As reported in the "Wisbech Advertiser" Wednesday 22 March 1882

At the Isle of Ely Police Court, before Lieut-Col Reed, chairman, Mr H Sharpe, and Mr W Newsham, WILLIAM BRITTAIN, a small boy, (10 years old) was charged with wilfully and maliciously killing a drake, value 10s., the property of EPHRAIM THORPE, in Wisbech St Mary parish, on the 13th February 1882. Mr Arthur Ollard appeared for the defendant who pleaded not guilty.

Mr THORPE stated: My daughter kept a drake and a duck for me with two ducks of her own. On the 13th February I saw the drake, which was then wounded. It had been so knocked about that it was "purified". It died during the day. I valued the drake when it was alive at 10 shillings.

In answer to cross-examination by Mr Ollard, Mr Thorpe said: When I first saw the drake on the day in question it was against the pit side, near the house of my daughter, Mrs Coulson. No, I did not call out to her and say "Your drake is hurt". I gave 2s 6d for the drake when I bought it. I have since sold the ducks. I know the defendant's elder brother. I saw him the same morning. I did not call out to him "You young devil, what do you mean by killing that drake?". I said "What, have you been killing that drake?" I did not say I would kill him. The drake was not dead then. I had not got it out of the pit then. I saw the drake in the water looking dizzy. I won't swear that the drake didn't die from something it had eaten. I have not charged the defendant with having killed a drake. The drake could get on to the defendant's father's premises from the pit.

ELIZABETH COULSON, wife of Henry Coulson, and daughter of the complainant stated: I had two ducks, and a drake and duck of my father's on the 13th February. On that day I saw defendant hit the drake two or three times with a stick. The drake had swam across the pit and was getting up the bank to go into Mr Brittain's yard. It had just got in the yard when the boy hit it. The last blow knocked it into the water. Each blow was given on Mr Brittain's premises. I went round and fetched the drake, and it died about twelve o'clock. It was eight o'clock in the morning when the lad struck it with the stick. I consider the value of the drake at that time was 10 shillings, as the ducks were about to commence laying eggs, We have since sold the ducks, as we thought it better to get rid of them to prevent further bother.

In answer to a question from Mr Ollard, Mrs Coulson said: After the lad struck the drake the first time I called to him, and he then ran away. Mr Ollard asked: Then he returned and completed the act? Mrs Coulson said: No, he had done it then. It was struck two or three times.

In answer to cross-examination by Mr Ollard, Mrs Coulson said: I did go to the boy's mother and asked her how the drake got hurt. She did not say that she did not know how it got hurt, but she said the boy had a stick and she thought he had hit it. I did not tell her that I did not know it was hurt till my father called my attention to it. My father did not draw my attention to the drake before I spoke to him about it. I was in my garden when my father stopped in his cart. My father did say to me "Your drake is in the pit and is hurt; what's the matter with it?" I did not say "I don't know how it got hurt". I did not tell Mrs Brittain that I had told him so. I know defendant's brother John Gilby Brittain. I saw him directly after his brother had struck the drake.

The Clerk said he could not understand the defence; was it that the defendant's brother hit the drake? Mr Ollard replied: "No, it is a total denial of the offence".

Mrs Coulson continued to reply to cross-examination by Mr Ollard: The defendant struck the drake three blows, which followed each other very quickly. Mrs Brittain came to me in the afternoon. I did not tell her that I did not know the drake was hurt till my father went past and called out. I told her that I saw the boy do it. I did not say "I don't know who did it". My father has bought another drake since. We have only received one complaint from the Brittains about the ducks trespassing on their premises. I was about forty yards from the drake at the time it was struck by the defendant.

Mr OLLARD said the defence was a total denial that the defendant injured the drake. He characterised the prosecution as a most cruel and vindictive one and instituted for the purpose of putting a stigma upon the defendant for life by getting him convicted of a penal offence, where-as an action might have been brought in the County Court for the value of the drake. He had no doubt that after the magistrates had heard his witnesses they would say the charge was not proved.

Mrs BRITTAIN, mother of the defendant, stated: On the morning of the 13th February I was feeding my fowls, when Thorpe's ducks and drake came up. I told my little boy, the defendant, to drive the ducks away, and he did so, but he had no stick. After that he went into the wash-house to clean his boots. While he was there, Mrs Coulson came to me in my house, and asked me if I knew how her drake got hurt. I said "No, I did not know it was hurt till you came". She did not accuse my little boy of having hurt it. She said she did not know it was hurt till her father called to her and drew her attention to it. She then left. In consequence of something I heard I went to see Mrs Coulson in the afternoon. My little girl went with me. I said "Mrs Coulson, you told me this morning you did not know your drake was hurt till your father told you". She said "Yes, I did; I don't know and don't care so long as it gets better". She fetched the drake and showed me. I told her that I had heard from her mother that somebody else had injured the drake. She said "I am sure I don't know who hit it". If my boy had hit the drake three times with a stick when I was feeding my fowls I must have seen It. He had no stick in his hand.

In answer to questions from the Clerk, Mrs Brittain said: The boy could not have gone out of the wash-house and injured the drake without my seeing him. I did not know till the next morning that he was charged with injuring the drake.

Mr Ollard was about to call the defendant's sister to corroborate her mother as to what passed between he and Mrs Coulson, but the Bench thought she was too young to give evidence.

The magistrates having considered the case, the Chairman intimated that they would allow the case to be settled without a conviction upon payment of 3s for the drake, and the costs which amounted to 12s 6d. The defendant's father paid the money.

Mr Ollard suggested that each party should pay their own costs. The Chairman; "No". Mr Ollard: "Then you saddle us with the costs?" The Chairman: "Yes".

Mr Thorpe asked the Bench to allow the expenses of his witnesses. The Clerk said "No, it is a very doubtful case".

************************************

N O T E S

This incident is alleged to have taken place near the watering-place in the centre of Guyhirn commonly known as The Pit. The BRITTAIN family lived at Pit Farm, and the COULSONs lived next door but one. William BRITTAIN was a farmer and dealer. He and his wife Susanna had 14 children.

Henry COULSON was a blacksmith. His wife, Elizabeth, was the daughter of Ephraim THORPE who lived near the Chequers public house in Guyhirn.