Wastel Brisco 1824-1891
Wastel Brisco 1824-1891 was born in Sussex and was the eldest son of Wastel Brisco of Bohemia born 1792-1878 & Maria Lade 1803-1877. Wastel was educated at Harrow School and Trinity College. By 1850 when Wastel was age 26 years he was living at 34 Kingsnorth Wood, Headcorn, Maidstone, Kent with a female Sarah Ann Cresswell who was a servant born in Newbury 1832. When Sarah was 18 years she gave birth to a daughter Frances Cresswell 1850.
By 1851 they were living in Berkshire at Reading and later were to rent the ancient 15th century Southcote Manor with parts dating from the 1450s with moat and drawbridge and situated a couple of miles from Reading. Southcote Manor had 22 rooms a kitchen garden, orchard and 12 acres. In documents Wastel is described as a gentleman farmer with 100 acres employing 7 men and 2 boys. He certainly kept chickens and had some cows for milk. He was living at Southcote with Sarah Cresswell who originated from Newbury. There is no record of any marriage of Wastel & Sarah but they remained together up to his death.
During his time in Berkshire the records that are available seem to indicate a few incidents when he was before the court on different charges. Reports in the press see the name written as Westel & Briscoe and also a full name James Westel Briscoe and other variations of spelling, such as Walstal.
By 1851 they were living in Berkshire at Reading and later were to rent the ancient 15th century Southcote Manor with parts dating from the 1450s with moat and drawbridge and situated a couple of miles from Reading. Southcote Manor had 22 rooms a kitchen garden, orchard and 12 acres. In documents Wastel is described as a gentleman farmer with 100 acres employing 7 men and 2 boys. He certainly kept chickens and had some cows for milk. He was living at Southcote with Sarah Cresswell who originated from Newbury. There is no record of any marriage of Wastel & Sarah but they remained together up to his death.
During his time in Berkshire the records that are available seem to indicate a few incidents when he was before the court on different charges. Reports in the press see the name written as Westel & Briscoe and also a full name James Westel Briscoe and other variations of spelling, such as Walstal.
Assault on errand boy William Hickie.
At Southcote Wastel employed several servants and labourers and he was before the courts because of an assault on someone he employed. Reported in the Reading Observer 22nd April 1865 when Walstal Briscoe age 40yrs described as a gentleman of independent means residing at Victoria Street, Oxford Reading did assault William Hickie who was an errand boy employed by Brisco. On 12th April 1865 he was given the task of cleaning out the fowl house and to collect eggs and a basket of spinach. The report describes how the boy met Briscoe & Grimshaw who was Wastels gardener whilst in Southcote Lane. It was stated that Wastel took from the boy a stick he was carrying that was no bigger than a small finger and hit him two or three times on the arm and back as he chased him down the road.
When the boy arrived home crying his mother stripped him to discover two marks swollen and the boy was only able to eat part of his dinner, an egg and some toast. Evidence In court, it emerged that Wastel had scolded the boy a good deal and told him not to be saucy. The boy stated that he had waited for the hens to lay the eggs causing laughter in the court.
The court considered the chastisement was more excessive than allowed for a master to use against a servant and that an assault had been committed. Wastel was fined 10/- plus costs. Reading Mercury News Report - William Hickie
When the boy arrived home crying his mother stripped him to discover two marks swollen and the boy was only able to eat part of his dinner, an egg and some toast. Evidence In court, it emerged that Wastel had scolded the boy a good deal and told him not to be saucy. The boy stated that he had waited for the hens to lay the eggs causing laughter in the court.
The court considered the chastisement was more excessive than allowed for a master to use against a servant and that an assault had been committed. Wastel was fined 10/- plus costs. Reading Mercury News Report - William Hickie
Assault of a tenant Patrick O Connor.
Another assault was of Patrick O Connor who lived with his wife in one of Wastel Briscos cottages at Southcote and had lived there for three months. In court charged with assault were Wastell Brisco and a number of his farm labourers. John Sims, Hy Emmings, William May, William Ilsley, William Hickey and William Maynard.
Patrick O Connors evidence was that on the evening of 15th September 1871 he felt very unwell and had an early dinner and retired to bed. At 8pm there was a knock at the door and Mrs Sophia O Connor told the men he could not be seen. Attempts to see O Connor continued and they swore they would “smash in the door” before they left. At 11pm they returned apparently with a ladder and at 11.30pm Sims was the first of two to gain entry. Men were at the front and rear of the house and Sims hit O Connor on his arm with a branch of a tree and a second blow above the eye. May grabbed O Connors hair but he managed to escape.
It was said that O Connor had been in the cottage for four months and had not paid any rent and Brisco had supplied him with food and liquor. It seems that O Connors condition may have been related to a number of public houses that he had visited during the day. He admitted to “two but may have been more” The reason for the fracas was possibly related to Wastels annoyance of O Connor drinking his alcohol and and possibly issues about rent or lack of it. Wastel had referred to O Connors wife as “you good for nothing wretch” and O Connor was “ An old irishman - and should have been killed” According to Brisco the incident was a lark and he had said the men “should not hurt him” After the incident when speaking to Brisco, O Connor said he was not intoxicated, was disabled and asked Brisco for a drink. He refused a beer but had bottle of spirits medicinally.
The court seems to have regarded the incident as one of joint enterprise and the guilty verdict for all seven men reflects this. Wastell Briscoe, John Sims, Hy Emmings, William May, William Ilsley, William Hickey and William Maynard were all fined £1 and 3s 8d costs each. Reading Mercury News Report O Connor
It was a situation at at time of day that was to occur again where drinks supplied by Wastel may have induced the actions of him and his workers.
Patrick O Connors evidence was that on the evening of 15th September 1871 he felt very unwell and had an early dinner and retired to bed. At 8pm there was a knock at the door and Mrs Sophia O Connor told the men he could not be seen. Attempts to see O Connor continued and they swore they would “smash in the door” before they left. At 11pm they returned apparently with a ladder and at 11.30pm Sims was the first of two to gain entry. Men were at the front and rear of the house and Sims hit O Connor on his arm with a branch of a tree and a second blow above the eye. May grabbed O Connors hair but he managed to escape.
It was said that O Connor had been in the cottage for four months and had not paid any rent and Brisco had supplied him with food and liquor. It seems that O Connors condition may have been related to a number of public houses that he had visited during the day. He admitted to “two but may have been more” The reason for the fracas was possibly related to Wastels annoyance of O Connor drinking his alcohol and and possibly issues about rent or lack of it. Wastel had referred to O Connors wife as “you good for nothing wretch” and O Connor was “ An old irishman - and should have been killed” According to Brisco the incident was a lark and he had said the men “should not hurt him” After the incident when speaking to Brisco, O Connor said he was not intoxicated, was disabled and asked Brisco for a drink. He refused a beer but had bottle of spirits medicinally.
The court seems to have regarded the incident as one of joint enterprise and the guilty verdict for all seven men reflects this. Wastell Briscoe, John Sims, Hy Emmings, William May, William Ilsley, William Hickey and William Maynard were all fined £1 and 3s 8d costs each. Reading Mercury News Report O Connor
It was a situation at at time of day that was to occur again where drinks supplied by Wastel may have induced the actions of him and his workers.
Sexual assault of Harriet May Age 12 years 3 months at Southcote Manor
Wastel was in court again in 1874, this time charged that on 8th October 1874 there was an indecent assault of a 12 yr 3 month old girl Harriet May who worked as a servant for Wastel. The charge was "Assault with intent to Ravish" or rape. The evidence given was that Harriet who lived with her parents one mile from Wastel at Southcote, arrived home at 8.15pm and told her mother Jemima of an incident in Southcote Manor. The following day her mother went to the manor to challenge Wastel, and in the evening sought advice or spoke with Mary May Wiggins a friend.
At a preliminary hearing in a crowded court Jemima said “most disgusting to serve the child as he had” It appears the girl was taken to different rooms including Wastels bedroom and it must be assumed some assault took place. The evidence the girl gave seemed credible and did not alter under cross examination.
Before the court were “James Westel Briscoe” age 45 yrs and William Webb Age 20yrs who was a labourer employed by Wastel. At the preliminary hearing in Reading Magistrates Court allegations by the defence impuned that there was no case to answer and the story was made up to extract money or favours from Wastel. The court considered that there was a case to answer with the chairman saying "This is a bad a case since I have sat on this bench.Even if we take your own admissions it is infamous" the prisoners were remanded in custody without bail awaiting trial. It seems Wastel was to challenge that decision to a judge in chambers. It is uncertain whether Wastel got bail or remained in prison for a couple of months over Christmas but the trial for Briscoe & Webb was to take place in January 1875 .
At the trial in January 1875 again the court was crowded with public at what must have been an interesting case involving a high profile character. What was apparent on the day of the trial is that the prosecution witnesses had been got at or that Brisco had used his wealth and status to influence those that could have ensured that the facts of the case had a hearing and justice achieved. Harriet May the Prosecuterix had not appeared. Her mother Jemima May had disappeared. One witness who had appeared, was intoxicated and another witness said he knew nothing about the case. Without evidence the court were not able to reach a decision and for some reason chose not to adjourn the case to another day. With a choice of "True Bill" or "No True Bill" the verdict returned was "No True Bill" and Brisco & Webb were free. Finally defence requested the court to "estreat the recognizance of William May" the father of Harriet. Reading Mercury News Reports - Harriet May
At a preliminary hearing in a crowded court Jemima said “most disgusting to serve the child as he had” It appears the girl was taken to different rooms including Wastels bedroom and it must be assumed some assault took place. The evidence the girl gave seemed credible and did not alter under cross examination.
Before the court were “James Westel Briscoe” age 45 yrs and William Webb Age 20yrs who was a labourer employed by Wastel. At the preliminary hearing in Reading Magistrates Court allegations by the defence impuned that there was no case to answer and the story was made up to extract money or favours from Wastel. The court considered that there was a case to answer with the chairman saying "This is a bad a case since I have sat on this bench.Even if we take your own admissions it is infamous" the prisoners were remanded in custody without bail awaiting trial. It seems Wastel was to challenge that decision to a judge in chambers. It is uncertain whether Wastel got bail or remained in prison for a couple of months over Christmas but the trial for Briscoe & Webb was to take place in January 1875 .
At the trial in January 1875 again the court was crowded with public at what must have been an interesting case involving a high profile character. What was apparent on the day of the trial is that the prosecution witnesses had been got at or that Brisco had used his wealth and status to influence those that could have ensured that the facts of the case had a hearing and justice achieved. Harriet May the Prosecuterix had not appeared. Her mother Jemima May had disappeared. One witness who had appeared, was intoxicated and another witness said he knew nothing about the case. Without evidence the court were not able to reach a decision and for some reason chose not to adjourn the case to another day. With a choice of "True Bill" or "No True Bill" the verdict returned was "No True Bill" and Brisco & Webb were free. Finally defence requested the court to "estreat the recognizance of William May" the father of Harriet. Reading Mercury News Reports - Harriet May
Assault of William John Parker - Process Server at Southcote
Well over a decade after the the Harriet May trial Wastel and his workers were again in court on a charge of assault. This time it was a case of an assault on William John Parker who was endeavouring to serve legal documents on Wastel. Parker was aware that Brisco was a difficult man to track down and he had spent much of the day watching the house, along with his wife, in order to find an opportunity to locate Brisco and serve his documents. It was mid evening when he seized the opportunity to enter the premises. The newspaper story from the Reading Mercury explains the occurrences of the evening and following court case that featured a cross summons where Brisco claimed that Parker had assaulted the Male servants and labourers gathered in the house.
Reading Mercury - 20th December 1881 Wastel Brisco Age 57 yrs
Charged Assault of William Parker process server - William Parker, Serving a writ.
William Parker, a man of superior education, was summoned for assaulting ' William Webb, labourer, in the employ of Mr. Briscoe, at Southcote, on the 20th December. There were crossummonses charging Webb and Mr. Briscoe and five others named Dance, May, Keeley, Taylor, and Lovegrove, with assaulting Parker. The case against Parker was taken first Mr Henry Creed appeared for the complainant, and Mr. J. W. Martin for the defendant. The complainant snid the defendant, who was formerly In the service of Mr. Briscoe, had several times sought to see Mr. Briscoe. On the 20th December witness and Charles Keeley were near the door, in the archway near the house. Witness opened the door for Keeley, who was going to take some letters to post, and at the same moment Parker struck him violent blow on the chest with his fist, knocking him down. He heard Keeley call "Stop thief." was very dark at the time. Witness sot soon as he could, and ran after the defendant, and found him in the kitchen. It was light enough for him to recognise the defendant as being the person who struck him. He did not hear Parker speak. No other person went through the archway gate at the time. When he got into the kitchen, witness found him lying on the floor, crying, and saying that he wanted to see Mr. Briscoe, fleeley told the defendant he could not see Mr. Briscoe' Mr. Briscoe was not the kitchen. The defendant was requested to go, and he walked out of the kitchen. Witness did not see him struck. defendant was going out, defendant's wife came in. Witness had suffered from the blow, and had to go and see Mr. Royds. Cross-examined by Mr. Martin.—Witness duty was to milk the cows. On the night in question he slept at the house. The gate the archway was always kept locked. Witness had let go of the gate when he was knocked down. He did not know who was that struck him first. Witness did not know that Mr. Briscoe was a difficult man to find. He had refused persons admittance to the place. He had never been placed on the watch. He did not know that the defendant was about to serve a subpoena on Mr. Briscoe. Several other persons were sleeping the ; William Taylor and Richard Lovegrove were not sleeping the house that night. Mr. Briscoe was not on the premises that night ; he had not seen him for some time. Whea tbe defendant was on the floor his nose was bleeding. The persons the kitchen were himself, Thomas May, Ezekiel Dance, and Charles Keeley. Witness did not drag him out of the house. He followed him all the way to Reading. He had no object following the defendant to Reading. Defendant's wife walked with him all the time. He did not see Dance catch hold of the defendant, but Thomas May took hold of his coat and trousers and pushed him along. He did not see May strike the defendant. Re-examined.—The defendant did not make any complaint to anyone as to his having been ill-used. By the Bench.—The door opened inside. The witness, who did not answer the questions put to him in a satisfactory manner, ultimately said tho door opened towards him when he unlocked it. Charles Keeley said he usually took letters to Reading for Mr. Briscoe. About half-past nine o'clock on the evening of the 20th December he went with Webb to the gate in the archway. When Webb opened the gate the defendant rushed in and struck Webb in the chest, knocking him down. He did not recognise him at first. Defendant ran on, and witness cried, " Stop thief." When he was in the kitchen, defendant asked for Mr. Briscoe, and he was Dot there, witness asked him to leave, which he did. Witness did not see any blows struck. Defendant did not say that he had come to serve a subpeena on Mr. Briscoe. He had not seen Mr. Briscoe for some time. ■ Cross-examined.—He saw Parker strike Webb. It seemed though Parker had been in a scuffle, when he was on the floor of the kitchen. He did not see either Mr. Briscoe or Richard Lovegrove in the kitchen. Lovegrove might have been in tbe kitchen. He and others ' followed the defendant into Reading, but he did not assist in dragging him out of the kitchen and along the 1 lane. He did not see either May, Dance, Lovegrove, or ' Taylor strike the defendant. . Mr. Martin, on behalf of the defendant, said Parker ' went to Mr. Briscoe's house for the purpose of serving writ on him. Mr. Briscoe was one of the most difficult 1 men In Berkshire to serve writ upon, as he secluded himself his own house. If he had not mentioned that 1 circumstance, might be said that the defendant had no right to serve a process so late at night, but thought that under the peculiar circumstances was the only ] time he could serve it. The defendant, who was accompanied by his wife, waited about the premises from the afternoon until half-past nine at night for opportunity to reach the house, and when the door was opened he rushed by the men like a dart—as he was legally entitled to do—but he did not strike the complainant, and he made straight for the kitchen. Parker would tell them that he saw Mr. Briscoe sitting in the kitchen with some men, and spirit bottles were on the tables. Mr. Briscoe saw the writ, and commenced urging the men in the room to make attack on the defendant, and they did so, grossly assaulting him. They dragged him from the kitchen and across the grounds, and struck him violent blows, and followed him to Reading. The result was that defendant was obliged to see Mr. Young, surgeon, and by his advice he went to the Hospital, where he remained a week. Cross-summonses had been taken out by Parker against Webb and Mr. Briscoe and five others, and he asked the Bench to dismiss the present summons. The Bench reserved their decision until the cross-summonses had been heard. Wastel Briscoe (of Southcote House), Ezekiel Dance, Richard Lovegrove, William Taylor, Charles Keeley, Thomas May, and William Webb (in Mr. Briscoe's employ) were then charged with assaulting William Parker. Briscoe and Lovegrove did not answer to their names. Mr. Creed said Mr. Briscoe was away from home, and had been away for a week. The summons was left on Thursday night at the house, but Mr. Briscoe was not there. Major Arbuthnot, son-in-law of Mr. Briscoe, was present, and would give the Bench some information. Mr. Martin said Mr. Briscoe's servants were in the habit of saying that he was in London and elsewhere, when was in the house all the time. He would, however, agree to the case against him and Lovegrove being adjourned. Major Arbuthnot said Mr. Briscoe had not received the summons, and it had not been forwarded to him, they did not know where he was. They would, however, be sure to know in a few days where was, and they would communicate with him. The case against the five defendants was then proceeded with. The complainant is exceedingly deaf, and his wife had to communicate the questions asked him by gestures and writing. He presented a very pitiable appearance, having his head bandaged end a covering over the left eye. P.c. Smith proved that he served a copy of the summons for Mr. Briscoe and Lovegrove at the house of the former on the 29th. Mr. Arthur Maslin, High Bailiff of the Reading County Court, said Parker was instructed serve two subpoenas on the defendant Briscoe, on the 28th December. The complainant then said he went with the subpoena at four o'clock in the afternoon, and he took his wife with him to listen for people on the premises at South! cote. By some means he managed to get into the enclosed place, and waited for an opportunity to get inner gates. About nine o'clock his wife indicated to him that someone was going to open the gate, which opened inside. Webb then opened it sufficiently wide to allow witness to get through, and he immediately ran through. He did not see Webb or anyone else at the gate ; it was dark at the time. He ran to the house, and, seeing the back door open, he ran into the kitchen. Experience told him where to find Mr. Briscoe, and he found him seated in an arm-chair in the kitchen. At this stage of the proceedings, Mr. W. A. S. Royds, surgeon, entered the Court, and was allowed to give evidence on behalf of Webb in the previous case- Mr. Royds said Webb consulted him on the 21st December. As far witness could see, he was suffering from hoarseness, and he complained of a pain at the chest. He examined him, and found no sign of blow ; the hoarseness might have been caused a blow. By the Bench. —There was outward sign of blow. He did not consider it a serious case, and did not anticipate any serious results. Mr. Martin asked permission of the Bench to call Mr. F. W. Sutton, House Surgeon at the Berks Hospital, to speak as to the condition of Parker when he was admitted to the Hospital. The Magistrates having assented, Mr. Sutton said Parker came to the Hospital with injuries about the face. He examined him, and found he had an incised wound below the left eye, bruises on the face, and laoeration of the cheek. Parker said he was unconscious for a short time. Witness sewed up the wound near the eye. and he advised him to stay in the Hospital, which he did for a week. He had been seriously knocked about, and it appeared to him that it had been done by a kick. Parker had told him he had been kicked. There were no symptoms of concussion. Cross-examined by Mr. Creed. —The incised wound might have been caused by falling on a sharp stone, and the wound on the ear might have been caused by a fall on some stones. By Mr. Martin. —He did not think the wounds could have been caused by one fall. The complainant, Parker, continuing his evidence, said that directly Mr. Briscoe saw him he motioned to those in the room to keep him back. Two of the defendants were in the kitchen at that time, and they jumped and made towards him, Mr. Briscoo at the same time also moving. Witness then placed the subpoena on the table, saying that it was for Mr. Briscoe. Mr. Briscoe took a glance at it, and immediately left the room, but quickly returned. Just as Mr. Briscoe left the room, Webb, Keeley, May, and Dance came in, and he also noticed Lovegrove and Taylor there. Having as he thought effectually served the process, he considered it best to retreat, but on turning to go he was confronted by Dance, May, Webb, and Keeley. Mr. Briscoe returned to the room, and motioned to the men to take hold of him, at the same time shaking his fist at witness. Dance then rushed at him and struck him with his clenched fist in the face, and May also struck him. Witness had a walking stick in his hand, but he had not the presence of mind to use it, and it was taken from him. He then discovered he was bleeding from the ear. The blow in the face dislocated his teeth. Dance struck him again and knocked him down. He did not remember anything tor moment or two, and someone again knocked him down. Dance,, May, Webb, and Keeley took hold ot • him, and held him, and Briscoe continued to shake his fist at him, but not coming nearer than four yards ; ho, however, witnessed the assault. Keeley destroyed the subpoena. Witness made attempt to reach the door, but May, Dance, Webb, and Keeley took hold of him and they went outside, Lovegrove staying behind with Briscoe. Lovegrove did not strike him with his fist, but he pushed him. He was struck by five of them in various parts of his body. He judged by the action of Briscoe's mouth that he was urging the other men on. They dragged him out of the house, and when near the moat they held him and considered whether they should put him in it, but they did not. They dragged him to the further gate and pushed him out, and for a moment he was free, but the four men again caught hold of him, and kept him until they got some distance further, Taylor keeping behind all the time. They kept him their grasp until they reached the toll-bar in the Bath-road, when they released him. They continued to follow him far as the "Horse and Jockoy" in Castle-street, where they met with policeman, whose assistance witness sought. The defendants then left him, and he went to Mr. Young, surgeon, and from thence to the Hospital, which he reached about half-past 10. Cross-examined by Mr. Creed.—He did not touch Webb on going through the gate; _ He did not give May the subpoena and then strike him at the same time. He was positive Taylor was there. Sarah Ann Parker, wife of the complainant, said she accompanied her husband to Mr. Briscoe's house, and waited until the door was opened by Webb. He then rushed through the place, but he did not strike Webb. They called out Stop thief." Witness followed, and when she got to the kitchen she heard her husband say " Let me go." She looked through the scullery window, and saw the defendants all round her husband, punching" him in a cruel manner. She cried out to them to leave him alone, but they would not. Webb was the worst. They then dragged him to the archway, and when near the moat they threatened to throw him in the ditch. She said, "You will murder him," and they replied, " Yes, and you too." They had hold of him all the time, and assaulted him all the way to Reading. One of the defendants struck witness in the side and otherwise assaulted her. When they went to Mr. Young, that gentleman gave her husband a draught to compose him. Taylor was not there her husband must have made a mistake as to him. Cross-examined.—Witness did not see Lovegrove or Briscoe. All the defendants struck her husband when they left the house. They only met one man along the road, and she did not speak to him of the assault. This was the case for the complainant. Mr. Creed, for the defendants, said his instructions were that Parker rushed into the kitohen and went straight to May, who was sitting at the table eating his supper, and had his back to the door, and placed the subpoena on his plate, at the same time striking May, who immediately got and returned the blow. There was no doubt that there was a wrangle and great row. He contended that Parker had no right to be on the premises at that time of night, and he did not think any one would uphold such disgraceful way of serving processes. He thought it was a question whether the assault was not brought upon Parker himself by his own actions. He asked the Bench to convict Parker for the assault on Webb, and dismiss the case against the defendants in the other case. The Chairman asked Mr. Martin what course he intended to take with regard to Lovegrove and Briscoe. After consideration, Mr. Martin replied that with respect to those two he would leave the matter open. If they felt disposed, they could issue fresh summonses against them. The Chairman then said there was considerable doubt in the case against Parker, and the Bench would dismiss that summons. With regard to the cross-summons, Dance, May, Webb, and Keeley would each be fined 1?. and 10s. lid. costs, or days' hard labour ; but as there existed doubt as to Taylor, he would be discharged. They declined to allow time for payment. The lenient sentence caused great surprise in court.
Reading Mercury News Report - William Parker
Reading Mercury - 20th December 1881 Wastel Brisco Age 57 yrs
Charged Assault of William Parker process server - William Parker, Serving a writ.
William Parker, a man of superior education, was summoned for assaulting ' William Webb, labourer, in the employ of Mr. Briscoe, at Southcote, on the 20th December. There were crossummonses charging Webb and Mr. Briscoe and five others named Dance, May, Keeley, Taylor, and Lovegrove, with assaulting Parker. The case against Parker was taken first Mr Henry Creed appeared for the complainant, and Mr. J. W. Martin for the defendant. The complainant snid the defendant, who was formerly In the service of Mr. Briscoe, had several times sought to see Mr. Briscoe. On the 20th December witness and Charles Keeley were near the door, in the archway near the house. Witness opened the door for Keeley, who was going to take some letters to post, and at the same moment Parker struck him violent blow on the chest with his fist, knocking him down. He heard Keeley call "Stop thief." was very dark at the time. Witness sot soon as he could, and ran after the defendant, and found him in the kitchen. It was light enough for him to recognise the defendant as being the person who struck him. He did not hear Parker speak. No other person went through the archway gate at the time. When he got into the kitchen, witness found him lying on the floor, crying, and saying that he wanted to see Mr. Briscoe, fleeley told the defendant he could not see Mr. Briscoe' Mr. Briscoe was not the kitchen. The defendant was requested to go, and he walked out of the kitchen. Witness did not see him struck. defendant was going out, defendant's wife came in. Witness had suffered from the blow, and had to go and see Mr. Royds. Cross-examined by Mr. Martin.—Witness duty was to milk the cows. On the night in question he slept at the house. The gate the archway was always kept locked. Witness had let go of the gate when he was knocked down. He did not know who was that struck him first. Witness did not know that Mr. Briscoe was a difficult man to find. He had refused persons admittance to the place. He had never been placed on the watch. He did not know that the defendant was about to serve a subpoena on Mr. Briscoe. Several other persons were sleeping the ; William Taylor and Richard Lovegrove were not sleeping the house that night. Mr. Briscoe was not on the premises that night ; he had not seen him for some time. Whea tbe defendant was on the floor his nose was bleeding. The persons the kitchen were himself, Thomas May, Ezekiel Dance, and Charles Keeley. Witness did not drag him out of the house. He followed him all the way to Reading. He had no object following the defendant to Reading. Defendant's wife walked with him all the time. He did not see Dance catch hold of the defendant, but Thomas May took hold of his coat and trousers and pushed him along. He did not see May strike the defendant. Re-examined.—The defendant did not make any complaint to anyone as to his having been ill-used. By the Bench.—The door opened inside. The witness, who did not answer the questions put to him in a satisfactory manner, ultimately said tho door opened towards him when he unlocked it. Charles Keeley said he usually took letters to Reading for Mr. Briscoe. About half-past nine o'clock on the evening of the 20th December he went with Webb to the gate in the archway. When Webb opened the gate the defendant rushed in and struck Webb in the chest, knocking him down. He did not recognise him at first. Defendant ran on, and witness cried, " Stop thief." When he was in the kitchen, defendant asked for Mr. Briscoe, and he was Dot there, witness asked him to leave, which he did. Witness did not see any blows struck. Defendant did not say that he had come to serve a subpeena on Mr. Briscoe. He had not seen Mr. Briscoe for some time. ■ Cross-examined.—He saw Parker strike Webb. It seemed though Parker had been in a scuffle, when he was on the floor of the kitchen. He did not see either Mr. Briscoe or Richard Lovegrove in the kitchen. Lovegrove might have been in tbe kitchen. He and others ' followed the defendant into Reading, but he did not assist in dragging him out of the kitchen and along the 1 lane. He did not see either May, Dance, Lovegrove, or ' Taylor strike the defendant. . Mr. Martin, on behalf of the defendant, said Parker ' went to Mr. Briscoe's house for the purpose of serving writ on him. Mr. Briscoe was one of the most difficult 1 men In Berkshire to serve writ upon, as he secluded himself his own house. If he had not mentioned that 1 circumstance, might be said that the defendant had no right to serve a process so late at night, but thought that under the peculiar circumstances was the only ] time he could serve it. The defendant, who was accompanied by his wife, waited about the premises from the afternoon until half-past nine at night for opportunity to reach the house, and when the door was opened he rushed by the men like a dart—as he was legally entitled to do—but he did not strike the complainant, and he made straight for the kitchen. Parker would tell them that he saw Mr. Briscoe sitting in the kitchen with some men, and spirit bottles were on the tables. Mr. Briscoe saw the writ, and commenced urging the men in the room to make attack on the defendant, and they did so, grossly assaulting him. They dragged him from the kitchen and across the grounds, and struck him violent blows, and followed him to Reading. The result was that defendant was obliged to see Mr. Young, surgeon, and by his advice he went to the Hospital, where he remained a week. Cross-summonses had been taken out by Parker against Webb and Mr. Briscoe and five others, and he asked the Bench to dismiss the present summons. The Bench reserved their decision until the cross-summonses had been heard. Wastel Briscoe (of Southcote House), Ezekiel Dance, Richard Lovegrove, William Taylor, Charles Keeley, Thomas May, and William Webb (in Mr. Briscoe's employ) were then charged with assaulting William Parker. Briscoe and Lovegrove did not answer to their names. Mr. Creed said Mr. Briscoe was away from home, and had been away for a week. The summons was left on Thursday night at the house, but Mr. Briscoe was not there. Major Arbuthnot, son-in-law of Mr. Briscoe, was present, and would give the Bench some information. Mr. Martin said Mr. Briscoe's servants were in the habit of saying that he was in London and elsewhere, when was in the house all the time. He would, however, agree to the case against him and Lovegrove being adjourned. Major Arbuthnot said Mr. Briscoe had not received the summons, and it had not been forwarded to him, they did not know where he was. They would, however, be sure to know in a few days where was, and they would communicate with him. The case against the five defendants was then proceeded with. The complainant is exceedingly deaf, and his wife had to communicate the questions asked him by gestures and writing. He presented a very pitiable appearance, having his head bandaged end a covering over the left eye. P.c. Smith proved that he served a copy of the summons for Mr. Briscoe and Lovegrove at the house of the former on the 29th. Mr. Arthur Maslin, High Bailiff of the Reading County Court, said Parker was instructed serve two subpoenas on the defendant Briscoe, on the 28th December. The complainant then said he went with the subpoena at four o'clock in the afternoon, and he took his wife with him to listen for people on the premises at South! cote. By some means he managed to get into the enclosed place, and waited for an opportunity to get inner gates. About nine o'clock his wife indicated to him that someone was going to open the gate, which opened inside. Webb then opened it sufficiently wide to allow witness to get through, and he immediately ran through. He did not see Webb or anyone else at the gate ; it was dark at the time. He ran to the house, and, seeing the back door open, he ran into the kitchen. Experience told him where to find Mr. Briscoe, and he found him seated in an arm-chair in the kitchen. At this stage of the proceedings, Mr. W. A. S. Royds, surgeon, entered the Court, and was allowed to give evidence on behalf of Webb in the previous case- Mr. Royds said Webb consulted him on the 21st December. As far witness could see, he was suffering from hoarseness, and he complained of a pain at the chest. He examined him, and found no sign of blow ; the hoarseness might have been caused a blow. By the Bench. —There was outward sign of blow. He did not consider it a serious case, and did not anticipate any serious results. Mr. Martin asked permission of the Bench to call Mr. F. W. Sutton, House Surgeon at the Berks Hospital, to speak as to the condition of Parker when he was admitted to the Hospital. The Magistrates having assented, Mr. Sutton said Parker came to the Hospital with injuries about the face. He examined him, and found he had an incised wound below the left eye, bruises on the face, and laoeration of the cheek. Parker said he was unconscious for a short time. Witness sewed up the wound near the eye. and he advised him to stay in the Hospital, which he did for a week. He had been seriously knocked about, and it appeared to him that it had been done by a kick. Parker had told him he had been kicked. There were no symptoms of concussion. Cross-examined by Mr. Creed. —The incised wound might have been caused by falling on a sharp stone, and the wound on the ear might have been caused by a fall on some stones. By Mr. Martin. —He did not think the wounds could have been caused by one fall. The complainant, Parker, continuing his evidence, said that directly Mr. Briscoe saw him he motioned to those in the room to keep him back. Two of the defendants were in the kitchen at that time, and they jumped and made towards him, Mr. Briscoo at the same time also moving. Witness then placed the subpoena on the table, saying that it was for Mr. Briscoe. Mr. Briscoe took a glance at it, and immediately left the room, but quickly returned. Just as Mr. Briscoe left the room, Webb, Keeley, May, and Dance came in, and he also noticed Lovegrove and Taylor there. Having as he thought effectually served the process, he considered it best to retreat, but on turning to go he was confronted by Dance, May, Webb, and Keeley. Mr. Briscoe returned to the room, and motioned to the men to take hold of him, at the same time shaking his fist at witness. Dance then rushed at him and struck him with his clenched fist in the face, and May also struck him. Witness had a walking stick in his hand, but he had not the presence of mind to use it, and it was taken from him. He then discovered he was bleeding from the ear. The blow in the face dislocated his teeth. Dance struck him again and knocked him down. He did not remember anything tor moment or two, and someone again knocked him down. Dance,, May, Webb, and Keeley took hold ot • him, and held him, and Briscoe continued to shake his fist at him, but not coming nearer than four yards ; ho, however, witnessed the assault. Keeley destroyed the subpoena. Witness made attempt to reach the door, but May, Dance, Webb, and Keeley took hold of him and they went outside, Lovegrove staying behind with Briscoe. Lovegrove did not strike him with his fist, but he pushed him. He was struck by five of them in various parts of his body. He judged by the action of Briscoe's mouth that he was urging the other men on. They dragged him out of the house, and when near the moat they held him and considered whether they should put him in it, but they did not. They dragged him to the further gate and pushed him out, and for a moment he was free, but the four men again caught hold of him, and kept him until they got some distance further, Taylor keeping behind all the time. They kept him their grasp until they reached the toll-bar in the Bath-road, when they released him. They continued to follow him far as the "Horse and Jockoy" in Castle-street, where they met with policeman, whose assistance witness sought. The defendants then left him, and he went to Mr. Young, surgeon, and from thence to the Hospital, which he reached about half-past 10. Cross-examined by Mr. Creed.—He did not touch Webb on going through the gate; _ He did not give May the subpoena and then strike him at the same time. He was positive Taylor was there. Sarah Ann Parker, wife of the complainant, said she accompanied her husband to Mr. Briscoe's house, and waited until the door was opened by Webb. He then rushed through the place, but he did not strike Webb. They called out Stop thief." Witness followed, and when she got to the kitchen she heard her husband say " Let me go." She looked through the scullery window, and saw the defendants all round her husband, punching" him in a cruel manner. She cried out to them to leave him alone, but they would not. Webb was the worst. They then dragged him to the archway, and when near the moat they threatened to throw him in the ditch. She said, "You will murder him," and they replied, " Yes, and you too." They had hold of him all the time, and assaulted him all the way to Reading. One of the defendants struck witness in the side and otherwise assaulted her. When they went to Mr. Young, that gentleman gave her husband a draught to compose him. Taylor was not there her husband must have made a mistake as to him. Cross-examined.—Witness did not see Lovegrove or Briscoe. All the defendants struck her husband when they left the house. They only met one man along the road, and she did not speak to him of the assault. This was the case for the complainant. Mr. Creed, for the defendants, said his instructions were that Parker rushed into the kitohen and went straight to May, who was sitting at the table eating his supper, and had his back to the door, and placed the subpoena on his plate, at the same time striking May, who immediately got and returned the blow. There was no doubt that there was a wrangle and great row. He contended that Parker had no right to be on the premises at that time of night, and he did not think any one would uphold such disgraceful way of serving processes. He thought it was a question whether the assault was not brought upon Parker himself by his own actions. He asked the Bench to convict Parker for the assault on Webb, and dismiss the case against the defendants in the other case. The Chairman asked Mr. Martin what course he intended to take with regard to Lovegrove and Briscoe. After consideration, Mr. Martin replied that with respect to those two he would leave the matter open. If they felt disposed, they could issue fresh summonses against them. The Chairman then said there was considerable doubt in the case against Parker, and the Bench would dismiss that summons. With regard to the cross-summons, Dance, May, Webb, and Keeley would each be fined 1?. and 10s. lid. costs, or days' hard labour ; but as there existed doubt as to Taylor, he would be discharged. They declined to allow time for payment. The lenient sentence caused great surprise in court.
Reading Mercury News Report - William Parker
Wastel Brisco - death 16th July 1892
hortly before Wastel died he was spending much money on enhancing the Manor House.
He demolished the south west timber chapel and started construction of a twin gable 7 bay west wing with clock tower but all work stopped on his death and the rented building ceased to be used and was to remain vacant for a decade.
After he died 16th July 1892 He was described as an eccentric hermit-like inhabitant and there were also claims that he was buried in four coffins at a church near Hastings. (Church in the woods at Hollington). The effects from Southcote Manor were disposed of in a two day auction held by John Millar Auctioneers on 19th-20th July 1892, among the lots were Dresden, Delft, Cloisonne, Crown Derby, Coalport, Spode, Worcester, Lowestoft, Staffordshire and antique oil paintings, one featuring Dil Pal St Sebastian & old masters featuring religion & mythology and also household furniture.
As Southcote Manor was rented it was was not part of the auction.
Wikipedia -Southcote Berkshire 16th - 19th Century
The extract below from Wikipedia includes details of Southcote Manor in the 19th Century when Wastel Brisco was a tenant:
During the late Victorian era, Southcote Manor was let to the Brisco (or Briscoe) family, who had made their money in slave trading and plantation ownership.[22] The family were relatives of Hastings MP Musgrave Brisco and inheritors of the Pryce baronetcy. A distinctive tower and ballroom were added to the building in 1892,[19] by the eccentric and wealthy Wastel Briscoe.[36] In 1874, Brisco and one of his labourers were taken to court in Reading charged with the "assault with intent to ravish" a 13-year-old servant girl.[37] During the trial, the Reading Observer reported that "several rumours were in circulation that a person connected with the case had committed suicide".[22] Brisco supposedly used his wealth and social status to dissuade witnesses from testifying and the case was apparently abandoned.[22]
He demolished the south west timber chapel and started construction of a twin gable 7 bay west wing with clock tower but all work stopped on his death and the rented building ceased to be used and was to remain vacant for a decade.
After he died 16th July 1892 He was described as an eccentric hermit-like inhabitant and there were also claims that he was buried in four coffins at a church near Hastings. (Church in the woods at Hollington). The effects from Southcote Manor were disposed of in a two day auction held by John Millar Auctioneers on 19th-20th July 1892, among the lots were Dresden, Delft, Cloisonne, Crown Derby, Coalport, Spode, Worcester, Lowestoft, Staffordshire and antique oil paintings, one featuring Dil Pal St Sebastian & old masters featuring religion & mythology and also household furniture.
As Southcote Manor was rented it was was not part of the auction.
Wikipedia -Southcote Berkshire 16th - 19th Century
The extract below from Wikipedia includes details of Southcote Manor in the 19th Century when Wastel Brisco was a tenant:
During the late Victorian era, Southcote Manor was let to the Brisco (or Briscoe) family, who had made their money in slave trading and plantation ownership.[22] The family were relatives of Hastings MP Musgrave Brisco and inheritors of the Pryce baronetcy. A distinctive tower and ballroom were added to the building in 1892,[19] by the eccentric and wealthy Wastel Briscoe.[36] In 1874, Brisco and one of his labourers were taken to court in Reading charged with the "assault with intent to ravish" a 13-year-old servant girl.[37] During the trial, the Reading Observer reported that "several rumours were in circulation that a person connected with the case had committed suicide".[22] Brisco supposedly used his wealth and social status to dissuade witnesses from testifying and the case was apparently abandoned.[22]