inn, East Tuddenham, on the body of Charles Turner, aged 17 years, who met his death on Friday afternoon by a gun accident. Elizabeth Turner, mother of the deceased, was the first witness, and deposed to handing the gun - a double-barrelled one - to her son, at his request, over the hedge at the back of the meadow surrounding the, farmhouse, where he was trying to kill some rats. She did not hear the gun go off as she was very deaf, and knew no more till she saw him staggering across the meadow, where he fell down from exhaustion from loss of blood. John Turner, farmer, occupying the old Tollgate Farm. where the accident happened, was the next witness called. He was not at home that day having to attend Dereham market. He returned in time to accompany deceased in a cab to the Hospital, but death took place before reaching Norwich.John Plane, innkeeper at the George Inn, Mattishall, was thatching a haystack near, and heard the gun go off, and deceased call out twice, but did not take any notice the first time. He saw him trying to get to his mother, who shouted out, "My boy has shot himself." He saw the lad fall, and hurried down to help the mother to carry him indoors, and noticed a quantity of blood under his right arm. Thomas Wright, labour , Said there was a gap in the fence through which deceased had apparently passed with the gun dragging behind him. Dr Griffiths Williams considered that death was due to hemorrhage and shock. He had no doubt the young lad was dragging the loaded gun after him through the hedge as the wound was from behind. The Coroner directed the attention of the jury to the very light touch required on the trigger to bring the hammer down, and no doubt it had been caught by a twig or bramble in the hedge. A verdict of "Accidental death " was returned.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1904: Jan 6 - Norwich Mercury: - FROM THE POLICE COURTS
SOLDIERS AND THE PONY AND CART - Saying that they had left their kit at Yaxham, and expressing a desire to fetch it, Alfred White and William Simpson, privates in the Grenadier Guards, induced John Batson, of Mattishall, to lend them a pony and cart, which it was promised should be returned the same day. They left Mattishall about 9 o'clock on the 17th ult., but as they failed to put in an appearance in a reasonable time Batson became suspicious of their story, and began to make inquiries. He followed them to Briston, where, to his surprise, he learned that they had sold both the cart and pony for 30s. On going to Watton he found the property in the hands of PC Gilbert, who, on hearing of the affair, had proceeded to Watton, where he found the horse and cart in the possession of a man named Sellars. On the following morning prisoners were arrested on the road to Sporle, when Simpson said, "We stole it for a purpose, thinking to get. out of the Army," and White added, "Yes, we are tired of the Army, and want to get out of it." The prisoners were brought before the Dereham Bench on Friday, when Mr Richard Sellars, a licensed hawker, of Watton, told the magistrates that on the day in question he was at Griston, when the two prisoners come to him driving pony and cart. Simpson, who was driving, asked him to buy the pony, saying, "Will you buy this turn-out. We bought it at Dereham just for our furlough, and don't want it any longer as we are going back to our regiment on Monday." Witness offered 30s. for it, which they accepted, both of them declaring that they had bought the pony and cart, and offering to show witness the receipt for them if he came to them on Saturday. Witness was not quite satisfied, so he made further inquiries,and later handed the articles over to the police. The prisoners were committed to take their trial at the Quarter Sessions for the county.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1904: Jun 4 - Norwich Mercury:
Laura Scott, Mattishall, summoned John Reeve, butcher, Mattishall, for an assault, which was alleged to have taken place in defendants house on the 16th May. The evidence brought by the prosecutor was of a very un-satisfactory nature - and the case was dismissed, the Bench cautioning the prosecutor.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1904: Aug 12 - Diss Express: - LONDON HOUSE STORES - MATTISHALL
Mr Culley, the Norfolk coroner, held an inquest at Mattishall, on Wednesday, touching the death of a man named Robert Frederick George, aged 73, who was found dead in a water tub early on Tuesday morning. The evidence of the widow was to the effect that deceased was a carpenter and joiner by trade, but for the past fifteen years had carried on business as a grocer and draper. About half-past six on Tuesday morning she went into the garden and found her husband's body in the water butt. It had been his habit each morning to go to the butt to get water for his garden. Deceased had suffered from depression, but not recently. She believed, however, that he had worried himself of late about the illness of his daughter. Another witness, Frank Norton, said he saw the body in the tub, and from its appearance he did not think it possible for deceased to have fallen in accidentally. There was a foot and a half of water in the tub. The jury returned a verdict to the effect that deceased drowned himself in a tub of water whilst temporally insane.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1904: Aug 27 - Norwich Murcury:
DEATH AT A MATTISHALL INN. An inquiry was held at Mattishall on Saturday by Mr H R Culley as to the death of Thomas Wright, aged 61, of Welborne, a farm bailiff, which occurred on Saturday morning. The evidence given by a son of the deceased, Robert William Wright, a carter, and the wife of John Plaine the landlord of the GEORGE INN, Mattishall, showed that the deceased man had good health as a rule, but during the last few days he had complained of pain in the chest, which he attributed to indigestion. He was a customer at the inn, and about 7 o'clock on Saturday morning he drove up in a cart. and entered the house. After he had given his order to the landlord's wife, Mary Plaine, she went out of the bar for a moment, leaving the deceased standing in the doorway, evidently keeping an eye on his horse. As she was drawing some beer the deceased suddenly fell to the ground and expired almost immediately. A farm labourer named William Newby, who was in the George Inn at the time time of the occurrence, stated that after the deceased had given his order, he went into the road to look at his horse. On entering the house again he suddenly fell back without saying a word, his head striking the brick floor. Dr Griffith of Mattishall, said on attending the deceased about two years ago, he came to the conclusion that he had a valve of the heart diseased. In following his usual occupation with are care he would not run much risk. Death, witness thought, arose from angina pectoris, in a natural way. The verdict returned was to that effect.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1904: Oct 26 - Norwich Mercury:
Robert Dack, dealer, Mattishall, who did not appear, was found on Saturday night driving along the road near Hardingham Railway Station without a light, fined 6s, 6d, including costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1904: Dec 7 - Norwich Mercury: - CRUELTY TO A MARE
Edward Burton, bricklayer, of Norwich, was summoned for cruelty to a mare by driving it whilst lameless at Hardingham, on November 2nd. Robert Dack, dealer, Mattishall was also summoned for causing the animal to be illtreaded. The defendants pleaded guilty. PC Carter, said he saw the defendant Burton driving a pony, which was very lame. He was touching it with a stick, but the animal appeared to be to lame to trot. When spoken to the defendant said the pony had been like that for 20 years. It was very poor in condition, and was really a skeleton. Inspector Adams, of the RSPCA, said he saw the pony on the 4th ult, and noticed that one quarter was quite wasted away. The Magistrates fined each defendant 10s with costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1905: Mar 11 - Norwich Mercury: - IVY COTTAGE MATTISHALL
Mr Bainbridge, wade an application on behalf of George Savory for the renewal of the license of the Ivy Cottage at Mattishall.
PC Smith, stated that only one room, the kitchen, which was about 18 feet square, was used for the purpose of trade. There was a cottage in the yard, and these cottages had a right to use a well, which was also in the yard. The Eight Ringers public-house was 283 yards from the Ivy Cottage, and the Swan 760 yards. The Eight Ringers was a larger house, than the Ivy Cottage, and was better accommodated for trade. There were about 60 houses' within a radius of 400 yards.
Cross-examined - There were six licensed houses in Mattishall, which had a population of 746 in 1901. There were three licensed premises close to the church, and witness did not think there were more than 60 dwelling-houses in the vicinity.
George Savory, the tenant, said he made a living out of the house and followed no other occupation.
By the Chairman - He did a barrel and a half, and sometimes more a week. He had a pension of 8s a week.

Referred for compensation 03.03.1905 - Licence expired 07.06.1906 - Referred for Compensation 14.08.1907

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1905: May 27 - Norwich Mercury: - EAST DEREHAM. PETTY SESSION
FRIDAY - Robert Woodrow, of Mattishall Bergh, farmer, pleaded guilty to cruelty to a pony by working is while in an emaciated condition, and suffering from open wounds. PC Smith said on the 3rd inst he saw defendant working his pony attached to a plough. Witness found three wounds on the shoulders about the size a sixpence and shilling. They were raw and inflamed. The pony was very weak, and appeared to be in pain. Defendant slated that he was feeding the pony on chopped barley straw and mangolds, and that it had had no hay for in month. Inspector Adams found the pony in the state mentioned by the police-officer. Fined, with costs, 15s.

The same day....
Frederick Parling
, of Welborne, fish hawker, was summoned for working a house at Hockering while lame in an emaciated condition. PC Smith saw defendant and his wife, on the4th inst., with in pony and cart in Hockering Street. The pony was lame, weak, and in a very poor condition. There was slight bleeding from swelling on the near leg. .Witness told defendant he should not allow him to continue using the pony. Defendant then took it out of the curt, and his wife led it home, defendant dragging the cart. Inspector Adams corroborated as to the pony's condition. Defendant was cautioned, and fined 5s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1905: Jul 12 - Norwich Mercury:
John Batson, of Mattishall, Inn-Keeper, for allowing two houses to stray on highway, fined 5s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1907: Aug 26 - London Daily News:
Frederick Barnard, Welborne, Mattishall, Norfolk, has been found by his wife, with the top of his head blown off, and a discharged gun by his side.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1907: Oct 25 - Diss Express:
Thomas Wright (18) a labourer, and Sidney Wright 12, surrendered to their bail, and pleaded not guilty to setting fire to a stack of wheat, the property of Nancy Gepp, of Mattishall on October 15th. Prisoners were found not guilty and discharged.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1908: Feb 14 - Diss Express: - FOUND DEAD IN A DITCH
An inquest on the body of s women named Elizabeth Mann, Three King Lane, St. Benedict', Norwich, whose dead body was found lying in a ditch at Mattishall. near East Dereham, on Saturday last was held on Wednesday by the County Coroner (Mr H R Culley). - A coal porter named George Ruffen, with whom the deceased lived said he believed her age was about 52. She was a single woman, and worked for over twenty years at Hinde's crape factory, Norwich. About a week after Christmas the firm had no further need for her services. She had been sitting at home, moping and fretting, and it played upon her mind. On Tuesday morning witness left home for work about half-past five, and when he returned home be was met by his niece, who said that deceased was out. He found the door locked and the key gone. On the Saturday witness saw in the "Evening News" that a body had been found, and he went over to Mattishall and identified it. - William Thomas Rayner. wheelwright, of Mattishall, said on Saturday morning he was crossing a field when be saw the body lying in a ditch about three feet deep. It was fully dressed, but the head and feet were bare. There was a little water but not enough to cover the body. - Police-constable Smith said about 300 yards away from the body he found a shoe. About 30 yards further on he found a similar shoe. He also saw some marks which suggested that somebody had been walking there with naked feet. A woman's hat lay in the ditch near the body. The position of the body countenanced the theory that the deceased got into the ditch and laid down. - Dr Williams of Mattishall deposed to making a post mortem examination of the body. He attributed death to exposure, but his examination showed that she was suffering from heart disease, kidney disease. and a very much enlarged liver. She had been dead at least five days. There was also evidence that the deceased had been addicted to the drinking of alcohol - The jury found a verdict in accordance with the medical evidence.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1908: Apr 10 - Diss Exspress: - TERRIBLE MURDER AND SUICIDE IN NORFOLK.
On Monday afternoon (April 6th) the village of Welborne, Norfolk, about a mile from the main road between East Tuddenham and Mattishall, was the scene of a most distressing tragedy, a married woman, the mother of eight children, having been shot dead by her cousin, who afterwards turned the gun upon himself and blew out his brains. The name of the victim was Ellen Smalls, who with her husband occupied a cottage near the church. Of her children, six lived at home, the eldest being a girl of about 19, and the youngest a child of four. Her husband, James Smalls, worked as a labourer for Mr Hubbard, a farmer in the parish, and she is spoken of by the neighbours as a hard working industrious woman. She augmented her husband's slender income by occasional field work. Her age was about 38, and she had lived in Welborne or the neighbouring village of Mattishall all her life. A short time ago, in consequence of the annoyance she experienced at the hands of her cousin, a single man named James Green, aged 33, who lodged at the Brickyard Farm, Welborne, she summoned him before the magistrates at Wymondham on charge of threatening to shoot her. The case was heard on the 3rd of last December, and Mrs Smalls, in her evidence, stated that Green pointed a gun at her. On August Bank Holiday, 1906, Mrs Smalls alleged that Green threatened to "put her light out." The Bench ordered him to enter into his own recognisances of £40, and to find two sureties of £20 each to keep the peace for twelve months, or in default, to undergo three months' imprisonment. Green failed to find the sureties, and was taken to Norwich Prison, where he was released about the end of February.
It seems, however, that this term of imprisonment had no effect upon the man, and on Monday afternoon he carried out his terrible threat, sending the poor woman into eternity without a moment's warning, and then ending his own life at a spot not many yards from where his victim fell. During the afternoon Mrs Smalls was engaged picking up stones on Mr Matthew Morter's farm, and at half-past two, Green, who was carrying a gun, as was his custom, came up to the gate and spoke to her. After a little conversation he walked away, but about a quarter-past three he returned, and at that time several villagers heard the report of a gun. Upon looking in the direction from whence the sound came, they saw Green hurrying away from the field in which the woman had been working. Walter Smalls, a relative of the unfortunate woman, was amongst the first who reached the spot, and he was horrified to find the dead body of his sister-in-law lying on the ground with a terrible wound in the back of her head, the top of which had been blown off, and her brains scattered about the place. Death must have been instantaneous.
Immediately afterwards the report of a gun was heard in the adjoining field, and upon proceeding to the spot the body of the murderer was found in the dyke, Green having re-loaded the gun and blown his own brains out. Information was immediately sent to the police, and a doctor was also summoned, but he could do no more than pronounce life to be extinct in both cases. The body of the murdered woman was removed to the disused schoolroom, whilst the remains of Green were carried to an outhouse at the rectory. An inquest on the bodies was held by Mr H R Colley, County Coroner, on Wednesday, when it was stated that Green was kicked in the ear by a horse some years ago, and this somewhat unhinged his mind. Last year he sold his furniture, and upon being asked what he was going to do he replied that he should not want furniture much longer, an he should soon come to the churchyard. A little later he spoke to a Mr Blyth, and asked him to dig his grave for him.
The Coroner, in summing up, told the jury that in coming to a conclusion with regard to the death of Mrs Smalls, they must not take into consideration the mental condition of Green. They must deal with the question in the same way as if Green was still alive.
The jury, after a consultation in private for about twenty minutes, found that the deceased woman was shot by *James Green feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, and that Green did feloniously wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, kill and murder himself.
MORE - Ellen Smalls was formerly Ellen Carr born in the Jun quarter of 1871 at Mattishall Burgh the natuaral child of Mary Ann Carr age 16. Ellen's mother married Thomas Dalton and lived at North Tuddenham before moving to Yorkshire - Ellen age 19 married James Smalls age 23 on September 15th 1890 at All Saints Church Welborne, they had 8 children. After Ellen's death James Smalls continued to live at Welborne but during the First World War James would suffer further heartache as two of their son's were killed, Charles Smalls on October 12th 1917 age 19 and Francis James Smalls on July 12th 1917 age 22. They are both mentioned on the Mattishall & Welborne War Memorials - see HERE
* James Green was born August 12th 1873 the son of James Green a Gardener at Welborne and his wife Mary Ann Smalls of Mattishall.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1914: Apr 10 - Diss Express:
Mr H R Culley, the Norfolk Coroner, held an inquest at Runhall, on Thursday, 2nd inst., touching the death of the newly born female child of Mrs Reynolds, wife of John William Reynolds, of that parish. - The evidence of the father of the child was that the infant was born on the previous Saturday afternoon, witness being the only person present with his wife at the time. The birth was sudden and unexpected, and the baby in witness's opinion was not alive when born. He buried the child in the garden attached to the house. Witness did not get assistance for his wife, but her mother who lived some distance off came and saw her that day (Thursday). Witness told some men of the birth, and on Tuesday he disinterred the child, and putting the body in a box handed it over to the police. - Dr Griffith Williams, of Mattishall, said he had seen the infant, and formed the opinion it was prematurely born. There was no chance of it surviving birth, in fact, in his opinion. it was not born alive. - The jury returned a verdict that there was no evidence to show the child was born alive, and added the following rider:-"John William Reynolds is blameworthy for not having obtained proper assistance for his wife, and for having buried the body of the child in the garden attached to the house he occupied."

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1914: Apr 11 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal: - MATTISHALL
LIBERAL ABSOCIATION. - The first meeting of this newly-formed Association was held to the Oddfellows' Hall on Monday evening. It was resolved that young men from 16 years of age upwards be eligible for membership. An unanimous resolution was carried inviting Sir F W Wilson of The Dale, Scarning, to take the office of president for the ensuing year. Other appointments, were: - Chairman, Mr W Middleton, - general secretary, Mr W T Ranyer, treasurer, Mr J Neave.

YOUNG MAN'S GUILD. - An entertainment was given in the Lecture Hall by members and friends on Monday evening. Mr Bertie Wright presided, and the programme was as follows: - Prayer, Mr Neave, reading, "Big Bill's debt." - Fred Cole, solo, "Beautiful home." - Mrs Cole, chorus, recitation, "Father goes spring cleaning." - Willie Kerridge, solo, "Blessed Assurance." - Sam Watts, reading. - Mr W Palmer, solo, "Sleep and forget." - Miss Botwright, reading, "How a loan was repaid." - Mrs Cole, reading, - Miss Minns, solo, "He died of a broken heart." - Mr W Palmer, song, "Rosalie the prairie flower." - Fred Cole, Four organists in turn rendered assistance, viz., the Misses M Cole, L Palmer, and Messers George Francis, and A A Neave. Gramophone selections were given by Mr Fred Holland, and help was contributed by Mr I Pearce (cornet). The meeting closed with the hymn "When the roll is called up yonder." Afterwards a coffee super was served.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1914: Jun 6 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
A NOVELTY - Edward Sussens Hoy, farmer, of Mattishall, pleaded guilty to riding a bicycle without a light. - He stated that he so seldom rode a bicycle in the dark that he did not think anything about a lamp. - PC Levick explained the circumstances, and defendant was ordered to pay 5s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1914: Jun 20 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal: - LATE HOURS AT THE "SWAN INN," MATTISHALL.
NO OFFENCE AGAINST LICENSING ACT - The presence of four young men at the Swan Inn, Mattishall during the early hours of Sunday morning was the subject of a charge under the Licensing Act at the Dereham Police Court on Friday.
Ernest William Fennell the landlord, was summoned for keeping his house open during prohibited hours, and Charles Fewell, chauffeur, of Honingham, Philip Gay, student, of Honingham, Leonard Dunnell, blacksmith. of Brandon Parva, and Gordon Greenwood, farmer, of Colton, were summoned for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours. - Mr F Andrews, of Fakenham appeared for the defense.
PC Hunt stated that on May 31st he was on duty near the Swan Inn at one o'clock when he heard voices He recognised the voice of Fewell, who said "Now you owe Billy seven pence. "Another voice he could not recognise, but he heard the man say, "What about my two bob." At 1.20 he entered the house by a back door he found partly open. Greenwood was standing in the doorway, and the other men were seated about the room. There was a quart Jug on the table, glasses containing beer, a wine glass, two plates. and a pack of cards. He asked Fennell how he accounted for such a thing, and the landlord replied, "There is nothing paid for here, this room is private." Witness asked for the names of the men, and Fennell said."What do you want our names for, this room is private. Everything is alright. You have seen no money pass. Come and have a sip of beer." Witness left the house and outside listened at the window. He heard a man, voice say, "I wonder what he is going to?" Fewell replied, "He can't hurt me, I shall say I am a traveler." Dunnell said, " I should like to meet him on the road with my motor bike, I would run into him. If I did not knock him down I would knock his hat off." The girl Fennell, who was in the room said, "Be careful what you say he may be outside." Fewell spoke to witness outside the house. He went back, and witness heard him say, "I can't make much out of him, he has been standing underneath the window and heard all we said." Fewell told him he had been invited into the house by Fennell to have supper, for which he paid sixpence. All he spent in the house was one shilling-sixpence for his supper and sixpence for two glasses, 1 port wine, one he had himself, and one he treated the girl to. Fewell said to Dunnell, I told him you were staying here the night and going out rabbit shooting in the morning. So you are alright. The girl Fennell was sitting with her arm round Greenwood's neck. Greenwood left the house at two o'clock. Witness returned at three o'clock and the house was in darkness. Fewell and Gay lived at Honingham which was about four mike away. Dunnell lived five miles off, and Greenwood about three miles away. Gay told the witness that if he was summoned he was going to speak the truth - "I have lost a lot of money, and have had enough of it. I shall tell them exactly how much money I have lost." He was prepared to say Fewell did not play cards in the house that night with them. Greenwood said they might have had a hand of whist, but no money passed.
Cross-examined by Mr Andrews -You know Dunnell? - I have seen him twice. - He is engaged to the landlord's sister? - I don't know.- There are three sister, are there not? - Yes. - Witness knew that Fewell and Gay made the journey on the motor cycle, and that Fewell went on to Dereham. He did not see Dunnell leave.
Ernest William Fennell, the landlord, stated that the four defendants arrived at his house before ten o'clock on the night of May 30th. Dunnell was engaged to a sister who lived in the house, and Greenwood was engaged to another sister who lived in the house. About 11.30 Fewell asked for supper, and it was got for him by one of his sisters. He had loin of pork and a glass of wine. Gay, who was a teetotaler, had lemonade. Dunnell had port wine, and Greenwood had a lemon and dash. Fewell paid for his pot wine, but none of the others, paid anything. The supper was gift from him. There was a jug of beer on table but it his gift. After closing time no money was paid with the exception of the shilling by Fewell, who was a chauffeur in the employ of Mr W L Boyle, MP.
Cross-examined by Supt, Roy - Are you aware you cannot convert customers into friends after a certain time? - I was not aware of it. - Mr Andrews - It is not a strict statement of the law.
In answer to further questions by the Superintendent, defendant stated that Gay left the house at 10 and returned shortly before 12 o'clock. - When Fewell returned was anyone riding behind him on his motor bicycle? - Not that I know - Did anyone come in with him? - No.- If Fewell say you were riding on the bark of his motor bicycle, would it be the truth? - No. - You had not been to Dereham? - No. - You never left the house that night? - No. You heard the constable say, "What about my sevenpence?" Can you give an explanation? - I do not know what he means. Can you explain the remark about the two shillings? - No, I can't. It must have been in conversation between the company.
Ernest Fewell
said he was always called "Charles." He was chauffeur to Mr W I Boyle, MP, of Honingham. He took Gay on motor bicycle and left him at the Swan Inn, Mattishall, while he went on to Dereham. He arrived bock at 11.30, and asked for supper. One of the sisters of the landlord brought in a plate of pork and two glasses of port wine, for which he paid a shilling. All the time he was in the house be saw no one pay for drinks.
Cross-examined by Supt. Roy, defendant said he arrived back at the house at 11.30, and remained there for two hours.
Philip Gay was the next of the defendants to enter the box. Asked what he did, he said he was learning shorthand at Norwich. He rode on Fewell's motor bicycle to Mattishall, and waited there until he returned from Dereham, and accompanied him back to the house, and they remained there until 2.30. He had supper and nothing to drink with it.

Cross-examined by Supt, Roy - You remember coming to see me last Monday evening? - I do - Did you say you intended speaking the truth? - Yes. And that you were not going to scotch Mr Fennel or anyone else. Did you say card playing had been going on? - Yes
Mr. Andrews - We are not trying card playing.
Leonard Dunnell said he was a blacksmith, apprentice to his father.
Mr Andrews - Are you engaged to one the sisters of Fennell, - I am walking out with her. - What time did you leave? - about three.
Supt Roy - Are there any married people In this house?
Mr Andrews - Are we trying the morals of these people.
Gordon Greenwood said he kept company with one of the landlord's sisters. He left the house about 1.30 to 2.
Mr Andrews Invited the Bench to say that Greenwood, Dunnell, and Gray were present in the house as guest of the landlord They were his private friends within the strict meaning of the law, and they were entitled to be in the house after closing time, provided that no intoxicating liquor was sold. The landlord was justified in having his private friends on the premises but, as the Superintendent suggested he could not convert customers into private friends for the purpose of evading the Act. There was no attempt to evade the Act, and there was no drinking in the sense that they understood it. Fewell had traveled fourteen miles, and was in the strict letter of the law a traveler. If he were not a traveler, he (Mr Andrews) was at a loss to know who was a traveler
within the compass of the new licensing Act. Although the case for the prosecution had been presented most fairly, it was an extremely flimsy one. They were entitled to bring it forward. for the men were in late, but they had received an explanation. The hands of the Bench were tied.
The Chairman said the Bench considered the Police were quite right in bringing the case to their notice, but they dismissed it.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1914: Jul 4 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
ALL THROUGH A SUNDAY PAPER - William Turner, labourer, of Mattishall, was summonsed for allowing two cows to stray, and pleaded, not guilty. - Supt Roy stated that he was driving on Sunday June 21st. between Mattishall and Garvestone, and saw two cows, one on each side of the road. He saw defendant sitting on a stone heap reading a newspaper. - Defendant said he did not think he was doing any harm, as it was not a turnpike. - The Chairman said It was not a serious case but some people took the whole day to drive their cows home. Defendant would have to pay 4s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1914: Sep 4 - Diss Express:
At East Dereham - John Batson, inn-keeper, of Mattishall, - is summoned for delivering intoxicating liquor to lad in an unsealed vessel. and William Turner, farmer, of Mattishall, was summoned for sending the child. Police-constable Howes said he saw a boy named Bowman, ten years of age, coming from the Eight Ringers public-house, at Mattishall, carrying a gallon bottle of beer. The boy told him that Mrs Batson had served him, and he had been sent for the beer by the defendant Turner. Batson said it was a hot day, and they were threshing close to his house. It was harvest time, the men were busy, and sent for some beer. He did not think in that case it was necessary to seal the bottle. The defendant Turner said one of the engine men must have sent the boy, and he took it that it was the landlord's duty to see that the bottle was sealed. The Chairman said no doubt it was an oversight on the part of the landlord, and the case against Batson would be dismissed on payment of 4s, costs. The case against Turner was also dismissed.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1914: Nov 28 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
ASSAULT BY A WEAK-MINDED MAN. - Thomas James Wright, (25) labourer, of Mattishall, was charged with committing an indecent assault upon Lily Wiseman of Dereham. - The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr W N Barton) stated that he under-stood the defendant was weak minded, and perhaps the Bench would consider the advisability of reducing the charge to one of common assault. - The Bench reduced the charge to that of common assault, and the defendant pleaded guilty. - Lily Wiseman stated that when she was going home on Wednesday night the defendant was standing at the corner of Norwich-street, and High, street, He said "Good-night" to her, and she answered him. When she turned into the yard where her sister lived she found he was following her, and as she knocked at the door of her sister's house defendant committed the the assault and she shrieked.
Sergt Bussey, stated he was on duty in Cowper-road. when be heard the young woman call out. He found defendant had been detained by the militar guard and a member of the military police. Defendant. when charged. said "That is quite right. I did not know what I was doing" The defendant was a labourer, earning 9s, a week. At the request of the Bench the defendant's, father was called. He stated that on Wednesday night his son told him his master wanted him to accompany him, and he went out. His son was twenty-five years old, but he had had to be looked after like a child all his life. It was a great affliction. - Defendant was ordered to pay 10s. and his father, was bound over in the turn of £15 as surety for his good behavior for twelve months.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1915: Jan 30 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal: - THE POLICE COURTS.
PRISON FOR MATTISHALL FARMER - Edward Hoy, farmer, of Mattishall, was charged with being drunk whilst in charge of a horse and cart at East Dereham, and also with doing wilfully damage at the police station. Defendant was arrested on a warrant at Sandy, in Bedfordshire, where he was serving with the National Reserve. He appeared in court wearing His Majesty's uniform - Defendant pleaded not guilty. - PC Howes, said that on December 19th he was in charge of a motor control on the Norwich-road, at Dereham, when be heard a particular noise of a horse and cart came up. He turned his light on, and saw it was the defendant, who was sitting in the cart, and the reins were lying loosely on the horse's back. He spoke to defendant, but could not understand his reply. A motor-car then came up, and the defendant pulled the horse nearly into the motor. Witness seized the horse's head and pulled it out of the road. Defendant then said. "What is up with you? get out of the way, or I will drive over you." Witness then saw that the defendant was drunk, and unable to drive. He waited for assistance, and whilst he was doing so the defendant got out of the cart and used bad language saying."If had a double-barrelled gun I would shoot you." After about half an hour Sergeant Bussey arrived, and with his assistance witness got him into the cart and drove him to the lock-up. All the way
the defendant used bad language and threatened to throw him out of the side of the cart. - Defendant said the witness had told "three-parts lies." - Witness in answer to the defendant, said that he was not driving recklessly. He got out of the cart without assistance. - Defendant: So I could not have been so very drunk? - Witness: You were practically mad. - Defendant: Only after you exasperated me. - Special Constable Green, who was on duty with PC Howes said that about seven o'clock he saw the defendant drive up. He was under the influence of drink, and was to danger to himself and anything else on the highway. When they removed the barrier across the road the defendant nearly collided with a motor car. - By defendant: He threatened to shoot the policeman, but he did not think he meant it, as they knew he had no gun, and did not feel frightened of him. - Superintendent Roy, said when the defendant was brought to the police-station he was drunk, very abusive, and using bad language. He was placed in a cell, and at his own request he was examined by Dr J K Howlett. He we very disorderly in the cell, and shouted until three o'clock in the morning. He was unbearable. - By defendant: The doctor said there was no doubt about it that he was drunk. - Defendant stated that on the day in question he had some business in Dereham, where he had two glasses of bitter beer at the "Cock" and two drinks at the 'George.' He drove home slowly and very carefully. At the barrier he pulled the pony up into a walk and the pole was drawn back and he drove through. He was under the impression the motor car was there at the time. The policeman get hold of the pony's head and he thought he was going to lead it past the motor car, which he thought was very kind of him. He was very much surprised when the policeman told him to get out of the cart. When he was put in the cell he was treated very badly and handled about cruelly. They forced him on the bed and tried to take his boots off without removing his legging, and pinched him in the body and otherwise illtreated him. He then asked to see a doctor, and the police suggested Dr Howlett. He answered all the tests, and repeated the intricate sentences which were put to him quite as intelligently as the doctor put them to him. They then roughly handled him again, and if he had committed a highway robbery they could not have treated him any worse. He was not drunk and quite capable of driving home. The doctor told him he was not drunk and incapable, and if he had kept quiet and sent for his solicitor he would have given him his certificate. He returned him his 2s, 6d, fee, and added that he wished he had nothing to do with those sort of cases. - With respect to the charge of wilful damage, which was then taken. Supt, Roy said that after the defendant had been put in the cell he heard some knocking, and upon going to see what was the matter, he saw the defendant had broken the commode, and the following morning he saw that the bell wire was broken. He spoke to him about the bell and he said. "I gave it a chuck and it came down." He produced the account for damages, which mounted to 3s, 6d. - By defendant: The bell was there for the purpose of being pulled, but it would not break with an ordinary pull. - Defendant said he admitted the damage, but denied that it was wilful. - The bell was only a "jimcracky" affair. He was serving with the National Reserve, and considering he had already had two nights in cells he thought surely that would be sufficient punishment for so slight a misdemeanor. It had been a great punishment to him and he hoped they would let him off with paying the costs.
The Chairman said the defendant had been there several times, and they were tired of seeing him there. He had disgraced his uniform and would be sentenced to twenty-eight days with hard labour.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1915: Feb 13 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
GIRLS FRIGHTENED AT MATTISHALL - John Brown, labourer. of Colton, a middle-aged man. was summoned for assaulting Mabel Bowman, at Mattishall, on Jan 21st - Mabel Bowman stated "she lived at Mattishall with her parents and was sixteen years old." On January 21st, she was returning home from choral practice at the church in company with her sister Violet Bowman and her cousin Florence Herbert. Near the malt-house she met a man. She did rot recognised him, but he was the defendant. He crossed from the opposite side of the road and caught hold of her. He said something, but she did not understand what it was. He pushed her cousin out of the way, and complainant tried to avoid him. She got away and ran home leaving her sister and cousin. - Violet Bowman, sister of the complainant, stated she was accompanying her sister home when they met the defendant. He crossed over from the other side of the road and grabbed hold of her sister. The complainant struggled and in breaking away from the defendant she knocked the witness against the wall of the malt-house and ran away. Defendant said. "Oh! its you is it?" - Florence Herbert said the man put his hand round witness and caught hold of Mabel. Violet was pushed against the malt-house wall, and witness ran away and screamed. - PC Powell said he received a complaint form the mother of Mabel Bowman. He found the defendant in a field on the East Tuddenham road. He told him of the complaint and defendant replied, " I have not interfered with any girl" Witness took him to Mrs Bowmans house and Mabel Bowman said " that is the man who intefered with me." Witness took him into custody, and he repeated several times a statement of an incriminating Charactor.He was under the influence of drink. - Defendant said he saw three little girls playing at the corner, end he said, "You little devils, you ought to be indoors long ago." and he shuffled his feet. They ran away. He did not get near them. He had had a little beer. - A farmer, of East Tuddenham, said defendant had worked for him for four years, and he was a good workman and very quiet. - The Chairman said the Bench found defendant guilty. To say he was drunk was no excuse, and if he came up again on on a Change of that kind he would be sent to prison. He would be fined 15s including costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1915: Mar 27 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
John Turner, labourer, of Mattishall. pleaded not guilty to being drunk and disorderly at Mattishall. PC Powell said he heard defendant as he staggered about the road, and he turned his flash light on to him. Defendant said, - "You have no right to use that light," and caught hold of his coat and started to push. Witness pushed him away, and cautioned him, and advised him to go home. Defendant said the police were not wanted in Mattishall. - Defendant said the policeman flash his light on to him three times, and he thought it was one of the young chaps who had been flashing lights about Mattishall. If he had known it was PC Powell he would not have caught hold of him. - The Chairman said defendant had behaved very badly, and he would have to pay 5s. Defend, I shan't pay: - The Chairman: Or seven days

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1915: Jun 12 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
MATTISHALL ACCIDENT. - A sad accident happened to a little boy named Gordon Roland, of the Heath Road, on Saturday. He is eight years old and was playing in the farmyard at the Hall Farm, where his father works as shepherd. Unfortunately the little fellow got his linger severely crushed in a cattle food grinder. He was at once taken to the doctor's, where it was found necessary to take the injured finger off.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1915: Jul 10 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal: - SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST MATTISHALL WOMEN
"NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SEND CASE TO TRIAL." - Alice Tilney, wife of John Tilney, labourer, of Mattishall, was charged with burglarioualy entering the house of Harry Eastell, motor driver, of Mattishall, and stealing 9s, 6d,
Harry Eastell stated that on June 22nd he went to his bedroom at 10.30, and left on the mantelpiece of the sitting-room a purse containing 9s, 6d. Half an hour later his wife said she heard a noise downstairs, but witness did not go down. When he got up at 6:30 the next morning he noticed the scullery window was open. It was closed when he went to bed. The purse instead of being on the mantelshelf was lying on the table. A tin on the mantelpiece in which he usually kept the purse had been opened.
Mrs Eastell stated that shortly before 11 o'clock she heard a noise downstairs a distinct sound of glass being moved or broken. She asked her husband if he had heard the noise, and he said he had not. When she went to bed she left her purse on the mantelshelf under some babies socks. When she went down at 2 am, she noticed her purse lying on the table, but it did not occur to her that it was strange. On the same day she saw defendant near the garden hedge. Defendant passed a remark about the weather, and witness told he, "We have had a visitor during the night who has emptied my purse." Defendant said, "The children told me that during the night there was a tramp on the side of the road." Later in the morning defendant came across to her, and asked her if anybody had accused her of taking the money. Witness said "No" She returned about 2.30 and asked her of what coins her money consisted, and witness told her.
The Clerk, - Did you accuse her? "No"
Witness stated at 5.30 defendant spoke to her, and declared her innocence, and her husband was paid in florins and half-crowns.
The Clerk - Do you think she knew where the purse was? - She came in and out of the house as she liked.
Flora Kate Horne, daughter of William Horne, grocer, South Green, Mattishall stated on June 22nd about 7.45 in the evening, Mrs Tilney came to the shop. She bought two or three articles, but did not pay for them. The next morning the defendant came to the shop, bought some more things and paid for them with a two-shilling piece. Later Mrs Tilney's little girl entered the shop to pay for the articles her mother obtained the previous night and paid with a half-crown.
PC Powell, Mattishall, stated that at 11.30 on June 23rd, he received a report from the prosecutor, and visited her house. He examined the scullery window at the rear of the house. It was insecure but he could not find any marks or signs that it had been forced. The window was about a yard square. He made inquiries and suspecting the accused he visited her house. Mrs Tilney lived about fifty yards from the prosecutors house. He asked her where she was on Tuesday night. She replied "I went to Mr Eastell's house about 8.30, stopped there a little while, and went home and waited for my boy to come home. He reached home about 10 o'clock, we had super and went to bed. Witness cautioned her, and asked what money she had in the house. From a vase in the front room she produced 1s, 5d, and said that was given her by her husband on the previous evening. He mad further inquiries and then in the presence of defendant he asked her husband if he gave her any money the previous night. He replied. "No, all I gave her was 15s in the usual way." In the presence of the prosecutor witness asked her if she had changed any money that morning. She replied. "No," and then said, "Well I had half-a-crown last night, and that I used to buy some things this morning." He arrested the defendant on a warrant last Friday. She said "There has to be some tales about this money. First she said it was over 10s, now it is 9s, 6d. I do not know."
Defendant said she has no witness to call, and the Bench retired to consider whether there was sufficient evidence on which to commit the defendant to trial.
The Chairman, said the Bench had carefully considered the case, and they had decided there was not sufficient evidence to send the defendant to trial. She was therefore discharged.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1915: Jul 31 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal: - SCENE AT A MAITISIALL INN
POLICEMAN USES HIS TRUNCHON - LANDLORD AND CUSTOMERS FINED - Frank Bartram Earl, Innkeeper, Landlord of the "Swan " Inn, Mattishall. was summoned on a charge of permitting drunkenness on licensed premises.
Arthur Randall, coal merchant, of Mattishall, was summoned for being drunk on licence premises and also drunk and disorderly. John Turner, farmer, of Mattishall, was summoned for being drunk on licence premises and also assaulting PC Powell whilst in the execution of his duty. James Gaff, labourer, of Mattishall, was summoned for being drunk on licence premises.
Mr Walter Joseph, (Messers Joseph, Steward and Pretty) prosecuted on the instructions of Captain Mander, the Chief Constable. Mr E A Bracey appeared for the defendants.
Mr Joseph said it was a difficult task for PC Powell to tackle single-handed. - Powell stated that Earl had been the landlord of the "Swan" Inn since October. He was formerly a dealer. A rather rough close frequented the public house. On Thursday, July 8th. at 5 o'clock he saw a horse and cart and a bicycle outside the house. At 8pm, he saw Earl moving the horse and trap into the yard. Randal was walking very unsteadily, and witness told him he had had enough drink. Randall said he should have as much as be liked. Witness saw Earl in the passage and told him Randall had had sufficient drink, and he was not to serve him with any more. Earl said he would not serve him, but he did not think he was drunk. Randall turned round and took a class half-filled with beer and drank it, and asked the landlord for some more beer. Earl said be did not dare serve him with any more. Randall became abusive. Witness heard a voice from the kitchen, "Did you say I was not to have any more beer." Witness saw Turner and Gaff there. Turner was drunk and witness advised Earl to get rid of them. Earl said they would prove it, meaning the men were sober. Gaff staggered out of the room, and witness saw that he was very drunk, much worse than the other mean. Witness saw Earl and a woman he thought was Earle's mother-in-law, helping Gaff into the tap-room, and he asked Earl what he thought was his condition. In the yard witness saw Randall and Turner and another man, Turner put himself in a fighting attitude and struck at witness, knocking him against the wall, so that his elbow was hurt. Witness pushed him down, and as he came at him again witness drew his staff and struck him on the shoulder. Turner fell down, but picked himself up and came at witness again. They closed and rolled on the round, and the defendant tried to twist his leg. He said "I have had enough, I will go if you will let me." He tried to ride his bicycle and after witness had threatened to lock him he went home. Randall was very abusive and used bad language. He said that witness had no right to speak to him, no other policeman had done so, and he was not going to do so." Witness advised him to go home. He kept saying "I wish to be locked up." and witness brought him to Dereham. The Superintendent of the Police came in at 10 o'clock. and defendant was released on bail. On the way back to Mattishall defendant said he would have his revenge and at Mattishall he went up to a special constable and called him a policeman's tout. When the summons was served Gaff said, "Have you spelt my name right. Gath, but it does not matter. I cannot deny I was there, I went to Mattishall in the morning, I went into the "Swan" before dinner, and I stopped there till you came and ordered me out."
Cross-examined by Mr Bracey witness said Turner attacked him, he struck him a blow with his truncheon, but it was not a heavy blow. He could not say where it hit him.
Talbot Hill, farmer, of Mattishall, and a special constable said on Thursday night he saw Gaff coming from the "Swan" Inn in a drunken condition. Gaff was in his employ, but that day he had not been to work.
James Peace stated that Mr Hill handed Gaff over to his charge and he walked home with him. Gaff was a little under the influence of drink.
Bertie Daynes, labour, of Mattishall, said he was a special constable. On Thursday he was returning from a drill with the VTC when he saw Turner and Randall near the Swan Inn. Turner tumbled off his bicycle, Randall said "------ take me to Dereham." Turner and Randall, he thought, were drunk, or they would not have behaved like they did.
Frank Norton, shopkeeper, of Mattishall, and a special constable, said there was a disturbance outside the Swan Inn, and a crowd of people gathered. Gaff, Turner and Randall were drunk. Later in the evening, after Randall had returned from Dereham, he came to witness's shop, and accused witness of spying on the house. He was excited.
Cross-examined - He heard Randall say he would like to see a doctor at Dereham.
Mr Bracey said Randall held a very decent position as a coal merchant, and he was a very much older man than the constable, who made a very tactless and senseless remark. The constable lost his temper, and whatever trouble there was was brought about by the constable's Indiscretion.
Frederick Earl said he bad been landlord of the Swan Inn since October last. Turner came in at 5 or 6 o'clock, and all he had to drink was three glasses of cider. Mr Randall had a glass of cider in the afternoon. He went for a quarter of a ton of coal for him, and returned at tea time, and had two more glasses of cider. Directly the constable arrived he said, "Don't serve this man with any more beer." Defendant said, "Why not, is he drunk?" - and Powell said: "He has had enough." This upset Randall, and he wanted to know why he stopped him from having a drink. Turner said: "Am I drunk?" and the constable pushed him down. Turner got up, and the constable hit him on the head with his truncheon. Defendant drove to Dereham, and he went with Randell to Dr Belding's surgery Dr Belding, said Randall was sober. Gaff, when he got up, staggered about, but when he was sitting down he seemed perfectly sober.
Cross-examined - Earl said he supposed there were various stages of drunkenness.
You had become a happy father the day before?-Yes. - You were pleased about it?-Yes. Did you not wet the baby's head, as it is called? - I never paid for any. Did they pay for beer to drink the baby's health? -They never said anything about it. Turner never struck the constable. He had his hands in his pockets when the constable pushed him down, and when he got up the constable struck him on the head with his truncheon. Did you not think it was brutal conduct? - I thought it was not a manly thing. - Did you not think, you were justified in interfering? - I did not want to be in it, and I did not want a crack on the head.
Turner said the constable pushed him down. At the time he had his hands in his pockets. When he got up the constable struck him on the side of the head with his staff. He went down again. The constable struck him a second time, and he went down again. He never lifted his hands at him. He was not upset. He was not annoyed with the magistrates, nor anyone except the constable.
Arthur Randall said he had three glasses of cider at the Swan Inn, and he said he was very annoyed when the constable said he was drunk. It was at his suggestion that he went to Dereham. Earl drove him with the constable. In the yard the constable said he was not so drunk as he thought. and apologised, and he told Powell he did not want his apologies.
Cross-examined by Mr Joseph Randall asked why he should have taken the advice of the constable about going home. Why should the constable dictate to him, and why should he be bossed about by a constable?
Alice Taylor, mother-in-law of Earl, gave evidence. - James Norton also entered the witness box, and said he regarded a man as drunk when he was incapable.
William Turner, farmer, of Mattishall, said he was told that his father had been knocked down by the constable. He found his father in a very dazed condition, so much so that he almost fell into his arms, and he had a lump on the side of his head as big as his fist. He did not mount his bicycle the first time, hilt it bad not a step, and had there been a bank he would have got on all right.
The Chairman said the case had taken a long time, and the Bench had given full attention to it. With regard to Earl, they did not think he had conducted his house as he should, and he must keep better control. Ho would he fined £3. With regard to Randall, they would give him the benefit of the doubt, and hoped, if he went to the house again, he would be careful of his behavior, As regards Turner, he would be fined 10s, for being the worse for drink, and 10s, for assaulting the police. Caff would be fined 10s.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1916: Jun 10 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
MATTISHALL ACCIDENT - A painful accident occurred near the Church on Monday evening. Mr B Reeve, poultry dealer, was cycling homewards on the Norwich road, and at the crossing in front of Oddfellow's Hall, he collided violently with a horse and cart. The front wheel of the bicycle was buckled, causing the tire to burst with a loud report. The driver of the vehicle, a local farmer, at once turned his horse round and rendered every assistance possible to the unfortunate man. Reeve was bleeding from a severe cut on the ear, which extended downwards along his neck. He was helped into the cart and speedily taken to the doctor's where his wound was stitched up.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1916: Jun 23 - Diss Express:
Walter Harvey, of Mattishall, dealer, pleaded guilty to cruelly ill-teating a mare by working the same while in an unfit state at Attleborough on the 8th June - Police-Sergeant Webb, proved the case, stating that the mare was emaciated, unfit for work and suffering from sores. - The Bench decided, in view of his previous record, that defendant should be imprisoned for fourteen days with hard labour.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1916: Jun 24 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
CRUELTY TO A MARE - Walter Harvey, dealer, Mattishall, was charged with cruelty to a mare on June 8th. - He pleaded guilty. - PC, Sergt. Webb said he visited a stable at the Bear Hotel, Attleborough. where he saw a dark brown mare harnessed. It was in very poor condition, very weak, and appeared to be half starved. Underneath the pad he found two raw open wounds, one on the back and one on the withers. Each wound was about the size of a half-crown piece. The back was vary tender to the touch. There was also a small wound under the tail, upon which the strap was pressing. Two wounds, one on each shoulder, were also rubbed by the collar. and there was a large wound on the near fetlock, which was very much swollen. On removing the pad witness found wet matter adhering to it, and the head of a nail, which went right through the pad, was on one of the sore places. The defendant admitted that he had driven the mare all the way from home, and was going to drive it back. Witness refused to allow it to go on. The same night defendant sold it to man at Attleborough, and since then it had been turned out. Witness saw the horse again last evening, and noticed that it was wonderfully improved. - Inspector Armstrong, of the NSPCA, deposed to seeing the mare in the condition described by the last witness. It was totally unfit for work. - Defendant said he was guilty in ignorance. Inspector Armstrong told him to turn it out, and he did so, and this was the only on which he had driven it. - The Bench sentenced the defendant to 14 days' imprisonment.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1916: Jan 22 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal: - "MUDDLED" MUTTON IN A BUTCHER'S SHOP.
Harriet Stimpson, of 47 West End Street, was summoned on the information of Joseph Brooks, Inspector of Nuisances, for exposing for sale at her shop, on December 16th, part of a carcase of sheep, which was seized as being unfit for human consumption. Mr H Darlow (Assistant Town Clerk) appeared in support of the information, and Mr Walter Joseph defended.
It was stated by Mr Darlow that on the day in question Mr Connolly, an assistant sanitary inspector, went to the defendant's shop and found hanging there a carcase of mutton, minus one leg and a loin. He at once came to the conclusion that it was unsound and unfit for human consumption. Mrs Stimpson informed him that the carcase had been sent to her by Mr James Hewitt. a butcher and dealer of Mattishall, on the previous day and that she intended to sell it, although up to that time no portion of it had been disposed of. Mr Brooke, the chief sanitary inspector, was called in. and found the meat to se wet, flabby, badly bled, and in but opinion unwholesome and unfit for the food of man. His opinion was confirmed by Mr Low, a veterinary surgeon, and the Medical Officer of Health, and the carcase was afterwards condemned by one of the magistrates and destroyed. One complaint made was that the fat was pink. Mr Brooks being of opinion that it indicated that the animal had not been cleanly killed. Assistant Inspector Connolly said the fat in the carcase had retained the blood and was of a "redish-purplish colour." That indicated to him that the animal died before being slaughtered (laughter.)
The Clerk - You mean that it had not been killed? - Yes.
Inspector, Brooks stated that in his opinion the animal died naturally.
Replying to Mr Joseph, the witness expressed the opinion that no animal which had not been slaughtered was fit for the food of man.
Dr H Cooper-Pattin, the Medical Officer of Health, said the meat was flabby and not properly bled and not fit for human consumption. He formed the opinion that the animal probably died naturally.
Asked by Mr Joseph if an animal which died as the result of a violent accident was fit for human consumption, Dr Cooper-Pattin said that in that case there would be a very great risk, owing to the liability of purifying changes in a carcass which contained so much blood.
Defendant. in her evidence, said she had been in business in West End Street for the past 26 years, and this was the first time any complaint had been made against her. Her business was a small one, being mainly that of a pork butcher. For some years she had dealt with Mr Hewitt, of Mattishall, and on December 15th he sent her three-quarters of sheep and a small pig. Neither of the parcels had been ordered, and as she had no suitable back premises for the mutton she instructed the carrier to hang it in the shop pending an enquiry as to what she should do with it. Mr Hewitt had occasionally sent to her premises quantities of meat intended for a Mr Addison, and she thought that this particular carcase was intended for that individual. When the assistant inspector called her attention to the condition of the mutton she said it might be due to a sudden change in the weather and the possibility of it having been dressed by a slow butcher. She denied that she had any intention of selling the meat.
James William Hewitt, a butcher, of Mattishall, said the carcase in question was handed to the carrier with instructions to leave it with Mr Addison. The sheep was "alive when slaughtered." but in his opinion had suffered from indigestion and been trampled upon by other sheep. It was bruised and unfit to show in a shop, so he went a portion of it to Mr Addison, who was not a retail butcher, but a slaughterer. He sent it to Addison to do as he liked with it. It was fit for human consumption.
Mr Joseph, - Would you have eaten it your-self?
Witness, - I should not mind. It was only "muddled."
William Howes, a Mattishall carrier, admitted that he made a mistake in leaving the mutton at Mrs Stimpson's shop. He was told that the mutton was for Addison, but forgot all about it until Mr Hewitt told him of the terrible muddle which his mistake had brought upon Mrs Stimpson.
George Addison. of 163, Northumberland Street, slaughterer, said Mr Hewitt occasionally left meat at the defendant's for him. Mr Hewitt always gave it to him and never expected payment. He knew nothing about the three-quarters of mutton until after the seizure, when the other quarter was sent to him.
Mr Wild - What would you have done with the whole of the sheep?
Wittiness - I should have eater it.
What the whole of it? - Yes, every bit. It was far too good to give to a dog.
The Chairman said the Bench had given their best attention to the case, and were bound to come to the conclusion that as the meat was found in the defendant's possession she was primarily responsible. Therefore, they were bound to record a conviction. Statements had been made as to the circumstances under which it came into her possession, but that was a matter of law between the parties concerned. However, the meat was found in her possession. and they had the evidence of both inspectors that she said it was her intention to sell it. Taking into favorable consideration the defendant's circumstances, she would be fined 20s, or 7 days.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1917: Apr 7 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
Luke F Harrison, farmer, Mattishall, was summoned for allowing a chaff cutter to be working without proper fencing, at Shotesham St Mary, on March 8th, and was fined 10s, including costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1918: May 4 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
TWO DOGS AND ONE LICENCE - Luke Foster Harrison, a Mattishall farmer, was fined 5s by Dereham magistrates on Friday for keeping two dogs with one licence, without applying for and exemption for the second.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1918: Jul 7 - Lincolnshire Echo:
The Rev. Edward Madoc Madoc, Vicar of Matishall, Norfolk, was fined £20, with £10 costs, at Dereham yesterday for hoarding 160lbs of sugar and 133½ lbs of cheese.
MORE - Sadly we do not have the details of this case as the Madoc's were very community minded people and it is hard to believe this was just for personal use. The Rev Madoc and his wife did a lot in the parish and for the less fortunate - More on Rev Madoc can be found HERE

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1920: Sep 11 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal: - DAMAGE TO ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH INSULATOR.
MATTISHALL BOY FINED - At a Children's Court on Friday last, a Mattishall boy was charged with having on the 13th July, in the parish of Mattishall, maliciously "injured" and insulator of an electric telegraph, the property of the Postmaster-General.
Mr Haratio Harry Wigg, chief inspector of Post Office engineering department, Norwich, prosecuted. - The lad pleaded not guilty. - The boys father - He means he was not maliciously guilty. He told the policeman he was, but her the father was not there. - A lad named, Sidney Wake, of Mattishall, said as he was coming out of school he saw defendant break the insulator cup by throwing a stone at it. - The magistrate - was there a bird on the wire? - Witness, No. - The father said there were several other boys there at the same time throwing stones. - PC G Powell, stated that on the 13th July he found the cup of one of the insulators broken, and upon what he was told, he went to the school and saw the defendant and asked him what he knew about it. Defendant admitted he threw a stone and in coming down the stone hit the insulator and broke it. He particularly asked the lad whether any other children were there throwing stones, and he replied in the negative. - The father, - there were three other boys there when he broke it. - Witness, -There was not. - The father, - I don't think it is fair for you to pick only one boy out. - The witness, - there was nobody else there but your lad. - The father, - I have never had any trouble with the lad before. - Chief Inspector Wigg, said cases of this sort had become very serious, especially around that district. It was very difficult to locate these boys.
The Bench imposed a fine of 5s, and 11s, 6d, costs. - The father, - I do not consider it is proved that the lad did it. It was only an accident at the most if he did.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1922: Jan 12 - Dundee Evening Telegraph: - DRUG-TAKER FOR TWENTY YEARS
Mrs Laura Annie Scott (60), a widow, of Mattishall, who was found drowned in a cistern, was stated by her daughter at the inquest to have been in the habit of taking drugs for twenty years, and worried because she could not now get them. - A verdict of temporary insanity was returned.
Laura was born Laura Anna Lingwood, baptised on June 23rd 1861 at All Saints Church, Mattishall, daughter of James Lingwood a Groom and his wife Anna Stephens. She married George Stephen Scott at Mattishall in the Dec quarter of 1884.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1922: Mar 25 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal: - MATTISHALL FIRE SEQUEL
ARSON CHARGE DISMISSED - CARELESS BUT NOT CRIMINAL - The destruction of two stacks at Mattishall last week had its sequel at Dereham on Friday, when, before Sir Ralph Hare, presiding. and other magistrates. William Herbert Foyster, of no fixed abode, was charged with feloniously setting fire to a straw belonging to Talbot Jas, Hill, farmer, Mattishall, on March 13th.
Prosecutor said he had two barley straw stacks adjoining the main road, and both were destroyed. Their value was £70.
Robert Smith
, roadman, in the employ of the County Council, said he was at work on the Honingham-Shipdham road on the day in question and saw accused come from Dereham. Accused, who was going in the direction of the stacks, asked for a match, and witness gave him three or four. About a quarter of an hour afterwards he saw the fire about 150 yards away.
Robert William Wright
, teamman, Mattishall, said that after noticing both stacks in flames, he saw the accused on the road, 60 or 70 yards away. He asked accused if he had seen anyone near the fire, or if he knew anything about it. Accused replied that he lighted a cigarette near the stack and it must have been him. He suggested going to the farmer and explaining that it was an accident, as he did not want to throw suspicion on anyone else. At witness suggestion, however. he remained with witness until someone came.
The Chairman - Would it have been any use him trying to put the fire out? - No. Both stacks were gone so quickly in the strong wind.
PC Lown, Mattishall, said be found the accused detained by the last witness, and Foyster at once made a statement to the effect that after obtaining the matches from the roadman he went out of the wind to light a cigarette and then struck two or three matches, which be threw down on the fence. He said he did not know he had set fire to the stacks until the last witness stopped him, and that it was a pure accident.
Accused told the magistrates he did not intentionally set fire to the stack.
The Chairman intimated that the magistrates had decided not to commit him. They have however, thought he showed gross carelessness. Accused was accordingly discharged.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1923: Mar 24 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal: - DEREHAM CHEQUE STORY
MATTISHALL FORGERY CHARGE - A serious charge was investigated by the Dereham Bench on Friday, when Albert Gunton (27), labourer, of Mattishall, was charged on remand with forging and uttering a cheque for £14 7s. 6d., and endeavoring to obtain that sum by fraud from Barclays Bank at Dereham on February 16th.
Mr T H Warren. auctioneer, Dereham, said that on the afternoon of February 16th, market day, he received a communication from his bank, and was handed two cheques. One cheque was genuine, but the signature of the other not witness, and the cheque had not come from his last cheque-book nor from the previous one.
Stanley Arthur Weyer, cashier at Barclays Bank, Dereham, said the accused presented at the bank a cheque for £14 7s. 6d. It was made payable to J. Bacey and Core, the signature being very similar to that of Mr Warren. Not being satisfied with the signature witness asked accused to wait, and referred the matter to the manager, and when he returned alter a few seconds the ACCUSED HAD GONE.
John Batson, licensee of the Eight Ringers, Mattishall, said on February 9th, he took three pigs to Dereham for the accused and entered them in Mr Warren's sale. The pigs were sold and witness received a cheque payable to himself, for £4 7s. 6d., which he handed to accused. Later, witness suggested that as the cheque was payable to him, he should take it and give accused the money, and accused brought the cheque on February 16th, and cashed it.
Mrs Hettie Lusher, market gardener, Mattishall, said her son came to her on February 16th accompanied by accused, and asked her to give him a cheque. She gave a blank cheque from her book to the accused, who gave her 2d, and went away.
PC Chaplin, said having received a report from the bank he made inquiries, and on February 17th saw the accused at Mattishall and told him what he was investigating. Accused stated he borrowed a cheque from Mrs Lusher, but when he got to Dereham he found he had lost it. He added that his object in getting the cheque was to pay some money in as he was going to to join the bank. Subsequently witness arrested the accused at Pontefract, and on the journey back accused expressed his sorrow for what had occurred, and said he had no need to do it as he had money at the time. As soon as he got into the bank, he said. he realised he was wrong and decided not to accept the money and cleared off.
Mrs Emma Horne, said the accused lodged with her at Mattishall, and February 16th, she saw him writing on "a long piece of paper with some blue on it." At that time Gunton owed her £5, and he said. "When I get this changed I'll pay you."
Accused was committed to trial at the Assizes, bail being allowed in two sureties of £25 each, and accused himself in a similar sum.

The outcome.........
1923: Jun 15 - Diss Express:
Albert Gunton (25), labouer, was indicted for forging, and uttering knowing it to have been forged, a banker's cheque for £14/7/6, with intent to defraud, at East Dereham, on February 16th last. He was further charged with endeavoring to obtain of and from Barclay's Bank, Ltd , the sum of £14/7/6, the moneys of the bank, upon a forged cheque, knowing the same to have been forged, at East Dereham on February 16th, 1923 - Prisoner pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three months' Imprisonment.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1923: Jun 9 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
MATTISHALL - STACK FIRE - On Thursday evening a haystack standing in a field adjoining Mill Road, which belonged to Mr W Lusher, was estimated to contain between three and four tons of hay, and although workmen were soon on the spot rendering help with pails of water, most of the stack was destroyed, but a waggon-load was got safely away from the smouldering-debris.

The same day.....
TRAP ACCIDENT. - A serious mishap occurred to Mr and Mrs J Neave on Sunday afternoon. Mr Neave was driving to attend service at the Old Moor Chapel, accompanied by Mrs Neave, and Mrs F Norton, and just after they had turned into Welgate Road the shafts of the trap came out of the harness which caused the cart to tip up, with the result that the seat and all three passengers fell backwards on to the road. The pony, relieved of its load, went of along the road, until running close to the hedge, one shaft went into the bank and snapped. The cart then turned completely over, and the pony cleared itself. Mrs Neave was much stunned and shaken by the fall on her head, and Dr A Griffith-Williims, who was quickly called in. advised her to rest. Mr Neave and Mrs Norton happily were not injured, and were able to continue their journey.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1923: Oct 19 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
MATTISHALL - EX-SERVICE MAN'S DEATH. - After much suffering, Mr George Fisher, (49) an old soldier, passed away on Wednesday morning. He volunteered early in the war, and after serving in France was invalided home suffering from heart trouble. He was greatly esteemed in the village and leave a widow and three children, the youngest being about 12 years old. All possible medical attention was given him by both local and Norwich doctors, but he gradually succumbed to affliction brought on by his war services.
MORE: -
George was born in 1873 and baptised on June 23rd the same year at All Saints Church, Mattishall, the son of James Fisher a farm labourer and Alice Jane Picher. His mother died in 1882 at the early age of 39 after giving birth to 10 children. George married Gertrude Drew in 1900 at Mattishall. Gertrude was the daughter of William Drew a Sheep Dresser and his wife Sarah Bowles. They lived next door to the Eight Ringers Public House on Dereham Road. George and Alice had four children, Albert Aladdin (1905). Allen George (1907), Dorothy Dina Drew (1909) and Doris Gertrude (1912). Gertrude never remarried, she died in 1968 age 92. George and Gertrude are both buried in the Burgh Lane cemetery.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1924: Jul 26 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
ANGRY LOVER. - DEREHAM JUSTICES' COMMENT IN MATTISHALL CASE - Before the Dereham Bench on Friday, Frank Solomon Smith summoned Geoffrey Smith for assault. Both men belong to Mattishall.
Smith told the Bench that on Tuesday, 8th July, about 8.30 pm, he was sitting in the Swan Inn, Mattishall, when the defendant came in and said he wanted to speak to him. Witness followed him outside to the cartshed, and defendant then asked: "What's this you're been saying about Winnie in Mrs Earle's?" Witness said he had said nothing, but defendant hit him in the face, mouth and stomach until witness succeeded in getting beck into the Swan.
Mrs Alice Earle said that on the evening of the assault she was standing at the door speaking to a neighbour when the defendant came up, brushed past her into the housc.and spoke to the previous witness. They both went into the yard, where defendant asked Mr Frank Smith what he had said about "Winnie," Complainant replied: "Nothing, that I know, of. Defendant then hit complainant who then ran into the house.
Defendant said he had great provocation, complainant had used indecent language, to Miss Winnie Webster, to whom he (defendant) was engaged. When he asked complainant about it he denied it, and then they fought and finished up in the passage.
Miss Webster gave evidence as to the language used, and said she was not goings to stand that sort of thing from complainant any longer The Bench decided that the matter was six of one and half a dozen of the other, and dismissed the case, with costs.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1924: Oct 4 - Thetford & Watton Times and People's Weekly Journal:
SUDDEN DEATH - The County Coroner held an enquiry at Mattishall on Monday, touching the death of William John Osborne, who expired suddenly on Saturday afternoon. Arthur Osborne, general labourer, of Mattishall, identified the body as that of his father, who lived with witness at Ivy Cottage Yard. Deceased was an Old Age pensioner aged 78. He bad enjoyed good health, but three months ago had an attack and fell down partly unconscious. He had been subject to these attacks for some years, but recovery was usually quick. On Saturday afternoon he was working in the Swan Inn Yard, when deceased came to him and asked for some paint. He was then all right, and witness walked across the yard to ask the landlady for the paint when he heard his father fall, and found that he had another attack. On raising his head he saw a change for the worse, and in about four minutes he expired.
Dr A Criffith-Williams, of Mattishall, said he had on various occasions attended deceased. About 2 years ago he was called to deceased's home, and found that he was little exhausted as a result of what he judged to be an epileptic attack. He had noticed signs of old age in deceased, as his arteries were hardened. He was not surprised to learn of his death and formed the opinion that death was due to epilepsy, causing heart failure. - The Coroner recorded a verdict in accordance with the medical evidence.

*********************************************************************************** [Back to Top]
1936: Nov 15 - Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail - YOUTH'S BODIES IN STREAM.
Killed on the Way Home from a Village Dance - A man and wife looking over a tiny bridge in a quite Norfolk road yesterday saw in the stream below their son, Cyril George Knight, 22 of Norwich Road, Dereham, and his friend Bertie Thomas Smith, 18, of Hardingnam. Both were dead. A search had been in progress throughout the day for Knight and Smith who went to a dance on Saturday night at the neighbouring village of Mattishall and left on Smith's motorcycle, Knight riding pillion. Apparently Smith mistook the road and shot through a small gap between the bridge, and a hedge so narrow that in broad daylight it would have been difficult to have ridden through it. The young men had received severe injuries and the motorcycle was found on the far side of the stream. Mr and Mrs George Knight, the parents of the younger boy. were driving their car along the Mattishall-Dereham road when Mr Knight noticed wheel marks, and these led him to the stream. which had only about nine inches of water.

 

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