George Hellyer Mitchell - his brushes with the law

Clacton Graphic and East Coast Illustrated News - Saturday 5 May 1928

SPECIAL COURT. 

At a special sitting of the Clacton Police Court, before Mr. W. C. L. Gregory, on Thursday, George Hellyer Mitchell, Rectory Road, Wivenhoe, fitter, aged 34, was charged with being drunk and refusing to quit licensed premises, and assaulting P.-s. Mynott and P.-c. Godfrey in the execution of their duty at Clacton-on-Sea. 

Evidence was given by the officers, and prisoner was remanded in custody to the Mistley Petty Sessions on Monday.

Suffolk Chronicle - Friday 11 May 1928

George Hellyer Mitchell, of Wyvenhoe, was charged with being drunk and refusing to quit the Imperial Hotel, Clacton, on May 3rd, and with assaulting P.-s. Mynott and P.-c. Godfrey. 

Upon the application of Mr. E. Page, who appeared for the defendant, the case was adjourned for a week, upon defendant paying 35s. costs. Bail was allowed in two sureties of £5 each.

Clacton Graphic and East Coast Illustrated News - Saturday 19 May 1928

ASSAULT ON POLICE.

SEQUEL TO REFUSING TO QUIT HOTEL. 

At the Clacton Police Court on Monday, before Mr. J. H. Sizer and other Justices, George Hellyer Mitchell (34), fitter, Wivenhoe, was charged with being disorderly, and refusing to quit the Imperial Hotel, Clacton, on May 3rd; also with assaulting P.-s. Mynott and P.-c. Godfrey, on the same date. Mr. D. Field prosecuted in the first case. 

William H. Lee, licensee of the lmperial Hotel, said defendant entered the hotel, and was served with cider and some bitter. He commenced singing and whistling loudly, but ceased when asked. When he recommenced the third time he was told he would have to go out. 

Witness called his son, whereupon defendant rushed behind the counter and made a threat to murder him. A driver, who said: "Come out, Wivenhoe, or there will be trouble," was pushed out by defendant. 

A police-sergeant and a policeman arrived, and the sergeant was told to ask the defendant to leave. Defendant struck out at both police-officers, and they fell on the floor. 

Three other people helped the police to handcuff defendant. His legs were tied, and he was taken outside to a taxi. 

In reply to Mr. E, Page, who defended, witness said that defendant was not drunk. Up to the time he was asked to go he had not been abusive. His appearance was such as to suggest that defendant was of weak intellect.

Charles Lee, son of the licensee, said that defendant used bad language.

Violet Fisher, barmaid at the hotel, said that defendant was quiet when he entered, but when asked by Mr. Lee to go out he replied: "You can't put me out.” 

In reply to Mr. Page, witness said defendant had been in the bar before. Mr. Lee did not permit singing in the bar. 

Sergt. Mynott said that when he arrived defendant was coming towards the door, and Mr. Lee said defendant had refused to leave, though he wanted him to. 

Defendant tried to push witness out as he was entering the bar, and on getting inside, witness removed a glass from near defendant, who flew at witness and struck him in the eye, causing blood to flow.

Defendant used vile language, and made a remark about Kennedy, the man sentenced for murder. 

Defendant was eventually removed after witness and P.-c. Godfrey and others had closed with him. 

Witness also found his leg injured, and was still under medical treatment. 

P.-c. Godfrey also gave evidence, and said whilst on the floor defendant bit his thumb and scratched his face and ear.

Mr. Page called defendant, who said that he cycled to Clacton after a job at a café. He was "pretty merry"’ at the thought of getting the position. Entering the central bar of the Imperial he had a cider and commenced to whistle. He had some beer later, and was attempting to sing in Scotch. Someone said "let’s chuck him out,” and he asked where the man was who was to  throw him out. 

He returned to the bar and stood his ground, as he thought there was to be trouble. Seeing some charabancs outside he heard a rush of people at the door, and went to it, shutting it. 

Three "shadows" came to the door, and when it opened he struck the constable by mistake. He thought he was being rushed, and he did not know the police were outside.

Someone snatched his beer from his hand, and the sergeant said, "You are drunk; you are mad."

The next thing he knew was being on the floor. He was kicked in the ribs and on the knee. As a result of the proceedings he had now lost the job. 

He was not excitable unless he was made so. During the war he was blown down by a big gun. 

In further reply to his solicitor, defendant said he remarked that he would go out of the house quietly if they would let him drink his beer.

In reply to Mr. Field, defendant said he did not bite the policeman. 

Answering Inspector Rolfe, defendant said the police officers were in uniform.

Mrs. Alberts said that defendant had been working on her premises and  was a good workman and a clever man. 

Ernest E. Chamberlain, Wivenhoe, said that defendant was not addicted to drink. He had been with witness at the cinema,was a consistent worker and probably "highly strung."

The Bench fined defendant £1, and costs 18s. for being disorderly and refusing to quit. and six weeks’ hard labour in each case for the assaults on the police—which the Bench considered serious—these sentences to run concurrently.

Inspector Rolfe thanked the witnesses for assisting the police, and the Chairman endorsed this, saying if the public did not sometimes assist the police it would be a bad thing for the police.

Chelmsford Chronicle - Friday 28 April 1933

NOT "MOGGY-HUNTING"

At Lexden and Winstree Petty Session on Saturday, George Hellyer Mitchell, Rectory Road, Wivenhoe, was summoned for causing unnecessary suffering to cat by unreasonably causing it to worried by dog at Wivenhoe on March 27; and further, for causing it unnecessary suffering by unreasonably killing it in an improper manner.—He pleaded not guilty.

Mr. G. E. Page, for the defence, submitted that a fight between the cat and the dog took place without defendant's connivance or control. Mitchell did everything possible to stop the fight. The dog, whose life defendant had saved, was very much attached to him.

Defendant, in evidence, said that when he saw the dog had confronted a cat he called the dog off, but it took no notice. He got between them and was about to grab the dog's collar when the cat flew at his leg and clung there. A mix-up followed, and when it finished the cat lay in the road with two legs apparently broken. He saw the cat was not quite dead, so he banged its head once against the church railings.

Inspector Stamp: suggest that when you take this dog out you do so, as is done in other villages, to go "moggy-hunting"?

Defendant: No, I don't.

Commander E. Aylmer Digby. K.C., J.P. : What is "moggy-hunting"?

Defendant: Deliberately setting a dog at cat. I believe that's what they call it in Scotland.

The Chairman (Major J. Oxley Parker) said the Bench felt that it was doubtful if it was possible for defendant to control the dog: on this occasion. Defendant would therefore given the benefit of the doubt, and the case would be dismissed.