A Coleford Scene: When the Village Constable Faced an Assault Summons in 1906

A newspaper heading from May 1906 offered readers a glimpse of an uncomfortable evening in Coleford: “Coleford ‘Scene’ — A Police Constable Summoned for Assault.” It was not a tale of a stranger arriving in the village. At the centre was a local policeman, Henry H. Tancock, whose encounter with William Leaman had ended before the magistrates at Crediton.

The report appeared in the Western Times on Friday 18 May 1906. It describes disputed evidence, a pursuit into a shop, a butcher’s table and a bench of magistrates troubled by the constable’s behaviour.

An argument outside the stable yard

According to Leaman’s account, he had been standing outside his employer’s stable yard at about 8.15 on a Wednesday evening, talking to a Mr Beer. Tancock approached and challenged him over what the constable believed was an insult to Beer. Leaman said there had been nothing improper in his conversation.

Leaman alleged that the constable then struck him. The two men went to the ground, and Leaman claimed he was kicked. He ran towards his employer’s shop with Tancock following. Inside, the confrontation continued. The newspaper records the curious detail that both men jumped over a butcher’s table before another struggle took place.

These were allegations presented to the court, not an agreed description of everything that occurred.

What the witnesses said

Several witnesses offered different views of the altercation. Edwin Beer of Copplestone described meeting the constable after leaving Leaman, while William Howard, a mason of Coleford, supported the allegation that the constable struck and kicked the complainant. Frederick Cox described the struggle inside the shop. Sidney Cann said he saw the constable grab Leaman by the neck and shake him. William Easterbrook also gave evidence supporting the complaint.

The published report includes moments of laughter during the testimony, but the case was not treated simply as village entertainment: an allegation of violence by a serving constable was before the court.

The constable’s defence

Mr W. H. Tarbet, appearing for Tancock, argued that the evidence was exaggerated and contradictory. His case was that local young men had caused trouble and that Leaman had pushed the officer about. He acknowledged that the constable had no right to enter the premises, while maintaining that the incident was less serious than witnesses suggested.

The report says Tancock was prepared to apologise to Leaman. Superintendent Egan spoke of the policeman’s years of service and his conscientious conduct, adding that the parish had presented difficulties for officers dealing with young men.

What the magistrates decided

The bench took Superintendent Egan’s account into consideration. Nevertheless, the newspaper records the magistrates’ view that the constable had used “excessive zeal”. They decided that he should pay the costs of the proceedings.

The report’s closing words describe the decision as “would fine him the costs.” No separate fine amount is specified in the report. It would therefore be misleading to invent a figure or to describe him as having received an additional financial penalty. The decision was a public rebuke to a policeman whose earlier service had been defended in court.

A different side of Coleford’s police history

A separate history of Coleford Police Station on this website recalls a PC Henry Tancock as a long-serving village constable. That account preserves the favourable way he was remembered by local people. The 1906 newspaper adds a different perspective: the public scrutiny of a policeman’s conduct on one particular evening.