The quiet of our peaceful parish has for a long period been frequently disturbed by the wild vagaries of Danzey Summerville Cresswell, pseudo "doctor," but it is to be hoped that a wholesome check has been put upon his movements by the decision of the magistrates assembled in petty sessions last Monday, whereby "Dr." Cresswell was mulcted in the penalty of £5 and costs. The circumstances from which the magisterial proceedings arose have long been the subject of our village gossips, but readers of this paper elsewhere may like to know something of the doings of this modern example of ruffianism. It seems from the evidence given on Monday that some time in January last a man named Castle was at work with a horse and cart upon the road just outside Elham, when Cresswell approached riding a horse at his usual rapid pace, and called out to have the road cleared for him. Now as it happened that a waggon, and several gentlemen on horseback had just previously passed the spot where the horse and cart were still standing, Castle did not immediately obey the order, which it is said was given in language not fit for ears polite, whereupon Cresswell without further ado commenced to belabour the head and shoulders of the disobedient curter with blows from the butt end of a heavy hunting whip. A scuffle ensued; the doctor got unhorsed, and commenced " squaring " up for an engagement. Castle, however, quickly felled his antagonist to the ground, and when opportunity offered repeated the performance. The doctor thus got the worst of the encounter, his eyes were blackened, his lips cut and bruised, and the "bridge" of his nose broken. Next morning Mr. Cresswell invoked the majesty of the law, and obtained a summons against Castle for an assault. The simple carter, too, objecting, it is to be presumed, to the Legree style of castigation practised upon him, like-wise obtained a citation to appear against the " doctor," and when the cross-summonses came on for hearing, Mr. Cresswell, by virtue of his having placed himself in the position of the original complainant, had his " say " first. Nothing doubting, Mr. Cresswell stated (upon oath, of course) his version of the affray, but happily for Castle, whose tongue the law now kept silent, he had "free and independ.ent " witnesses to bring forward whose testimony clearly convinced the bench of Magistrates which of the parties was the actual aggressor, and without waiting to hear the evidence in detail they at once dismissed the case. The tables had now turned; the man of the horse and cart was complainant and the soi disant professor of the healing art, defendant. Castle (not only by his own testimony but by the evidence of others who evidently spoke without favour or affection for either party) clearly demonstrated to the bench that a brutal assault had been committed upon him, and the magistrates—most righteously we think—ordered the "doctor" to pay a penalty of £5 and costs. It is said that at first the administrators of justice were inclined to commit the defendant to prison without the option of paying a fine. Who would have regretted it but himself?— From a Correspondent. Whitstable Times 11th March 1871