The Assault on John Stephens by John Brogden

[dognose]

Hi,

I came across this account of an Inquiry to decide compensation following an assault by one jeweller on another jeweller.

The assault occured on the 1st June 1821.

Secondaries' Office.– Stephens v. Brogden.–This was an inquiry to assess damages, the defendant having suffered judgment by default. The damages were laid at £1,000.

Mr. C. Phillips stated the case. The plaintiff, Mr. Stephens, is a jeweller, living in Castle-street, Holborn. Mr. Brogden, the defendant, is also a jeweller, living in Bridgewater-square, Barbican.

It happened, that, some time since, information was given to the master goldsmiths, that the jewellers were in the habit of selling mourning rings without the Hall stamp, by which means they avoided the payment of a fee that is charged on affixing the stamp at the hall. The master goldsmiths, in consequence of this information, summoned a court of wardens to take the subject into consideration. The jewellers were alarmed, as they had great numbers of these unstamped rings on hand; and they called a meeting on the 31st of May, to consider how they should act. This meeting was respectably attended, and Mr. Stephens was present. A Mr. M'Gregor, asked who gave the information to the master goldsmiths. A person who stood near Mr. Stephens replied Brogden. A friend of Mr. Brogden's said, " Whom does he say ?" Mr. Stephens answered "Brogden".

The next day Mr. Stephens received a note from Mr. Brogden: they were acquainted, and were both creditors of a person who was then insolvent. The note was as follows:–

"Bridgewater- square, June 1st. J. Brogden

Compliments to Mr. Stephens, will feel obliged by his calling on him at Bridgewater-square, on business equally important to both, before four o'clock to-day, or tomorrow morning."

Mr. Stephens immediately went to Mr. Brogden's house, where he found him in his counting-house, a clerk, and the porter who had brought the note, being present. On Mr. Stephens's entrance, Mr. Brogden sent the porter out, and after shutting the door, went into an inner room, from which he instantly returned with a large whip in his hand. He addressed Mr. Stephens, saying, " And so, Mr. Stephens, you called me an informer before 18 persons last night;" and without waiting for any reply, he struck Mr. Stephens over the eyes with the handle of the whip, in a manner that caused his blood to gush out and stain the silver articles that lay on a counter in the room: he continued beating Mr. Stephens about the head with the whip, till he broke it; and even then, not content, he seized the larger part of the handle and continued to beat Mr. Stephens, till the clerk, who was present, interfered to save his life. Mr. Stephens offered no resistance; he had a complaint in his eyes, and the first blow he received rendered him incapable of making any defence. Soon after the clerk had succeeded in saving Mr. Stephens's life, a Mr. Taylor came into the counting-house, and on expressing his amazement at what he saw, Mr. Brogden said–" If I am deceived, I never can make him amends." But should not a man of mature age and of sound mind have made inquiry, before he ventured upon such a violent attack on his fellow-citizen.

Mr. Stephens was taken home in a coach ; his life was for some time considered by his surgeon in the most imminent danger, and even then his recovery was doubtful. If the plaintiff sought for compensation for his personal sufferings, and his pecuniary loss, which, from being unable to attend to his business, must be considerable, the jury would feel he had an irresistible claim; but Mr. Stephens had much higher claims : he was a most respectable citizen, deservedly esteemed by all to whom he was known ; he possessed honour, and feeling, and sensibility–these had all been deeply wounded; he was a husband and a father, and had seen the dearest objects of his affection weeping round his bed in all the agony of anticipated widowhood and orphanage. For these wounds of the heart the jury were now called on to make him the very inadequate satisfaction that damages could give.

Mr. Taylor stated, that he knows plaintiff and defendant. Went to defendant's counting-house Or the 1st of June. As soon as he entered, Mr. Stephens exclaimed – "Oh! Mr. Taylor," and pointing to a whip that lay broke on the floor, proceeded to tell him that the defendant had violently beat him, at the same time putting the defendant's note, inviting him to call on him, into the witness's hand. Mr. Stephens's face was cut, and there was blood on some plate that lay on the counter. Mr. Brogden put a letter into the witness's hand, and desired him to look at that, and he would judge of his feelings. Witness followed Mr. Brogden up stairs,and on coming down said to Mr. Stephens, that if Mr. Brogden was wrong he would make reparation. Mr. Brogden had authorized him to say so. Mr. Stephens denied having used any expression against Mr. Brogden, and mentioned several persons, who could prove it. Mr. Stephens's head appeared to have been washed, and he went away in a coach.

Mr. Beveridge stated, that he is a surgeon, and attended Mr. Stephens on the 1st of June and about a month after: he had inflammation of the eyes, a violent contusion in the temple, and a laceration of the scalp: his life was in imminent danger: inflammation still continues, and he should not be surprised if fatal symptoms should even yet take place–he had seen death ensue from less violence.

The plaintiffs case closed here.

Mr. Wilkes, for the defendant, conjured the jury to judge by what had been proved, not by what had been stated. The defendant's clerk had been present from the beginning, and he was not called.

Some of the jury asked whether Mr. Wilkes would produce any evidence to disprove the evidence they had heard.

Mr. Wilkes declined to produce any.

The secondary summed up the evidence, telling the jury that if the defendant's clerk, who- was present at the beginning of the assault, could state any thing in mitigation, it lay in the defendant to produce him.

The jury, after a short consultation, returned a Verdict–Damages: £800.

The jewellers in question are John Stephens (Grimwade p. 369-373) who had entered his mark (IS) as a Goldworker on the 10th July 1821, address 2, Castle Street, Holborn, and another mark (JS) on the 7th January 1822. He entered a further mark (JS) on the 2nd January 1824, his address now, 47, Hatton Garden.

John Stephens's attacker was John Brogden (Grimwade p.363) who entered his first mark (IB) as a Goldworker, address 4, Ironmonger Row on the 5th January 1796, second mark (IB) on the 25th January 1805, address Bridgwater Square. A third mark (I.B) on the 22nd June 1816, same address, a fourth (IB) on the 15th March 1820 and a fifth (IB) on the 27th May 1824.

The Clerk who was present when the assault took place and finally intervened to save John Stephens was possibly Thomas Warboys who was noted as Clerk to John Brogden in February 1823.

For further details of the staff at John Brogdens' go to:
viewtopic.php?t=8565


Source:
Annual Register of 1821. Edited by Edmund Burke.
London Goldsmiths 1697-1837 Their Marks & Lives by Arthur G. Grimwade.

Trev.
.

[buckler]

Interesting case.

20 supposedly respectable citizens of standing gathered together to discuss their illegal avoidance of compulsory assay and payment of the plate duty as late as 1821!

I know duty dodging was rife in the middle of the previous century - but obviously common practise in the Regency.

Mourning rings were very much big business at the time and one imagines that competition on price must have been fierce.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention
.

[dognose]

John Brogden - London - 1864

Trev.

[MCB]

The John Brogden who was fined for assault and who registered his first mark at Goldsmiths Hall in 1796 isn't the same man who advertised in 1864.

Google suggests John senior started a clock & watch business in 1796 which became Brogden & Garland in 1824 and Garland & Watherston in 1831. At some time the original business must have become involved in gold. John junior, who had been an apprentice at the firm, became a partner in 1842 when it became Watherston & Brogden at 16 Henrietta Street Covent Garden and this firm exhibited jewellery at the Great Exhibition of 1851. John junior became sole trader in 1864, hence the 1864 advertisement, and from 1880 until he died in 1884 he worked as an art goldsmith.

Mike

[dognose]

Hi Mike,

If he was, he would extremely long in the tooth! Indeed this John Brogden is likely to be the son of the original owner of the firm, but although the firm was to go through several changes of ownership, essentially it's the same business until 1884, when, as you have stated, John Brogden (II) died.

It was in 1864 that the firm effectedly divided and Watherson & Son (James Henderson Watherson and Edward James Watherson) was born.


Watherson & Son - London - 1885


Watherson & Son - London - 1894

Regards Trev.

[MCB]

Hello Trev,

The earlier reference found on Google to Brogden having been a clock & watch maker may not be correct. John Culme on page 469 of his book on London Goldsmiths indicates Brogden was a manufacturing jeweller in 1796 at 4 Ironmonger Row, Old Street, London, moving to 16 Bridgewater Square where, in 1802 and again in 1826, he was shown in an insurance policy as a jeweller & goldsmith.

The records of burials in the parish church of St Giles without Cripplegate London show John Brogden of Bridgewater Square interred on 18th January 1832 aged 58 years.

The other John Brogden's stock of art jewellery was sold after his death in 1884, his estate finally being valued in 1887 at £14268, quite a sum for the time.

Regards,
Mike

[dognose]

Watherston & Brogden - London - 1852

Trev.

[dognose]

Watherston & Brogden - London - 1856


Watherston & Brogden - London - 1856


Watherston & Brogden - London - 1856


Watherston & Brogden - London - 1856

Trev.