Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
The Taunton Courier, and Western
Advertiser 28 Mar 1883
Page 6 Column 3 and 4
TAUNTON POLICE COURT.
WEDNESDAY. - Before the Mayor, Mr KINGLAKE, and MR FOWLER.
GOOD FRIDAY.
Mr GIST, of the Old Angel, applied for an extension of time for Good Friday on occasion of a dinner to the employes <sic> on the locomotive department Great Western Railway, but the bench refused the application.
THE VULGAR TONGUE.
Selina SPARKES and Emma SPARKES were charged with having, on March 17th, in King-street, used obscene language. Both denied the charge.
Sarah Jane SAUNDERS, the complainant in the case, said she met the defendants in King-street, who blackguarded her in violent and unseemly language. It appeared from the evidence on both sides that jealousy on the part of Mrs SAUNDERS was at the bottom of the quarrel, leading her to interrogate the SPARKES damsels about their relations to her husband, curiosity which they resented by sundry abusive epithets not fit to be circulated beyond the precincts of King-street. Half-a-dozen witnesses repeated the dialogue with much emphasis and apparent enjoyment, while the defendants called a lady rejoicing in the name “Timber Dick,” who denied that they were such black guards as alleged.
They were each fined 30s, costs included, or one month's hard labour in default, time being allowed for payment.
TOO WEAK BRANDY.
Eli Charles SAUNDERS, of the Ring of Bells, Norton Fitzwarren, was charged with selling to P.C. TROLLOPE half-a-pint of brandy ten degrees lower in proof than it should have been.
Mr CRAWSHAW, for the defendant, admitted the offence, but pleaded that his client had been the tenant of the house for two years, and had taken to the brandy in question from the previous tenant, who had it in his cellar, in consequence of which it had deteriorated in strength. Though there had been an infringement of the law, he submitted that it was of a character which would be met by a very small penalty. He added that the brandy which defendant usually sold was of a much stronger description.
The bench fined defendant 20s and costs.
FURIOUS DRIVING.
William BULPIN, hay dealer, was charged with furious driving on March 17, in East-street. The defendant pleaded guilty.
Supt. GOLDSMITH stated the facts to be that defendant had a spirited pony and drove at full gallop along the street, coming into collision with other vehicles.
The Mayor said he saw him three times driving in a very dangerous manner.
Fined 40s and costs.
CHARGE OF DRUNKENNESS AGAINST A PUBLICAN.
Thomas TALBOT was charged with being drunk in his own house, the Dolphin inn, King-street.
Walter FRY said he lived in King-street, and knew the defendant. On March 6 went to defendant's house at half-past nine in the morning and was there most of the day, till after ten o'clock at night. The defendant at night was drunk, and struck witness. Witness went out and defendant followed him to John SPARKE's house.
In reply to the bench, witness stated that he had several glasses of liquor himself during the day.
On cross-examination by Mr COOK, who appeared for the defendant, witness said the landlord was drunk all the evening. He and witness had a scuffle in the kitchen about a cup. Had been charged by defendant with an assault arising out of the same transaction.
Emma SPARKES, of King-street, said she was in TALBOT's house on the night of March 6. Part of a gallon of beer was called for. The landlord wanted to take up from FRY, to whom it was given. Defendant was very drunk.
Selina SPARKES gave corroborative evidence.
John SPARKES, her father, confirmed it.
Cross-examined by Mr COOK: Mr TALBOT had nev <sic> charged witness with stealing a cup and some turnips. Never took back to the defendant's house the turnips he was charged with stealing.
Mr COOK, for the defence, commented upon the character of the witnesses, and contended that their evidence was utterly unreliable. His client had kept the house for four years without any charge having been previously preferred against him. He called the defendant, Thomas TALBOT, who deposed that he had kept the house four years, and had been previously in the employment of Mr TROTMAN. On the evening of March 6 the two girls, SPARKES, came in with some gentlemen, and they all had some beer. Some of it was left in a cup, and the witness FRY attempted to take it, which led to an altercation, as he (FRY) had no right to it. He entirely denied the charge of drunkenness.
The witness was cross-examined by Supt. GOLDSMITH relative to the scores of the skittle-alley, which he kept.
Mr COOK objected to this, as not dealing with the question before the bench, though it might upon a further charge of permitting gaming.
The bench, however, were of opinion that it did bear upon the state of the defendant.
Defendant said he objected to FRY taking the cup because it would probably have been broken if he had. FRY struck him in the eye in the house, and knocked his hat off in the street afterwards.
Mrs SAUNDERS, a married woman, residing in King-street, and the complainant in a previous case, said she went to TALBOT's house at half-past ten for some beer. TALBOT drew it for her. She asked him if she might heat it, and he said she might. He was perfectly sober at the time.
Mrs ASHTON, also of King-street, said she went into the Dolphin between eight and nine for some beer. Defendant supplied her. About half-past ten she went again for her supper drink, and spoke to defendant, who was not at all the worse for drink. He and FRY were having some angry words about some beer, which FRY wanted to take away.
Mrs Emma CLENCH and Mrs Sophia FUDGE, both of King-street, gave similar evidence as to the sobriety of the defendant on the evening in question, as did also George DAWE, labourer, of the same locality.
The bench, after some deliberation, dismissed the case, Mr KINGLAKE intimating at the same time his opinion that the house had been improperly conducted.
CHARGE OF PERMITTING GAMING.
The same defendant was further charged with permitting gaming on his licensed premises, on March 6th.
Mr COOK, as before, defended him.
Walter FRY deposed that he played at skittles in the defendant's alley for beer with two men, named STEPHENS and TOZER. Mr TALBOT brought in the beer played for, and kept the score. While witness was there a policeman looked in. STEPHENS was drunk at the time. They afterwards played for tobacco instead of beer. Left off playing about eight o'clock.
Cross-examined by Mr COOK: Was more drunk than sober. The first bowling was between STEPHENS and TOZER. The landlord was present when they begun, and heard them say they were about to bowl for a pint of beer. Had no ill feeling against the defendant because he summoned witness for an assault last week. They played four or five hours, for a pint of beer each game.
By Mr GOLDSMITH: Had been summoned to give evidence. Had not told any policeman what he was going to say.
Selina SPARKES said she was at the Dolphin inn next day, and the landlord showed her some chalk marks on the score of the bowls.
P.C. RAPSON deposed that in consequence of a complaint made to him he went to defendant's house. A woman named STEPHENS told him that her husband was in the Dolphin drinking all day, and was drunk, and she was locked out of her house. Witness went in and cautioned the landlord about it. STEPHENS was drunk, and the landlord appeared to have been drinking.
Cross-examined: He looked as if he had been drinking – he looked silly.
Mr COOK, for the defence, contended that the prosecution attempted to bolster up a case, but the only real evidence was that given by FRY. He admitted that there has been bowling going on, but denied that it was for money or drink and concluded by calling the following witnesses:-
Thomas TALBOT, the defendant, said on the afternoon of March 6th there was bowling going on at his house, but he was not aware of any between STEPHENS and TOZER. He was not present at any bowling between them, being away attending to his brother's business. Later on he was present in and out at some bowling between FRY and TOZER, and scores were kept by chalk marks, which he kept, but the players were not playing, to his knowledge, for either money or drink, but only for amusement.
By the Bench: The scores he kept were of the game, the same as at billiards. Each person playing paid for his own beer.
By Mr COOK: It was not true that the girl SPARKES came to the house next day, or that he took her down to the alley and showed her the marks as she alleged. The marks were rubbed out the same night; and therefore Selina SPARKES could not have seen them.
By Mr GOLDSMITH: There was no domino playing before the skittle playing commenced. Did not play dominoes with a man named HAWKINS or anyone else that day. His brother during his absence set up the pins at the skittle alley. He was not obliged to leave off doing it because he was drunk. Could not tell how much beer the man TOZER owed him for. FRY gave him half-a-crown before coming out of the alley. Did not remember what change he gave him. TOZER and FRY had some tobacco after they had their beer. Did not know who won or who lost the games of skittles. It was no interest of his.
William TOZER said he lived in King-street. Was at TALBOT's house on March 6. Had a game of bowls with STEPHENS. The landlord was not there, and did not bring in any beer. Afterwards bowled for an hour and half with FRY. The landlord was present and kept the score. They did not bowl for any money or any drink.
By Mr GOLDSMITH: Only played one game with STEPHENS. Afterwards played with FRY. Could not say how many games they played. Did not remember what he paid to the landlord. There was no beer due to come in when they left off bowling. They had four or five pints. Was present at the row in the evening. Did not strip to fight FRY. FRY wanted to fight him. FRY hit him on the nose. Saw TALBOT after the row. Did not know what he owed the landlord at the present time, but he dared say he should know.
Mrs Bessie TALBOT, examined: Was wife of defendant. Remembered on March 6th there was some bowling in the alley. Some drink was sent out into the alley, and was all paid for, except by Tozer. The girl SPARKES did not come into her house the next morning at all.
By Mr GOLDSMITH: Her husband drew some of the beer in the afternoon. STEPHENS never had beer in the alley. He might have had two or three times in the house. He was not drunk. Could not say how many quarts of beer went into the alley. Saw the two girls SPARKES and a gentleman in the house that evening.
By Mr COOK: They were only there ten minutes.
William TALBOT, brother of defendant, said on the afternoon in question there was some bowling in the alley. Witness put up the pins. When STEPHENS and TOZER were playing some beer or ginger beer was brought in. STEPHENS left, and the bowling when on between TOZER and FRY. Witness put up the pins. There was no gambling.
This was the last witness.
The bench considered the case proved, and fined defendant £3 and costs, including those of the witnesses.
<NOTES: Timber Dick is Miss Lydia
PELLY daughter of Francis PELLY and Sophia GOLLOP, associated with
Abraham ESCOTT
Thomas TALBOT son of Frederick TALBOT and Sarah
BULL, spouse of Bessie TOZER>