Kentish Chronicle, 21 April, 1829.

April 14, Mr. John Carlton, aged 90, one of the brothers of St. John's Hospital, Canterbury, and formerly landlord of the "Saracen's Head Inn."

From the Kentish Chronicle, 29 August, 1863.

CANTERBURY POLICE COURT.

MONDAY. PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.

A gentleman from the office of Mr. Tidd Pratt, the Registrar of Friendly Societies, attended to prosecute summonses charging Mr. Frederick Hobday, manager of the Westgate £10 Burial Club, and Mr. James William Pilcher, secretary of the “Saracen’s Head” £100 Burial Club, for neglecting to forward to the registrar the annual return of the society's accounts, previous to the 1st June last. They pleaded guilty, but Mr. Pilcher said he had usually received a notice from Mr. Pratt to forward such return, and had delayed sending it in consequence of not receiving the same. The agent answered that notices had been sent to all friendly societies in England and Wales. The Mayor told the agent that it was very sharp practice to institute proceedings without sending the parties a reminder that they had not furnished the return, and the Bench would inflict the lowest fines in their power, viz. in Mr. Hobday’s case 1s. and Mr. Pilcher’s 6d, with costs, but including only 5s. for his personal expenses, to be paid by the former defendant.

From the Kentish Chronicle, 2 January, 1864.

CHARGE OF PERJURY AGAINST INSPECTOR DODD OF THE CANTERBURY POLICE.

Last week the Canterbury City Magistrates were engaged, for a considerable time, in the investigation of a charge of perjury against Charles Dodd, one of the inspectors connected with the Police Force in the city. The magistrates on the bench were Alderman Cooper, Alderman Phillpott, and William Musters, Esq., and as the case excited considerable interest the Court was crowded during the investigation. The charge arose out of a case heard before the Right Worshipful the Mayor (Peter Marten, Esq.), Alderman Austen, and W. Masters, Esq., at the City Police court, on Monday week, when three tradesmen—James Callow, wool stapler, Edward Williams, tailor, and Frederick George, tailor, were convicted of creating a breach of the peace, in Upper Bridge-street, at midnight on Saturday week. The charge against Inspector Dodd was preferred in the name of George.

Mr. Delasaux, in his application to the magistrates to commit Dodd for perjury, entered into a lengthy statement of facts which he said he could prove by the testimony of half-a-dozen witnesses. In the first place he intended to prove that no breach of the peace had been made by the defendants on the night in question; secondly, that they had not loitered near Ivy-lane; and thirdly, that George had not pushed against a woman, causing her husband to take off his coat and offer to fight him. One feature in the case, which tended much to the disadvantage of the defendants, George, Callow, and Williams, at the time the charge against them was being proceeded with, was, that on their desiring to call Mrs. Whing and Mr. Whing—the former being the woman who it was alleged had been assaulted by George, and the latter her husband—a constable who was despatched by order of the Court to summon them to give evidence did not go to them, but to Whing's master, who of course had nothing whatever to do with the affair, and declined to attend. He (Mr. Delasaux) considered that the conviction of the defendants was an illustration of the danger resulting from placing implicit reliance on the testimony of police-constables when not supported by that of other persons, and it was on public grounds that the present proceedings were taken.

The first witness called was Mrs. Jane Whing, who stated that at about midnight on the Saturday preceding, she, in company with her husband, and a Mr. Bennett, was passing from Dover-lane to where she resided in Ivy-lane. On leaving Dover-lane and entering Bridge Street, she there saw George, Williams, and Callow. There was no disturbance that she heard in the street. She saw two policemen. When near George and his companions he wished them “good night.” She was not touched by George, and neither party stopped. Her husband did not pull off his coat, and threaten to fight George, nor did Bennett interfere to prevent his doing so. George did not run against her and push her against the shutters of Mr. Green’s shop.

By the Bench:- She heard no disturbance whatever. George, Callow, and Williams were walking in the road; when she, her husband, and Mr. Bennett passed them.

John Whing, husband of the last witness, having corroborated the former portion of his wife’s testimony, added that he recognised Dodd as being one of the policemen whom he saw in Bridge-street. George wished witness, his wife, and Bennett “good night,” and they “pulled up” and returned the compliment. George did not push against his wife, and she did not fall against the shutters of a shop. The man did not touch her. Witness did not take off his coat and threaten to fight George for insulting his wife, and Bennett did not interfere to prevent his doing so.

Cross-examined by Dodd:— I did not tell P.C. Elvy, on Sunday night that if Bennett had not held me I should have “punched” George’s head. When you spoke to me about the matter I said I knew nothing of it—that is, as to hearing a noise.

Frederick Bennett likewise corroborated Mrs. Whing's evidence. He further stated that Mr. and Mrs. Whing and himself were talking rather loudly in the street, but beyond that there was no noise. George wished them “good night”—that was all. When he first saw George, Callow, and Williams, the policemen were not in conversation with them; but as witness and party walked away he saw the constables join them.

Frederick George was next examined. He deposed that after spending part of the evening on Saturday at the “Saracen’s Head Inn,” he left in company with Callow and Williams, and they walked on the right hand side of the road until they gained the top of the street near the weighbridge, when they crossed the road. Ivy-lane abutted on the other side of the way, and none of the party went near it. They did not stand at the bottom of the lane and create a breach of the peace. When passing along the street a party came towards them, consisting of Mr. and Mrs. Whing and Mr. Bennett, and knowing them he wished them “good night.” He did not touch Mrs. Whing, and certainly did not run against her and push her against the shutters or door of a shop. Mr. Whing did not threaten to fight witness for insulting his wife. Witness was on that night taken into custody and locked up in the gaol all night, bail being refused him.

By the Bench:— I did not stop a moment when we came up to the other party. I merely wished Mrs. Whing “good night.”

Mr. Delasaux intimated to the Bench that he was prepared with the evidence of Callow and Williams, which would hear out George's statement in every particular.

The Bench did not deem their testimony essential, and after some consideration called upon Dodd for his defence to the accusation laid to his charge.

Dodd asked for an adjournment till Monday, to enable him to obtain legal assistance, and after some discussion his application was granted; Mr. Delasaux, however, being given to understand that he would be allowed to re-open the prosecution.

Mr. Aris (magistrate’s clerk) reminded Mr. Delasaux that he had omitted a most important part necessary to sustain the charge, viz., in not offering to the Court, in the form of evidence, the depositions taken of Dodd's testimony in the case against George, Callow, and Williams.

Mr. Delasaux said he should certainly obtain that evidence.

The proceedings were then adjourned to Monday.

ADJOURNED EXAMINATION.

The examination of Charles Dodd, inspector of police, on a charge of perjury, was resumed, at the Guildhall, on Monday. The magistrates on the bench were the Right Worshipful the Mayor (Peter Marten, Esq.), Wm. Brock, Esq., Alderman Philpott, William Masters, Esq., and John Brent, Esq.

Mr. Delasaux again appeared in support of the charge, and Mr. Allen Fielding for the defence.

On the case being called, Dodd presented himself in court dressed in police uniform, and took up his position outside the bar. Mr. Delasaux applied that the accused should take his place inside the bar, it being the usual practice for all defendants and prisoners to be placed there. The magistrates then ordered Dodd to go inside the bar, and the case was proceeded with.

Mr. Aris, clerk to the Magistrates, sworn, deposed that he was present in the Court as clerk to the Magistrates, on the first instant, and took down the evidence of the prisoner Charles Dodd, in support of on information for a breach of the peace against Williams, Callow, and George, alleged to have been committed on the 20th inst. he produced the defendants deposition, taken by witness, and sworn to and signed by the defendant.

On the application of Mr. Delasaux, Mr. Aris then read the prisoner’s deposition above referred to.

James Callow, wool stapler, deposed:- I live in St. Peter’s-street, at No. 54. On Saturday evening, 10th December, I was at the “Saracen's Head” public house. Williams, George and others were there also. I left the house about twelve o’clock and the others went with me. When we came out of the house, we turned up Bridge-street, keeping on the same side as the “Saracen’s Head.” None of us crossed over the street to the font of Ivy lane. We went as far as the weigh-bridge before crossing over. We then went into Upper Bridge Street. When there I saw some persons whom I did not then know, but who I have since ascertained to be Mr. Whing, Mrs. Whing, and a man named Bennett. They bid George good night. Nothing further took place than George saying, “Holloa, good night.” Mr. Whing said, “Good night, Mr. George.” Mrs. Whing also bid George good night. They did not stop more than a second or so. Whing and his wife and Bennett were on the pavement, and we—George, Williams, and I—were in the road. George did not push against Mrs. Whing and knock her against the door of Mr. Green the gunsmith. He did not touch her. Whing did not take his coat off or attempt to do so to fight with George. Bennett, the other man, did not prevent his doing so. I was not in a state of intoxication. I consider that if any one was drunk, Dodd was. Before I was taken in custody Dodd and another policeman came up, and Dodd said, “Move on.” I said, “What for?” and he said “If you do not I will give you into custody.” One of the parties with me—I think Williams—said “You be ------.” We had done nothing to create a breach of the peace. Dodd said directly “Take them into custody,”" and we were taken to the station. When there I asked Dodd how he came to take us into custody and he said “I have been found fault with for not doing my duty, and I will not be found fault with no more.” I was detained in custody till five o’clock. Dodd refused to take bail. I asked to see the Superintendent and Dodd replied, “I am master here to-night.”

The witness was subjected to a searching cross-examination by the prisoner's attorney, but he firmly adhered to the main facts contained in his original statement.

Edward Williams was likewise examined, and also adduced testimony in corroboration of that of George and Callow.

Mr. and Mrs. Whing were re-called for the purpose of being cross-examined on behalf of the accused. The latter denied that Mr. George had put his foot out prevent her passing.

Bennett and George were also re-called, and, after having their evidence read over, were cross-examined by Mr. Fielding. Nothing material was elicited.

Mr. Fielding, in addressing the Magistrates on behalf of the accused, referred in the first place to one of the grounds on which the charge of perjury against his client, viz., Dodd's statement as to the spot where the disturbance took place, which he characterised as a mere quibble, and not worth the slightest consideration. He then reviewed the evidence of the witness called on the part of the prosecution in support of the case and expressed his belief that the charge was got up out of vindictiveness by the defendants in the former case.

John Richard Harden, a sawyer, living in Oaten-place, was called to prove that on Saturday night week, he saw Callow, Williams, and George (whom he had previously known by sight) standing at the gates near the “Saracen’s Head.” That they were making a noise and insulted him.

P.C. Elvey:- When Bennett took hold of Whing, the latter was in the act of taking off his jacket. Dodd and I were with Callow, George, and Williams, ten minutes or a quarter of an hour advising them to go away before we took them into custody. Inspector Dodd during that time was persuading them to go away. All three made use of bad language towards the inspector. When Dodd refused bail at the police station, Callow said if it cost him £50, he would have his (Dodd’s) coat off. George said he would make Dodd pay for it. On Sunday night week, I saw Whing and told him we were compelled to take the parties into custody for making a noise in Bridge-street. He said “Serve him well right to. If it hadn't been for Bennett, I should have given him a hot one, and knocked him into the street.” Callow had said to him on Thursday, “I freely forgive you men.” I’ve no animosity against you at all.” I said, I’m very much obliged to you, Mr. Callow.” He replied, I know the working of things,” and walked away. He had seen Bennett, in company with Inspector Dodd, he then said in answer to a question that he did not think Whing would have hurt George if he had allowed him to strike him. The witness Harden came to me and inspector Dodd on the night in question, and complained of some men creating a noise in Bridge-street. The first place I saw the persons alluded to was whilst they were standing at the bottom of Ivy-lane. At time they were talking loud. They were taken into custody in consequence of refusing to go away after interfering with the Whing’s and Bennett.

P.C. Ells spoke to being on duty at the station when Callow, George and Williams were brought in. George and Callow were the worse for liquor. Williams was liberated on bail, but the applications of George and Callow were refused on the ground that they were not fit to be liberated. George told Dodd that he should pay for it. He saw Dodd shortly before 12 o’clock on the night in question, and at that time he was perfectly sober.

Mr. Delasaux with great ability replied upon the whole case. He declared that no evidence whatever had given by the witnesses who had been called for the defence calculated to refute the charge of perjury and he asked the Magistrates to send the case for trial by a jury.

The Court was then cleared, and after a consultation with their clerk for about ten minutes, the Magistrates decided on dismissing the case.

Mr. Delasaux enquired on what grounds the dismissal had been decided on.

Mr. Aris replied in consequence of the Magistrates considering the evidence insufficient.

From the Kentish Chronicle, 16 January, 1864.

THE CHARGE OF PERJURY AGAINST INSPECTOR DODD.

Mr. T. T. Delasaux, solicitor, attended before the magistrates to apply for a copy of the depositions taken in the case recently beard in which Inspector Dodd was charged with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury, in evidence given by him against Messrs. Callow and Williams, He explained that the persons above-named were much dissatisfied with the decision the magistrates gave not to send the case for trial by a jury, and he had in consequence been instructed to take steps to make an application either to one of her Majesty’s Judges or the Attorney-General, to prefer a bill of indictment against Dodd at the next County Assizes. He (Mr. Delasaux) was aware that he had no legal “locus standi” (In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.) at the Court in making the application for the depositions, inasmuch as no conviction having taken place he could not demand them, but must rely on the courtesy of the Bench to concede to his request. He believed, however, that the magistrates would, after due consideration of the nature of the application, feel themselves justified in granting it.

Mr. Aris, the magistrates’ clerk, reminded Mr. Delasaux that the duty of the magistrates was to Administer justice, and that matters of courtesy could not be entertained by them.

After some further discussion, the Bench decided not to depart from the legal course in such cases, and refused the application for a copy of the depositions.

Mr. Delasaux, after intimating his intention to apply to the Secretary of State for an order to obtain the depositions, withdrew, and the matter dropped.