William Bollard & Philip Dimbleby

Wilful Damage, 11th May 1862


William Meadows, police-constable, charged William Bollard and Philip Dimbleby with having, on the evening of the 11th of May, committed wilful damage by throwing stones at a street lamp. Mr Rawlings appeared for the defence.

—Police-constable Meadows said that about a quarter to eleven on the evening in question he was on duty at Desborough. Saw both defendants throwing stones at a street lamp belonging to Mr. Howard. Did not see the lamp broken, but distinctly saw the glass fall to the ground. Defendants ran away, but he gave chase, and collared both. Asked them to give him their names, and they refused to do so. Told them if they persisted in withholding their names he should take them into custody. Bollard then gave his name, and Dimbleby a false one. Told him he had tendered a wrong name, when he became irritated, up with his stick and attempted to strike witness with it, but did not do so. Witness knew both defendants, and let them go home.

Mr. E. Howard said he was a land agent, residing at Desborough. The lamp which had been wilfully broken was his property, and he estimated the damage at 2s. 6d.

—For the defence, Charles Stephens said he was a shoemaker, living at Rothwell. Was at Desborough on the evening of the 11th of May. Bollard and Dimbleby were there at the time. They all came from Rowell, and were making homewards at about a quarter to eleven. Bollard and Dimbleby were a few yards in advance of him when leaving the village. Remembered the policeman being there, who said, "You have broken this lamp," when he (witness) replied. "No, we never broke it," but the policeman said, "Yes, you did," and witness said, "No, I did not, neither did I see any one break it." Bradshaw, Rose, and himself followed Bollard and Dimbleby pretty closely, and if they had broken the lamp he thinks they could not have done it without his seeing it.

—Witness, on being recalled, said he perhaps was about thirty yards from the defendants, and was free to admit that it was possible they might have thrown stones at the lamp, but he did not see them.

John Roe said he was at Desborough on the evening of Sunday, May 11th. There were five of them from Rothwell, and they were bound for home that night at about a quarter to eleven. Heard the glass broken, and, seeing the policeman run, he ran too. Should say it was not possible for the policeman to see the breaking of the lamp, although such a thing might be.

—The magistrates were of the opinion the parties charged were guilty, and they were called upon to pay 2s. 6d. damage, and 8s. 6d. costs. The money was paid.

 Northampton Mercury, Saturday 07 June 1862