DESBOROUGH
William Meadows, police-constable, charged William Bollard and Philip
Dimbleby with having, on the evening of the 11th of May, committed
wilful damage by throwing stones at a street lamp. Mr Rawlings appeared
for the defence.
—Police-constable Meadows said that about a quarter to eleven on the
evening in question he was on duty at Desborough. Saw both defendants
throwing stones at a street lamp belonging to Mr. Howard. Did not see
the lamp broken, but distinctly saw the glass fall to the ground.
Defendants ran away, but he gave chase, and collared both. Asked them to
give him their names, and they refused to do so. Told them if they
persisted in withholding their names he should take them into custody.
Bollard then gave his name, and Dimbleby a false one. Told him he had
tendered a wrong name, when he became irritated, up with his stick and
attempted to strike witness with it, but did not do so. Witness knew
both defendants, and let them go home.
—Mr. E. Howard
said he was a land agent, residing at Desborough. The lamp which had
been wilfully broken was his property, and he estimated the damage at
2s. 6d.
—For the defence, Charles Stephens said he was a shoemaker, living
at Rothwell. Was at Desborough on the evening of the 11th of May.
Bollard and Dimbleby were there at the time. They all came from Rowell,
and were making homewards at about a quarter to eleven. Bollard and
Dimbleby were a few yards in advance of him when leaving the village.
Remembered the policeman being there, who said, "You have broken this
lamp," when he (witness) replied. "No, we never broke it," but the
policeman said, "Yes, you did," and witness said, "No, I did not,
neither did I see any one break it." Bradshaw, Rose, and himself
followed Bollard and Dimbleby pretty closely, and if they had broken the
lamp he thinks they could not have done it without his seeing it.
—Witness, on being recalled, said he perhaps was about thirty yards
from the defendants, and was free to admit that it was possible they
might have thrown stones at the lamp, but he did not see them.
—John Roe
said he was at Desborough on the evening of Sunday, May 11th. There were
five of them from Rothwell, and they were bound for home that night at
about a quarter to eleven. Heard the glass broken, and, seeing the
policeman run, he ran too. Should say it was not possible for the
policeman to see the breaking of the lamp, although such a thing might
be.
—The magistrates were of the opinion the parties charged were
guilty, and they were called upon to pay 2s. 6d. damage, and 8s. 6d.
costs. The money was paid.
Northampton Mercury,
Saturday 07 June 1862