Description
British South Africa Company Medal, reverse Rhodesia 1896, bar Mashonaland 1897, Queen’s South Africa, 5 bars, Cape Colony, Orange Free State, Transvaal, SA 1901, SA 1902, 4119 Private Alfred Griffiths, 7th Queen’s Own Hussars.
BSA Co officially engraved: “4119 Pte A. Griffiths 7th Huss”
QSA officially impressed: “4119 Pte A. Griffiths. 7th Hussars”
Both confirmed on the medal rolls.
Scarce pair in good condition, on attractive silver pronged ribbon buckles.
With post card photograph of a 7th Hussars man in uniform. a note with the medals states the photograph was present when bought some years ago, but the post card itself is not annotated.
The award of the BSA Company medal to the British Army is rare, the 7th Hussars received just 228 medals for their service in Rhodesia 1896, being the only cavalry unit present (apart from maybe 2 attached Officers from other units).
They would once again be the only British Cavalry in the 1897 Mashonaland campaign earning 201 clasps, only about 231 clasps are recorded as issued to the British Army in British Battles & Medals.
Alfred Griffiths was born during 1875 in Whitechapel, London, Middlesex.
He attested for service aged 19 on 9th March 1894 joining the 7th Hussars, having worked as a Costermonger.
His papers record that he was also known by the alias “Andrew Baker”.
He saw the following service over his 12 year career.
Home, 9th March 1894 – 12th September 1894
India, 13th September 1894 – 22nd October 1895
Natal, 23rd October 1895 – 29th November 1898
Home, 30th November 1898 – 29th November 1901
South Africa, 30th November 1901 – 11th July 1902
Home, 12th July 1902 – 7th September 1902
Army Reserve, 8th September 1902 – 8th March 1906.
His papers note the following medals earned: “Rhodesia Medal 1896 with clasp Mashonaland 1897. Queens SA medal with clasp Cape Colony O.F. State, Transvaal, SA 1901, SA 1902”.
Notably during 1899, Private Griffiths was brought up in court on an assault charge, one of 6 Privates of the 7th Hussars who were charged, alongside the main defendants, their Commanding Officer Captain Sir Keith Alexander Fraser, Baronet, and Corporal William Nash for assaulting Charles Robert Day, County Court Bailiff in the execution of his duty.
The whole story was laid out in the local papers, Griffiths was one of the Regimental Guard who were brought in to “turn out” the bailiffs on order of Sir Fraser, “collared” Mr Day, the Bailiff and “struck a most violent blow in the mouth” when a “scrimmage ensued, stickers were used pretty freely and Day received another violent blow in the stomach.”, another article pointed out that during the case:
“Harry Swain, Under Bailiff at Colchester gave corroborative evidence and said that he was with the previous witness when he went to the Abbey Field, he identified GRIFITTHS as one of those who handled him roughly. He received one wound on the left hand, which was cut, During the struggle he was ‘pumped’ once, he heard Capt Fraser tell the soldiers to throw witness and Mr Day out.”
HUSSAR OFFICER AND THE BAILIFF
LIVELY SCENES AT COLCHESTER.
POLICE-COURT PROCEEDINGS.
CASE DISMISSED.
At Colchester Police-court yesterday Sir Keith Alexander Fraser, Bart., a captain in the 7th Hussars, and William Nash, a corporal in the same regiment, were charged with assaulting Charles Robert Day, County Court bailiff, whilst in the execution of his duty, and further with assaulting Henry Swain, described as a clerk.
A number of privates in the 7th Hussars—Charles Arthur Jenkins, John Regan, ALFRED GRIFFITHS, Thomas White, Frank Carnochan, and James Keneally—were also charged with assaulting Day and Swain. Mr. H. W. Jones was for the prosecution, and Mr. Asher Prior, who appeared on behalf of all the defendants, pleaded not guilty.
The case created great public interest, the court being crowded, and Prince Alexander of Teck, an officer in the regiment, occupied a seat on the Bench.
Mr. Jones, in narrating the facts of the case, said the principal defendant in the case was Captain Sir Keith Fraser, an officer in the 7th Hussars, now stationed under canvas at the Abbey Field, Colchester, and the other defendants belonged to the same regiment, and formed the regimental guard on the day of the assault.
It appeared that about a month ago, Mr. Day, the County Court Bailiff, had occasion to go to Sir Keith Fraser’s quarters for the purpose of levying an execution, and in due course entered, and took possession. When he had been in possession for some hours, a number of Sir Keith Fraser’s brother officers managed to get Day out of the quarters by means of some strategy or service, with the result that Day lost the possession fees to which he was entitled.
He mentioned this fact to show that Sir Keith Fraser knew Day, and was aware of his official duties.
Coming to the afternoon of Friday, June 30th, Mr. Jones said it seemed that another execution had been lodged with Day against Sir Keith Fraser’s effects for £16 6s. 6d., the amount of the debt, and 10s. for costs of seizing. Day attended with his under bailiff Swain about four o’clock, at Sir Keith Fraser’s quarters, for the purpose of carrying out the warrant, and formally and legally entered into possession.
After waiting about one and three-quarter hours Sir Keith Fraser returned, and on seeing the bailiffs in his quarters shouted out to his servant, “Who are those men in my tent?” The servant replied, “Two bailiffs.” Sir Keith Fraser then said, in a loud tone, “Turn them out; I won’t have them there.”
With that, Sir Keith Fraser entered the room, and addressing Day in a rather dictatorial manner, asked, “What do you want?” Day replied that he was a bailiff, and produced his warrant, a copy of which he handed to Sir Keith Fraser. In the usual way Day asked for the amount due, and Sir Keith Fraser replied, “You won’t get it.”
Walking away, he returned with two brother officers, and addressing Day, said, “You have no business whatever here,” and the other officers thereupon advised Sir Keith Fraser to turn the bailiffs out.
Captain Fraser asked Day, “What have you in your pockets?” and Day replied that it was nothing to do with him. Sir Keith Fraser then said, “You will have to go out,” but Day explained that it was more than his place was worth, and that he was there to carry out his duty.
Sir Keith Fraser next called the Provost Corporal, who said to the bailiffs, “You had better go out,” and Day again explained that he dared not leave, and cautioned the corporal not to interfere with him.
The corporal threatened to get someone to turn them out, and Sir Keith Fraser said, “Go and get someone at once.” The corporal returned with five men of the guard, and Sir Keith Fraser said, “Go on! Out with these men. I won’t have them here.”
Three of the men then “collared” Day, and he was struck a most violent blow in the mouth, which had necessitated his going to a medical man, and he had been unable to attend to his duties since. A scrimmage ensued, sticks were used pretty freely, and Day received another violent blow, this time in the stomach.
Swain was also injured, his hand being lacerated, and altogether both men were brutally handled.
If public officers were not to be protected in the execution of their duty, and were to be assaulted in this way by officers holding her Majesty’s commission, he did not know what would become of the civil tribunals of the country; and although he did not press the charges as far as the privates were concerned, the Bench, in the interests of justice, should mark their sense of disapproval of Sir Keith Fraser’s conduct in no uncertain way.
The prosecutor in the course of his evidence corroborated in detail the opening statement of Mr. Jones. He admitted that he had taken Captain Fraser’s gold watch; that he had been ordered out, and Captain Fraser returned with a corporal and several other men.
The captain ordered him out, but witness refused to go. Thereupon the defendant forcibly ejected him. He received two blows in the mouth, and was generally maltreated. Captain Fraser urged the men on to assault him. The corporal also hit him in the stomach with a stick, and the following day he was very indisposed, so much so that he was unfit for duty.
He formally arrested them, though he did not touch them. The captain said when the police arrived, “I shall give that man in charge for stealing my watch.”
At the police-station Sir Keith Fraser paid the amount of the execution, and witness at once handed over the watch with a receipt for the amount. Witness was obliged, as the result of his injuries, to consult a doctor, and he was still incapable of doing his duty.
Cross-examined—During the last few months several processes had been served against the defendant for various amounts. On one occasion the bailiff was in possession for four hours, and in the end, when Captain Fraser returned, the amount was settled.
The captain’s quarters were very nicely furnished. When he went in, he (witness) sat down in a large wicker chair and smoked his pipe for a few minutes. He asked the captain’s servant to call his master and tell him that he wanted some money, and was not going until he got it.
The servant went to the polo field to see the captain, who, when asked if he would see the bailiff, said that he would not leave polo for anybody.
He denied saying that he laid his hands on Sir Keith’s watch and chain, saying, “I’ll take this, and if I get nothing more this will cover it.” Sergeant Brennan had said that as soon as the captain returned witness would get his money, for the captain had plenty of money, and it was only his foolishness that he didn’t pay.
He did not say to the defendant, “You did the old man out of his money: you won’t do me.” Captain Fraser only touched him on the shoulder, not hurting him, but he led the “attack” upon him, and urged the men to eject him.
Captain Fraser showed no bad temper, and he (witness) thought that the defendant treated the whole thing as a joke, and appeared to enjoy it very much. The captain certainly did not lose his temper, but seemed much amused with the episode.
He resisted the attempt to evict him, but he denied striking the corporal of the guard, though he offered as much resistance as he could do.
Ultimately the Bench dismissed the case against Sir Keith Alexander Fraser and the other defendants, a decision which was received with much enthusiasm in Court. On leaving the Town Hall the defendants were loudly cheered by the crowd who had gathered outside.”
