This case, which was tried at the Criminal Sessions of the Bombay High Court in 1874, and the circumstances which led to it, created a great sensation in Bombay, and intense agitation among the Parsis. The number of persons committed to the Sessions for trial was 50, 48 Parsis and 2 Hindus. The case came on before Mr. Justice Green and a special jury, consisting mainly of Englishmen with one Parsi.  Ferguson and Inverarity appeared for the Crown.  Anstey, Pherozeshah Mehta, Starling, Mayhew, Jackson, Branson, and Leith appeared for the different accused.

    The prosecution case was that the accused had assembled on 4th April 1873, to commit mischief and destroy property with the common object of enforcing a supposed legal right by use of' criminal force. They were charged with being members of an unlawful assembly and of rioting.

    In opening the case, counsel for prosecution pointed out that it was immaterial to whom the land legally belonged.  The object of the law was to prevent a breach of peace. It becomes a criminal trespass if one enters upon a land for asserting a supposed right to it, if his object is to interfere with, insult or annoy somebody else in possession of the land.

    The facts of the case briefly were that Cooverji Pragji and Jacob Jamal had purchased a plot of land adjoining the compound wall of the Parsi Towers of Silence on Malabar Hill.  Accused No.1 claimed the same land as a lessee from the trustees of the Parsi Panchayat, in whom the Towers and the land appertaining to it were vested. Cooverji and Jacob desired to build houses and lay out a road on the land they had purchased.  In March 1873, Cooverji and Jacob with one Duffy, whom they had engaged as their builder, went on the site to mark out boundaries and prepare for the erection of certain structures. They knew that accused No.1  was claiming the land as belonging to him. Apprehending trouble, they had applied to the Commissioner of Police for assistance; and a European constable and three or four sepoys were posted in the vicinity of the land. It seems that after marking the boundaries, building materials were brought to the land; and a chawl was hastily built up and a tent was also erected for Duffy in which certain furniture was put. Thereafter Cooverji applied for permission to carry out blasting operations on the land. It was alleged that when the police, went on the site for beating a Bataki, to inquire whether any person had any objection to the blasting operations, they saw accused No. I and asked him if he had any objection. He replied,  "if I have an objection, I will send it to the proper office; but these people have been damaging my trees and I will damage their chawl".  It seems that the police authorities were conscious that this land was a trouble spot; and they posted police sepoys on the roads leading to the Towers of Silence. It was also alleged that 61 persons, armed with sticks and bludgeons, had collected near Deputy Superintendent of Police Brown's residence, apparently with a view to overawe  the Parsi trouble-makers.  Brown on visiting the site saw a very large crowd of about 200 persons including Parsis, Mahommedans and Hindus, collected near the Towers of Silence, some of them armed with sticks and bamboos. Sensing trouble, Brown left a number of policemen under Inspector McDermott, and went to inform the Police Commissioner.  According to the prosecution, the mob made a rush on the chawl and the tent, which they demolished in a short time, causing damage to some property in the tent. When the police tried to check the rioters, they shouted, according to the prosecution, in a defiant mood,  "We shall destroy this structure. Let the Sarkar fine us. The Parsi Panchayat has enough money to pay."   The Commissioner of Police, Mr. Souter, soon arrived with reinforcements; and 30 persons were put under arrest. It was alleged that in the fracas some persons were assaulted and hurt.

    The police then tried to enter the compound of the Towers in order to apprehend some of the rioters who had escaped there. The police, in spite of the protests of the Parsis, entered the compound and a number of persons were arrested within the precincts of the Towers. In the course of the trial, Brown admitted in his cross-examination, that several of the 61 persons who had gathered near his residence, armed with sticks and bludgeons, were the men hired by Cooverji and Jacob. He further admitted that he was not aware of a government proclamation of 1792 against the forcible entry of persons, including the police, into sacred places and consecrated grounds. He further said that he did not know that the Parsis pray in the Suggree (fire-place) in the compound of the Towers after funerals. Under Anstey's merciless cross-examination, this police officer was driven to admit that the sticks alleged to have been used by the rioters were not produced at the police station on the day of the incident; and further that bamboos were growing all over Malabar Hill. One prosecution witness, alleged to have been assaulted and struck by one of the accused, said in cross-examination that he did no know who hit him.   He said that he had pointed out to one of the accused in the police court, owing to the "Zoolurn" (compulsion) of a police havaldar whom he pointed out. Souter, the Police Commissioner, himself admitted that some of the accused whom he had handcuffed were respectable men; but he had handcuffed them because he thought that they might try to escape from police custody. He further said that he had released the 61 persons armed with sticks who had gathered near Brown's residence, as he had reasons to believe that they had not committed any offence.   He further admitted that before the Bataki was beaten, the Secretary of the Parsi Panchayat had frequently seen him, in connection with allegations of trespass on the sacred land, by persons employed by Cooverji and Jacob. He had further to admit that the Secretary had reminded him of the correspondence exchanged in the past eight years, about this property. He also admitted that police assistance had frequently been sought by the Parsi Panchayat in connection with this ground. From the disclosures made in the evidence, it seemed that the police had behaved in a very highhanded, partisan and provocative manner.
 

    In the course of the trial, Anstey, as usual, constantly came into collision with the judge. The proceedings were interrupted with frequent  "breezes". At one stage, while Anstey was trying to establish a contradiction in a witness's evidence, the judge interrupted by saying that the evidence of the witness was substantially the same as he had given in the police court.  When Anstey objected to the interruption, the judge observed, "I shall interrupt in any way I think fit." Anstey retorted, "in that case, My Lord, the matter shall go further than this; that is all.  Justice shall be done to the prisoners; and conviction shall not be obtained if I can help it.  I repeat my objection to these interruptions. "Anstey, of course, had his nerves frayed as usual, and was in a most bellicose mood.  When the prosecution counsel raised an objection to a question put by Anstey, Anstey observed, "no doubt, every objection will be made that mediocrity can invent and complaisance will allow."  At a later stage, the judge addressing Anstey said, "if you insist on interrupting the proceedings, I shall have to fine you."   Anstey:  " If you fine me, I shall take the opinion of another court."

    In his address to the jury,  Anstey's plea was that if a trespasser builds upon the land of another person, that other has the right to pull down the structure.   Referring to the withdrawal of the prosecution against various persons in the High Court and in the police court, Anstey observed that altogether 32 accused had been discharged in the two courts, due to  "egregious and monstrous blunders" in identification.  The main point which he urged upon the jury was, that the police had acted in a most tactless, provoking and high-handed manner, and were themselves to blame for any disturbance that had taken place.  He made severe strictures on the conduct of the police officers, condemning the partisan behaviour of Brown, describing McDermott's conduct as "shamelessness which he could have only acquired since joining the police force".   He dubbed Brown as unscrupulous; and the Commissioner himself as  "a vain, weak, and imperious man." There were allegations that Souter himself had behaved in a very tactless and provocative manner, entering the precincts of the Towers On horseback, which led to considerable excitement among the Parsi crowd gathered there.  Anstey wound up with the peroration, "your verdict will either be quoted for evermore hereafter in Bombay, as a precedent for every kind of tyranny, usurpation and injustice on the part of the police, or it will be applauded and appealed to as a great constitutional precedent."
 

    The jury after taking time to consider their verdict brought in a unanimous verdict of not guilty against all the accused.

    In those days, it seems, the Bombay High Court followed the British practice of locking up the jury in a room, until they reached unanimity in their verdict.   There was a story that the Parsi juror, who was a big-built, burly man, refused to budge from his place, unless all the accused were acquitted; and ultimately tired out his co-jurors into agreeing to a unanimous verdict of not guilty as regards all the accused.

    Anstey's long, successful, stormy, and colourful career at the Bombay Bar ended with this memorable case. It was long remembered in Bombay as one of the most striking and spectacular of his forensic triumphs, due mainly to his fearless and tenacious advocacy of the cause of his clients. He died shortly after, leaving a name which was commemorated in a grateful song, sung by Parsis at weddings and other auspicious occasions, for years after his death.