Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Chard and Ilminster News and Somerset, Dorset, and Devon Advertiser. Saturday 03 Jun 1905
Page 3 Column 3-6
ILMINSTER PETTY SESSIONS.
WEDNESDAY. - Before Col. V. U. LANGWORTHY (in the chair), Col. M. L. BLAKE, Messrs J. LEAN and Jno. TAYLOR.
CLUB FESTIVALS AND THE SMALL POX SCARE. - Mrs. FORSEY, of the Bell Inn, Winsham, applied for an occasional license at the annual festival of the Winsham Club, on the 24th June, and it was granted. - Mr. J. WELFARE, of Broadway, applied for a similar license for the Ashill Club, which was also granted. - Mr. TAYLOR said he thought some precaution should be taken by the club officials to prevent the possible spread of small-pox by visitors from the infected area of Langport. - The Chairman said the danger would come from the travelling shows. - Col. BLAKE suggested that the officials be asked to postpone the event for a time. - The Supt. of police said only a few local show people attended the fairs.
GAME TRESPASS. - William TOWNSEND, round-about proprietor, did not appear to answer a summons charging him with trespassing in search of game on May 10th, at Ilminster. - The Supt. Of Police said he had received a letter from the defendant stating he had been taken ill. - Mr. C. F. SAUNDERS, of Crewkearne <sic>, who prosecuted, stated no medical certificate had been received from TOWNSEND, and in view of that he asked the Bench to proceed with the case, and it was decided to do so. - Mr. SAUNDERS then outlined the case, and stated that defendant described himself as an “amusement proprietor,” and one of his amusements was to go about after hares, with two lurcher dogs which he took with him. - Fred. ISAACS, labourer, working for Mr. Obed HOSEGOOD, said on the day in question he was in a field at the top of Whitelackington Hill, when he saw TOWNSEND coming along with his vans. He stopped and called out to a boy, “There's a hare coming, “ and the boy sent two lurcher dogs after the hare shouting, “Go for him, go for him,” and the hare was caught and killed. The boy went after the hare, but could not take it away from the dogs. The dogs, however, followed the boy back to the vans, and TOWNSEND took the hare away, put it in his van, and drove off. - P. S. EDWARDS stated that in company with ISAACS he went to Donyatt, and there the previous witness pointed TOWNSEND out to him as the man who had the hare. - The Bench fined the defendant £1 and costs. - Henry TRASK and John HOOPER, dealers of Merriott, were charged with a game trespass at Kingstone on the 30th May. - Mr. C. F. SAUNDERS prosecuted on behalf of Lord POULETT. - Charles Reginald SMITH, a lad in the employ of Mr. J. D. RUTTER, said on the 30th inst. he was in a field hauling mangolds, when he saw the defendants driving along the road in a trap. They had two lurcher dogs with them. He noticed that the dogs were jumping about and searching the field, but they found nothing. Later on, the defendants returned, and the dogs searched the other side of the field. One of the dogs put up a hare, and the other caught it. Witness ran over to the dogs, and took the hare away. He said to the defendants “Look what your dogs have done,” and the defendants said the dogs had not done it. Witness asked them their names, and they at once whipped up the horse and drove off. - Wm. MALE, gamekeeper to Earl POULETT, stated that the defendants came to him, and said they hoped(?) they would hear nothing about the affair, and shortly after the witness SMITH came to him and made the complaint. - Defendants stated that the did not know their dogs had been out on the road. They were innocent. - Fined £1 and costs.
NO LICENSE. - Samuel MARTIN, South Petherton, was summoned for keeping a dog without a license on the 29th January. - Mr. LOFTUS, Supervisor of Excise, Yeovil, prosecuted. - The defendant pleaded guilty to having no license on the 29th January, but said his cousin took out a license, although not in his name, on April 15th. - Mr. LOFTUS said if that was so it could be adjusted, but that would not alter the case, the license was taken out on the 15th of April, when it should have been taken out in January. - Defendant stated that as soon as he saw the error in the license he went to the Sergeant of the Police. - The Bench fined MARTIN 5/-. - Jas. POOLE, of Seavington, was summoned for a similar offence, and also for keeping a carriage without a license. - He pleaded guilty to both counts, and Mr. LOFTUS stating that it was simply a case of non-renewal, a fine of 5/- in each case was inflicted. - Joseph PITTS, South Petherton, pleaded not guilty to keeping a dog without a license. - Mr. BAUCHOPE, Excise officer, who proved the case, stated that he saw the dog on the defendant's premises, and when he asked the defendant who the dog belonged to, he said “It's all in the family.” That had been the answer on several occasions. A license was subsequently taken out in his son's name. - Col. BLAKE said the law made it very clear that licenses must be taken out in January. - Mr. LOFTUS asked for something towards the expenses, and PITTS was fined 5/- and 2/6 costs.
A DOUBLE OFFENCE. - Arthur MARKS, labourer, South Petherton, pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly at South Petherton, on 29th April. - P. C. ROSE deposed to finding him drunk in Crown-lane, he was very disorderly. - Fined 5/-. MARKS also pleaded guilty to riding a bicycle without a light at Shepton Beauchamp on the 30th May. P.C. LITTLE said when he asked the defendant where his lamp was, he said he did not know but he supposed he had not got one. He told the constable that he hoped he would(?) not say anything about it as he already had one summons against him, and they might as well take all his money. - Fined 2/6/
MISCHIEVOUS LADS. - Frederick STUCKEY, and Charles STUCKEY, lads, of South Petherton, were charged with stealing a wooden rail, value 2/-, at Pitway, on the 2nd May. - Defendants did not appear, it being stated that the elder defendant had joined the militia, and was up for training at Honiton. - Walter FOOTE, son of P.S. FOOTE, stated that about 6 o'clock on the 2nd May he was at Pitway when he saw the defendants take a bar from an orchard gate belonging to Mr. HEBDITCH, and break it in half, the younger defendant carrying it home. Witness told his father what he had seen. - P.S. FOOTE stated that he saw the defendants at their home when they admitted they had taken the rail, and broken it up to boil the kettle with for tea. Fragments of the wood produced were near the fire. - Mr. J. HEBDITCH stated that he valued the damage at 2/-. He was the victim of a good deal of trespass at that point, and wished to put a stop to it. - The elder defendant, Fred, was fined 5/-, and the other 2/6.
DRUNK and DISORDERLY. - George FORWARD, labourer, of Ashill, did not appear to answer a summons charging him with being drunk and incapable at Ashill on the 7th May. - P.S. EDWARDS stated that when he was on duty at Ashill he saw the defendant who was drunk and utterly incapable. He had to assist him to his home at Kenny Bridges. - There was a previous charge of assault, and he was fined 5/-/
DRUNK IN CHARGE. - Fred BRYANT, baker, Kingstone, was summoned for being drunk in charge of a horse and trap at Ilminster on the 20th May. - P.S. EDWARDS stated that he was coming out of the Police station when he saw the defendant driving up East Street. In consequence of his position, and his continual flogging of the horse he concluded he was drunk, and told him he did not consider he was in a fit state to drive. Defendant, on his advice, handed the reins to another man who was with him. Later on the trap passed him in Silver Street, and BRYANT was driving. Witness followed him and found him leaning against Dr. MUNDEN's house, drunk. He endeavoured to persuade him to go home, but he would not. Later on Superintenadent <sic> JENNINGS came along, and persuaded BRYANT to go home. - The Bench fined BRYANT 10/- and costs.
AN ILLEGAL PROCEEDING. - Arthur READ, baker in the employ of the last defendant, was summoned for procuring intoxicating liquor for a drunken person on May 20th. - He pleaded not guilty. - Mr. Biles STONE, landlord of the White Horse Inn, stated that the 20th May the defendant came to his house and asked for some beer for Mr. BRYANT. Witness said he could not serve Mr. BRYANT in the state he was. READ asked him to serve him, which he did, on condition that he would not let Mr. BRYANT have any. After he served READ he left the room, and when he returned READ had gone outside to Mr. BRYANT with the drink. - P.S. EDWARDS stated he saw Mr. BRYANT in the trap outside the White Horse. He had a pint cup in his hand and there was froth in the cup and on his moustache. He had just finished the contents apparrently <sic>when he came up. He had no doubt that BRYANT had been drinking. - The defendant stated that he went out with the drink to Mr. BRYANT, but the latter did not drink any of it. - Superintendant <sic> JENNINGS stated that that was the first case they had had under the new Licensing Act, and it was such offences which made it an impossible matter for a landlord to conduct his house properly. Mr. STONE had endeavoured to do his best. The Bench agreed with this view, and said the White Horse was a very well conducted house. READ would be fined 5/- and costs.
NO LIGHT. - Archie RAISON, labourer, South Petherton, pleaded not guilty to riding a bicycle without a light at Shepton Beauchamp on the 17th May. - P.C. LITTLE said he saw the defendant for some distance and he had no light. - Defendant said his front wheel jumped a stone and jerked his light out. - RAISON was fined 1/6/
CRUELTY TO A HORSE. - Charles MEAD, carter, Ilton, and Frank BECK, farm bailiff to Mr. L. WHITE, Stogumber, were summoned, the first with cruelly illtreating a hose, and the latter with causing a horse to be worked whilst in an unfit state on the 8th May. – Inspector J. W. TOMLINSON R.S.P.C.A. prosecuted, and Mr. C. F. SAUNDERS defended. - P.C. ISAACS stated that he saw the defendant MEAD working a bay gelding in a field hauling dung. He noticed that it was very lame, and he asked him what was the matter with the animal, an MEAD replied “I don't know, poor old ---” He told him to take the animal out and he did so, but it still went very bad, and could hardly move about. When he saw the animal with the inspector and veterinary it was lying down, and as soon as they left it, it lay down again. He went to Mr. BECK and told him he considered the horse was not fit for work. BECK said the horse was as fit to do a day's work as he was. He had had veterinary advice, and was working it in accordance with that advice. - Inspector TOMLINSON stated that he saw the animal, and it appeared to be very lame. He subsequently saw Mr. BECK at Ilminster station and spoke to him about the horse. Mr. BECK said he had had veterinary advice about the horse, and he could work the horse on the land but not on the road. The Ilminster veterinary had treated it for a bad leg and cured it. - Mr. William TAYLOR, veterinary surgeon, Taunton, stated that he examined the animal in question on the 12th May. He found it to be very lame in both fore feet. There was an old standing ringbone, and it had a contracted foot. In the condition it was then, he considered it woulb <sic> be most decidedly crue <sic> to work it. The horse otherwise was in fair condition. Cross-examined by Mr. SAUNDERS, Mr. TAYLOR said he did not agree with the statement that there was more weight on a horse's fore feet than on the hinder ones. He did not agree that the lameness was due to what was called “mechanical lameness.” - Mr. C. E. TURVILL, veterinary surgeon, Ilminster, stated that he had that day examined the horse in question. In consequence of the assertion that the horse was in pain he applied what was known in the profession as the “cocaine test.” He injected a solution of cocaine in order to deaden the nerves of the bad leg, and then the horse trotted and walked about. The lameness did not disappear, and in his judgement the hose was not in pain. The horse was suffering from lymphangitis when he treated it first, and he cured it of that. There was a fully developed ringbone, and the lameness was due to what was called “mechanical lameness.” He could not say the horse was fit to work on the 8th May. There was no heat in the joint. - Mr. T. E. BAKER, Crewkerne, said he had examined the horse, and was of the opinion that it was suffering from “mechanical lameness”. It certainly had a ringbone, but it was not what he would call fully developed. There was no heat more than normal in the joint. He watched the horse standing on the hard road and in his opinion it was not in pain. The horse was fit to work in the 8th inst – The defendant BECK gave evidence and stated that in February last, the horse was treated for a bad leg, and it was cured. The veterinary told him that he could work the horse and he did it. He had never known the horse to flinch or show any sign of pain. He had not worked the horse since the 8th inst – The Bench decided to discharge MEAD, and fined BECK 10s and costs 32s.
DISORDERLY YOUNG MEN. - Frank VICKERS and Edwin BAKER, young men, of South Peterterton <sic> were summoned for disorderly behaviour at South Petherton on the 6th May. Only BAKER appeared, VICKERS, it being stated, having gone to Manchester. - P.S. FOOTE said he saw the defendants fighting outside the Congregational Chapel, South Petherton, but when they caught sight of him they stopped it. - BAKER said the other pitched into him, and he hit back in self defence. - VICKERS had been convicted for similar offences and he was fined 10s and BAKER was discharged.
AN UNPROVOKED ASSAULT. - Jas. CHISLETT, of Broadway, was summoned by William CHIDGEY, of the same place, for an assault. - Prosecutor stared that on the 19th May he was on his back premises putting up a shed for his cart, when the defendant came in and asked him what he was going to do about some wire-netting. Defendant wanted 25/- for it, but as prosecutor would not give it him, he caught him by the throat, tore his shirt and vest, and bruised his throat. Prosecutor finally pushed him off his premises. - Mr. CHIDGEY corroborated and said the defendant used most disgusting language towards him. - P.C. HACKWELL deposed to seeing the prosecutor's throat which distinctly bore the marks of violence. - Prosecutor produced the torn shirts in Court, and the Bench fined CHISLETT 13/- inclusive.
DOMESTIC INFELICITY. - James OATEN, labourer, residing at Shepton Beauchamp, was summoned by his wife for persistent cruelty; she also applied for a separation order. - Martha OATEN said her husband was a labourer. They were married about three years ago. There were two children of the marriage, aged 2 years and seven months respectively. They lived very happily whilst they were at Taunton, but when they went to East Lambrook, the applicant's native place, their troubles commenced. He systematically ill-treated her, and on one occasion turned her out of bed in the cold, thereby causing her to take a severe chill. He frequently locked her out of doors. She believed his wages to be about 15/- per week, and she applied for a separation order with the custody of the children, and 10/- a week for her and her children. She was now living with her parents. - Joseph WALDEN, father of Mrs. OATEN, stated that she had frequently complained to him about the treatment accorded her by her husband. On one occasion she came to his house, and told him that her husband had hit her in the mouth and side; her lip was marked. - The defendant stated that his father-in law had interfered with his bills. - Mr. WALDEN stated that he had not interfered with OATEN's bills. On one occasion with his consent he glanced through a ledger in which they kept the accounts of a shop they opened at East Lambrook. - P.S. FOOTE and Mrs. OATEN had complained to him, and he advised them to see if they could not make it up. - P.C. LITTLE said on one occasion he was called to OATEN's house. OATEN was looking out of the window. Witness asked him to come down. He came down and unlocked the door, but would not let his wife come out. He expostulated with him and advised him to be of good behaviour. His wife and children were crying. - OATEN went into the witness box and stated that the row was all through his mother-in-law. They lived very happy until his wife's parents interfered with his business at Lambrook. His wife annoyed him very much at times, and when he struck her it was because she had her mother in his house after he had warned her to keep away. He was quite willing to go back to his wife, and give her a good home and comfort, if the rest would let them stay. - The Bench endeavoured to persuade the parties to come to an amicable arrangement, but seemingly to no purpose, and the case was adjourned for a month to see if the parties could agree.
AN UNPROFITABLE LODGER. - Geo. PARKER, of no occupation or fixed abode, was brought up in custody charged with obtaintng <sic> food and lodging to the value of 4/- by false pretences from Mrs. Anne CORNELIUS, between the 27th and 28th of May. - Mrs. CORNELIUS, Old Road, Ilminster, said on the evening of the 27th inst., a young man came to her house for lodgings, and she engaged him. He asked her if she could do with another, and he subsequently brought the prisoner to her. They agreed that they should pay 9d each for their bed. She told them her rule was that they should pay up before retiring. The prisoner, however, stated that he had no money, and would not get his wages until Sunday night, at 6 o'clock. In consequence of this she did not press for her money. The following day, the prisoner asked her what she would board them for, and he decided to pay her 2/- a day. On Sunday evening the prisoner went out, and she did not see him again. She made inquiries, but could find no trace of him. She had no doubt that prisoner was the man: she would recognise him amongst a thousand. - Henry WATTS, Electrician, employed by Cole Brothers, switchback proprietors, sated that he took the prisoner to Mrs. CORNELIUS house, where he stopped the night. The following morning he prisoner was 4d short of the price of the night's lodge, and that he paid for him. Prisoner seemed pleased with the arrangement that they should pay Mrs. CORNELIUS 2/- a day. On the Sunday he saw the prisoner with his money in his hand, but he did not come back that night, although he said he would go back and pay her. - P.S. EDWARDS said he received the prisoner on the previous day from the police at Weston-super-Mare. He read the warrant for his arrest to him, and he replied that he went and took the money due to him, but thinking it would not be enough to pay for his night's lodging he “did a bunk.” He knew the prisoner when a boy; he had no parents. He was a native of Bristol. - Prisoner now said he was tired of the show and wanted to get back to his old job at Weston-super-Mare. He had no idea of cheating the old woman, and if she had waited until he got his first week's wages he would have sent her the money. - The Bench committed the prisoner for trial at the forthcoming Assizes.
<NOTES: James OATEN married Martha Ellen WALDEN>