SHOCKING FATAL FIGHT AT AMBERLEY.
On Tuesday evening, a fight, which terminated in the death of one of the combatants, took place near the Houghton Bridge Inn, in the parish of Amberley, and close to the Amberley Station, on the Pulborough and Arundel line of the London and Brighton Company’s system. The principals engaged in this fatal affray were George Goble, a bricklayer, of the place, a man of about 5ft. 6in., but of rather delicate appearance. and Robert Saunders, a short thick-set man, about 4ft. 8in. in height, a labourer, who has lately been employed on the Bognor line, now in course of construction. From what we have been able to glean, it appears that on the day in question, Saunders, who at the time was out of employ, but who was going on the following day to work on the Midhurst Railway, was at the Houghton Bridge Inn, drinking with a mate of his, several times in the course of the day, and Goble, who is in the employ of his brother, James Goble, bricklayer, was at work on some buildings connected with the Bridge Inn, and doubtless drank a good deal in the course of the day. He left his work about five o’clock in the evening, and shortly afterwards both men—with several others—met in the tap-room of the Inn, and again had a good deal of drink. The only indication of any ill feeling existing between them appears to be the conversation which Goble made use of a short time after they met in the taproom, striking his fist down on one of the tables, he said to Saunders (who in known in the neighbourhood by the sobriquet of Punch). ‟Punch, you leathered me once, and I'll leather you now.” After a few words, the men, accompanied by their companions, went out, stripped, and had a few rounds near the house, both being the worse for liquor, but Goble more so than the other. Saunders it seems then wished to leave off, but the other refused to give up. They next went to the green, and continued the fight, notwithstanding that several tried to get Goble away. A few more rounds having taken place, the men stood still for a few minutes, and Saunders again expressed a wish to leave off, saying that he was going to work at Midhurst the next day, and did not want to go up there with his face all scratched about; but Goble said, ‟Let’s have a few more rounds Bob, I want to leather you this time, you little ⎯⎯.” They then began again, and after the fight had been going on for about three-quarters of an hour, they both fell down in struggling for the throw, Saunders uppermost. Goble never rose again, being insensible, and was lifted up, and carried back to the Bridge Inn. Both men bled very much from the nose and mouth, although no heavy blows seem to have been struck. The time at the termination of the fight was about eight o’clock, and as Goble still remained insensible after his arrival at the inn—notwithstanding that his head was bathed , with with vinegar-and-water—a medical gentlemen was sent for to Arundel, and Mr. Byass arrived about ten. Various remedies were applied, but the poor fellow never became sensible. and expired about four o’clock on Wednesday morning. Saunders was apprehended about one o’clock, and conveyed to Arundel to await the coroner’s inquest. Goble, the deceased, leaves a wife and four children. A small local paper, published on Thursday, states, in a short paragraph, that the name of the man who fought with Goble was Standen. We are requested to state, as we have, in fact, done in the preceding statement of the facts of this distressing case, that this is utterly wrong: that Standen is a respectable shoemaker of the place, and that he was in his shop at the time the fight began. That he was called out to see what the matter was, and that he then endeavoured to persuade the men to leave off.
An inquest on the body was held at the Houghton Bridge Inn, yesterday morning, before R. Blagden, Esq., in the presence of the prisoner, Robert Saunders.
Charles Smart, landlord of the Houghton Bridge Inn, deposed that Goble was a beer-shop keeper at Petersfield, Coldwaltham, and was 43 years of age, and by trade a bricklayer. On Tuesday last he was working at witness’s house. He came into the bar about five in the evening and remained till six; he was then sober. Whilst he was there Robert Saunders came in, and deceased said, ‟We don't want your company here,” and ordered him out. Saunders did not go, and deceased went up and attacked him, and they wrestled. He (witness) went up and laid hold of both of them, and Goble’s dog bit him in the back part of his (witness’) thigh. He then let go, and deceased put Saunders out of the bar by lifting him over the half door. Saunders then went into the tap-room, and deceased followed in about a quarter of an hour. He next heard Saunders say, ‟I don’t want to fight.” Deceased, from his language, seemed anxious to fight. He (witness) went and ordered them out of the house, and they went directly. About seven, in consequence of what he heard, he went on to the Green, and saw deceased lying in his brother’s arms. He was insensible, and unable to move or speak. He was taken to witness’s house. He breathed as if asleep, but not very heavy. Mr. Byass, of Arundel, was sent for, and arrived about 12. Deceased was dead when witness got up the next morning. He (witness) believed he was quite sober when he was turned out of the tap room. He knew that deceased and Saunders had fought some months ago. Several of the men went out to see the fight.
James Goble bricklayer at Houghton Bridge, and brother to deceased, deposed that the deceased worked for him, and dined at his house about noon on Tuesday. After the dinner they were walking to the Inn, when they met Robert Saunders and a man and woman. Saunders appeared to be in liquor, and did not speak to deceased. They had fought several months before, in witness’s presence when Saunders beat the deceased. Deceased went to work at the Inn, and he (witness) returned about four, when they had one pint of ale between them, and a glass of gin-and-water each. Deceased again went to work, and about half-past five again went into the bar, and was standing near the table, when Saunders came first to the bar door. After they wrestled Sunders was put out. Deceased told him that Saunders said he would set upon him (deceased) before he went home. He (witness) requested his brother not to go where Saunders was, but he did not know whether any one or not heard him express that wish. He soon after went into the tap, where he quarrelled with Saunders, and they went out to fight on the green. It was a little after six o’clock. He (witness) at the time was not perfectly sober. They both stripped, and before the fight ended they were both stripped to their skins. A man called ‟Mossey," whom he believed be Charles Voice, seconded Saunders, and John Whittington seconded deceased. They fought for three-quarters of an hoar, pretty equally, till the last, when deceased got the worst of it. Saunders offered to give up or leave off they were sitting upon their seconds knees, and witness tried to persuade his brother to give up, but he said ‟No, I’ll have another round or two.” There were many falls during the fight, deceased falling most. In the last round deceased appeared to fall from wrestling, and not from a blow. He fell backwards, but was not thrown. Up to the last round decesseci did not appear to have been but very little hurt. Deceased was insensible and powerless, and never recovered. He (witness) remained with him till he died. In the first round Sunders threw him very heavily and fell on deceased. With that exception he (witness) considered the fight quite fair.
By Saunders—The first round I saw was fought just inside the inn. I took you off my brother and then Whittington struck me. I don’t deny that I had a round with Whittington. My brother was a bigger man than Saunders.
Re-examined—l noticed a stone rather larger than a man’s fist lying near to Whittington’s feet, and close to the place where deceased’s head came to the ground.
John Whittington, bricklayer, of Bury, gave corroborative evidence as to the proceedings in the house. As to the fight, he stated that they both fell in the first round and he took Saunders off the deceased. People began to pull them about, and then James Goble spoke up and hit him (witness) and gave him a black eye. He (witness) hit him again and they had a round or two. Then afterwards all went on to the ground and there Saunders and George Goble fought, Saunders had a second, but Goble had not, and witness acted as his second till the end of the fight. He (witness) tried to persuade deceased to leave off, but he said he would not give in for such a a man as that. Saunders also asked to leave off. It was more wrestling. At last they both fell together, and Saunders’ head appeared to fall on the chest of the deceased. He tried to pick deceased up, but he was insensible. He saw nothing unfair on either side.
Mr. Charles Lambert Evershed, surgeon, at Arundel, deposed that on the previous afternoon he saw the body of George Goble, on examining the surface externally there were no marks of any severe Injury having been inflicted. There were only a few slight bruises on the face and scalp. The only abrasion on the skin was a mere scratch in the face. On cutting through the scalp there were slight extravasations of blood corresponding with the bruises on the surface. The most severe blow appeared to have been inflicted between the eyes adjust above the bridge of the nose. On removing the skull cap and opening the dura mater, he found a large clot of blood pressing on the surface of the brain. The brain itself appeared perfectly healthy, as was also the base of the skull. He could not find the slightest trace of injury to the bone of the skull. At the back of the head where the skull rests on the spinal column there was a slight bruise or cutting through the integuments, but there was no sign of this externally. Decomposition had set in, more particularly at the back of the head and body, and to an extent sufficient to destroy a mark of any slight bruise. This, of course, applied only to the surface. The marks of the bruise at the back of the head was on the muscles covering the base of the skull and the two upper cervical vertebræ. There was no evidence of any injury to the vertebræ themselves. The cause of death was pressure on the brain caused by the extravasated blood he had before mentioned. He should say that two ounces of blood at least were extravasated. This was owing to a rapture of a vessel in the brain. The clot of blood was upon the upper surface of both hemispheres. The extravasation of blood, or rupture of the vessels, was, in his opinion, caused by concussion of the head. There is no doubt the head of the deceased came in contact with some hard substance at its base. He was surprised to hear that deceased survived the injury so long as he had.
The Coroner remarked that It was most remarkable that such a large extrevasation of blood should have been produced from the rupture of a small blood vessel, but no doubt this was attributable to the brain being gorged with blood from the drink deceased had taken, and the excited state in which he was during the fight. He remembered in the whole course of his experience but one similar case, and that was one with which Mr. Evershed was also connected. He referred to the case of manslaughter in which James Goble, one of the witnesses at this inquest, killed his brother-in-law by a blow on the head.
Sergeant Henderson deposed that he apprehended Saunders near the inn, and told him that he should take him in custody for killing and slaying George Goble. He said, ‟I am sorry this affair has happened, but they kept on at me so, and would make me fight.” He (witness) said, ‟Who did?” Prisoner said, ‟George and his brother James; I wanted to give over fighting, and Goble said he would give me a dusting before I went away. I told him I was a leathered man several times, and wanted to give over fighting.”
The prisoner’s second, Voice, was called by his request, and partly examined, but he prevaricated very much, and stated so many things contrary to the evidence previously taken, that he was severely reprimanded and dismissed. His statement was struck out.
Mr. Evershed stated that he had known this witness for years, and he always had the name of being half an idiot.
The Coroner then summed up the case to the jury in a very able manner, carefully pointing out to them the bearing of the evidence upon the question and the state of the law with regard to murder and manslaughter.
The jury, after a short deliberation, preferred a verdict of manslaughter against Saunders, and the coroner issued his warrant for prisoner’s committal to await his trial at the next Lewes assizes, but stated his willingness to accept bail, under the circumstances of the case, which of course must be to a heavy amount. The coroner also administered an impressive caution to the deceased’s brother and the deceased’s second, Whittington.