Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

26 articles on this Page



SKETTY HORSE TRAINER! THE ACTUUI ACAWST MIOR ADD roUCE-SUOEAIT. In the Nasi Prius Court at Glamorgan Autumn Assises at Swansea OÐ. Monday, before Mr. Jiastice Bray, Henry Thomas I/ock, horse trainer, 3, Harry-street, Sketty, i rought an action for damages against ?.S. Peter Sydney Thomas, of the Sw sea. County Police Force, and Dr. A. L. J rkiDs, Sketty, for alleged unlaw- ful en y, assault, malicious prosecution, and ia a imprisonment. The defence was tthat more force was used tbeam. was actlle f necessary. Mr. Ll. WSftiams, K.C., £ .P., and Mr. D. ViUiers Meager (instr. cted by Mr. Ckison Habited were for plaintiffi; Mr. Ellis J. Griffith, K.C., M.P., and Mr. St. John Francis. Williams (in- structed by Mr. Beddoes Nash), repre- sented Dr. Perkins; and Mr. Marlay Samson, (instructed by Mr. Edward Harris) defended Sergt. Thomas. Sketching the case for plaintiff, Mr. U. Williams said plaintiff was an old man, aged 69, and the happenings which were the subject of the action occurred on December 8th, 1914. When plaintiff returned home about five o'clock in the afternoon he discovered that his son, aged 21, was suffering from scarlet fever, and his (plaiatiff'st wife had sent for the panel doctor, Dr. Perkins. His wife waited for the doctor to come with great anxiety for over four hours, and at the end of that period plaintiff went to the doctor's house. The doctor was out, but he saw his daughter, who treated him in what he considered an impertinent man- ner. Plaintiff left and fetched Dr. Teddy Morgan to his son. After Dr. Morgan left, plaintiff and his wife retired for the night. Shortly afterwards plaintiff heard a knock at the door. His wife answered it. Dr Perkins was there and he said in a loud voice, "I want to see Lock." Mr. Lock overheard this, and coming to the top of the stairs with an adopted six- months-aid child in his arms, he said, Mister, please," and Walk in, sir." The doctor and plaintiff still carrying the child went into the parlour. As Mrs. Lock was about to shut the froDt door, Sergt. Thomas, who had accompanied Dr. Perkins to the house and had wa ¡ ted out- ei&, came into the passage. Mrs. Lock- suspecting that something was wrong, vent into the parlour and took the baby from her husband. Plaintiff then turned round and, seeing the sergeant in the pas- sage—he had no right there at all—said, "What are you doing in my house?" The sergeant mumbled something Mr. j Lock could not hear, and plaintiff t?,,ri. l said, You get out of my house." Aftes* telling the offioer to go for the third time the sergeant seemed to have lost his tem- per and went for plaintiff. In th. scllffie that ensued plaintiff'—who, although old, was a powerful man—was taken from the front room to the kitchen. The sergeant i had him by the throat and inflicted con- siderable injury. He pushed plainhff back over the chair and he toppled on to the floor. Dr. Perkins then came into the kitchen, and while the sergeant was en top of Mr. Lock half strangling him -plaintiff was naturaLly struggling to try and free himælf-the doctor held plaintiff's legs. They then tried to hand- cuff plaintiff. Previously they had, he believed, used the handcuffs like a I knuckle-duster. Later plaintiff was taken handcuffed to the police station like a common criminal and locked up in the cell all night. Counsel submitted an un- warrantable outrage had been committed on plaintiff, who was entitled to substan- tial damages. When the use for the defence wag re- sumed on Tuesday morning, Sergt. Thomas, one of the defendants, went into the witness-box and gave his version of what happened on the night of December 8th, 1914. Plaintiff, he said, was pariialiy dressed at the time, but he saw r,O baby downstaiis while he was in the house. When Dr. Perkins arrived he hoard Lock say, Come into the front room. 1 will Murder you, you -—— The doctor d'ud, "Half a minute, Mr. Lock. I have oome down to see your eon." Lock then came towards the doctor in a menacing manner, and Dr. Perkins called out in a loud voice, Sergeant." Witness then went into the passage, and when Lock saw him he ex- ekumed, What the do you wmÙ, in my house? Witness replied, "Half a minute, Mr. Lock, The doctor has camp down to examine your son. Let him go upstairs quietly." Lock then said, Out of my house," and struck him (th", sergeant) a violent blow in the chest. Jle struck him a second blow, and witness then closed with him, and in the scuffle they got into the kitchen. Plaintiff here behaved like a madman, striking out and doing his best to injure him in every possible way. He was then obliged to put plaintiff on his back, and whilst in this position Lock kicked him on the right cheek bone. He then tried to p?cify plaintiff, who bit his finger, tak- ing the nail off. With the assistance of Dr. Perkins, he then succeeded in getting one of the handcuffs partially on, but was UTvable to close it owing to the pain in his finger. At that moment P.C. Watkins arrived and closed the handcuff on plain- tiff's wrist. On the way to the police-sta- tion Lock was wry violent and using threats to the doctor. He snjelt strongly of drink, and later a k-n uckl,duqte-r I not the iron nut produced yesterday—was found in his possession. Witness used no more force than the occasion demanded. He went into the house for the protection of the doctor, who feared some bodily harm. Mr. U. Williams: When Lock was threatening the doctor, why didn't you tell the doctor to cotne away? Mr. Justice Bray: If the doctor went there to see the son, the sergeant had no I light to interfere with him doing- his duty. Mr. LL WiUmnw: Wasn't it perfectly clear to you that Mr. Lock objected to the doctor going upstairs to see his son F Witness: No. Did you think Lock was a dangerous man ?-I know him to be a dangerous man. Did you think he was in a dangerous mood that niet?-Yes, a most dangerous mood. In fnttkor cross^xaosination, witness was asked why, if plaintiff was drunk, he did not charge him with drunkenness. His Lordship: You cannot charge a man with being drunk in his own houee. It isn't the law yet, though it may be some day. (Laughter.) P.C. WilHam Watkins, the last witness, gave corroborative evidence. Has Lerdahip indicated that he proposed leaving any questions of law until after the verdict of the jury. He was how. over, going to ask the jury in say on ques- tions of fact whether the defendant Dr. Perkins committed a trespass iiv entering the hOUge; whether the polioe-eerg<eajnt was there at the request of, and for tho pt ryabon of, the doctor; whether the police-sergeant had reasonable apprehen- sion that there might be a breach of the peace; whether the sergeant or the plain- tiff committed the first assault; whether Dr. Perkins did wivat be did in order to protect the sergeant; and was the sergeant guilty of malice in prosecuting plaintiff. At the request of Mr. Llevrelyn Wil- liams, the Judge added a further question till to whether the defendants used more tiutM reasonable force. Counsel then addressed the jury. In the course of his summing-up, his Jjordahip remarked on the importance of the case to the parties, as their characters wem aftewted. In regard to the alle^Ation III trespass, lie pointed out that plaintiff, himself told Dr. l'erkins to walk inside, so that it was absurd to say that that was trespass. The jury would Iiirtliei- hal-e to decide whether the .sergeant entered the house at the request of, and for the pro- tection 01, the doctor. He was sorry to say there was a conflict of evidence on almost, every point in (he C;},1P. and it was lor the jury to say where the truth lay. It would be for the jury to find whether plaintiff had been drinking or not. It might be that he was only excited. As to the sergeant entering the house, the police had very difficult duties to discharge, but, for-incr that the sergeant had been told of the threats used by plaintiff, and was asked by the doctor to come in, wouldn't it have been a breach of his duty if he had not It was his duty to so in. After an hour and twenty-five minutes, the jury returned and answered all the questions in trve defendants' favour, ex- cept thr one as to who struck the first blow. On this they said there was not sufficient evidence. The Judge told them t-hev must make up their mind one way or the other on the evidence as it was. On their second return, the jury also answered this question in defendants' favour. The Judge said there was a rider that the jury thought Dr. Perk-ins acted a little indiscreetly in not withdrawing when he saw plaintiff's attitude. But," added his Lordship, that does not matter." Judgment was entered for the defen- dants with costs.



[No title]







f j U ii Li r. úN BiGAsViY.…















!'''' ! THE T-1 N P-LAT E…