Children of Joseph William and Emily Jessie Tapp

FREDERICK SAMUEL TAPP. I am thirteen years old next birthday—I live with my parents at 22, Forst Street—I recollect the night of this disturbance I saw Mr. Brimson knocked down by two men—the first thing I saw was Mason trying to knock a gentleman down who had some coals on a truck—Mason had some boards in his hand they they stick bills on; the man was too much for him—there were six or seven other men; they went further on, and these two were alone—I saw Mason knock Mr. Brimson down by the lamp-post against the Victoria Park gates—I did not see what he knocked him down sith—Labore was close to him at the time, and he picked Mr. Brimson up and kicked him after he was up, in the thigh—then they went on and they came to a lamp-post further up, and there they knocked a young man down and made his ear bleed; then they knocked down another man who was along with him—they then went on over the bridge to the City of Paris—I peeped in at the door and I saw Mason in there, dancing, and Labore playing a Jew's-harp; I then went home—there were about six or seven men in the City of Paris when I peeped in.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. I am sure it was Mason that knocked Mr. Bromson down—I have said that it was a Bible-backed man that knocked him down; I mean a man with a hump on his back, he looked like a man with a Bible-back in the open road—I saw Duggan there, I was with him—I did not see Wisker—Wisker and Duggan were not together.

Cross-examined by  MR. BESLEY. I should not know the other men—I did not pick out a strange man at the police-station, as the man who had kicked Mr. Brimson, I picked out these two—it was Labore that kicked him; I am quite sure Labore did not knock him down.

Mason was found guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced to five years' penal servitude.

Frederick Samuel Tapp, a clerk, aged 17, of Glenarm-road, was ordered to pay a fine of 10s., or go to prison for ten days, for discharging stones from a catapult, at a horse, on some waste land at Chatsworth-road.

Alexander Tapp, aged 12, was charged before Mr. Lushington with causing the death of Harry Ferrit, of 31, Franklin-street, Bromley [sc. Bromley by Bow].—On Wednesday Evening the Prisoner was driving a horse and trolly along St. Leonard's-street, Bromley, at a slow walking pace, when the child Ferrit suddenly ran off the pavement to cross the road. In doing so he came in contact with the vehicle, he was knocked down, and the hind wheel went over his head, killing him on the spot. The Prisoner was given into the custody of A. Dunnett, 583 K. On charging him with running over a child, and killing it, he said, "I did not know I had run over him." Witnesses concurred in saying that it was a pure accident, and there was not the slightest blame attached to the Prisoner, as owing to his diminutive size, he was unable to see who was at the side of the vehicle.—Mr Lushington said that, as far as he could see the Prisoner did not appear to be in fault, and he accepted his recognisances to appear and answer the charge in a week's time.

FATAL ACCIDENT.

At the Thames-court, Alexander Tapp, a little boy, was charged, on remand, with causing the death of Henry Ferrett, aged 4 years, by running over him with a trolley.—Since the remand an inquest had been held, and a verdict of Accidental death returned. No blame was attached to the prisoner, who was discharged.

BITTEN BY HORSE

ACTION AT MALDON

Yesterday, at Maldon County Court, before his Honour Judge Hildesley, K.C., Mrs. Charlotte Jessie Tyler, wife of Edward Charles Tyler, licensee of the Bell, Purleigh, brought an action against Henry C.L. Kingsford-Lethbridge, a Lieutenant in the H.M. Army, claiming £50 damages in respect of personal injuries alleged to have been caused by a horse belonging to defendant.

M. L.R. Miller, for plaintiff, said defendant, an Army officer formerly stationed at Colchester, had two horses stabled at the Bell, in charge of a soldier-groom named Martin. On March 21, 1933, plaintiff was walking past the stall in which one of the horses was standing when the animal suddenly reached out and bit her on the chest, throwing her to the ground. Evidence would be called that this horse had attempted to bite other people. He (Counsel) did not suggest that defendant had knowledge of the mischievous propensity of the horse, but the groom must have known it, and should have communicated it to the defendant.

D. H. Reynolds Brown said he found a severe bruise on the right side of plaintiff's chest. She was totally incapacitated for five weeks, and still complained of pain.

Plaintiff said she had done nothing to irritate the horse. Later defendant came along and said, "I am sorry; he is full of those tricks."

In cross-examination plaintiff denied that she told the groom she went into the horsebox to get out a couple of chickens that had gone there.

Edward C. Tyler, husband of plaintiff, said he had seen the horse snap at Martin several times.

Canon Macdonald, rector of Purleigh, said he was once standing outside number 2 box at the Bell, talking to a groom, when a black horse in number 1 box lunged out at him. He had seen the horse "bite at Martin."

Defendant said he had never known the horse to have any vicious propensity. He could not recollect saying anything about the horse's "tricks."

Fusilier John Martin, the groom, said it was an even-tempered animal. It had never displayed viciousness—only playfulness. Sometimes when he was grooming it, it would snap playful, but "they took no notice of that in the Army." (Laughter.) He declared that plaintiff told him she went into the horsebox to get out some chickens.

In cross-examination, witness said he "only gave the horse a jolt when it turned vicious."

The Judge: A rather unfortunate remark.

Mrs. Kingsford-Lethbridge, wife of defendant, said she had hunted the horse regularly and had never found anything vicious about it.

Col. Seth Smith, High Hall, Wickham Bishops, a previous owner of the horse, said it was not a vicious animal, and Ernest Blyth, veterinary surgeon, and C.F. Southgate, groom, of Aldham, said they had never seen any vice in it.

The Judge said that, in law, if the groom Martin knew the horse was vicious then there was no defence.

Mr. Gordon Thompson (defending): I submit that Martin could not know that the horse was vicious, because it was not. It was a little playful, that is all.

His Honour: I think the key to this case is that Martin and the horse could not get on well together. The whole thing is unfortunate for the defendant, because I do not think he knew anything about it. But he is responsible for his servant's fault, and I must give judgment for the plaintiff for £30, with costs.