1917, 19 May – Batley News

There is one piece in this week’s Batley News relating to St Mary’s, about ‘wholesale damage’ to tombstones at Batley parish church. I have reproduced the piece in full. As ever, the spelling and punctuation matches that of the newspaper.

LOCAL POLICE NEWS
HAVOC IN A GRAVEYARD.
Wholesale Damage to Tombstones at Batley Parish Church.
Two Schoolboys of Nine Who Ought to be Flogged.

Even those who have interested themselves in the alarming increase to juvenile crime in Batley were astounded at an extraordinary case heard in Batley Children’s Court on Monday. Two schoolboys from the Balk Street neighbourhood, nine years of age, were charged with having done wilful damage to 37 gravestones, two ornamental trees, and other property in Batley Parish Churchyard, on May 10th, to the extent of £5.

Inspector Ripley said that about 7.30 p.m. last Thursday the two boys were seen in the Parish Churchyard, each having a piece of iron in his hand. They were seen striking gravestones. Altogether about 37 stones had been struck with some [hard?] instrument, and nine or ten of the tombstones had been seriously damaged. “It is the worst damage I have seen since I joined the Police. I have never seen any such damage like it [in a?] churchyard,” added the speaker.

The Inspector added that the Vicar reported the matter to the police, and he had made enquiries. The two boys admitted having done the damage. In reply to the charge one of them said, “We had an iron each, and broke the corners off the gravestones.” The other replied “I broke two gravestones and hit some palisadings round the graves. He broke the others.” It appeared that the lads had broken two heavy tops from the palisadings surrounding the grave of the late Mr. James Wilson, a former Batley manufacturer, and had used these pieces of metal as hammers for use on the gravestones.

Evidence was given by Harry Smith, a nine years’ old schoolboy residing in Balk Street, who said he was in Church Lane last Thursday evening when he saw one of the defendants with a piece of iron in his hand striking gravestones.

James Herbert Saville, aged eight, residing with his parents at the Fleece Hotel, said he also saw both boys strike at gravestones. Afterwards they laid down a warning post into Borough Road.

The Vicar’s Evidence.
Evidence was given by the Vicar of Batley (Rev. F. E. Lowe), who produced several pieces of stone which he said had been broken off tombstones. Most had been chipped off the corners, and some were four or five inches long. Two heavy heads of palisadings were also produced, and the boys admitted that they had used these articles and then thrown them away. The Vicar said he had examined the damage a second time, and had to report that at least 42 tombstones and six trees had been injured. Whoever had done the damage must have done it with absolute deliberation and must have been hours at it, in fact it must have taken two or three nights. As custodian of the churchyard he felt it his bounded duty to investigate the matter. He had not the slightest idea who had done it, and did not bring any case against any individual.

Inspector Ripley: At what do you estimate the damage?

The Vicar: I took a competent man round to see it. It just depends what the people are satisfied with. Supposing an owner of one of these slabs says “I want a new one,” you couldn’t get one under £3. If they are content with chipping the corners off straight, it is less. This man said there was a week’s work to make the job look anything like.

“I don’t think anyone has ever seen anything more disgraceful,” added the Vicar.

Can Graveowners Recover Damages?
The Chairman (Mr. T. W. Collett): Can owners of the graves recover any damage for it?

The Vicar: That is the question I don’t know. How far I am responsible for this is a thing that will have to be gone into. I am more or less responsible for the churchyard.

The lads, who had nothing to say in explanation of their conduct, said they attended St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Schools.

Their mothers said that other boys were in it as well, but these two were unfortunate enough to be caught.

One of the women said her husband was at the Front and had been wounded, whilst the other said she had seven children to support and was separated from her husband. Both mothers persisted that the two boys could not have done the total damage.

The Chairman said the offence was a serious thing, and was a shocking beginning for young children. The Bench realised the difficulties of both mothers were placed in, but they were guardians of the children and were responsible for their good behaviour and future welfare. It was difficult to deal with children such as these, but they ought to be flogged, as it was necessary to bring home to them the seriousness of their conduct. They would have to pay 30s. damages each and the costs of the case. They would also be bound over for 12 months in the sum of £2 under the care of the Probation Officer.