Name: Anthony Russell Arrested for: Larceny Arrested at: North Shields Police Station Arrested on: 27 May 1904 Tyne and Wear Archives ref: DX1388-1-29-Anthony Russell For an image of Russell's accomplice, Robert Lightly see www.flickr.com/photos/twm_news/19140868465/in/dateposted/. The Shields Daily Gazette for 28 May 1904 reports: “TWO MINERS HAVE A NIGHT OUT. FRACAS ON A NO. SHIELDS FARM At North Shields Anthony Russell (27) and Robert Lightly (24), pitmen, Percy Main, were charged with being concerned together in stealing a duck, value 10s, the property of Mr Elwin on the 22nd inst. Joseph Elwin said that at 4.25 am he was awakened by his father, who told him that he had heard three shots fired. He got up and looked out of the window, and saw two men, each carrying a gun, on the field of the farm. He went out with another lad, and on getting up to men he saw that one was carrying a bundle, from which he saw a hare’s head protruding. He asked him why he had shot the hare on his father’s land. They made no reply and walked away. He then gave information to the police. On getting back to the farm he missed a duck. An officer spoke to arresting the defendants and charged them with stealing a duck. Lightly replied that Russell shot the duck and took it away. Russell replied that he burnt it. Mr Duncan, for the defence, said that there was no doubt they shot the duck, but it was not with a felonious intent. It appeared that on the Saturday night they had taken too much drink, and on the Sunday morning they got up at four o’clock and took their guns into the fields. Russell had seen a duck and the temptation had been too strong, and he had shot it. The Bench committed both defendants to prison for 14 days. The prisoners were afterwards charged with threatening Joseph Elwin. The prosecutor said that when he accused the two men of trespassing on the farm they both threatened to shoot him if he did not get out of their way. Lightly said that he would drill rabbit holes into him. Mr Duncan, for the defendants, denied the charges, and stated that Elwin challenged the men to fight. The defendants both denied the charge on oath. They were both bound over in the sum of £10 in their own recognisances and sureties of £10 each, or in default committed for 14 days; they were also ordered to pay the costs for both sides or in default go to prison for seven days. The defendant Lightly was charged with assaulting Elwin by striking him in the chest with his fist and with the muzzle end of the gun. The defendants were next charged with trespassing in search of game at Chirton Hill Farm on the same date. Mr Duncan submitted that the defendants had already been sufficiently punished for their offence, and the summons for trespass ought to be withdrawn, especially as it was taken out against the wish of Mr Elwin. The Chief Constable contradicted the latter statement. Mr Duncan said that Mr Elwin had stated in Court that he did not wish the case to proceed and therefore the summons could not stand. The Chief Constable sad that he himself was the informant in the case and he intended to go on with it. Mr Duncan took the ruling of the Court on the point, and Mr Kidd decided that the Chief Constable was acting within his rights. After hearing the evidence, the magistrates fined defendants 10s and costs or in default 14 days imprisonment to run concurrently with the other commitments”. These images are a selection from an album of photographs of prisoners brought before the North Shields Police Court between 1902 and 1916 in the collection of Tyne & Wear Archives (TWA ref DX1388/1). (Copyright) We're happy for you to share this digital image within the spirit of The Commons. Please cite 'Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums' when reusing. Certain restrictions on high quality reproductions and commercial use of the original physical version apply though; if you're unsure please email [email protected].