I can see one definite and one possible.
This may be him in 1889.
The Evening Gazette, 2-7-1889 (Aberdeen Police Court - before Bailie Mearns):
OBSCENE LANGUAGE. - William Park (29) pleaded
guilty to having used obscene and profane language
in Stronach's Court yesterday. Fined 15s, with the
alternative of seven days' imprisonment.
This is him in 1892, with the related trial of John Innes.
Fraserburgh Herald and Northern Counties' Advertiser, 16-8-1892:
FRASERBURGH POLICE COURT.
FRIDAY.
(Before BAILIE DICKSON.)
SETTING UP OPPOSITION - William Park (29),
tramp, or labourer, with no fixed place of
abode, pleaded guilty to a charge of breach
of peace and malicious mischief. Evidence was
led from which it appeared that Park, while in a
state of intoxication interfered with some street
preachers, and that he had been shouting and
conducting himself in such a manner as to
create a breach of the peace; further, that
when apprehended he had become quite obstre-
perous and sought to prove himself better than
the policeman physically. This he did, it was
said, by the assistance of others, but he was
re-apprehended next morning. Accused was found
guilty and sentenced to 15 days' imprisonment.
Fraserburgh Herald and Northern Counties' Advertiser, 23-8-1892:
OBSTRUCTING THE POLICE. - John Innes (35),
fishcurer, Cross Street, was charged with obstruct-
ing and molesting Constable Andrew Gordon,
while engaged in the execution of his duty in con-
veying to the Police Office, Fraserburgh, William
Park, whom he had taken on a charge of breach of
the peace, and by seizing hold of the Constable did
thereby enable the prisoner to make his escape. Innes
admitted interfering with the police, but declared
that the constable was abusing the man, and there-
fore he considered it his duty to interfere. He
would plead not guilty because he wanted to hear
the evidence. Evidence was led. Constable
Gordon corroborated the statements in the com-
plaint. In answer to Innes he denied that he
"punched the man with his fists." Charles Steven-
son, clerk, said he saw Innes take hold of the
policeman's arm. He also saw the constable strike
Park. For the defence, Peter Cheyne was
allowed to detail what he saw. The man, he said,
got a knock on the left side of the breast that might
have broken the collar bone. Innes said it was
more than flesh and blood could stand to see a man
so abused, and thereupon took hold of the police-
man. In answer to the Fiscal, he said, that Park
was being dragged to the police office; he supposed be-
cause he refused to walk. William Clark,
labourer, said he thought Innes was quite justified
in interfering when the policeman was bad using
the man. He also said in answer to the
Fiscal that Park was resisting the police.
This was all the evidence. The Fiscal
said it was not for him to define what was Mr
Innes' object. It might have been with the best of
intention; but there was no doubt that legally it
was wrong. The witness Clark propounded a most
mistaken idea when he said he considered it the
duty of anybody to have interfered. In this
country it was the duty of everybody to assist the
policeman when necessary. It was quite evident, he
said, that Park had been resisting the police. He
thought Mr Innes, instead of interfering with the
police, would have done a public duty, had he
assisted him, and then afterwards, had he any
charge to make of the policeman having exceeded
his duty, to have lodged the same at the office when
it would have been properly investigated. The
Bailie, after a few remarks, passed sentence of 20s
or ten days' imprisonment.
