Violent conduct - instances?

[Desmond7]

Having re-read some old court reports recently (circa 1918), I am finding a siginficant percentage (one or two cases per bi-weekly 'petty sessions') involving either recently discharged or 'on leave soliders' fighting whilst in drink, committing assaults, assaulting police etc etc

There are probably far too many reasons for this kind of behaviour to give a generalised comment so I ask the simple question of old newspaper researchers, was this type of behaviour recorded in what you would term significant quantities in your area?

I append the comments on one Magistrate on one case: "Some of these men feel they have been fighting in France and can come back here and behave as they like. This will not be tolerated."

Interestingly, I note that none of the cases so far have led to imprisonment. A fine and return to duty is the norm.

On the other hand, civvie who commits similar offence is more than likely to find himself cooling heels in the local nick.

Thoughts anybody.

Des

[truthergw]

Hi Des. I am not a local historian by any estimation but here are some thoughts. With our hindsight and knowledge, it seems to me that it would be very strange if men on leave did not react in an anti-social manner, if in drink or as the restraints of military discipline were relaxed. We recognise that as simply a reaction to the stress, especially if the man was due to return to the front. The observation that they did not normally get gaoled makes sense. That would be a very tempting way to extend one's leave. I suppose that committing a very serious crime would be one way to get out of returning, as it was while serving at the front but I have never seen any suggestion that it was resorted to very often?

[Desmond7]

T - I tend to agree that few (if any) of these cases involve someone trying to 'duck' their duty ... and stress etc can certainly be brought into the equation.

I remain interested to see if such a pattern of offending can be seen across the UK. Frankly I would be more shocked if the scenarios I've painted above were not widespread!

Cheers

Des

[Tony Lund]

This story is from the Holmfirth Express, it deals with two discharged soldiers:

Saturday July 26th 1919.

At Holmfirth Police Court, Harold Moorhouse Hardy, a millhand from Cartworth, and Charles Alfred Bond, a labourer from Meltham, were charged with being drunk and disorderly and also with assaulting Arthur Quarmby, a Holmfirth butcher. Both men pleaded guilty to both charges.

Dealing with the drunk and disorderly charge, Inspector Whincup stated that on the previous Wednesday night the prisoners were at the bottom of Rotcher creating a disturbance whilst in a drunken condition, Mr. Arthur Quarmby was standing outside his house when he was assaulted by the two men. When the police arrived the men were taken into custody and were very violent all the way to the police station. So much so that it took two of them forty minutes to get them there.

Constable Smart stated that 10:55 p.m. on Wednesday he assisted in taking the defendants to the police station, and that they were very violent all the way there.

Regarding the assault charges brought against the two men, Inspector Whincup stated that whilst these two men were standing outside Arthur Quarmby’s house they assaulted him without any provocation, they knocked him down; they hit him and they bit him. Mr. Quarmby managed to get away and get inside his house, but the two prisoners - not being satisfied - broke the latch on the door and followed him inside. When the police arrived there was a violent struggle in progress. The prisoners were absolutely mad, and were forcibly ejected. The Inspector added that they then became very violent toward the police, and really should have been charged with assaulting himself and the Constable, but he did not want to be vindictive.

Arthur Quarmby testified that he was standing outside his house when he saw the prisoners attacking a man, and he called out to them that it was not fair play that they should be fighting with just one man. With this they set upon him, kicking, thumping and biting him. He managed to get into his house and dropped the latch. But the men broke in and a struggle then continued inside the house where his wife was present; his children were upstairs and were also disturbed. He was most thankful when the police arrived.

Inspector Whincup said the prisoners were discharged soldiers who seemed to think they could do as they liked when they came back from the Front. They had no respect for the law and he asked the Bench to make an example of them; to teach them that they simply could not behave like this at home.

The Magistrates said they considered this to be a very serious case, and fined each men ten shillings or ten days’ imprisonment for being drunk and disorderly, and five pounds or one month’s imprisonment for the assault. In the event of non payment the prison sentences were to run consecutively. After they had asked for time to pay, the prisoners were granted fourteen days grace.

Tony.

[Desmond7]

Thanks for that with the Inspector's assessment being particularly relevant.

Des

[geraint]

Des

Yes; I think that such incidents are found throughout. I have a local paper which names about seven men back on leave, and that a dance had been arranged in the village hall for them. The article is very supportive, but ends with the words "The dance was a huge success, but it was a shame that extensive damage had been caused to the potato crop and fences nearby."

I recall another incident in which a local bobby arrested a soldier just as he was about to enter Kinmel Training Camp on a Saturday night, and charged with consorting with a known prostitute. The bench transferred him to the camp Provost.

I've a report of a soldier on leave, obviously disturbed, who attacked his neighbour with a coal hammer. No charges were bought, despite having seriously wounded his neighbour. He returned to duty.

I recall a few newspaper reports of soldiers on leave, reported AWOL; obviously extending their leave informaly! One becoming desertion, being caught hiding under his bed. The newspaper accounts were not condemnatory.

I tend to make mental notes of these whilst reading; and only record them if pertinent to a man of immediate interest.

I also have family details of serious offences committed by veterans during the early 1920s. They were not dealt with by the courts, rather kept in the local mental hospitals untill they died.

[Desmond7]

I have a great report about a punter who overstays his leave ... cops are sent to lift him. He does the under the bed scenario, there's a scuffle and he ends up in court. Fined and the magistrate sends him to the local 'bridewell' to await collection by a military detachment.

Military detachment arrives. By some circumstance, the detachment and prisoner end up with more drink! The original prisoner takes the head-staggers and starts a row with his escorts. This is in the middle of the town. Crowd gathers. Constables appear.

When police seek to restore order, the crowd starts giving them a hard time, hats knocked off, jostling and pushing etc. In the midst of all this someone gets spiked by a bayonet!

One could say that the constabulary were not exactly beloved in those days!!!

[Canadawwi]

I've gone through several years of the papers for the war years. A column called "Police Court" appeared regularly in at least two Toronto papers. They don't do that now - today's crimes that reach the papers tend to be more serious. These war era columns reported on crimes including beating a spouse, gambling, possession of alcohol (illegal then) and vagrancy. At that time you could not wander the streets without work, you would be charged as vagrant and fined, or sent to a labour camp for a month or so.

As for crimes involving soldiers - they tend to be low - probably about less than 5% of the reported crimes from what I've looked at. Mostly they were for drinking, sometimes for gambling. The violence tended to happen during the arrest and connected with drinking, although there were a few cases of fights between men.

Usually the fact that the man had served overseas was brought up by the court appointed lawyer, and this caused some sympathy, but not always. The punishments were fines of around $10, or time at the "jail farm". There were among these court reports the charge of bigamy. I believe I came across about 6 such cases in a 12 month stretch of reports. I realize this does not constitute "violence", however, it gives you an idea of the attitude of some judges to a returned man. Many judges were more sympathetic.

[geraint]

Both magistrate and judge were truly heartless b*****ds

[Mike763222]

We are seeing here the symptoms of two phenomena. Firstly the frustrations of men who felt they ought ot be demobbed but instead were being sent back to post war duties (or to Russia for some to fight he 'Bolshevik menace'). The 1919 mutinies were a clear statement of the feelings of these men.

Secondly, we have the reactions of the men who had been discharged, and their difficulties at re-integration. This is a problem of long standing. After the Napoleonic Wars, many soldiers turned to crime, most notably smuggling. The Vagrancy Act of 1824 was in part the result of so many soldiers left with no purpose in life, making it an offence to 'wander abroad...not giving a good account of himself...and endeavouring by the exposure of wounds or deformities to gather alms'. This arcane piece of legislation is still on the books!

Sadly, we have made little progress. Soldiers today are still often cast adrift after they have left the Colours.

Mike