Taylor Verses Hammer.
                       Noak Hill. Farmer Charged with Unlawful Shooting
                                        Romford Times October 1921

​

At Romford Petty Sessions on Thursday, before Henry Joslin, Esq (chairman), and other Justices.
Ernest Hammer 46 a farmer from 'Pentowan,' Noak Hill, was charged on a warrant with unlawful, maliciously, and feloniously shooting at Oakley Turner, a farm labourer, of Tanhouse Lane, Navestock, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, at Noak Hill, on October 5th.
Mr. L. G. Peake said he appeared on behalf of the defendant, who was arrested that morning, and there had not been time to go into the facts, he asked for an adjournment for a week.
The prosecutor, who is very deaf, was called into the witness box. The Chairman: It seems desirable to adjourn this case for a week; you don't raise any objections to that, do you. Prosecutor: No sir I think it would be nice for the police to visit the spot; Supt, Hewlett: From the police point of view I am very anxious that there should be an adjournment. We have not had time to do anything in the case.

Mr. Peake said his application was that the defendant might be admitted to bail.
The Chairman: It looks to be a serious case. Mr. Peake: Defendant is a dairy farmer at Noak Hill and has been there eight years. Defendant: My own place-freehold: The Assistant Clerk (Mr. Jones) was giving the Bench privately some particulars of the alleged circumstances of the case; When Mr. Peake said he did not wish the Bench to hear anything of it until they could also hear the defence. He was going to tell them that the prosecutor was supposed to have attacked the defendant with a knife. The chairman: It seems a serious case. Mr. Peake: I agree that it is serious that you let the defendant out on bail on his own recognisance. Mr. J. Z. Cahill, J.P. We must hear something about the case. Supt. Hewlett: I think you should hear of the case of arrest. Mr. Cahill: I should think so too.

Sergeant Hyde said that on Wednesday he issued a warrant for the defendant's arrest. At 8.30 a. m. on Thursday he went to Noak Hill in company with detective Bedall. He saw the defendant and told him he was a police officer. He read the warrant to the defendant and cautioned him "Yes" the defendant said"after he he had threatened to stab me with a knife. There are two sides to this; my solicitors will deal with it. I wonder there was not someone shot. We were all on the ground struggling together. He got hold of the gun, which was loaded." The Chairman said the case would be adjourned for a week.

Mr. Peake said that that Bench had had before them the evidence of arrest and had agreed to a deferment for a week in order to give the police and the defendant an opportunity to have the facts before them. He applied for bail for the defendant, who had been at Noak Hill for eight years. Defendant carried on business as a diary farmer, and was a substantial man. The police had no objections to bail, and sureties could be found provided the bail fixed was reasonable.
Defendant was admitted to bail himself in £50 and one surety in £50. Mr. J. R. H. Chippington, school teacher, of Noak Hill, became the surety.

​

The Romford Times Wednesday October 19 1921. Farm Shooting Affair.

At Romford Petty Sessions on Thursday before Sir Joseph Broodbank and other Justices, Ernest Hammer, 46, a farmer of 'Pentowan' Noak Hill, was charged on a warrant, on remand, with shooting at Oakley Turner, a farm labourer, of Tanhouse Lane, Navestock, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, at Noak Hill on October 5th.
Ernest Hammer, the defendant in the last case, and Alfred Berthon Luffman1, a farmer's assistant, of 'Pentowan', Noak Hill, were summoned for assaulting Oakley Turner, at Noak Hill on October 5th; and there were cross-summonses against Turner for assaulting, Hammer and Luffman on the same occasion.
Mr. F. A. S. Stern prosecuted, and Mr. L. G. Peake defended.

Mr. Stern said that since the last sitting, summonses had been taken out by Turner against Hammer and his assistant Luffman, for assault, and Hammer and Luffman had taken out summonses against Turner. He proposed to make just a short statement of the facts, so that the Bench might be in possession of all the circumstances, and he would then ask them, if they thought right and proper, to take a certain course. Turner was in the employ of Mr. Taylor a farmer of Poplars Farm, Noak Hill. Hammer, or rather his wife, had recently purchased the adjoining farm, known as 'Pentowan'. Between the two farms there was a meadow, which was at present in the tenancy of Mr. Taylor but which had been purchased by Mrs. Hammer and of which Mr. Hammer was anxious to get possession. Notice had been served to terminate the tenancy next November. There had naturally been a tense feeling, Mr. Hammer being anxious to get possession, and Mr. Taylor being anxious to retain it until the end of the legal time. Certain acts of trespass had been committed and as a result Turner was instructed by Mr. Taylor to turn trespassers off the meadow.

About 7.30 a.m. on Wednesday, October 5th, Turner was in the meadow and saw Mr Hammer there with a gun. Turner was very deaf and therefore the conversation must have been held in loud tones, but he was instructed that Turner went to Hammer and said " You have no right in this field, and you must get off. Hammer said, "I am going to stop as long as I like" Turner said he would fetch Mr. Taylor, Hammer said "You fetch him, you can do what you like." Turner turned away, and he said that Hammer followed him and with the gun struck him in two or three places. His wrist was bruised, his hand was hurt, and he had injuries about his head. Turner was going away, and he alleged that Hammer, from a distance of two or three yards, fired off one barrel of the gun. One could hardly imagine that Hammer intended to shoot the man, because at a distance of two or three yards, it would be almost impossible to miss him. Whether he only intended to frighten Turner, or whether there was a struggle and the gun went off could only be conjectured. The fact remained that Turner closed with Hammer. There was a struggle and they fell to the ground. Luffman ran up having heard the shot and seeing men struggling he did what in his (Mr. Sterns) opinion was an improper action. Without inquiring what was the matter he struck Turner on the face with a stick, and drew blood. Luffman and Hammer struggled with Turner, but Turner eventually got away and went to Romford Police Station. The matter was considered to be serious and a warrant for Hammer's arrest was issued.

Hammer was arrested next morning and he said "Yes, after he had threatened to stab me with a knife. There are two sides to this; my solicitors will deal with it. I wonder there was not someone shot. We were all struggling together. He got hold of the gun, which was loaded." It seemed to him (Mr. Stern) that Hammer's suggestion was that Turner threatened him with a knife, that there was a struggle, and that the gun went off accidentally. Turner denied most positively that he ever produced a knife or in any way threatened Hammer. The position was that Mr. Taylor would hold possession for another twelve months; Taylor and Hammer were neighbours; and it was not desired, especially in these times of stress and trouble, that there should be any quarrels, they wanted to live, if they could, on terms of peace and quietness. Having regard to the fact that Turner had not been seriously hurt, he suggested to the Bench that, as cross-summonses had been issued, all the parties should be bound over to keep the peace for twelve months by which time tenancy of the field would have expired. He understood that Mr. Peake would agree to that course, and that Mr. Hammer would give an understanding not to trespass on the meadow. It seemed to him that the course he suggested would be a very desirable one, as it would have the effect of keeping the parties at peace during the remainder of the tenancy.
Turner was called and asked whether he was agreeable to the suggested course?
Turner: I should like some protection. The Clerk (Mr. F. J. Hunt): It is suggested that Hammer and Luffman should be bound over to keep the peace towards you for twelve months. Turner: I should have some protection from that gun.
Mr. Peake said that he did not wish to say anything that would aggravate the position, but in fairness to Mr. Hammer the story he would have told if the case had proceeded would flatly contradict the statement made by Mr. Stern. His case was that Turner proceeded to turn him out of the meadow, and did it very roughly, and there was a quarrel between them. He was willing that the Bench should bind the parties over. He thought the suggestion that had been made was the best one possible, and would tend to make the parties better neighbours.
The Clerk: Will you give the undertaking? Mr. Peake: We won't trespass on Mr. Taylor's land during the tenancy.
The Chairman: The Bench are glad to the proposed solution and they hope this treaty of peace will be kept.
The cases were withdrawn, the parties being bound over in £20 each to keep the peace for twelve months. They all shook hands and left the court.

Note 1. In the course of his research Don Tait discovered that Alfred Luffman was not simply a farmer's assistant but he was in fact a future son-in-law of Ernest Hammer, marrying his daughter Vera Edith Hammer in 1924. Don also considers that the correct spelling of Alfred Berthon Luffman's middle name is as given. There are various recorded spellings across numerous documents.
My thanks go to Ernie Herbert for tracking down the above story and transcribing it from the original newspaper report which was almost indecipherable.                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Del Smith