James BAKER^{[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]}

1826 - 1897  (~ 71 years)

• Name	James BAKER
  Born	6 Feb 1826	Wellington, Somerset, England
  Christened	5 Mar 1826	Wellington, Somerset, England
  Gender	Male
  _UID	2A7CABB5BA23D511B6E7DD3AFA2E9C3576C3
  Buried	18 Dec 1897	Nynehead, Somerset, England
  Person ID	I710	YoungFamily
  Last Modified	18 Jan 2022

  
  

  Father	William BAKER,   c. 4 Aug 1793, North Petherton, Somerset, England ,   d. 6 Apr 1873, Bradford on Tone, Somerset, England  (Age ~ 79 years)
  Mother	Mary ALLEN,   b. 4 Apr 1800, Rockwell Green, Wellington, Somerset, England ,   d. 12 Apr 1883, Bradford-on-Tone, Somerset, England  (Age 83 years)
  Married	29 Jun 1821	Wellington, St. John, Somerset, England   [6]
  _UID	0378ABB5BA23D511B6E7DD3AFA2E9C354B17
  Notes	Alternate possible marriage which would allow for one more earlier child, Anna, who married Bowerman at Bradford-on-Tone and gave her father as William Baker a Shoemaker. County Somerset Place Wellington Church St John RegisterNumber 294 MarriageDate 29 Jun 1821 GroomForename William GroomSurname BAKER GroomAge GroomParish GroomCondition GroomOccupation GroomAbode sojourner BrideForename Mary BrideSurname ALLEN BrideAge BrideParish BrideCondition BrideOccupation BrideAbode GroomFatherForename GroomFatherSurname GroomFatherOccupation BrideFatherForename BrideFatherSurname BrideFatherOccupation WitnessOneForename John WitnessOneSurname BAKER WitnessTwoForename John WitnessTwoSurname LUCAS Notes FileNumber 731
  Family ID	F210	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

  
  

  Family	Mary PALMER,   b. 1828, Nynehead, Somerset, England ,   bur. 17 Jul 1900, Cotford Asylum, Somerset, England  (Age ~ 72 years)
  Married	13 Feb 1848	Nynehead, Somerset, England
  _UID	0578ABB5BA23D511B6E7DD3AFA2E9C354D37
  Notes	Baker James Palmer Mary m 13 Feb 1848 he full age bachelor, husbandmand, bradford, father William Baker, shoemaker; she full age, spinster, no occupation, Nynehead, father John Palmer, carpenter, banns both signed by mark, withnesses Robert Palmer, mark of Elizabeth Baker, by John C. Harris, Curate, p. 7, entry 14
  Children	1. William BAKER,   c. 5 Nov 1848, Nynehead, Somerset, England   2. Harriet BAKER,   c. 29 Dec 1850, Bradford, Somerset, England   3. George BAKER,   c. 1 May 1853, Nynehead, Somerset, England ,   d. 1931, Taunton, Somerset, England  (Age ~ 77 years)   4. Matilda BAKER,   b. Abt 1856, Nynehead, Somerset, England   5. Lucy Regina BAKER,   c. 25 Oct 1857, Nynehead, Somerset, England ,   d. Oct 1952, Surrey South eastern District, Surrey, England  (Age ~ 94 years)   6. Elizabeth Ann BAKER,   c. 12 Feb 1860, Nynehead, Somerset, England   7. Emma aka Anna ^ BAKER,   c. 4 May 1862, Nynehead, Somerset, England ,   bur. 25 May 1871, Nynehead, Somerset, England  (Age ~ 9 years)   8. Sarah BAKER,   c. 15 May 1864, Nynehead, Somerset, England   9. Louisa ^ BAKER,   c. 17 Jun 1866, Nynehead, Somerset, England ,   bur. 12 Jul 1874, Nynehead, Somerset, England  (Age ~ 8 years)   10. James BAKER,   c. 1 Nov 1868, Nynehead, Somerset, England   11. Mary Jane BAKER,   c. 5 Feb 1871, Nynehead, Somerset, England
  Last Modified	15 May 2022
  Family ID	F243	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

  
  

• Notes

  Aged 74 years on burial.

  
  

• Sources

  [S51] 1851 Census, England and Wales, Office of National Statistics, Kew, Surrey, England, (U.S.A., Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society of Utah), Bradford-on-Tone, Somerset, England, HO107/1921; ED 1, fol. 319; p. 11; FHL film #221076-77, 30 Mar 1851. Household Sch. #44, Village: James Baker, head, mar, 25, sawyer, born Wellington, Somerset Mary Baker, wife, mar, 23, born Ninehead, Somerset William Baker, son, single, 3, born Ninehead, Somerset Harriet Baker, daughter, single, 4 months, born Bradford, Somerset [S52] 1861 Census, England and Wales, Office of National Statistics, Kew, Surrey, England, (U.S.A., Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society of Utah), Nynehead, Somerset, England, RG 9/1611; ED 12, fol. 89; p. 2; FHL film #0542839, 7 Apr 1861. Household Sch. #6, Lift Cottage: James Baker, head, mar, 36, sawyer, born Wellington, Somerset Mary Baker, wife, mar, 33, born Nynehead, Somerset William Baker, son, single, 12, apprentice tailor, born Nynehead, Somerset Harriet Baker, daughter, single, 10, scholar, born Bradford, Somerset George Baker, son, unm, 8, scholar, born Nynehead, Somerset Matilda Baker, daughter, unm, 6, scholar, born Nynehead, Somerset Lucy Baker, daughter, unm, 3, scholar, born Nynehead, Somerset Elizabeth Ann Baker, daughter, unm, 1, scholar, born Nynehead, Somerset [S53] 1871 Census, England and Wales, Office of National Statistics, Register General Office, (U.S.A., Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society of Utah), Nynehead, Somerset, England, RG10/2364; ED 12, fol. 41, p. 2, FHL film #0835101, 2 Apr 1871. Household Sch. #5, Mount Stephens: James Baker, head, mar, 45, sawyer, born Wellington, Somerset Mary Baker, wife, mar, 43, born Nynehead, Somerset William Baker, son, single, 22, sawyer, born Nynehead, Somerset George Baker, son, unm, 18, ag labourer, born Nynehead, Somerset Elizabeth Baker, daughter, unm, 10, born Nynehead, Somerset Anna Baker, daughter, unm, 8, scholar, born Nynehead, Somerset Sarah Baker, daughter, unm, 6, scholar, born Nynehead, Somerset Louisa Baker, daughter, unm, 4, born Nynehead, Somerset James Baker, son, unm, 2, born Nynehead, Somerset Mary Jane Baker, daughter, unm, 3 months, born Nynehead, Somerset [S8] 1881 Census, England and Wales, Office of National Statistics, Kew, Surrey, England, (Salt Lake City, U.S.A.: Genealogical Society of Utah), Nynehead, Somerset, England, RG11/2362; ED 12, fol. 88, p. 1, FHL film #1341568, 3 Apr 1881. Household Sch. #2: James Baker, head, mar, 55, sawyer, born Wellington, Somerset Mary Baker, wife, mar, 52, sawyer's wife, born Nynehead, Somerset James Baker, son, unm, 12, born Nynehead, Somerset Mary Jane Baker, daughter, unm, 10, scholar, born Nynehead, Somerset [S132] Newspaper, Various, (Various), Bristol Mercury & Daily Post, Western Countries & South Wales Advertiser (Bristol, Eng.), 16 Nov 1878. The Bristol Mercury and Daily Post, Western Countries and South Wales Advertiser (Bristol, Bristol, England)16 Nov 1878, SatPage 11 Tuesday. Police Affray at Wellington. James Baker, 55, and William Baker, 29, both sawyers, took their trial for feloniously cutting and wounding Police constables James Mundy and Mark Ridley, with intent to murder or do them grievous bodily harm, at Nynehead, on Sept. 28th. Mr. Molesworth St. Aubyn and Mr. Valpy conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Poole defended the accused. Mr. St. Aubyn, in stating the facts, said the prisoners lived at Nynhead, near Wellington, and the policemen were officers of the Somerset County Constabulary, Ridley being stationedat Bradford and Mundy at Wellington. On Sept. 27th the prisoners had been at the White Horse inn, Bradford, kept by Mrs. Clode, and in the course of the evening some disturbance arose in the house. The younger prisoner behaved in a rioutous manner, assaulted someone, and was very violent. No policeman was about at the time. Ridley being on duty elsewhere, and not returning til eleven o'clock. By that time the elder prisoner had gone, but Ridley, on coming in at a quarter past eleven, heard the landlady of the house calling him. Ridley found the younger prisoner sitting on the doorstep of the tavern in a very excited state, and covered with blood. The policeman naturally asked young Baker, "Well, Bill, what have you been up to tonight?" The landlady gave William Baker into custody for rioutous conduct in the house, breaking glass, and attempting to do something violent to herself. After some difficulty the prisoner was taken toward Wellington, the nearest lock up, by Ridley, in a cart driven by the landlady's son. The night was very dark, and the prisoner was handcuffed, but Baker made his escape from the cart, and jumped out with the handcuffs on. The officer searched along the road for some little way, but could not find the man, and knowing where the prisoner lived, drove the trap to Wellington station house, in order to get further assistance. Ridley and Mundy returned to the house where the prisoners lived, in order to retake William Baker. It was about half past twelve when the escape was made and about an hour afterwards the officers went back to the Bakers house. Nobody besides the four men and the elder Baker's wife appeared on the scene on this occasion. The officers, while approaching, distinctly head the sound as of hammering steel or iron, and it would not take any great stretch of imagination to say what it was. Probably the people in the house, the old Bakers, were hammering off the handcuffs which young Baker had on. The officers found the cottage door shut, and did not make thes lightest attempt to go in then. Almost immediately the door was opened inside by the father, who then first appeared on the scene. Directly the door was opened the officers walked in and saw both prisoners and Mrs. Baker in the kitchen. The constables had some little conversation with old Baker, and called on him to deliver the son up, but he declined, and said to the younger prisoner "Let's kill the ------- policemen." They told old Baker that it was much better for the son to go quietly to the station than to make a row about it, because go he must, and they had plenty of assistance outside. Ridley added, "It is nothing very seriousBill; what did you escape for?" However, the father was determined that the son should not go. In answer to a question from the mother whether her son could not go in the morning, Ridley said "I don't mind; but if so, I shall stop here all night;" and Mundy expressed the same intention. Young Baker still refused to go quietly, and the old man went outside. On coming back James Baker said to the son, "It's all right Bill;" and the latter rejoined, "Shut the ------ door." The door being shut and locked by the father, the old man continued, "I'm ----------- if my son shall leave to night; lets kill the ------." Old Baker thereupon struck Mundy with his fist on the head several times, and then ensued one of the most terrible fights which he had ever heard of. Both the constables were most severely treated by these men, and knocked about the head with instruments other than sticks. Mundy, into whose case they would first inquire, sustained a severe wound on his head, and the prisoners used the most brutal violence. One of the officers was nearly choked, when the wife came in with a light - the constable then lying on a bag on the floor - pulled the elder prisoner off him. Eventually, after a fight of about half an hour, the two officers managed to make their escape. They were in a most wretched state, hardly able to walk, but struggled to the farm house of a Mr. Heale, close by. One man's helmet was completely battered to pieces. They went home, where attended by two medical men, had been under their care ever since, and the surgeons said that even now the officers were unfit for duty. Mrs. Ann Clode, described the scrimmage which took place in her house on the night of the arrest. In cross examination, witness admitted that the fire was a close range. In her absence the windows were smashed, and young Baker, who was bleeding very much from his hands, asked for something to bind them up, but she refused, and at witness's request her son turned young Baker out of the house. There was a pool of blood near the door step, where Baker sat outside. Witness gave him into custody because she was alarmed by what had happened, and by a conversation which she overheard between the Bakers. Mr. Poole apprehended that upon the witness's statement the arrest was unlawful. The Commissioner was not quite sure whether there was not some evidence to go to the jury as to the lawful arrest, but his present impression was thata it was insufficient to justify his arrest. P.C. Ridley, who was then called, said Mrs. Clode told him "I give this man in custody for breaking windows, rioutous conduct, putting James Cattle on the fire, and threatening to kill my son." She added that young Baker had been turned out twice, but had been kicking the door and swearing ever since, and that were in danger of their lives, and afraid to go to bed. Young Baker replied, "It wasn't my fault; let me stop till the morning, and I'll go in," ran into the skittle alley, and gave him a blow in the breast. Witness with the assistance of Mr. Clode and his two sons, handcuffed the younger prisoner and took him towards Wellington, with James Clode. Witness went on to describe the escape of young Baker and the afray at the cottage, as related by Mr. St. Aubyn. When William Baker began kicking, witness seized him by the collar, and Baker did the same to him, but Mrs. Baker came between them, and begged her son, "Do sit down, Bill, and be quiet." The young man "followed on striking" witness, who pulled out his staff, and struck prisoner across the arm. Mrs. Baker tried to seize the staff, but he advised her to stand back; and as young Baker continued hitting him, witness retaliated with several blows on his arm and head, the light having gone out in the meanwhile. Young Baker tried to throw him down, and witness noticed that James Baker had Mundy down on a sack of potatoes on the ground and had nearly strangled him, but Mrs. Baker interposed and released Mundy, saying to her husband "You are killing him." Mundy stood up in a very weak state, and the old man took up the officer's lamp from the floor and threw it at witness's head, saying "There you ----, take that" The old man again collared Mundy and bit his hand, and Mundy having run away, James Baker struck witness several blows on his head, saying "Now you ----------, you shall have it." When a light came in again he saw that William had a large sweeping brush in his hand, both the Bakers holding witness's staff. They struggled out into the garden, where Jennings recognised witness. He and Mundy walked away together, but witness fainted at the stile. Witness's head was covered with bruises, and he produced his battered and bloodstained helmet and clothes. Remainedi n bed some time, and was still unfit for duty. There was no pretence for saying he was the worse for liquor that night. Never saw nor used any hammer on that occasion. Cross examined by Mr. Poole - I did not see Mundy strike old Baker on the head with a hammer, inflicting a wound which laid bare the bone. Did not hear the little boy aged 12 [James?] cry "Don't kill father." Put Baker into the cart by lifting him over the tailboard. Chucked him over like a sheep? - No, he lay down; we were obliged to put him in, he was so violent. Did you say as you left the house "At all events we have left one of them dead or nearly dead? - I never said such a word. Witness further said the young man was lying quietly on the floor when they entered, but not pale and weak from loss of blood; on the contrary, he was very strong and violent in the cottage. Did old Baker ask what right you had to break into his house at that time of night, or go there without a warrant? - No, he didn't mention a warrant. He caught hold of Mundy and said, "What the ------------ are you doing here?" By the Commissioner - I was struck 15 or 20 times before I got out my staff or returned the blows. Did you leave both men lying on the floor? - No, I have heard that the Bakers were ill afterwards, and they brought a charge against me and Ridley for ill-treating them, but it was dismissed. Mr. James Blackmore Heale, farmer, of Nynehead, stated that just after three o'clock on the same morning Ridley and Mundy came to his house, and in consequence of their complaints he let them sit down inside, and gave them some brandy and water. Their faces and hands were covered with blood and bruises. Mundy had a bad cut at the back of his head, and blood was flowing from it. After an adjournment for lunch, Mr. Poole inquired whether it was possible for the case to go on. The Commissioner said he could not stop the case. There was considerable evidence to go to the jury, and even on the assumption that it was not a lawful arrest, a man was not justified in shutting the door and saying "We'll kill the ------." Mr. Poole - He is entitled to expel intruders. The Commissioner - But not to make a violet and murderous attack on a man, and surely there is evidence of that. Mr. Poole - The arrest was perfectly unjustifiable. No felony had been committed, and no such charge was made. The Commissioner - Yes, buyt my difficulty is about Cattle giving the man in charge for putting him on the fire. Mr. Poole - Pushing him on a hot grate would not be a felony. Even if there had been a charge of felony, it was the officer's duty to make inquiries, which he did not make. Mr. St. Aubyn - There is threatening the man's life. The Commissioner - That amounts to nothing. Mr. St. Aubyn said he would at once abandon, the counts charging violence with intent to resist apprehension. P.C. James Mundy confirmed Ridley's statement at some length, and said that though he put the hammer in his pocket at Baker's house, he never struck anybody with it. Mr. Poole - Did James Baker struggle with you to prevent you using it? - He tried to take it from me. Did the little boy cry, "You are killing grandfather with the hammer?" - I didn't see him then. What did you split that man's head with, and lay it bare to the bone? - The handcuffs, or staff, I believe. I knocked him with them. Dr. George Mackay, living at Wellington, said that early on the morning in question he was called to see the constables. Mundy had his head, face, hands, and coat covered in blood from a wound in the back of his head, which was still bleeding a little. There was a bruise on Mundy's right temple. His throat was discoloured red and black, and he had severe bruises on his hands, arms, and legs. The man was very faint and had evidently lost a considerable quantity of blood. The wound on the back of Mundy's head and the bruises on the temple might have been caused by a stick. His throat looked as if it had been grasped by a hand. The bruises on the arms and legs could have been caused by a fist or stick. Mundy had been under sitness's care since. Ridley was severely bruised across the nose, head, and neck, and his eyes and temples were swollen. The fists or a stick would have caused such injuries - those on the temples must have been caused by a stick. Mr. Wm. Liddon, M.R.C.S., surgeon at Taunton gaol, said he found on the left side of Jas. Baker's head a contused wound, an inch long, above the ear. On the opposite side was a dangerous wound exposing the bone - it was still exposed - and the prisoner still suffered from it occasionally. Witness made him keep his bed nearly three weeks, and considered him in a critical state. A hammer would have caused such a wound. Prisoner had several other wounds. Young Baker had a number of wounds over his head, one of them being two inches long, but the scars had healed now, and though anxious about him for a time, witness now considered him out of danger. A blow from a handcuff might have caused the wound on old Baker instead of a hammer. Mr. St. Aubyn, in reviewing the facts, complained that an attempt had been made to prejudice the case against two officers, of unimpeachable character, by subjecting them to a line of cross examination implying that they were guilty of gross perjury. The constables were not young men thirsting for a first conviction, and he argued that their conduct was that of well conducted officers, when they found themselves caught like rats in a trap, and set upon like demons. Mr. Poole, in addressing the jury for the defence, insisted that there was a prima facie case against the constables, and that the magistrates failed in their duty by not committing them. The learned counsel complained that, instead of calling all the witnesses who could throw light on the case, the prosecution had been picking and choosing. The police, who were the aggressors here, had been guilty of gross brutality, maltreating the men very severely and acting with gross indiscretion from the beginning to the end. His case was that the police, being out for the night, wanted to do a little bullying or exciting business; and they seldom saw a finer brute than Ridley, a man of great power, tall, muscular, and evidently trained to use his strength to the greatest advantage. The prisoners had a legal right to beat the police out of the house, though they did actually not do it. The Commissioner - First requesting them to leave. They had no right to attack them violently. Mr. Poole - Or to use improper weapons but they might use the necessary degree of violence in turning them out, and the only peg left to the prosecution is that the prisoners used unnecessary violence. Continuing his address, the learned counsel said the police illegally burst into the cottage and insisted on taking the young man away; but eventually they abandoned that intention because they had gone too far, and thought they had murdered him. The constables themselves said that up to the very end they tried to apprehend the prisoners, and he read from Archbold to show that they were justified in resisting quite as long. He argued that there had been a failure of justice, that the case bore marks of fraud from beginning to end, and that the police had concocted a lame story to excuse their outrage. Mr. Poole called evidence as to character. Mr. Thomas Tyler, farmer, of West Buckland, Mr. John Burch and Mr. Thomas Randell, both farmers of Bradford, spoke of the elder prisoner as a quiet and humane man. The Commissioner, in summing up, said the police as well as the prisoners were entitled to sympathy in this case. The jury were to say who were responsible for the fray. Did it arise from an honest attempt to prevent unlawful apprehensions or were the circumstances such as to satisfy them that in addition there was any intent to inflict the grievous bodily harm which beyong all doubt was inflicted? The jury, after deliberating for a quarter of an hour, found the prisoners guilty of unlawfully wounding, a verdict of "Not guilty" being formally taken on the remaining counts. Mr. Poole - Does not that amount to a verdict of acquittal? The Commissioner - I think not. Mr. Poole - They were resiting apprehension. The Commissioner - But they resisted it with an amount of violence that was quite unnecessary. That is what the jury find, I take it. The Foreman - Yes Mr. Poole - But without intent to do any bodily harm? The Commissioner - The jury negatived that, but I have some little doubt about it myself. What the jury in effect find is this - that these men recklessly and wilfully resisted with greater violence than was necessary to prevent apprehension, thereby causing wounds? The Foreman - Yes. Mr. Poole - Then it amounts to an acquittal. We have it in evidence that the attempt at apprehension continued until all violence was over, until the very end of the matter. They had a right to resist, and the police continued the attempted apprehension until the resistance came to an end. The Commissioner - I confess that I have some doubt about it. I will consider tonight wehther I shall reserve a point upon it. My i mpression is that although the jury find there was an intent to resist unlawful apprehension, they may well find that there was undue violence and unlawfully wounding. I will consider the point whether a man who resists an unlawful attempt to apprehend him can be convicted on the indictment. Mr. Poole - It is much more than an attempt to prevent unlawful apprehension. In the middle of the night persons enter a house where they have no right to be. The Commissioner - But is that any reason why you are to half kill them? There may be a legal doubt whether, on the indictment, the jury being o opinion that he had a right to resist the attempted apprehension, he can be found guilty of unlawfully wounding by using excessive violence and inflicting wounds. That point I will reserve. Mr. St. Aubyn said he considered the verdict a strictly proper one. Mr. Poole, in answer to the Commissioner, said he would be prepared with bail, but the prisoners had received great provocation and punishment themselves, and were not likely to abscond. The Commissioner promised to give his decision on Wednesday. WEDNESDAY. THE POLICE AFFRAY AT NYNEHEAD. James and William Baker, who were found guilty last night of unlawfully wounding P.C. Ridley and P.C. Mundy in the execution of their duty at Nynehead, were this morning brought up to receive sentence. The learned Commissioner, in passing sentence, said the jury had in his judgment taken a very lenient view of their case in finding them guilty of unlawfully wounding instead of guilty of doing greivous bodily harm, being of opinion that they used violence in exess of what was necessary to prevent the lawful apprehension of the younger prisoner. At the moment he (the learned Commissioner) entertained some doubt whether upon this indictment, and having regard to the facts, the verdict could be sustained. He did not entertain any doubt as to the moral propriety of the verdict, but he did entertain some doubt whether the verdict could be legally sustained. If he had remained in doubt he would have felt it his duty to put that doubt in train for further argument between he passed any punishment, but he was now watisfied there was nothing in that doubt. He sentenced them to three calendar months' each hard labour. Saturday issue, p. 11. Retrieved from: https://www.newspapers.com/image/385084276/?terms=%22william%2Bbaker%22%2Bbradford%2Bsomerset A slightly different version of events is given in The Bristol Mercury and Daily Post, Western Countries and South Wales Advertiser (Bristol, Bristol, England)30 Oct 1878, WedPage 7, of which I have saved the article. [S136] Parish Register, Various, (Various), Transcript, Bishops Hull, Somersetshire, England, 29 Jun 1821. Field VALUE County Somerset Place Wellington Church name St John Register type Unspecified Register entry number 294 Marriage date 29 Jun 1821 Groom forename William Groom surname BAKER Groom abode sojourner Bride forename Mary Bride surname ALLEN Witness1 forename John Witness1 surname BAKER Witness2 forename John Witness2 surname LUCAS Found online at: http://freereg2.freereg.org.uk