The Disturbance at a Rushden Chapel

To-day (Friday) at Wellingborough police court, John Shortland, trade sewer, Rushden, was summoned by Zerah Newell, for disorderly conduct in a place of worship on Aug. 19 and Nov. 18.

Mr. Duke defended and Mr. F. Newman (Rushden) prosecuted.

Prior to the case being called on, the Chairman of the Bench, addressing the solicitors engaged, said the magistrates were very sorry to see such a case brought before them and they hoped the solicitor might by retiring and conferring with each other settle the case outside. It was very undesirable that the case should come into Court.

Mr. Newman said he should be very happy to take the advice of the Bench, but Mr. Duke, whilst thanking the magistrates, said he must absolutely decline to confer with the other side.

The Chairman : I am very sorry.

Mr. Newman in opening the case said that defendant was charged with unlawful, violent and indecent behaviour, the last description being taken in the wider sense as meaning conduct which was not proper in a place of worship. On his own behalf as a resident of Rushden and on behalf of the prosecution Mr. Newman regretted that these charges had to be brought, and the reason that such a long time had elapsed since the date of the charges and these proceedings being taken was that they had hoped to avoid bringing the case before the Court. These offences were not isolated ones, but he would not, unless he was compelled, go into the wider question which had arisen. He did not mean in public to wash the dirty linen which unfortunately seemed to be so prevalent at this chapel, but should stick to the charges upon which the defendant was summoned. Things however had come to such a pass that something must be done to settle them. Both complainant and defendant were highly respectable men and were much respected in Rushden, and both were members of the Succoth Strict Baptist church, of which complainant had been a member for upwards of 38 years. (Mr. Duke: He is not now.) He was also a trustee of the church and had therefore certain duties and responsibilities put upon him. There had been disagreements in the church which culminated in the unseemly proceedings of August last.

Complainant, sworn, said it was his duty as one of the trustees of the chapel to receive monies, and there had been differences at the church. On Sunday morning, August 19th, the pastor prevented children from entering the schools and after the service, when witness was outside talking to some friends, defendant said to a man named Percival, another member, “Go home! What do you want talking to such dirty devils like that.” After the sermon at the evening service the pastor made a warm statement in reference to what had taken place in the morning when defendant got up in the chapel and leaning towards witness shouted “Turn him out” and “You lying old hypocrite.” He also said “You old blackguard,” “You old scamp.” “You lying old rascal, I should like to ring your old nose, go home and hang yourself, hanging’s too good for you.” This created a disturbance and the service had to be abruptly closed. The disturbance afterwards continued in the chapel for nearly an hour. Witness did not provoke or speak to defendant. Witness wrote the postcards produced, one to the pastor and the other to Mr. Toms, and on Sunday, Nov. 18, after the sermon in the evening the pastor read the postcards and made remarks concerning them. One remark he made was “It would appear I am not to receive my money for my work to which I am entitled.” Defendant then rose in his seat and said, pointing to witness, “Give them to the old Pope.” He also said, “Throw it at him. You dirty old letter writer. You infernal letter writer. You’re a bad old man from the crown of your head to the sole of your feet. Go home and hang yourself. You will go to hell but hell is too good for you.” The pastor tried to stop defendant and the service was much disturbed, there being great disorder.

Cross-examined : He had tried to settle this matter with defendant. He had had a solicitor’s letter sent to defendant asking him to apologise and withdraw and to pay costs or legal proceedings would be taken.

(Case Proceeding.)

14th December, 1900

The Disturbance at a Rushden Chapel
Magisterial Proceedings

Last Friday at the Wellingborough police-court, John Shortland, trade sewer, Rushden, was summoned by Zerah Newell, for disorderly conduct in a place of worship on Aug. 19 and Nov. 18.

Mr. Duke defended and Mr. F. Newman (Rushden) prosecuted.

Prior to the case being called on the Chairman of the Bench, addressing the solicitors engaged, said the magistrates were very sorry to see such a case brought before them and they hoped the solicitor might by retiring and conferring with each other settle the case outside. It was very undesirable that the case should come into Court.

Mr. Newman said he should be very happy to take the advice of the Bench, but Mr. Duke, whilst thanking the magistrates, said he must absolutely decline to confer with the other side.

The Chairman : I am very sorry.

Mr. Newman in opening the case said that defendant was charged with unlawful, violent and indecent behaviour, the last description being taken in the wider sense as meaning conduct which was not proper in a place of worship. On his own behalf as a resident of Rushden and on behalf of the prosecution Mr. Newman regretted that these charges had to be brought, and the reason that such a long time had elapsed since the date of the charges and these proceedings being taken was that they had hoped to avoid bringing the case before the Court. These offences were not isolated ones, but he would not, unless he was compelled, go into the wider question which had arisen. He did not mean in public to wash the dirty linen which unfortunately seemed to be so prevalent at this chapel, but should stick to the charges upon which defendant was summoned. Things however had come to such a pass that something must be done to settle them. Both complainant and defendant were highly respectable men and were much respected in Rushden, and both were members of the Succoth Strict Baptist church, of which complainant had been a member for upwards of 38 years. (Mr. Duke: He is not now.) He was also a trustee of the church and had therefore certain duties and responsibilities put upon him. There had been disagreements in the church which culminated in the unseemly proceedings of August last.

Complainant, sworn, said it was his duty as one of the trustees of the chapel to receive monies, and there had been differences at the church. On Sunday morning, August 19th, the pastor prevented children from entering the schools and after the service, when witness was outside talking to some friends, defendant said to a man named Percival, another member, “Go home! What do you want talking to such dirty devils like that.” After the sermon at the evening service the pastor made a warm statement in reference to what had taken place in the morning when defendant got up in the chapel and leaning towards witness shouted “Turn him out” and “You lying old hypocrite.” He also said “You old blackguard.” “You old scamp,” “You lying old rascal, I should like to ring your old nose, go home and hang yourself, hanging’s too good for you.” This created a disturbance and the service had to be abruptly closed. The disturbance afterwards continued in the chapel for nearly an hour. Witness did not provoke or speak to defendant. Witness wrote the postcards produced, one to the pastor and the other to Mr. Toms, and on Sunday, Nov. 18, after the sermon in the evening the pastor read the postcards and made remarks concerning them. One remark he made was “It would appear I am not to receive my money for my work to which I am entitled.” Defendant then rose in his seat and said, pointing to witness, “Give them to the old Pope.” He also said, “Throw it at him. You dirty old letter writer. You infernal letter writer. You’re a bad old man from the crown of your head to the sole of your feet. Go home and hang yourself. You will go to hell but hell is too good for you.” The pastor tried to stop defendant and the service was much disturbed, there being great disorder.

Cross-examined : He had tried to settle this matter with defendant. He had had a solicitor’s letter sent to defendant asking him to apologise and withdraw and to pay costs or legal proceedings would be taken.

Corroborative evidence was given by Isaac Sykes and Herbert Desborough.

Mr. Duke, for the defence, contended that the prosecution was an abuse of the privileges of the Court. It was a civil complaint and should have been settled in a civil Court. He appeared on behalf of the majority of the trustees and Church officers, and could prove that the whole of the disturbance was caused by the complainants conduct. The disturbance was only an indignant outburst by the congregation as a protest against charges brought against the Pastor.

The Rev. J. Crook said that on Aug. 19th, after the service, he spoke about the management of the Sunday School. Complainant said, “It is a lie.” It was absolutely false that defendant made use of the remarks attributed to him. All the defendant said was “It is not a lie.” The disturbance took place after the whole of the service had been concluded and the Benediction had been pronounced. Witness also gave a complete denial to other of complainant’s statements, and said he did not hear the other remarks alleged to have been made by the defendant on Nov. 18. The disturbance on that occasion was a protest by the congregation against a statement made and the matter on the post card which complainant had sent. In consequence of what took place on that date, solicitors were consulted as to proceeding being taken against the complainant. Seven of the eleven trustees and the three deacons were ready to give evidence for defendant.

Evidence was also given by Charles Toms, Robert Edward Beaven, and John Packwood.

The Chairman said the Bench heard the case with regret that it should ever have been brought into a court of justice. Men of religious congregations ought particularly to be able to settle their differences without having to go before the Magistrates. Having heard the case, however, they had not the slightest doubt that defendant was guilty of the charge, and had rendered himself amenable to the law but after hearing all the evidence they would only inflict a nominal fine of 1s. and 16s. costs.

(A portion of the above appeared in our issue last week.)