Newspapers -

The Times

Extract from July 17th 1928

Cock-Fighting Charges. Sixteen Defendants Fined.
Police Raid On Farm.

[Transcription copyright © Geoffrey Woollard]

Nineteen charges of being concerned in cock fighting at a farm at Old Buckenham, Norfolk, were heard yesterday at East Harling, and 16 of the defendants, including Sir John Buchanan-Jardine, were each fined £10.

Mr C.E. Harvey, jun., the occupier of the farm where the alleged offence took place, was summoned for allowing the cock fighting to take place, and the other 18 defendants, summoned for assisting at the fight, were Sir John Buchanan-Jardine, Mr Felix W. Leach, Mr Reginald Day, Mr J.H. Wright, and Mr Frank Griggs, all of Newmarket; Mr E.H. Lowe and Mr Herbert Pepper, of Huthwaite, Mansfield; Mr A.E. Cooke-Watson and Mr Thomas Munks, of Mansfield; Mr William Matthews Hodgson, Burgh-by-Sands, Carlisle; Mr E.W. Glaister, Stainton, Carlisle; Mr Thomas Metcalfe, Kendal, Westmorland; Mr T.G. Lewis, Kingston-road, Portsmouth; Mr William Tunstall and Mr Frederick Egerton, Trentham, Staffordshire; Mr Frederick Jarvis, Old Buckenham; Mr Bertie Johnson, Swaffham Prior, Cambridgeshire; and Mr William Rolfe, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambridgeshire.

Sir Patrick Hastings, K.C., and Mr Walter Frampton appeared for the defence. Lord Albermarle presided over a Bench of ten magistrates. The Court was crowded and many people were unable to gain admission.

Sir Patrick Hastings said that the defendants pleaded "Not Guilty," and he suggested that all the charges should be heard together with the exception of those relating to Johnson, Jarvis, Rolfe, and Lowe. Their offences, he said, were quite different.

Mr H. Oswald Brown, solicitor, prosecuting, said that the proceedings were taken under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, section 1 of which prohibited any person causing, procuring or assisting at the fighting or baiting of any animal. On Monday, June 18, as a result of certain information, the police of the district kept observation on some premises at Old Buckenham known as Stud Farm, owned by the defendant Charles Edward Harvey. Those observations continued for some time, and in consequence of what the police saw Superintendent Carter and four other officers went to the Stud Farm premises, where they found a cock fight taking place in the horse box. The defendants were all in the horse box. It was not a pure freak or unpremeditated fight. Careful preparations had been made for it. The horse box was fitted up for the occasion by having a thick red carpet on the floor, and there was a ring 12 ft. square made up of baize-covered boards.

Armed With Spurs.

Round the ring were some seats and on the seats some of the defendants were sitting. The remainder were standing round the ring with the exception of one man who was in the ring where the birds were fighting. The two birds in the ring had been prepared for cock fighting. Each was armed with a pair of artificial spurs. In addition the birds had their combs and wattles cut, the feathers round their necks were trimmed short, the wing feathers were clipped, and the tail feathers were partly clipped and partly cut short, all of which was part of the routine for preparing birds for fighting. The two birds in the ring were both injured as a result of their fight. Their heads, legs, and bodies were marked with blood. In an adjoining room another bird was found, also marked with blood and appearing to have been used for fighting. There was also a further supply of spurs.

The first action of the police on entering the horse box was to pick up the two birds and put an end to the fight. The police took possession of these two birds and the other injured bird. The police took possession of the spurs, in spite of the protests of Leach, who said "You have all the evidence you want without those."

Superintendent Oscar Carter, of the Norfolk police, said that the raid was made about 3.30 in the afternoon. The police divided themselves into three parties, and on receiving a signal from a constable they all went into the stud stable, which was 200 yards from the place where the officers had secreted themselves. Inspector Clark was the first into the stable. He said: "I am going to stop this fight." The inspector picked up one of the cocks. The other cock was in a fighting attitude, looking for its opponent. One of the defendants shouted: "Where is your warrant card?" and the inspector produced his warrant card. Another of the men said the inspector had no right there. They all refused to give their names, and Harvey asked the superintendent for his warrant.

"I told him," said the superintendent, "that I did not require a warrant to go on to anybody's place where cock fighting or cruelty was taking place." When Harvey was asked for the names of the other men, he said: "I do not know one of them." Leach said: "Order them off the place, Mr Harvey; they are trespassers and have no business here." The superintendent said that he retorted that any action for trespass could be dealt with later. Practically all the men were asked for their names and addresses, and they all declined to give them. He then refused to allow any of them to leave the horse box until they complied with his request. After a consultation among themselves the defendants agreed to give their names and addresses. There were 17 other cocks in boxes and baskets on the premises. One of these birds had blood on its head and neck and parts of the body, and appeared to have punctured wounds. It had certainly been in a fight recently. Certain of the other birds had dried blood on them. There were fresh bloodstains on the side of the horse box, one mark being 4½ ft. high. Asked if he had any explanation to give, Harvey, said the superintendent, replied: "No, I have nothing to say."

No Sign Of Betting.

Cross-examined by Sir Patrick Hastings as to the defendants' attitude when they refused their names and addresses, Superintendent Carter said: "I do not suggest that these men were anything but gentlemen all the way through. They were all right to me."

Sir Patrick. - These cocks you took; have you kept them apart? - Oh yes.

You know what would happen if you did not? - They would not be alive today.

Lord Albermarle. - Were there any signs of betting going on at the Stud Farm? - I saw nothing of that kind.

A police-sergeant produced one of the cocks taken possession of. Held by its wings and legs over the solicitors' table, it cast a wild glance round the hot and crowded Court and snapped at a pencil held near its head. "Some of the wing feathers were cut right down to the flesh," said the sergeant. "There was blood on it, and it had several punctured wounds. Both birds were very exhausted when the fight was stopped."

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Sir Patrick submitted that there was no case to answer, and that the prosecution was based on a misconception of the law as it had existed for certainly 100 years. "I am sure the Bench will know," said Sir Patrick, "that cock fighting has been one of the oldest English sports almost from the earliest days of our history. I think there is a great deal of misconception about the cruelty of cock fighting. That was why I was curious to see if there was to be any evidence here at all concerning anything like what one hears in cases of necessity of wounded partridges and wounded hares that are killed in the course of sport. I understand from those who made a study of this sport that the artificial spurs are much more humane than the ordinary spurs with which the cock is naturally endowed. If a cock fights with its own spurs, I have read, they inflict much worse wounds, and everybody knows that if these birds are allowed to fight by themselves such is their natural instinct that nothing can separate them, and they will fight to the death. "I am not here advocating," Sir Patrick added, "because we know that is now prohibited by law and has been since 1849."

A Theatre Analogy.

Sir Patrick referred to two cases in 1863 to show that for people to stand around and look on at cock fighting was not sufficient to justify charges of assisting in promoting the fight. "You don't assist at a theatre by buying a ticket," he said. His clients, who were gentlemen of position, felt it keenly that it had been suggested that they were doing something they knew to be illegal.

After a retirement of six minutes, Lord Albermarle said that the Bench had decided that there was a case to answer.

Sir Patrick Hastings said that he did not propose to call any evidence, but would ask the Bench to state a case.

The 15 defendants against whom the charges had been heard were each fined £10, and Lord Albermarle said that a case would be stated in due course.

Sir Patrick Hastings said that Mr Lowe now agreed that his position was precisely the same as that of the defendants already dealt with, and the Bench imposed upon him a similar fine.

Mr Brown withdrew the charges against Johnson, Jarvis, and Rolfe. Two of them were gamekeepers employed by Sir John Jardine, he said, and the other was a stud groom employed by Harvey. He asked for the alternative charges to be adjourned sine die. This was granted.

See also Other Extracts from Newspapers.

These pages are for personal use only. They may not be copied, and the links within them may not be harvested for use on your own web pages. Please see the Copyright Notice.

Copyright © Pat Newby
December 2004