|
A case of considerable local interest
was heard at Tywardreath on Wednesday, when the Rev. Wm
Edward Wynne, Vicar of Lanlivery, summoned John Rundle
Henwood, Geo Henwood and Irwin Hawkey for assault. The
magistrates were Messrs. F. W. Jenkin, C. T. Trevail and
E. A. P. Broad, Mr Hext having withdrawn.
Mr A. C. Pomery (Bodmin), for the Vicar said it was a
rather unfortunate case, because the complainant was the
Vicar of the parish of Lanlivery; one of the defendants,
John Rundle Henwood, was the churchwarden; Geo Henwood
was the organist; and Hawken was a parishioner. The
alleged assault took place on Sunday 6th January
(Intercession Day) in the Parish Church after the
evening service. Mr Wynne was a man of 54 years of age
and defendants’ ranged from 22 to 35. It was probable
that other matters would be mentioned in the case owing
to matters not having been very pleasant in the parish.
Some difference had arisen with regard to the salary of
the sexton, the Vicar thinking it should be £6 and the
churchwarden £5. The churchwarden refused to sign the
cheque for the sexton’s salary and the Vicar said he
would decline to sign the cheque for the organist’s
salary. As they reached the door Henwood attacked the
Vicar and the other defendants who were in the porch
joined in the attack. The Vicar quite rightly struck
out, but he was forced back over the pew and given two
black eyes and a nasty cut over the cheek bone. He
submitted that it was a most cowardly assault for three
men to set about the Vicar and give him a good hiding.
Rev Wm E Wynne said he had been Vicar of Lanlivery for
ten years. John Rundle Henwood was the people’s warden
and George Henwood the organist. After the evening
service the offertory was counted by the churchwarden. A
discussion arose with regard to the sexton’s salary and
when the churchwarden said he would not sign the cheque
to pay the sexton £6, complainant said he would not sign
the cheque for the organist’s salary. The churchwarden
wanted to raise another discussion but complainant did
not want to have anything to do with it and left the
vestry the churchwarden and his son following him down
the aisle. Henwood continued talking out to the door,
when complainant ordered him to leave. Henwood refused,
and told complainant to leave, and then took him hold by
the throat. Complainant struck out as hard as he could,
but the churchwarden forced him back over the edge of a
pew. The other defendants who were in the porch came
into the church, and set about him. The sexton and
complainant’s son pulled the men away. Complainant
received two black eyes and a cut over the left cheek
bone. He produced the blood-stained cuffs he was
wearing.
The Vicar was subjected to a stiff cross examination by
Mr M Pearce of Plymouth, whose first question was, “Are
you always a peaceful man Mr Wynne?” The Vicar admitted
that there had been some unpleasantness before with the
churchwarden, who had assaulted him in the church one
Sunday in May last. He did not know if that was the day
he refused to take the collection from John Henwood but
he did not when standing at the altar deliberately turn
his back towards Henwood. He admitted that in May after
the service he called the churchwarden a cur and a
swine. He did not raise his arm to strike the
churchwarden but there would be nothing unusual if his
wife took hold of his arm. He forgot if his wife said to
him, “you have spoiled yourself again” but she might
have done so. He was not going to strike Henwood but was
going to scold him as it was his business to do. There
had been some discussion with reference to the
schoolroom and an Archdeacon’s Court was held as a
result at Bodmin. It was some time after that that
complainant gave the churchwarden notice to quit the
Glebe Farm. He remembered the vestry meeting of Oct 1917
when the question of appointing a sexton was considered.
The sexton Mitchell was offered £5, but after
consideration wanted £6. He appointed Mitchell at £6. He
did not know if the churchwarden refused to recognise
Mitchell as sexton, but he had no right to do so as the
appointment was in the hands of complainant. On the
evening of Jan. 6th Henwood counted the collection,
which amounted to 1s 5d and complainant counted the
coppers twice after him, but did not knock them about in
anger. The churchwarden asked the amount of the
collection in the morning and complainant told him,
“nothing”. He asked Henwood to pay the sexton and the
reply he got was, “There is no sexton to pay”.
Complainant’s relationship with Hawkey had been more or
less friendly. On reaching the church door he was told
to lave by the churchwarden and he replied, “No you
leave my house”. He did not pull up his coat sleeve and
adopt a threatening attitude, nor when he sat on the
water pipes did he kick Henwood. He was merely shouting
for help, because he had been badly beaten. He did not
hear Hawkey say, “Don’t fight Mr Wynne.” and did not
retort, “I will fight”. He did not hear what George
Henwood said. This person was not accounted responsible
for much of what he said or did. He had not come back to
church as organist since. Not many people went to church
since the disturbance. He had said nothing to enrage the
churchwarden except, perhaps in his sermon he talked
about people doing their duty and those who were
shirking. These words might have angered both the
Henwood, because they were shirkers in his opinion.
W. M. Randolph Wynne, son of the Vicar, who came direct
from school at Truro, corroborated the evidence of his
father. He heard Hawkey say to his father that he should
be ashamed to behave like that in a church.
R. D. J. Mitchell, sexton, said he heard a scuffle and
went down the church and saw the three defendants
attacking the Vicar. He saw the Vicar next day when
complainant had a black eye.
J. W. G. Mitchell the sexton’s son gave evidence of what
he saw from the outside. He was not interested enough to
go inside and did not see anybody strike anybody as
“they were all of a heap”.
P. C. Brooking said the Vicar came to him the following
day. He had two black eyes, both eyes being also
inflamed. He had a cut over the left cheek and his face
was cut “all to pieces”
This concluded the evidence for the complainant and Mr M
Pearce addressed the Court at length, calling attention
to the Vicar’s frame of mind on this particular Sunday
evening when he knocked over the collection, counted it
twice and ordered the churchwarden to “leave my house”.
John Rundle Henwood said he farmed the Glebe land and
had been people’s warden for five years. The sexton was
offered £5 he having agreed with the other warden not to
pay any more. The sexton Mitchell would not do the work
under £6 and they told the Vicar someone else must be
found to do the duties. They did not regard Mitchell as
the sexton. When he had counted the collection on the
Sunday evening the Vicar asked him if he had paid the
sexton, and defendant replied that he owed nothing to
any sexton. The Vicar was like he usually was very
excitable. When they were near the door the Vicar
ordered him out, and defendant replied that he was
elected by the people and should not leave. The Vicar
said, “Come out of it then.” pulled up his sleeves and
struck defendant in the face. The others came in and
held the Vicar back, as he was like a madman. The Vicar
kicked him in the abdomen and cut his lip and fell back
over as he kicked defendant. The others forced the Vicar
back to the water pipes. The Vicar had on a previous
occasion threatened to “knock him to hell”.
Cross examined he said the others came in to stand
between him and the Vicar, having promised the
congregation not to disgrace the church in that way. He
saw the Vicar next day when going to Bodmin to report
the matter to the Ecclesiastical Authorities. The Vicar
held his head down, but he could see he had black marks
on his face. They had not spoken for years ever since he
had reported the Vicar to the Ecclesiastical Authorities
previously. On one occasion the Vicar threatened to
shoot him. He denied that any blows were struck except
by the Vicar.
George Henwood, blacksmith, said he heard a row in the
vestry and went to the church door and looked in. He
heard the Vicar ordering his brother out. The Vicar
rushed at his brother and struck him in the mouth and
chest. He went into the church with Hawkey, who told the
Vicar he should be ashamed of himself. They kept the
Vicar back and witness had his hat in his hand all the
time. The Vicar got on to the seat and fell back over
when he kicked out at his brother. The Vicar had a nasty
fall and defendant wondered that he was not killed.
Cross examined, he said the Vicar was practically mad
and threw himself back over the seat.
Irwin Hawkey, of Penhale Farm, said he was standing in
the church porch when he heard the Vicar shouting. Mr
Wynne was near the font and ordered the churchwarden
out. Henwood refused and the Vicar pulled up his sleeves
and shouted, “Come at it”. Defendant shouted, “Don’t
fight Mr Wynne” and got between the Vicar and Henwood.
The Vicar was shouting and waving his arms about, and
continued striking Henwood until he was held back.
Defendant told the Vicar he was in God’s house and the
Vicar replied that he was in his own house and would do
what he liked. The Vicar got on his seat and fell back
over. There was no prearranged attack on the Vicar and
defendant had not quarrel with him. He always lifted his
hat to the Vicar.
Cross examined, he said the Vicar was like a madman and
in spite of defendant’s endeavour to hold him back he
continued to strike Henwood.
Richard Benny, gardener on Plynn Estate said he was
talking to the churchwarden’s brother outside when he
heard loud talking inside. He went in and saw the Vicar
sitting on the back of the pew. He saw him kicking his
legs about in a reckless manner.
Cross examined: The seat was 4 ½ feet high, and it would
depend on how one fell whether they would receive such
blows.
The bench retired and after a few minutes’ consideration
decided to dismiss the case and the cross-summons also.
Cornish Guardian 29
February 1918
LANLIVERY VICAR SUES FARMER.
QUESTION OF THE TENANCY OF THE GLEBE
At the Bodmin County Court on Friday, his Honour
judge Gent heard an action in which the Rev Wm Ed Wynne,
vicar of Lanlivery sued John Rundle Henwood, farmer for
the recovery of a portion of the Glebe Farm; and also
for the sum of £17 5s rent due from June 24th, 1917, to
February 22nd 1918. The total claim including costs
amounted to £19 17s 4d. – Mr A. E. Pomery, Bodmin was
for the plaintiff.
Mr Pomery said the claim was for the possession of
certain lands, buildings and premises forming part of
the glebe in the parish of Lanlivery of which the
defendant was the tenant up to Midsummer of last year,
when his notice to quit expired. Defendant, however had
refused to give up possession and there was a further
claim for £17 5s, which was the rent due from Midsummer
last up to that day. Mr Wynne the present vicar, came to
the living in 1908. The glebe consisted of 24 acres of
land, a portion of which was let to the defendant at£26
per annum in 1912. Previous to the present vicar coming
to the living the estate was managed by Messrs. Burke of
Exeter, and the present defendant’s father was the
tenant, and when Mr Wynne came to the living he informed
him that he would not be disturbed of the tenancy during
his lifetime. Messrs Burke of Exeter acted as agents for
Mr Wynne. In 1915 Mr Wynne took one of the fields from
the defendant and subsequently gave defendant notice to
quit the moor. In the early part of 1916 the plaintiff
changed his mind and gave defendant notice to quit at
Midsummer 1917, which he served personally. Nothing
further occurred, however until February of last year,
when some circulars were sent round by the Cornwall War
Agricultural Committee as to the necessity of occupies
of land tilling all the corn and potatoes they could.
Plaintiff having received one of these notices and
thinking that the defendant’s notice expired at
Midsummer it might deter him from putting in potatoes
and corn he (plaintiff) write him a letter pointing out
that in view of the national needs he was willing to
allow him to retain any land till Michaelmas which he
tilled in potatoes and corn, provided defendant gave a
written agreement to that effect. This was not done
however, and at Midsummer 1917, plaintiff demanded
possession and defendant refused with the result that
those proceedings were commenced.
Plaintiff bore out his counsel’s statement and stated
that when he served the defendant with the notice to
quit, the latter called him “an Irish rebel” and also
abused him in other ways. When he actually went and
demanded possession defendant became abusive but he
could not remember the actual words that were used. As a
matter of fact defendant refused to give up possession,
but in view of the latter he wrote about the crops he
allowed the matter to stand over to Michaelmas and as
possession was not given up then he instructed him
solicitors. In the meantime defendant saw him and told
him he would not give up possession and that he
(plaintiff) was certain to lose the case.
Defendant: I had this notice to quit out of spite, your
honour.
The Judge; That has nothing to do with it. I don’t know
anything about private quarrels.
Defendant: The War Agricultural Committee have asked me
to stay on, as they did not think I had received a legal
notice. Proceeding to give evidence, defendant contended
that it was not a legal notice, because it was not a
Midsummer tenancy, but a Christmas tenancy.
The Judge: If that was so then instead of going out at
Midsummer you should have gone out in December.
Defendant produced a letter purporting to come from the
War Agricultural Committee’s surveyor stating that the
land was in a good state of cultivation. This was dated
February 20th 1918.
The Judge: That was after your tenancy had come to an
end.
Defendant: The War Agricultural Committee think the
plaintiff is not a fit and proper person to farm the
land.
The Judge: Is this land going to be left uncultivated?
Mr Pomery: Plaintiff is quite prepared to plough and
undertake all the cultivation which the War Agricultural
Committee wish.
Defendant: Tell him to till his own garden.
Cross-examined: He did not ask for the letter from the
War Agricultural Committee. Mr Trevail, their valuer,
wrote the letter for him to produce that day, because he
could not attend to give evidence. He had never told
plaintiff he was a Midsummer tenant. After his father’s
death Mr Wynne told him he was welcome to the tenancy of
the farm so long as he (defendant) pleased him. “And I
have not pleased him” added witness. He denied calling
defendant “An Irish rebel”. The reason he had not left
the farm was because the War Agricultural Committee had
advised him. The notice was not in form. He knew the
notice was illegal because he was a Christmas tenant.
Mr Pomery: You lay a lot of stress on the War
Agricultural Committee. Had you gone out last summer
there would have been no trouble in getting a tenant to
plough the land by this time. It was not necessary that
you should stop on this farm and plough the ten acres?
Defendant: The War Agricultural Committee asked me to
stop there.
Mr Pomery: Did you think there was no other man in
Cornwall but you to plough that land?
Defendant: No; but labour is scarce you know.
The Judge in giving his decision said there was a
certain amount of ambiguity about the notice given, but
he gave judgment for plaintiff ordering the land to be
delivered up within seven days, the barn within three
months, defendant to pay the rent claimed, with costs.
Return to
Lanlivery
Parish Page
|
