MATRIMONIAL DIFFERENCES. Mary Alice Heap, married woman, of Gwydir-street, was brought up on warrant charged with threatening Edward Heap, her husband, on the 13th of May. Mr Poland Adcock prosecuted ; Mr. Ellison defended the prisoner. Mr. Adcock asked the bench to adjourn the case, on the ground that he had not had reasonable notice to come before them, having only received it at halfpast eight that morning. He had sent for his client, but he had not come. Mr. Ellison objected to the case being adjourned, and asked that it might be dismissed. He could prove on oath that the letter was left at Mr. Adcock’s house at 12.30 p.m. Mr. Ellison’s Clerk was then called, and proved de- livering the letter at that time.
Mr. Adcock: Anyhow, I did not receive it till this morning at half-past eight. The Magistrates agreed to wait twenty minutes, and let Detective Sergeant Kirbyshire go for the prosecutor. After half hour had elapsed, the officer returned with Mr. Heap. Edward Heap, chemist and druggist, of Gwydir-street, said he was married to the defendant on September 9th, 1870. On the 13th May, while he was at breakfast with his wife, she seized a table-knife which was on the table, and said, holding it in a threatening attitude, ” I’ll serve you worse than I did before.” He was afraid she would do him injury.
By Mr. Ellison : I have been in constant fear. I have accused my wife of adultery. It was two years ago, when she threw a bottle of scent at me. My wife’s mother was in the house at that time. I put my mother-in-law outside the door. It was after that that my wife threw the bottle of scent at me. I first came to Cambridge in November, 1877. I suppose my wife was suffering before we came to Cambridge, She was attended by Dr. Suitor. When the doctor told me she was dying and asked me to go upstairs to see her, I did say, “Let her die.” using at the same time a terrible oath. Mr. Kirbyshire has not been called in my house to protect her from violence. I did not say to Mr. King when I went for the warrant, “She ought to have seven years, and be brought out once a year to be flogged.” The Magistrates at this point said they had decided to dismiss the case. The prisoner was accordingly discharged from custody. Mr. Ellison asked for the costs, but they were not allowed.
APPLICATION. Mr. Heap, chemist, of Gwydir-street, said he wanted the Magistrates to advise under the following circumstances On the 24th of May six roughs went into his house, broke his parlour door, and took his piano away, in the presence of Kirbyshire and another policeman. The piano was taken to Mr. King’s, and remained there until Saturday, when it was taken to Mr. Wallis’s. Mr. Ellison said was his wife’s under the Married Woman’s Property Act. Mr. King stated that Mr. Heap Saturday brought several roughs to his house. Mr. Naylor : It is not a case for this court.
PEACE WARRANT. Edward Heap, chemist, of Gwydir street, was charged with threatening to run a knife through Mary Alice, his wife, on the 24th of May. Mr. Ellison prosecuted. The complainant said : On the 24th of May, I had occasion to come to Cambridge to answer a charge preferred against me by my husband. After I left here I went home to get some of things that I wanted. I went to the side door, but it was shut in my face. I then went into the shop. My husband, who was standing in the doorway leading from the shop to the room at the back, had a long knife in his hand. He held it up in a threatening attitude, and said “If you come into this house I will run it through you.” I went in afterwards under the protection of Mr. Kirbyshire. I took away some of things that I wanted, and went to London the same evening. I am afraid that husband will do some injury. My brother, who was present on the occasion, is prevented from being here by illness.
The defendant said he did not refuse his wife admission, and he had never in his life raised his hand to her. The case was a retaliation, because he had her up on the 24th of May.
The Mayor said he had alternative but to order the defendant to be bound over in his own recognizance of £20 and find one surety of £20 to keep the peace for three mouths.
E Heap v G D Bundy
This was action which excited good deal of interest, and the court was thronged all day. The action was brought to recover the possession of a piano. The plaintiff is chemist in Gwydir-street. and the defendant is brother to Mr. Heap wife. Serious disturbances have taken place between Heap and his wife, which culminated in proceedings before the magistrates, Heap being ordered to find sureties for his good behaviour. Mr. Cockerell (instructed Messrs. Lewis) appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. H. Browne (instructed Messrs. Ellison, Burrows, aud Freeman) appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Cockerell, having opened the case, called the following evidence:
Edward Heap (by Mr. Cockerell) deposed : I am a chemist, and live in Gwydir-street, and have done since January, 1878. Previously that I lived at 149, Junction-road, Upper Holloway. I married my wife on the of September, 1876. She is the sister of Mr. Bundy, I believe. Before we came to Cambridge very painful disputes took place between me and my wife. We agreed to separate in consequence of her wickedness. It was a mutual separation. There were no writings. I agreed to allowed her 15s. a week, and allowed her to take the piano, the same as is now in dispute. I purchased the piano of Mr. Balchin in January 1877 (invoice produced). I paid £7 and £5 on account. The cost of the piano was £38. The rest has not been paid. I am indebted to Mr. Balchin for the remainder. I owe £26 on account of it. My wife was away from me from May 13th to 24th this year. On the former occasion she was away six weeks, and then she came back and brought the piano back. That was while we were living at London. lt has remained in my possession ever since till this occasion. On the 13th of May my wife left me again upon a quarrel. She left of her own accord. I did not turn her out. I next saw her here in this court on the 24th of May. Her brother was with her. After the proceedings at this court I went home. I saw the defendant there. He entered my shop between five and six o’clock. I was in my establishment —in the parlour. I answered the bell in shop. I saw defendant in the shop. My wife was with him. He called me a liar. He said nothing about that. He said nothing about the piano. He walked into my establishment and came into the parlour. He came into my parlour twice. I believe my wife opened the door. He went to the side door and called the men to assist stealing the piano out of the door. It was through his instrumentality that the door was opened. He called Thomas Canham and others, and said ‘‘Now men, go and fetch the piano out, and I’ll give you whatever you charge.” Five or six men came in. The piano was taken over to Mr. Charles King’s house. The defendant assisted in taking it away. He was outside all the time they were taking it away. They knocked at the parlour door, and injured the walls and the paper. I had to have men in to repair it. I had to pay 4s 6d for the repairs.
Cross-examined by Mr. Browne : We were married in 1875 or 1876. My wife brought an old piano with her when were married. When I bought the new one the old one was given in exchange. I not aware that she purchased the first piano out of her earnings. She was before and since our marriage a teacher of music and singing, and earned money. I paid £7 and £5 towards this new piano. On my oath I did. I think I paid the £5 in October. I paid the £7 first. I am the Mr. Heap who manufactures the South African Sauce. I paid the £7 in cash, likewise the £5. The cost of the piano was to be £38. The old piano was in my house. The sum of six pounds was allowed for it. The writing you show me is that of the man I bought the piano of. I don’t know that my wife has paid £5, £7, and £5 more off the piano. I never heard of it till now. I don’t know that only £6 is due on the cost of the piano at this moment. I had the piano when I gave a bill of sale to Mr. Fetch. It was in the valuation. That was this year. The bill of sale is paid off. My wife went away before, and I agreed to give her 15s. week, and allowed her to take the piano, that was in June, 1877. I did not give her it to get rid of her. It came back again into establishment. I saw my wife on this court on the 24th of May. I had taken out warrant against her for threatening me. Mr. Adcock was here for me. The magistrates dismissed the charge the moment my cross examination was finished. A portion of the property that was included in the bill of sale had been my wife’s before her marriage, and was her father’s before. I did not through my solicitor consent that Mr. Bundy should go up my house with my wife, and that the piano should be given up. There is not word of truth in such suggestion. I saw my solicitor in conversation with Bundy. I did not hear my solicitor say anything with reference to their going up. Mr. Poland Adcock came and asked me if I would give my wife the piano, and I said distinctly “No.” None of the money paid me to Mr, Balchin was ever returned to me. The receipt produced is in my handwriting, and is for £7 that was paid back to me. The words of the receipt are, “Received from Mr. Balchin in relief of the piano.” That was when it was taken away the first time, when we were living on Junction-road. I certainly had the £7 back. It was not arranged that Kirbyshire, Adcock, Bundy, and my wife should come down and remove the piano. It is a fact that Mr. Adcock came with Kirbyshire to me. Mr. Adcock charged £2 4s. 6d. for five minute’s conversation, and I was chump enough to part. Mr Adcock had left my bouse when my wife and Bundy came. He came and requested me to give up the piano, and I objected. I did not give leave for her to have it when we were up before the magistrates. She fetched her goods away. I gave permission for her to take what she claimed. I could not say whether the same persons took these things away that took the piano. I have seen a gentlemen from the office of Messrs, Lewis and Lewis once. The envelope and letter addressed to “M. A. H.” is in my handwriting, and was sent to my wife.
Mr. Browne read the letter, which was couched in very insulting terms, and contained charges of criminal conduct not only against his wife, but against her brother.
Cross-examination continued : When Bundy came to mine her furniture and music had been removed.
The following section is illegible in the BNA scan
Mrs. Heap came into the shop with her brother. She had only had her wearing apparel and music. There were boxes removed’ containing books and music. These were taken with my consent. She took some of my books. She took a liberty with the subject. By the Judge : The box of music was not removed with my consent, but I allowed her to do it (laughter). By Mr Bsownk: Directly Mr. Bundy went into the shop, I did not draw knife. Bundy did not leave the m consequence. He did go into the parlour. I had knife in my hand when he came in. It was an operating knife. I had been cleaning it. The magistrates did say I was drunk, but that was a liberty. I was fetched to the court by Kirbyshire in a cab, because my wife surrendered. I am now under recognizance to keep the peace. They have yet few days to run. My surety is named Mark Winzar. I may have been in the White Hart publichouse on Wednesday. It is in Hooperstreet. My surety did Lot to mv knowledge come to the magistrates anti ask to be relieved as my surety because I was fighting at the White Hart. I never fought there. I never heard of his wanting to be relieved. Bundy did not tell me to drop that knife, and he did not go for a policeman. They came in aud went out again. When he came in with Mis. Heap, he did not leave till he had opened the side door and let these roughs enter house. He did not go outside and smoke ac»g»r till the policeman came. Kirbyshire did not tell me I was the worse for drink. I asked him the reason was my house. He said he bad been requested to be there to see that the peace was kept. My wife did not superintend the removal of the piano. The men who removed the piano said they were acting under the authority of the police, and Kirbyshire did not say were not but were acting on the authority of Mrs. H ?!* HONOR expressed his regret that these proceedings should have been taken to bring out all this scandal. Re-examination by Mr. Cockerell; I heard Bundy order the men to remove the piano, and said would pay them. There is pretence for the suggestion that I agreed to its being removed. She took great many things away in the morning that I did not object to. Mr. Adcock suggested that should allow her to hare the piano, but I distinctly refused. I objected to its removal when they took Thomas Canham deposed (by Mr. Cockerell) : I am a brewer, and live at 12, Connaught-terrace. I was in the neighbourhood of Heap’s bouse on the 24th of May. I know Mr. Bundy. I saw him there. He made no request to me. I assisted in removing the piano, at Mrs. Heap’s request. Bundy did not ask me. Mr. Heap sent for since, and 1 told him that Mr. Bundy paid us. He did not pay me. paid one of the people, and 1 received part of what he paid. I had Is. 3i. His Honor : I helped at the request of Mrs. Heap. By Mr. Cockerell : saw Bundy go into the shop and come out I did not see him in again. Mrs. Heap opened the side-door. Bundy was on the road. By Mr. Browne : What I did was Mrs. Heap’s request for her. Mrs. Heap opened the door, not Mr. Bundy. Mr. Heap threw a lot of pretreleum over me. Frederick Parsons (by Mr. Cockerell): I am a railway clerk. I assisted in removing the piano. Mrs. Heap asked me to do so. Mr. Bundy did not have not told Mr. Heap did. Mr. Browne said he did not need to ask this witness anything. Thomas Sewell (by Mr. Cockerell) : I live in Norfolkstreet and work at the Pitt Press. 1 saw Mr. Bundy on the night question. There was a crowd round the aide-door of Mr. Heap’s house in Hooper-street. I saw Mr. Bundy give several men money to go and fetch the piano out He gave them mouey, and said, Now men, fetch it out” They went in, and in minute or two came out again, because Mr. Heap throw something. Bundy said the second time, Now men. fetch it out.’
The BNA scan is legible from here
By Mr. Browne : The money was paid before they fetched the piano out. I did not see the door opened. The men opened it themselves. I have had a glass, but nothing particular.
By Mr. Cockerell : I have not had a glass too much.
James Fendick, carpenter, said he had repaired the door jamb, and in reply to Mr. Browne, said he had been paid 2s. for doing it. He, however, denied that he had been asked by Mr. Heap to lay the damages at £20.
Mr. Browne asked his Honor if there was anything to reply to.
His Honor expressed his regret that the case had come into court at all. It was a most wretched piece of business. Mr. Browne bad better call evidence.
Mr. Browne said he would do so once.
Frederick Poland Adcock (by Mr. Browne) : I solicitor in practice in Cambridge. l am subpoened by the defendant and have received a guinea for my attendance. I appeared before the magistrates for Heap. Kirbyshire was also present. I, Kirbyshire, Mrs. Heap, and Mr. Bundy had a conversation after the case, in the presence of Mr. Heap. I decline to say what passed, as I should have to disclose the secrets of my client.
Mr. Cockerell objected to Mr. Adcock stating what passed.
A long and lively discussion took place between Mr. Browne and His Honor, consequent upon the Judge holding that Mr. Adcock was justified in declining to state what passed between him and his client.
Mr. Browne asked His Honor to take note of his contention that Mr. Adcock should state what took place at the interview referred to, which was not a confidential consultation between solicitor and client.
Detective Sergeant Kirbyshire was examined by Mr. Browne. He said : I was present at the hearing before the magistrates, which las been referred to. I fetched Mr. Heap. He had been inbibing, but should not say he was drunk. I was present in this court on Saturday, 21th of May, when Mrs. Heap appeared in answer to the charge threatening her husband. At the finish of the case, by direction of the magistrates, I had to go to Mr. Heap’s, because his wife was afraid to go alone. I was to go and assist Mrs Heap to get away some property that she desired ; her wardrobe and other property that she wanted, such as music and other books. The magistrates said nothing about the piano. There was a conversation between Mr. Adcock, Mr. Ellison. Mr. Bundy, and Mr. and Mrs. Heap, and it was arranged that the servant should go with me and Mr. Adcock to fetch what things belonged to her mistress. I was to go to see that there was no molestation. Mr. Adcock, myself, and the servant went to Mr. Heap’s house. The servant selected a quantity of things from upstairs and down. Some men were called in to remove the things, and they were taken away. This was in the morning. After the things had been removed which the servant had pointed out, I and Mr. Adcock went across the road to where Mrs. Heap and Mr. Bundy were, and we had some conversation with Mrs. Heap. She said she should very much like to have the piano, as it was her’s, and her means of livelihood. She said she had paid for if, and was her means of living. We went to see Mr. Heap, and Mr. Adcock explained to him what Mrs. Heap said about it being her means of living, and asked him to let it be removed, but be declined to allow it to go. This happened about two o’clock. About half-past five or a quarter to six, I was going home. I live within fifty yards of the premises of the plaintiff. Mr. Heap called inside his shop as I was passing on the 24th of May. I went in. Mrs. Heap and Mr. Bundy came into the shop. Mr. Heap told them both to go out. Mr. Bundy and Mr. Heap had a few unpleasant words, and Mr. Bundy went out of the shop. Mrs Heap said, “Edward, I am your wife, you can’t refuse me. I want to look over the house and see what other things there are that I want to take away.” She went upstairs, and when she came down she went to the side door leading into Hoperstreet (the house standing at an angle of Gwydir street and Hoper [Hooper] street). She unbolted and opened the door and called some men in, and told them to take the piano out of the room. Mr, Heap protested against them taking it. They said they were ordered to lake it, and they should do so. Mrs Heap told them not to mind him, it was her’s. I did not hear Mr. Bundy give any directions to the men.
By the Judge: I did not see Bundy op the premises after he was there the first time.
By Mr. Browne : Mr. Bundy did not go through into the parlour. I did not see him give any instructions about moving the piano. Mr. Heap said to the men, “By what authority are you taking this out ?” One of said, “We are acting under the police.” I said, “No. You understand distinctly from me that you are not acting under the police, but under the wife. Whatever you do you must look to her for responsibility, not to the police.” Mrs. Heap said it was hers ; she paid for it, and it was her means of living.
By Mr. Cockerell : I did not see Mr. Sewell there. Some of the men who went in to fetch the piano out came out once. Mrs. Heap was there. I can’t say that Mr. Bundy induced them to go in again. Mr, Bundy was moving about the street. I believe he was superintending the removal of the piano. I mean by that, he was looking after it for his sister. In the morning he said to me, “She is my sister, and I am bound to protect her.” I never heard him give any orders. He said in the morning that he had come down to protect his sister. He was moving about. When some of the men came out of the house, I did not hear Bundy give any directions. If Sewell says he heard him, l am not able to say he did not. He might have given directions without my hearing him. It is possible that Sewell may have heard him give some directions. Heap declined from the first to give any permission for the piano to be removed. Mr. Bundy did not go more than a couple of yards into the shop.
Mr. Browne: Directly Mrs. Heap asked the men to go into the room and remove the piano they did so.
George Duncan Bundy deposed (by Mr. Browne) : I am an accountant in the Railway Clearing-house, Seymour-street, London, and have been for some years. I am Mrs. Heap’s brother, and the defendant in this action. l am not the head of a department, but have forty-three men under me. I have heard Mr. Sewell’s evidence. There is not one particle of truth in it. I paid the men after the piano had been fetched away. I did this by my sister’s directions, and she has given me the money back again. I never went into the premises at all further than the shop. I came to Cambridge to assist my sister as well as I could, and, if the magistrates had decided against her, to have been one of her sureties. I certainly did not order them to remove the piano. I could have told them how it could be done a great deal better than they did it. I had had advice from Mr. Ellison, and purposely refrained from taking part in the removal. I smoked a cigar, and took no part in it.
By Mr. Cockerell: I did not intend to take any part in removing it. I went to see that no violence was committed. I knew she was going to get it out. That was after Heap had refused to give it up. My sister asked Mr. Adcock to intercede with Mr. Heap for the piano. I knew he declined. I was advised that the piano belonged to my sister. The magistrates said she might have all her property. I was aware that the door would be opened. I thought by my sister. I did not know this when I went into the shop. I had not arranged with men to there. My sister had done that without my knowledge. I knew the piano was to be got out if possible. I got the police to come and protect sister, because Heap had got a knife. I went to the shop with my sister. I knew that she was going to get the piano away. I had nothing to do with the men. I thought she would get it away. I went into the shop, and then went outside to get a police man for protection. I walked up and down in Hooper-street. The men did not come out again after they had gone into the room. Every word that Mr. Sewell said was untrue so far as I was able to follow him. It is perfectly untrue that I paid the men before they removed the piano. I paid four of them 6s afterwards. The piano was taken to the house of Mr. King, a friend of my sister’s. I don’t know whether he was acting as clerk to the magistrates when my sister’s case was heard. I saw him here. I never was inside a magistrate’s court in my life before. I saw him after the proceedings before the magistrates. The piano was left at his house. I don’t know how long it stopped at Mr. King’s. I know nothing of its going to Mr. Wallis’s auction-room. It was in my drawing room four five weeks ago. I did not take much notice of it. I sell pianos, getting them from the makers for that purpose. My sister placed it in my hand for safety. It is not Mr. Heap’s piano ; he has never paid a penny for it.
By Mr. Browne : the afternoon of the 24th of May, I intended to have returned to London by the halfpast four o’clock train, and started to do to, but missed my train. I went back to Mr. King’s, and it was after that that the piano was taken away.
The following section is illegible in the BNA scan
I went back to pass the time till the seven o’clock train. My object in going tfcere was to have some dinner. Mr. Kisg lives immediately opposite Heap’s. My sister came to mine, and living there now. She has found another place for the piano. I took her into my house from charity. Pc. Albert Brand deposed (by Mr, Browne) : I was on duty in Gwydir-street the24tb of May. My attention was called to a crowd of people in the street I went up to the door of Mr. Heap’s h> use, and saw some men admitted by Mrs. Heap into the house. I heard r ie me *b ** Come in, and remove the piano.” Mr. Bundy went into the shop and came out again, and remained in the street and smoked a cigar. I saw him leave the shop and remain outside. I was there all the time. I went into the shop. I never saw Mr. Bundy taKe any part the removal of the piano. saw the piano removed the directions of Mrs. Heap. The men went in after Mrs. He.ip. After they first went in I never saw Mr. Bundy the house. I must have seen Mr. Bundy if he had gone in. I saw Knife, l saw Heap throw benzoline or petroleum over the men as they were bringing the piano out. By Mr. Cockerell: None of the men went outside. By the Judge I was present, and saw all that tock P*!*®®*, the shop part of the time. I can’t say house* ** 00 P® * 6 treet whilst was in the After Mr. Cockerell had hrieflv claimed the decision 0 u- favour of his client. His Honor gave a verdict in favour of the defendant. An action in which Mr. Bundy sued Mr. Heap for the maintenance of his wife, was adjourned till court.
SINGULAR CHARGE OF ASSAULT. James Field Fetch, auctloneer, etc., was charged with assaulting Edward Heap, chemist and druggist, of Gwydir-atreet, on Saturday last.
Mr. Ellison appeared on behalf of the prosecutor. The defendant had no legal representative.
Mr. Ellison having opened the case, called the prosecutor.
Edward Heap deposed: My name is Edward Heap. I am a chemist, living in Gwydir-street. About ten minutes to six on Saturday evening last the defendant came to my premises. He said “I want £10, and I shan’t leave till I get it.” He said that at once and without anything else having been said. I said “ I am not in position to pay you now, but I will do.” He said “Then I must have something in lieu thereof.” I told him I could not give it him, he must wait. He said he should remain in the shop till he had got paid, and he should prevent the customers coming in. He should remain there. I said “ No you won’t; this is my shop, and you must go out.” I went round the counter, opened the door, and seized hold of him to put him out. I did not succeed ; he resisted me so much. He raised his hand, and threw me off. That was with his left hand. He tried to strike me with bis right hand. He held it up in a menacing way. He afterwards attempted to take his coat off, and I went round the counter and sent for a policeman. The policeman came, and asked Mr. Fetch to leave the premises. He said, “ I understand you have been annoying Mr. Heap and hindering his business,’’ and requested him to leave. Mr. Fetch said. “No, I won’t.” He refused the policeman three times, and then the policeman took him out into the street He stayed outside addressing the mob which was collected, and he said he would placard my house on Monday morning. The policeman returned, and attempted to taka him in charge, but he got into his trap and drove off. I went to the Police-station. Mr. Fetch had taken something stronger than water. He was inebriated.
Mr. Fetch asked that the case might be adjourned, two of his witnesses were absent, and one could not be there till the next day.
The case was adjourned till the following day.
WEDNESDAY.—Before J. Death, D. Adams, J, Deighton, and R. M. Fawcett, Esqs. ASSAULT. The adjourned case in which James Field Fetch, auctioneer, of this town, was charged with assaulting Edward Heap, chemist, of Gwydir-street, came for hearing.
Mr. Ellison again appeared on behalf of Mr. Heap ; and Mr. J. E. L. Whitehead on behalf of the defendant.
Mr. Heap, in answer to Mr. Whitehead, said he gave Mr. Fetch bill of sale. The defendant did not enter his shop and premises on Saturday night under the bill of sale. He did not say he was under the bill of sale. The assault took place after I took hold of the defendant’s arm to turn him out.
By Mr Ellison : He did not say one word about a bill of sale.
By Mr. Whitehead: I burnt the bill of sale in the presence of two witnesses. There was nothing owing under it.
Charles Haycock, of York-street, said he was in Mr. Heap’s shop about six p.m. on Saturday. He saw the defendant come in directly after him. In consequence of what Mr. Heap said he remained there all the time The defendant said to Mr. Heap, “I have come for that £10.” Mr. Heap said he could not pay him then, but he would as soon as he could. Mr. Fetch turned his back to the counter, and said he should stop there until he had the £10 or its worth. Mr. Heap asked him to leave the shop. He said he would not. Mr. Heap came from behind the counter and asked the defendant to go out. The defendant said he should not. Mr. Heap said he should put him out. The defendant attempted to take coat off, and held his hand up in a threatening attitude. Mr. Heap sent for a policeman. Mr. Heap took hold of the defendant’s arm to put him out, but the defendant resisted. A policeman came and put the defendant out, as he would not go when requested. The defendant returned inside the door, and said he should stop there until ten o’clock. The policeman came back, and Mr. Heap gave the defendant in charge. The defendant went away in his pony and trap.
Mr. Whitehead: It was after the defendant attempted to take his coat off that Mr. Heap took hold of his arm. The defendant resisted and struggled.
Mrs. Mary Alice Heap said she was at home on Saturday about six pm. She heard the defendant’s voice, and went into the shop immediately. The defendant asked her husband for £10. Mr. Heap said “I can’t give it you now: but I will if you wait,” whereupon the said I shall not move out of your shop until I have it or the value of it.” Mr. Heap said “I shall soon see about that. You’ll have to leave my shop, because if you do not I shall put you out.” Mr. Heap went round the counter, and the defendant threw his coat back. Mr. Heap asked him to go out again. The defendant said he should not; he would wait there until ten o’clock and prevent any customers coming in. He then held up his hand to strike Mr. Heap. A constable appeared on the scene in consequence of message sent, and put the defendant out, as he would not go. The defendant persisted in coming back into the shop, and put his back against the counter.
Mr. Whitehead : I did not see Mr. Heap take hold of the defendant. The assault complained of was in front of the counter.
By Mr. Adams : I saw Mr. Heap go from behind the counter.
Mr. Ellison : The defendant was near enough to Mr. Heap to strike him.
Pc. Gates said: On Saturday, in consequence of a message received, he went to Mr. Heap’s shop a little after seven. Mr. Heap requested Mr. Fetch to leave his premises. The defendant refused. He then asked him three separate times to out, but he declined to do so. He then put him out. He would say the defendant had been drinking. He saw the defendant go back to the house. He returned and met the defendant just coming off the threshold of the shop door.
By Mr. Whitehead: I did not see the defendant commit any assault.
Mr. Whitehead’s defence was that the defendant went on to Mr. Heap’s premises under the bill of sale. He contended that if there was any assault it was committed by Mr. Heap, who took hold the defendant’s arm first.
Lubbock Fetch, son of the defendant, said he was in Hooper-street on Saturday night with his father. He sat in the trap in front of the door, while the defendant went in the shop. He could see the whole of the shop. He saw nothing take place in the shop. The defendant stopped in the shop about five minutes the first time.
The magistrates, having fully considered the case, inflicted a fine of 6d. and expenses.
1881: chemist’s shop
Edward Heap, head, 51, consulting chemist, Lancashire
Mary A Heap, wife, 39, b Sussex
CIP 27.8.1881 p.8: ASSAULT. William Henry Ayres, of Gwydir-street, was summoned for assaulting Edward Heap, chemist, of Gwydir street, the previous Saturday
CIP 7.10.1882 p.8: ASSAULT. Edward Hardy, assistant bailiff, was summoned for unlawfully assaulting and beating Edward Heap, at Gwydir-street on Wednesday.
Mr. Burrows appeared for the defendant.
Edward Heap deposed: On Wednesday night at about seven o’clock, I was standing at my shop door in Gwydir-street, when defendant and a man named Munsey came up, and asked to be allowed to come in, but I objected, I knew that they had only come to annoy me. Munsey afterwards induced me to let them come in and have a bottle of ginger beer. They came in. Directly afterwards Hardy made himself very obnoxious, shouting and attracting a mob round the shop. I requested him to leave, but as he refused I went to the door, and called in young man named James Cockerton, who came in. I attempted to get hold of Hardy to put him out and he struck me on the shoulder with his fist. He was drunk. He tried to get his coat off. I left, fearing further violence, and sent for a policeman, and got Mr Kirbyshire to come with me. We found Hardy still in the shop. After some time he went away with Mr. Kirbyshire.
By Mr Burrows: Munsey did not say they had come to settle a money dispute. He said something about friendship. I refused to have him in. They did not say that if Hardy had done wrong he had come to make it right. Hardy asked me for particulars of the claim I had against him, and I told him to go to the County Court. I did not call him foul names. I attempted to put him oot. I simply got hold of the sleeve of his coat. Hardy did not say ” Leave me alone, I know my duty.”
James Cockerton deposed that Mr. Heap called him in as he was going past. Ho did not see mob of people there. Mr. Heap asked him to mind the shop whilst he fetched policeman. He did not see anything occur between the parties, except that when Mr. Heap shoved Mr. Hardy by the arm. Hardy touched Mr. Heap on the shoulder. He did not mean to hurt him. Hardy attempted to pull off his coat. Hardy was only about three-quarter’s drunk.
Mr. Burrows contended that the assault was committed by Heap on Hardy.
George Munsey deposed that he was cricketer, living at Ainsworth-street. He went to Heap’s shop in Gwydir-street on the night in question about seven o’clock. Hardy told him there was some unpleasantness between them, and he went to see if they could not make things pleasant. Hardy asked for the items, and Heap said that defendant knew as well as he did, and used a foul name. He got hold of him to put him out, and Hardy asked to be allowed to drink his gingerbeer, but Heap refused to allow him, and threw the ginger-beer out. I did not see Hardy attempt to strike Heap. Hardy was as sober as he is now. There was no assault at all.
The magistrates dismissed the case with costs against the complainant.
CIP 2.6.1883: HEAP v FORDHAM
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, chemist, of Gwydir-street, to recover£8 14s 6d., money lent to the defendant, a cricketer.
Dr. Cooper (instructed Mr. A. J. Lyon), appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. W. Cockerell (instructed by Messrs. Papworth and French), appeared for the defence.
The plaintiff said that about the 8th May had a conversation with Fordham about a man who had cheated him some time ago. Defendant and witness went to Newmarket. Fordham telling Heap he would show him how to get the money. Defendant said he was going, but he was “stone broke.” Upon his undertaking to show plaintiff how to get the money, the latter gave his watch to the defendant to pawn. Defendant obtained £10 on the watch, but only gave witness £4 of it before they started to Newmarket. Defendant kept £6 as a loan. At the station witness, got a ticket which cost 2s 6d for the defendant. Witness also paid 2s. towards Fordham’s admission to the ring on the course. After several races, defendant went up to witness and asked him to lend him £2 10s. more, as he was broken. Witness did not authorize defendant to make any bets on behalf of him.
Mr. Cockerell: I was welshed Mr. Archer nine years ago. I did not take the defendant over to Newmarket as commissioner to bet for me. Defendant told me he would introduce me to Sergt. Ham, who would take Archer before the stewards of the Jockey Club. Defendant has betted for me before, not on commission. I did not take defendant’s advice to what I should back on this day. I had no security for the £6 defendant had except his word. It was an act of kindness on my part, mixed with desire to know Sergt. Ham. Defendant is neighbour of mine. I might have said on my way home that I had had a very bad day; it was not the first time and would not be the last. That only referred the four bets of 5s. each I made. I did not say to Fordham the way home that I was quite satisfied with what he had done for me. I lost only 5s. that day. Defendant caught cold somewhere and I went to see him. I did not say anything about the £8S 10s. I wrote the letter produced, imputing a rascally transaction practised by the defendant on the previous Tuesday on plaintiff. I heard it reported that he had been betting for me.
By Dr. Cooper : When in the ring, defendant was all over the place. I did not hear him make a single bet. If he laid money on a horse for me I should have expected him to bring me the ticket; but he did not this occasion bring me any tickets.
This was the case for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cockerell contended that this was a trumped-up matter, and that the defendant was betting for plaintiff. He also contended that the action could not be maintained, as money lent for the purposes of betting could not be recovered.
His Honor remarked that money lent for the purpose of paying debts could be recovered.
The defendant was then called, and said that plaintiff asked him to go to Newmarket. Plaintiff never offered and defendant never asked him to lend him money. He pawned the plaintiff’s watch, at his request, and on the way up to the station witness was going to give him the £10: but plaintive said, “Only give me £4: keep the other £6 and see what you can do with it.” He made various bets far the plaintiff, which were lost.
By Dr. Cooper : I not know of any post-cards being sent to him. He lost £8. He told me to get £7 or £8 on his watch, or what I could ; he had bad £15 on it. My first object was to find the man. A lot don’t get tickets, because they get them snatched away. I did not make a pennypiece bet on my own account. The rate of compensation I was to have was not specified.
Thomas Lancome; I am clerk to the bookmaker. Plaintiff and defendant came to me. Fordham said he could not back a winner for Mr. Heap. He asked me what Osbourn thought would win. I said, “Silver Sea.” He turned round and told Heap, who gave defendant some money. I have seen Mr. Heap before, and have spoken to him. It is not the practice to give a ticket, except to stranger.
By Dr. Cooper : I did not hear Heap tell Fordham to back it. Fordham is customer. I should not have given Fordham or Heap a ticket.
His Honor gave judgment for defendant, with costs.
Cambridge County Court. The monthly sitting of this court was held on Wednesday before W H G Bagshawe Esq QC but the business was of an extremely light character.
Heap v Watson
The plaintiff this case carries on business ostensibly as a chemist in Gwydir-street, and the defendant resides in Grafton street. The plaintiff sought to recover £1 18s 6d. for medicine to the defendant’s wife.
It was contended by the defendant that he was not liable, and that plaintiff, when he called at his house, represented himself as ” Dr. Heap” from one of the London Hospitals. Plaintiff doctored defendant’s wife, who was now dying, and plaintiff had defendant to thank for it.
After some further discussion. His Honor said the Medical Act says that none but a duly qualified medical practitioner is entitled to recover for advice or medicine. Plaintiff had himself proved that he was not qualified. Certificates have been handed to me. which fortunately for you are not evidence—if they were—you would be in a very serious position. I dismiss this action with costs.
The defendant essayed to address the judge, but the latter told him that if it was true that he called himself Dr. Heap, and had described himself a medical man, the less said the better for him. He cautioned him not to treat anyone medically, or to call himself “Dr. Heap’’ in future.
CIP 21.7.1883: FORDHAM V. HEAP. This was a judgment summons against Edward Heap, chemist, of Gwydir street, to recover £3 3s. 6d., the expenses of an action heard last court day. and which His Honor ordered to be paid at the June court. The date of the order was the 1st of June.
Mr. J. E. L. Whitehead appeared for Fordham.
The plaintiff said the defendant was a chemist and druggist, living opposite him in Gwydir-street. The defendant had a shop, and had a boy in his employ. He hired two houses, the rent of which was about £25 or £30 a year. He had a wife, but not family, and Mrs. Heap took in pupils for the pianoforte.
The defendant said be had not got the means to pay the order. His shop did not keep him, and he had not been able pay the last quarter’s rent. He had not got his shop books with him, and did not take a pound a week. He had no cash book. He had had a great deal of trouble since had been in this town, and had lost over £400. His brother had for the last two years helped to pay his rent. He had some furniture in the house, but it belonged to his brother (Hubert Heap). There was a bill of sale registered over two years ago. He had very little stock-in-trade ; in fact, bought from hand to mouth. His trade had gone entirely through his troubles.
By His Honor : I didn’t think it necessary to bring my cash statement, which I keep.
His Honor was proceeding to say that he should adjourn the case, because, if the defendant was a ruined man when the order was obtained against him, he had not had the means to pay, when the plaintiff said that the defendant went away from the court in June, and lost £4 (£2 of which he paid) at cards.
The defendant, in answer to questions, said he was induced last count day play cards, the same as he was induced to go to Newmarket, at the Crystal Palace, Mill road. He thought he lost about 30s. He played and on, and eventually owed £2. He had not paid that, and had not seen his opponent since. He had not paid any losings at cards since the Ist of June. He paid about 3os on that day.
His Honor observed that that was just half the money defendant ought to have paid.
Defendant said there was one more grieved than himself at this painful affair.
Plaintiff said defendant kept about twenty fancy fowls.
Defendant, in answer to his Honor, said he kept about ten fowls, worth about 2s. each. He paid £2 10s. rent the 12th of June. He paid that out of a cheque he received from his brother.
Plaintiff, referring to the card transaction, said defendant paid ready money about £2 and owed £2.
His Honor asked if the Crystal Palace was a public house.
Defendant replied in the affirmative.
His Honor said that if the amount claimed had been only 30s. would have had no hesitation in saying that defendant had had the means ; but, as it was, he must make an order of imprisonment for four weeks and costs, the order to be suspended for six weeks. He had purposely the order severe one. because he could not conceive anything more dishonest than for man, having an order made against him, going from this court, playing a game of chance, and losing his money.
Heap v Neillsen
This was a claim to recover 12s. Bd., damages for dilapidations. The action was brought Mr. Heap, chemist, of Gwydir-street, against Mr. Neillsen, haircutter.
Mr. Ellison appeared for the defendant.
The plaintiff said that on the 2nd of April, 1881, the defendant hired his shop and premises, having arranged with another person who had taken it on the 19th of March to take it of him. The house was in perfect condition when let to the tenant, but when he left, the place was a perfect wreck. He sued him for broken windows and a broken shutter.
Mr. Ellison contended that the shutter was so rotten when his client took possession that it would hardly hold together. With regard to windows, they were broken when his client went into house.
The defendant was called, and said that when he went into the house there was one large window in the shop broken and one cracked; there was also one cracked in the sitting room. The door shutter was all to pieces when he went in. He was tenant of the plaintiff’s two years and three months.
Mr. Hardy said he first saw the home on the 13th of July, this year, when he went to mend the windows. He had not seen it before.
Mr. White deposed going to the plaintiffs on the 23rd of July to repair a shutter that was broken all to pieces. It was an old shutter.
Mr. Dent for the defence, said he went with the defendant to see the house. He found one window broken, and one cracked in the shop. There was also one window cracked in the sitting room. Tho door was so swelled that they could not get it up. It was no use as a shutter.
His Honor held that the plaintiff had failed to make out his case, and gave judgment for the defendant.
CIP 13.9.1884: OBSCENE LANGUAGE. Edward Heap, chemist, Gwydir-street, was summoned by Thomas Abbiss, bootmaker, of the same street, for using obscene language towards him on Saturday last—Mr. Ellison appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Symonds defended.—According to the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses. Heap was passing Abbiss’ shop, in company with a Mr. Wall, and when opposite to the door the defendant pointed to the complainant, and used the most offensive language towards him, calling him, amongst other things, a “__traitor.” ln cross-examination, the complainant admitted that Heap had accused him of encouraging his wife to come to his house.—The defence was that the words which the defendant really used towards Abbiss, though vulgar, were not obscene.— Witnesses having been called, the magistrates convicted the defendant, fining him 2s. 6d. and the costs.
CIP 25.10.1884: A CURIOUS CASE. George Henry Atkin, bailiff. Cambridge, was summoned by Edward Heap, chemist, Gwydir-street, for over-charging a distress.—Mr. Symonds appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Matthew for the defendant.—On the 4th inst, the defendant restrained upon Mr. Heap’s goods for £7 10s., and, on the 11th, he rendered an account in which there were several charges to which exception was taken. Under the head of levying the distress, the defendant had charged 5s. 6d.—2s. 6d. more according to Mr. Symonds’ contention – than he was allowed by the statute to impose. Then Atkin had set down 6s. 6d. for removing the goods, which, it was urged on the complainant’s behalf, was absolutely illegal charge, and for commission on the sale he had charged 7 1/2 percent, instead of 5 per cent—Mr. Matthew said that although 5s 6d had been charged under the head of levying distress. 2s. 6d. was actually charged for the first day’s possession fee.—Mr. Symonds said that five days’ possession fees were charged elsewhere ; but Mr. Matthew contended that in order that five clear days should expire before the sale, is was necessary for the bailiff to be in occupation for six. With regard to the 7 1/2 per cent, charged for commission, the defendant’s solicitor admitted that they were out of count; and with reference to the 6s. 6d. charged for removal of goods while being technically in the wrong, Mr. Matthew pointed out that the Act allowed the defendant to charge 10s. 6d for advertising the sale; but instead of doing that and holding it on Mr. Heap’s premises the defendant had removed the goods. Mr. Matthew pointed out that the Act of Parliament was not, as required by the statute, hung up in convenient place in the police-court, and therefore, as far as the borough justices were concerned, it was inoperative.—The case was adjourned until Thursday.
CIP 20.12.1884: Sudden Death. —The borough coroner, (Mr. H. Gotobed) held an inquest at the “Brewers’ Arms,” Gwydir-street, on Monday afternoon, touching the death of Edward Heap, chemist, who was found dead in his bed on Saturday morning. The following evidence was adduced :—Thomas Allen, coprolite digger, of 109 York-street, said he knew the deceased, and had known him for four years. Deceased was a chemist, and lived in Gwydir-street alone. He was a married man. as far as witness knew, but no one was living in the house. A little boy named Phillips used to go in every day to run errands &c. Deceased had been suffering for months, so he told witness. Thursday last, deceased said he believed he was suffering from bronchitis, but said nothing about having doctor. Witness stayed with deceased all the day. He appeared to be very bad at times, and complained of pain. The next day witness saw deceased in bed, he remained with him all that day and during the night. Witness did not consider it safe to leave the deceased, and if he had not stopped Mr. Gilbert would have done so. Mr. Gilbert went to get a doctor that day, and Mr. Ceeley visited the deceased in the evening, and made him take some medicine. The doctor gave him one dose, but deceased took more of it. Early on Saturday morning witness went up stairs two or three times in the course of half an hour, and thought the deceased was dosing, but going up shortly after half past six he discovered that he was dead. There was going to be a sale of the deceased’s furniture this week.—George Gilbert, brewer, of Ainsworth-street, said he knew the deceased, who was 51 years of age. Deceased had been indisposed for the last month. He had a wife, but she was living apart from him in the town. Deceased had a lad and Allen to help him. and when charing was necessary he had a woman in. Last Tuesday deceased visited witness and asked whether he was going to have a birthday party. Witness said he was, and deceased said he would attend it, but as he did not put in an appearance witness went across to see him the next morning. Deceased, he found, was very queer, and asked witness to to the auctioneer, and give him instructions about selling the furniture. Witness also obtained some leeches and applied them to deceased’s right side. On Thursday, witness was too busy to go in, but on Friday he was there nearly all day. He went three times for Mr. Russell Hall, but he was not to be seen. Witness then went to Mr. Turnell’s and rang the surgery bell some time, but could not make anybody hear; eventually he was told the doctor was out. He then went for Mr. Ceeley, who attended at once. Witness thought deceased was dangerously ill, or he would not have been so anxious about him.— Mr. Robert W. Ceeley, surgeon, of 16, Warkworth-street, said he was called to see the deceased about five o’clock on the previous Friday afternoon. He found him suffering from very serious affection of the chest, his breathing was short and laboured, and he appeared to be in a rather precarious condition, evidently needing close attention. Witness prescribed for him and mixed the medicine on the premises. Deceased took dose and witness left after giving directions as to what should be done. Witness was surprised when he heard deceased was dead, and did not like to give a certificate. He had since made a post mortem examination. The body was well nourished. The lungs were found somewhat adherent to the chest wall, bound to it by recently effused lymph, and there was a certain quantity of fluid in each lung cavity. The heart was covered with a very slight coating of recent lymph, denoting commencing inflammation. The structure was somewhat fatty and the cavities were filled with blood clot. The liver was very much enlarged and loaded with fat. The cause of death was inflammation of the pleura and commencing inflammation of the lung structure. The jury, after few remarks from the coroner, returned a verdict of “Death from natural causes.”
1887: (CC&J 3.6.1887)
NEXT WEDNESDAY 138 GWYDIR STREET: Shop fittings and furniture including mahogany top counter, window fittings, shelving, gas fittings, small greenhouse and a few lost of household furniture.
Henry Whiteman, head, widower, 58, stationer, b Wilts
Harriet E Vigurs, daughter, 32, b London
James W Vigurs, son in law, 30, carpenter, b Cornwall
Nellie Vigurs, granddaughter, 3, b Cambridge
Eva Vigurs, granddaughter, 1, b Cambridge
1901: empty shop
Henry Edward Butler, 42, grocer, b Cambridge
Mary Elizabeth, 39, b Norwich
Ernest Arthur, 13, b Cambridge
H E Butler, grocers and provision merchants
Reginald P Unwin, b 1912, artificial stone
Edith M, b 1917
Beryl E, b 1938
(138a) Leonard G Wilkin, b 1901, labourer
Mable E, b 1904
June L, b 1932
Mary Finnett, b 1911, evacuee
(138A) Tony and June Wilson
Ivan P Freeman
(138a) T Chipperfield
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Thank you for exploring historical Cambridgeshire! We hope you enjoy your visit.
Did you know that we are a small, independent Museum and that we rely on donations from people like you to survive?
If you love Capturing Cambridge, and you are able to, we’d appreciate your support today.
Every donation makes a world of difference.
The Museum of Cambridge