Annoyances, rates and tin kettles!

At the Maidstone Petty Sessions on Friday 23rd November 1849, before the Mayor C. Scudamore and W. Hills, Mr Shreeves of Wheeler Street, appeared to complain of an annoyance to which he had been subjected to from a number of boys congregating near his house daily, including Sundays. The boys swearing, hallowing and using the most abusive language to all who passed. On the previous wednesday evening, twenty to thirty boys, some of whom were not from the neighbourhood, assembled and held what is called a “horn fair” and with their tin kettles, hallowing, and other disgraceful noises, assembled a crowd of fifty to sixty persons, who with great difficulty were dispersed by his intervention. The nuisances had occurred before and would probably do so again. On one occasion, he had his door broken and several windows. He therefore wished to know if this system of annoyance could be ended.

Mr Case said Mr Shreeves, if he should chose to, he could summon a party for breaking his window. To which Mr Shreeves, said he was quite aware of this, but to gain a conviction, he or another witness must be present at the very moment, the window was broken, which in most instances was impossible. He submitted to the court, a list of several of the principal leaders of the annoyances and Mr Crowther would corroborate his statement. Mr Crowther stated that the scenes exhibited in the locality, were of the most disgraceful nature and frequently, twelve to thirty boys, of whom some of the lads were just twelve to fourteen years of age, assembled near his shop, and abused and annoyed persons entering or leaving his shop. He also had windows broken and there appeared no end to the annoyance. He asked if a person could be summoned for annoyance to another.

Mr Case said it depended upon the nature of the annoyance and in some cases, the parties could obtain no redress. Mr Shreeves asked if the annoyances, that he had mentioned, such as for noise and ill language could not be proceeded against. That same day the court had prosecuted persons for short measures of just an ounce or two, whilst it appeared there was no law, against what he considered a much worse annoyance.

Mr Case stated if Mr Shreeves could satisfactorily prove a case against a person for breaking his  windows, damaging his property or swearing, and took  out a summons against the party, the magistrates would use every means in their power to give him redress. But they were unable to assist him against the other part of the annoyance to which he alluded, there being no law to prevent it and the magistrates were unable to make laws.

Mr Shreeves said they paid their rates and he thought they should receive something for their money and that they should be able to obtain redress. The Town Council made laws in some instances and he could not see why they could not in this case! The Mayor reminded Mr Shreeves that laws made by the Council were invalid, unless sanctioned by the Secretary of State; and asked him, whether he thought if Mr Fancett sent one of his men round to see the parents of the youths, who had committed the annoyances, that a salutary effect would follow. Mr Shreeves agreed that it might be of effect and after some further conversation, this step was ordered to be taken.

Home