Mr Sharpe

Mr Sharpe was killed in a riot at a public house in Tedworth on 31 August 1904.

He was shot.

Two men were tried but acquitted.

They said the gun went off accidentally when someone threw a pint pot.

The men had been the 44-year-old landlord and the 27-year-old barman of the Ram Inn in Tedworth.

The riot had been a navvies riot, and was also referred to as the Tedworth riot.

The government had been erecting some large barracks in the neighbourhood of North Tedworth upon which 2,000 men were engaged, many of whom were in the habit of frequenting the Ram Inn.

On 31 August 1904 the weather had been wet and work was stopped, the result of which was that a large number of men gravitated naturally to the inn.

At about midday there was a dispute between a workman and a bar man which resulted in a scuffle, the result being that the workman was knocked down several times.

He was then about to leave the premises when some of his comrades jeered at him and accused him of cowardice upon which he tried to re-enter the inn, but was stopped.

At about the same time the landlord came out of a side door and someone enquired of him what the man had done to merit such treatment, but the landlord promptly knocked the man down and then went back inside.

After that, several of the navvies approached the door of the inn, but the landlord re-appeared with a revolver and threatened to shoot if they did not go back.

He didn't shoot, but closed the doors and then went into an upstairs room with the barman.

At the trial it was heard that there was a difference of opinion as to how many people had been outside the inn, with some saying between 20 to 30 and others saying 200 to 300, to which the judge asked, 'Were they all in the state in which multiplication was easy', resulting in laughter in the court. The prosecution replied that they didn't know.

It was said then that the landlord fired two shots into the air and then a shot into the ground which hit a man in the neck, who was noted as having been a spectator and to have not been a part of the disturbance. It was stated that it was a very merciful thing that the man was not killed on the spot.

However, it was heard that as a result of the firing of the revolver that the crowd became even more hostile and that drinking pots began to be thrown about.

Then either the landlord or the barman then fetched a shotgun, which was then handed by the barman to the landlord after which it went off and hit Mr Sharpe, who was about ten yards away under a tree, killing him.

As such, it was noted that it was quite clear that the gun could not have at that time been being pointing upwards, but must have been pointed downwards. However, the defence stated at the trial that the shotgun had gone off accidently after it was hit by a pot that was thrown.

It was noted that when the landlord soon after went down the stairs that he was heard to say, with an oath, 'If I had had my cartridge case, I would have shot the lot'.

The post mortem showed that Mr Sharpe had been shot in the chest, and had as many as 260 shot marks.

At that stage, it was submitted that the barman had not been involved and that there was no case about him, with the judge agreeing that it was not the case that there had been a common purpose to fire the gun in a dangerous direction, and the barman was found not guilty and discharged.

The defence stated that the barman had fired the first shot and that the landlord had then snatched the shotgun from him, saying, 'For God's sake don't do that', after which the point pot struck the shotgun, causing it to go off.

The trial heard that there were two pieces of evidence to support the defence’s case, first that some marks were found on the gun by the police to support the claim and second that the man that was initially involved in the scuffle with the barman said that he had thrown a pint pot immediately after the first shot was fired.

When the landlord gave evidence, he said that he had spent part of his early life in the Navy and after that had spent 16 years in the Mercantile Marine and that it was not until 1894 that he gave up a sea-faring life and took a public-house.

He said that he had exceptional experience at Micheldever in dealing with navvies, and that in 1900 he retired from the occupation of keeping a public-house.

However, he said that in 1902 that Messrs. Strong & Co. asked him to manage the Ram Inn for them, and that he had been there since. He said that after he had been there some months he found that the trade had changed, and that instead of a quiet peaceable trade, he got a lot of men at the house who would not work, and only 'loafed' about.

He said that he had often found it necessary to shut down the taps owing to the trouble caused by the loafers and had had to proceed against some of the men before the magistrates, and only a few months earlier had had to give instructions that one of the men was not to be served.

He said that when they were closed on 31 August 1904 that he went to clear the tills and a cup was thrown at him through the window and he heard the smashing of glass in the 'Four Ale' shed. He said that when he went outside into the yard that a man came towards him in a threatening manner and so he went back into the house, but said that as the pots were being broken that he went back outside.

However, he said that that time he took his revolver from his pocket and told the men that he would fire if they did not stand back. He said that he then heard the men trying to get in at the doors and so he went upstairs to see what they were doing and found that they were trying to burst open the door and so he called to them to get away or he would fire.

He said that he then fired two shots into the thatch opposite and said that several of the men ran away, and that he then fired a third shot down against a wall. He said that as he fired the third shot that more men ran away.

He said that he was still looking out of the window when he heard another shot fired by the side of him and found that the barman had a shotgun in his hand, noting that until that time he didn't even know that the barman had been in the room. He said that he then put his hand on the shot gun and told the barman not to use it, but that at that moment a pot struck the shot gun and it went off suddenly, noting that the second shot was unintentional.

He said that he then took the shot gun to prevent the barman from using it, knowing what a dangerous weapon a shotgun was.

He said that he didn't see Mr Sharpe under the tree and didn't know him.

He said that he had not had the remotest intention of hitting anyone.

He said that he had explained all along that it had been an accident and denied having come down the stairs and saying that if he had had his cartridge case that he would have shot the lot of them.

He noted that he had previously acted as a valet to a gentleman who was a big game hunter and said that he was consequently quite used to firearms.

He noted that he had not received any personal injuries and said that his alarm at the crowd was mainly induced by their threats.

He said that the wall of the house was built of mortar and flint and that he could only account for the other man having been shot in the neck by the bullet having rebounded off the wall.

He said that the barman had fetched the shotgun, noting that the shot gun and cartridges had belonged to him and that they were both kept in the kitchen.

He said that he didn't fire the shotgun himself at all, and that when he took it up from the barman that he had caught hold of the stock, but could not say whether he had put his finger on the trigger, but said that he didn't think he did.

He said that his theory was that the gun had been discharged through having been struck by the pot and knocked against the side of the window.

He said that he had known the shotgun to have gone off suddenly before.

However, after hearing from the barman and a couple of other witnesses that described the condition of the premises after the events of the day the jury said that they didn't think that it was necessary to call any more witnesses and the landlord was acquitted.