Victoria (3) 1930s

Folkestone Express 14-10-1933

Obituary

It is with deep regret that we have to record the death of Mr. Francis Robert Rivers, licensee of the Victoria Hotel, Risborough Lane, Cheriton, which occurred early yesterday (Thursday). He had only been ill a week, and his sudden demise was quite unexpected. He was 66 years of age.

The late Mr. Rivers had held the licence of the Victoria Hotel for over fifteen years, and he had been in the trade for over forty years. He was a Londoner by birth, and at one time had restaurants in the city. Among other places in which he had been in business were Liverpool, Edinburgh, and Bury St. Edmund`s, in Suffolk, and it was from the last mentioned town that he came to Folkestone. He was a member of the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers` Association, and for a number of years held office as Chairman. He took a keen interest in the Hythe Borough Conservative and Unionist Association, and was the Chairman of the Cheriton Branch. He associated himself with many things in the town`s life, and will undoubtedly be greatly missed.

He leaves a widow and one daughter, to whom deep sympathy will be extended in their sad bereavement.

The funeral will take place on Monday, and the internment will be in St. Martin`s Cemetery.

Folkestone Herald 14-10-1933

Obituary

We record with regret the death of Mr. Francis Robert Rivers, licensee of the Victoria Hotel, Risborough Lane, Cheriton, at his residence on Thursday. Mr. Rivers, who had only been ill for a week, was 66 years of age.

Mr. Rivers had been a licensed victualler for over 40 years. He came to the Victoria Hotel 15 years ago, and has occupied it ever since. He was a Londoner by birth, and at one time he was the owner of several restaurants in the City. He was in business, among other towns, in Liverpool, Edinburgh, and Bury St. Edmund`s, before he came to Cheriton from the last named place. He was a keen member of the Folkestone Licensed Victuallers` Association, and he was for some years the local Chairman. He was also Treasurer of the Licensed Victuallers` Conference when it came to Folkestone in 1931. He took a keen interest in the Borough of Hythe Conservative and Unionist Association, and did a lot of work in connection with the elections. Mr. Rivers was for a time a sidesman at All Souls Church.

He leaves a widow and one daughter, with whom much sympathy will be felt in their bereavement.

The funeral will take place on Monday, and the internment will be in St. Martin`s Cemetery, Horn Street.

Folkestone Herald 18-8-1934

Local News

Following an alleged quarrel between two soldiers at Cheriton on Saturday night, Pte. Robert Cameron, of the 2^nd Batt. Royal Ulster Rifles, appeared before the Folkestone Magistrates on Monday, charged with unlawfully and maliciously inflicting certain grievous bodily harm on John Curran, of the same regiment.

The case was heard by Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman T.S. Franks, and Judge Terrell, K.C.

Chief Inspector H.G. Pittock said the injured man was still in hospital, and it would not be possible to complete the case that morning.

Sgt. Walter Griffith, of the 15^th/19^th King`s Royal Hussars, stationed at Shorncliffe, said on Saturday evening he was coming from Cheriton towards Shorncliffe with his wife and when he approached the Victoria public house he saw a group of people outside quarrelling. As he approached the group he saw there were eight to ten persons, two of them being soldiers in uniform. He saw the taller of the two soldiers push the group apart and take his tunic off. He started shouting out “Who started this row?” He did not know the soldier. He saw the shorter of the two either trying to stop him or interfere, but the taller man put himself in a fighting attitude and said “Stay down”. He then saw the taller one go back into the group, still apparently wanting to fight, and the shorter man again tried to interfere or stop him. The taller soldier again told him to “Stay down”. The smaller one turned away and spoke to a woman, when the taller man suddenly turned round and struck the shorter man. It looked as though he struck him from behind. He delivered the blow with his fist. The shorter man fell and he heard a thud as if he had struck the pavement. Witness went across to see if the man was badly injured, and a policeman arrived almost at the same time.

P.C. Williams said at 10.40 p.m. on Saturday he was on duty in High Street, Cheriton, and from what he was informed he proceeded to the Victoria public house, and there saw a soldier lying on his back on the pavement in Church Road. He was unconscious. He made enquiries on the spot and he saw the prisoner. He asked him what had happened, and he turned round and said “I hit him”. He telephoned for the ambulance and conveyed the injured man to the hospital. He eventually brought Cameron to the police station.

Miss Elizabeth James, a house surgeon at the Royal Victoria Hospital, said Curran was admitted at 11.15 p.m. on Saturday. He was unconscious and bleeding from the nose. There was a bruise about the size of a walnut over the right eyebrow. There were no other injuries. He was admitted to the ward and half an hour later he recovered consciousness. A later examination showed that there was a tender place on the right side of the nose. There was no injury to the skull or central nervous system. That day he had been X-rayed and there was no evidence of a fracture of the skull or nasal bone. His general condition that day was very good. He was suffering from concussion, and he would not be fit to attend Court for some time. He would be transferred from the hospital on the following day to the military hospital.

Inspector Pittock announced that that was as far as he could take the case then.

The Magistrates adjourned the case for three weeks, Cameron being bound over to attend the adjourned hearing.

Folkestone Express 8-9-1934

Local News

The Folkestone Magistrates on Monday had before them Rifleman R. Cameron, of the Royal Ulster Rifles, stationed at Shorncliffe, who was charged with maliciously inflicting certain grievous bodily harm to John Curran, a rifleman in the same regiment. The case had been adjourned for a month for the attendance of the man alleged to have been assaulted, as he was in hospital when the previous hearing took place.

The Magistrates` Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said that the man alleged to have been assaulted was now out of hospital and was present.

The case proceeded before Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman T.S. Franks, and Judge H. Terrell.

Mr. Joseph Hogan, of 1, St. Martin`s Road, Cheriton, said on the 6<sup>th</sup> August at about ten o`clock he was inside the Victoria public house in Risborough Lane. Among the people present was the defendant, and the man Curran. They were quarrelsome. He left at 10.20 p.m., and at 10.30 p.m. he saw the soldiers come out. He saw Curran adopt a fighting attitude with a civilian, whom witness told to go home and he did so. Defendant then took his belt and tunic off, went up to Curran and struck him on the chin. Curran fell and struck his head on the pavement. Curran was taken away unconscious in the ambulance.

Rifleman John Curran, Ulster Regt., stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, said that on the 4^th August he was in the Victoria public house, and when he came out he saw a rifleman and a civilian quarrelling. He went and stopped them and told the rifleman to get back to barracks. He was then struck and he did not remember what happened afterwards. He was struck at the back of the head, and he did not see who did it. He was discharged from the Royal Victoria Hospital three days after. He had a bump on the forehead. He then went into the Military Hospital, and was discharged nine days ago. He still got pains in the head and sickness. On the night in question he had been drinking in the public house, but he had not had enough to not know what he was doing.

The Clerk: Are you sure you were struck on the back of the head?

Witness: Yes, sir.

Why? – Had I been struck in the front I could have seen who hit me.

Mrs. Maud Hogan, of 1, St. Martin`s Road, Cheriton, said that she came up from Folkestone at 10.25 p.m. and called her husband out of the bar of the Victoria. As they were talking, Curran and a civilian came out of the bar fighting. Her husband knew the civilian and told him to go home and he did so. Then another soldier – not the defendant – came from the crowd in a fighting attitude and struck Curran, who struck his head on some iron part of the ground, and lay there unconscious.

The Clerk said the Magistrates had considered the case and the charge was now altered to one of ordinary common assault.

Defendant pleaded Guilty and asked for the statement which he had made to the police to be read out.

P.C. Williams said that in his statement defendant said that he and Curran went into the Victoria and Curran was the worse for drink. He (defendant) was drinking with a civilian man and woman, when Curran came over to him and asked if he was goint to apologise for what he had said. He relied “Sure”, and carried on drinking with the civilian man and woman. Closing up time came and the civilian volunteered to take him up to the barracks. He heard a lot of arguments outside in the street. It was Rifleman Curran and the civilian. He went to his assistance and found that if he tackled the civilian he would have to tackle a dozen. To show he had no favour, he struck Curran and knocked him down, thinking that would stop the fight.

The Clerk: Would you like to tell the Magistrates where you hit Curran?

Defendant: I hit him on the chin.

An officer of defendant`s regiment said that the defendant meant that if he had taken Curran`s side all the civilians would have gone on to him, and so he thought that was the safest way to get out of it.

In reply to the Bench, the officer said that the defendant was an excellent fellow. He had not been convicted of any offence before, and at one time he was an officer`s batman for six months.

The Chairman said they were going to discharge that case on payment of costs. In future defendant must be more careful as to his behaviour in general. The costs amounted to £1 15s.

Folkestone Express 8-1-1938

Local News

“But for your exemplary character we should have had no hesitation in sending you to prison” were the words used by Eng.Rear-Admiral L.J. Stephens, when inflicting a fine of £5 and ordering Lance Corporal Reginald Laycock, who said he was the light heavyweight box­ing champion of the 1^st Royal Dragoons, stationed at Shorncliffe, to pay £1 com­pensation, at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday when found guilty of as­saulting a Cheriton youth on Christmas night. The other magistrates on the Bench were Alderman J.W. Stainer, Miss G. Broome-Giles and Mr. H.W.L. Molesworth.

Raymond Chamberlain, aged 16½ years, of 51, Ashley Avenue, Cheriton, said about a quarter-past, ten on Christmas night, he was walking with Mrs. Court and her two daughters in Risborough Lane. He was playing a mouth organ at the time. He heard a scuttering of feet and a mumble of voices. Looking round he saw some soldiers coming along. There were at least two of them in khaki uniform, but he could not recognise the defendant. They came behind him when he suddenly got a nasty “clout” in the mouth, and that was all he remembered. He did not hear what was said, and he was knocked out. Two of his teeth were knocked back, and he became uncon­scious. He had had to have his two teeth extracted in consequence of the blow.

The Chairman: They were not simply trying to knock the mouth organ out of your mouth?

Complainant: No. sir.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): What hap­pened when you came round?

Chamberlain: I saw the soldiers run­ning away towards the Camp. I could not see how many there were. It was foggy at the time.

Miss Betty Court, 66, Park Road, Cheriton, said she was walking with the com­plainant, her mother and her sister on the night in question. Chamberlain was playing a mouth organ. She saw the three soldiers coming up behind them, and when they came nearer she heard one say “Four is a nice party, but there is one too many,” and then one knocked Chamberlain out. One asked what was the matter with her, and when she said she was going to fetch a policeman they ran off. She was able to recognise their regi­ment from their clothing, and she noticed that the defendant had the word "Royals” on his shoulder. It was the defendant who struck the blow. Subsequently witness went to the bar­racks with the police officer. Next morn­ing there was an identification parade of about seventeen men at the Camp, and she picked out the defendant. Continuing, she said when the soldiers came up to them in Risborough Lane, the defendant was not wearing a hat. Chamberlain was unconscious for about four minutes as a result of the blow he received. Afterwards they caught hold of her sister arid knocked her against the wall and said "Come along with us.” She (witness) shouted out that she was going for the police, and the soldiers ran off.

It was a foggy night, but she was able to recognise the defendant by the light of a street lamp.

Cross-examined by the defendant, wit­ness said she first picked out the Cor­poral of the guard as the man who struck Chamberlain, but that was because the men on parade were all wearing hats. The Corporal was a shorter man than the defendant, but not much shorter.

In reply to the Clerk, witness said they all picked out the defendant on the parade. A civilian was with her and her sister at the identification, and he said “That’s the man”, pointing to the defend­ant just as she and her sister said the same. That was not until Mr. Hooper asked the defendant to take off his hat. She really only saw the defendant with his hat off just before the assault was committed. Mr. Hooper came up behind the soldiers after the assault, and she fnm to follow them as she was go­ing for the police.

Miss Joan Court, a sister of the previ­ous witness, said she first saw the sol­diers when they were, approaching them. One of them said "Come here”, but her mother told her to take no notice, as she thought the soldiers were drunk. Suddenly they heard a shuffling, and one of them turned her boy friend round and hit him in the mouth. After the as­sault had been committed the defendant caught hold of her. He pushed her against the wall and said "Come here”. He looked her straight in the face, so she was able to see him very well. The soldiers ran away, but on the way to the Camp with the police constable she saw them again and recognised the de­fendant, although it was a dark and foggy night. She told the constable that they were the men. The constable went to put his cycle against the wall and then said to the men “Come here, I should like to have a word with you”. Two of the men took to their heels, and one of them was the defendant. The con­stable went after them, leaving the other soldier with them. The constable returned a little after, and they all went to the barrack room with him, and saw some men in bed, but the defendant was not, there. They re­turned to the barrack room at 12 o’clock and she recognised the defendant, who was in bed then. He was not awake, and she had a good look at his face and re­cognised him as the man who had com­mitted the assault. She had no doubt that he was the man.

The defendant: You recognised me in bed at midnight?

Witness: Yes.

Why did you not pick me out straight away at the identification parade? - Be­cause you had your hat on at the identi­fication parade.

Mrs. Edith E. Court, the mother of the two girls, said when the soldiers came up to them one said it was a very nice party, but there was one too many, so they knocked the boy to the ground. Her daughter ran off saying she was going to fetch a policeman.

P.C. Jenns said he was called to the scene of the assault, and saw the boy. His face was badly knocked about, and two or three of his teeth had been knocked back in his jaw. He took all the people to the guard room of the Royals, and on the way they met three soldiers coming from the direc­tion of Risborough Barracks. They were all wearing caps. The men had just passed a lamp standard and when they came within three yards of the party one of the girls said “There are the men”. Witness called to them to stop and put his cycle against the wall, but two of them immediately took to their heels. He was unable to recognise the defendant. He gave chase, but was unsuccessful, and when he came back one of the sol­diers was still with the party. At about midnight Miss Joan Court was shown some of the men in bed at the barrack room. She pointed out the de­fendant, who was asleep, as one of the men.

Defendant, on oath, said on the night, of December 25th he was in The Victoria from 9.40 until 10 p.m., when he came out with a soda syphon in his hand. He walked up the road with L/C. Axworthy, and on the way he (witness) threw the soda syphon up into the air. He heard somebody shout, and he ran. He lost L/C. Axworthy, and later he met Cpl. McGuire, who was with Axworthy. They decided to go back and see what they had done, and on the way they met two women and a policeman. He (de­fendant) thought of the soda water syphon he had broken, and ran because be thought they were after him. At the identification parade the next morning one of the young ladies said the men on parade were not tall enough for the man who committed the assault. They walked along the line and picked out Cpl. McGuire. They walked past again, and a civilian said “I think this is the man,” and asked him to take off his hat. They all jumped on him (de­fendant) straight away.

In reply to questions by the Chief Con­stable, the defendant said he left the barracks at 9.20 p.m. He had had a con­siderable amount of drink at the bar­racks, and then, went into The Victoria with L/Cpl. Axworthy, who was with him when he left the public house and when he broke the syphon.

The Chief Constable: Can you explain why you said to the constable “I was walking by myself and the other two were just passing me”?

Defendant: I cannot understand that.

If you are wearing a hat and you have to be identified it is necessary for a witness to see you with a hat off and with a hat on? -  She should have seen me with a hat on.

The Clerk: I understand you to say that you did not commit this assault?

Defendant: That is right.

The Clerk:  And also that you had not seen them before you met them with the constable? - That is so.

Cpl. Thomas McGuire said on the night of December 25^th he was Corporal of the guard from 6 p.m. until reveille the fol­lowing morning. At 10.15 p.m., when lights out was sounded, there was a parade, and he walked round the bar­racks, when he saw L/Cpl. Axworthy run up. He said he had smashed a soda water syphon and a sign. Witness asked who was with him, and he said L/Cpl. Laycock. Witness saw Laycock later and asked him what had happened, and he said they had been down at The Victoria drinking, and they had had a soda water syphon and a sign, which they had smashed. Witness advised them to go back and offer to pay for the syphon and the sign. He decided to go back with them, and on the way he saw the policeman with two or three women and a boy. The policeman said "Come here”, and Layoock took to his heels. He told Axworthy to stop behind and tried to catch Laycock.

The Chief Constable: Is this story an entice fabrication?

Witness: The story is exactly as I know it.

As Corporal of the guard, what were you doing round by Dolton’s corner? - I have just explained that.

Why did you run away? - I ran after L/Cpl. Laycock.

Why did you run after L/Cpl. Laycock? - I was going to fetch him back.

Were you afraid of the policeman? - No.

L/Cpl. E. J. Axworthy, also of the 1st Royals, said he knew the defendant and went out with him on Christmas even­ing. They went to the Victoria Hotel for a drink at ten minutes past nine and stayed there until closing time, drinking. He came out of the hotel with a “Beer is best” sign in his hand and the defendant had a water syphon. They just threw the sign and the syphon away, and the bang caused a bit of commotion. They then ran away. They did it for just a bit of fun. When they were go­ing to their bungalow, Cpl. McGuire saw him and asked what had happened. When they told him, he suggested that they had better go back and pay for it, fixing it up in that way. As they were going up the road, they met the women, the boy and the constable, who said to them “I want you”.  L/Cpl. Laycock immediately ran off and Cpl. McGuire, after telling him (witness) to stop, ran after him. The constable told him the boy had been hit and he said he did not know anything about it. He took them all back to the guardroom and explained to the sergeant what had occurred. That was all he knew about it.

The Chief Constable: In the presence of the women, when the constable came back, did he say to you “Do you know anything about this affair?”

Witness: I told the women I did not.

Did the constable ask you for the names of your comrades - the two men who ran away? - Not to my knowledge.

Did you refuse to tell him the names of those two men? - I did at the guard­room.

Did you tell the constable that you did not know anything whatever about the affair; you did not know the other two men and that you were walking by yourself and the other two were just passing you? - I did not remember any­thing about that.

The Chairman intimated that the magistrates were satisfied that Laycock had committed the assault.

An officer from the regiment said L/Cpl. Laycock had been with the regi­ment for six years and then took his discharge to the Army Reserve at the end of his period of Colour Service. He was away for about a year and then came back under the new terms whereby reservists could enlist again. The defendant had been back with the regiment for about six months and had been in his squadron all that time. He was a very smart and keen man and he had just recommended Laycock’s ap­pointment to lance-corporal. He had been performing duty as a groom quite recently, and he thought he was an ex­tremely efficient soldier. Laycock’s character was exemplary.

.

The Chairman said the magistrates considered that it was a most serious and brutal assault. Continuing, he said “If it was not for the exemplary character your officer has given, you we should have no hesitation in sending you to prison. In this case we are going to inflict the maximum penalty of £5, and order you to pay £1 compensation to Chamberlain”. “I think you should be jolly well ashamed of yourself”, concluded the Chairman.

Folkestone Herald 8-1-1938

Local News

An N.C.O.'s exemplary character saved him from being sent to prison at the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday, when he was found Guilty by the Magistrates of an assault on a 16-year-old Cheriton boy on Christ­mas night.

“I think you should be jolly well ashamed of yourself”, said the Chair­man (Engineer Rear-Admiral L.J. Stephens) to the defendant, L/Cpl. Charles Reginald Laycock, of the 1st Royal Dragoons, Shorncliffe Camp. Laycock, who is light-heavyweight boxing champion of the regiment, was fined £5, the maximum penalty for such an offence, and also ordered to pay £1 compensation.

Engineer Rear-Admiral Stephens presided with Alderman J.W. Stainer, Mr. H.W.L. Molesworth and Miss G. Broome Giles.

Laycock denied the assault and called two witnesses.

Raymond Chamberlain, aged 16, of 51, Ashley Avenue, said on Christmas night about 10.15 he was walking with Mrs. Court and her two daughters up Risborough Lane when he heard a clatter of feet and voices. He half looked round and saw at least two soldiers who were in uniform. He did not recognise defendant as being one of them. They came behind witness and hit him. He was playing a mouth organ when he heard the footsteps and voices, and then someone hit him in the mouth. It was a pretty hard blow and he was knocked down. Two of his teeth were knocked back and he had had them out since. When he got up again he saw some soldiers running away.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): Do you know how long you were on the ground?

Witness: No.

Miss Betty Court. 66, Park Road, Cheriton, said on Christmas night she was walking with her mother and sister and the last witness in Risborough Lane. Three soldiers came from behind and one of them said “There’s four, a nice party, but there’s one too many”. Chamberlain was then struck and knocked down. Witness said that she was going for the police and the soldiers ran away. She recognised defendant as one of the party and the man who struck the blow. An identification parade was held on the following morning, there being about 17 men on parade. She picked out defendant as the man who had struck Chamberlain.

By the Clerk: When defendant came up behind them in Risborough Lane he was not wearing a hat. Chamberlain was unconscious about four minutes. The soldiers got hold of her sister and said “Come along with us”. Then when she said that she was going to fetch a policeman they let her go and ran. It was a foggy night but she recognised Laycock.

Questioned by defendant, witness said at the identification parade she first picked out a corporal of the guard as being the soldier. He was a shorter man than the defendant. When Lay­cock took his hat off she recognised him immediately. A Mr. Hooper was present and he asked defendant to take his hat off and she then recognised him immediately. Mr. Hooper said “That`s the man”.

By the Clerk: Mr. Hooper was coming up behind at the time of the assault.

Miss Joan Court, a sister of the last witness, next gave evidence. When the soldiers approached, she said, her mother said “Don’t take any notice of them, they might be drunk”. They walked on when she heard a shuffling of feet and all of a sudden Chamberlain was struck in the mouth. Her mother said “What do you think you are doing?” Defendant got hold of her after he had assaulted Chamberlain, pushed her against the wall, and said “Come here”. When on the way to the barracks with a police officer she saw the three soldiers again, but as the constable spoke to them two of them took to their heels and ran. Afterwards she went to a barrack-room and s«w some men in bed. De­fendant was not there then. She returned to the room at midnight with a sergeant and the police officer and she then saw defendant in bed. Defen­dant was then asleep. She recognised him as the man who had assaulted Chamberlain and pushed her.

Replying to defendant, witness said she first picked out a corporal at the identification parade because with their hats on they were so much alike.

Mrs. Edith Court, the mother of the two young women who had given evi­dence, said when the soldiers approached she heard someone say “You are a nice little party, but you are one too many”. As they said that the boy was knocked to the ground. She said “What have you done? You have killed him”. She could not recognise defendant as being one of the soldiers.

P.C. Jenns said he was called to the scene of the assault. The boy’s face was badly knocked about and two or three^- teeth had been knocked back into the jaw.

He accompanied the other witnesses to the guard room. They had just turned a corner in Risborough Lane when three soldiers approached from the direction of Risborough barracks. They were all wearing hats. They had just passed a lamp standard and the girls were looking at the men. One of the girls said “They're the men”. Witness called on the soldiers to stop and he turned and put his cycle against the wall, when immediately two of them took to their heels. He gave chase, but was unable to catch them. He could not recognise defendant as one of the two soldiers who ran away. Later Miss Joan court identified Laycock, one of the men in bed, as one of the three soldiers.

Defendant, giving evidence, said on Christmas night he was in the Victoria public house from 9.40 to 10 o’clock with L/Cpl. Axworthy. When he left just before closing time he had a soda syphon in his hand. They had gone about 200 yards up the road when he threw the syphon up in the air. He heard someone shout and they ran away. They ran to the mud patch and on to the barracks.

He met the Corporal of the Guard and he said he would come back with him to see what he had done. As they reached the corner opposite Doulton's shop they saw the three women and the constable. The women said “There they are”. Thinking they were referring to the siphon breaking incident he ran away. At the identification parade the next day one of the young women said “You are not tall enough for the man who did the assault”. They next went up to Corporal McGuire, the Corporal of the Guard, who had been on duty the previous night, and picked him out as the man. A civilian then said “I think that's the man”, and they “jumped on him” straight away.

By the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley): He left barracks at 9.30 p.m. on Christmas Day and with Cpl. Axworthy he went to the Victoria public house.

The Chief Constable: When the constable saw you and you ran away Axworthy was left behind. Can you explain why he should have said to my constable “I was walking by myself and the other two men were just pass­ing me”?

Defendant: No.

Laycock said he held the light-heavyweight boxing championship of the regiment. Did it stand to reason that he would hit a boy?

Cpl. Thomas McGuire, Royal Dragoons, said on Christmas night he was Corporal of the Guard from 6 o'clock to reveille the following morning. At 10.15 p.m. when “Lights out” sounded he met L/Cpl. Axworthy, who came running up. He asked him what he was running for, and he said that he had been down to Cheriton and some­thing about smashing a soda syphon. He asked Axworthy who was with him and he said “Cpl. Laycock”. Witness went towards the band block and there saw defendant. He asked him what had happened. They said that one had a syphon and another had a sign. and they smashed them. He advised the two men to go back to the place from where they had taken the syphon and sign, and offer to pay for them. He was accompany­ing them and when they turned the comer opposite Doulton’s he saw the constable, two or three women and the boy. The policeman pointed and said “Come here”. Laycock “took to his heels” and witness ran after him. When he caught up with Laycock he asked him what had happened and he said that he did not know. He had told L/Cpl. Axworthy to stand fast while he went after Laycock.

The Chief Constable: This story is a pure fabrication?

Witness: It is actually what I know.

The Chief Constable: As Corporal of the Guard why should you be run­ning away?

Witness said he had explained that. He was going back with defendant over this syphon smashing incident.

Why did you run away when the policeman told you to stand fast? - The policeman shouted and I ran after Laycock.

The Chief Constable: I am suggest­ing your story is a fabrication. If any part of it were true your actions were extraordinary. Were you afraid of the policeman’s action?

Witness: I had nothing to be afraid of.

L. Cpl. Edward J. Axworthy, the Royal Dragoons, said he was out with defendant on Christmas evening. They went to the Victoria public house and stayed there until just on closing time. He had a “Beer is Best” sign in his hand and defendant a syphon. They threw them away in the street and the noise caused a bit of commotion. They were returning to the public house with Cpl. McGuire when they met the policeman and three women.

Cross-examined witness said Cpl. McGuire told him to stay with the women after Cpl. Laycock had run away.

The Chief Constable: Did the con­stable tell you that he had received a complaint of a boy being assaulted?

Witness: I cannot remember that.

Did he ask you if you knew anything about it? - I cannot remember that.

Did you say you knew nothing about it to the women? - I am not quite sure.

Did the constable ask you for the names of your two companions? - Not to my knowledge.

Didn’t you refuse to tell them? - At the Guard Room.

Did the constable ask you if you all three had been together? - I don’t re­member that.

Didn't you tell the constable that you were walking alone and that you did not know the other two men? - No.

The Chairman announced that the Magistrates were quite satisfied that the assault had been committed by defendant.

An officer said Laycock was in the regiment for six years and then discharged to the Army Reserve on the completion of his Colour Service. He was away about a year and then came back under the new terms offered to reservists. He had been back with the regiment about six months. He was a very smart and keen soldier, and he (the officer) had just recommended his promotion to lance-corporal. His character was exemplary.

The Chairman (to Laycock): We consider it a most brutal assault on your part. If it had not been for your exemplary character we should have had no hesitation in sending you to prison. You will be fined £5, the maximum penalty, and you will also have to pay £1 compensation. I think you should be jolly well ashamed of yourself.