Hawkins Genealogy Site
Taunton Courier, and Western Advertiser. Wednesday 17 Aug 1887
Page 7 Column 1-3
TAUNTON POLICE COURT.
WEDNESDAY. - Before the Mayor (Alderman S. FARRANT), Mr T. PENNY (ex-Mayor), Mr R. A. KINGLAKE, and Admiral HICKLEY.
CHARGE UNDER THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT.
Alfred YARD, aged 25 years, cooper, in the employ of his father, Daniel YARD, of North Curry, was placed in the dock, charged, under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, with having assaulted Elizabeth BURFORD, aged 15 years, also of North Curry. - Mr A. G. TAYLOR represented the prisoner and Mr E. F. PAULL appeared to prosecute. - Mr TAYLOR said that as the prisoner had only been apprehended late on Tuesday night, he had not had time to prepare the case for the defence, and he therefore asked that the case be adjourned for a week. The prisoner's father was prepared to offer substantial sureties on his son's behalf. - Mr PAULL said he had no objection to the adjournment, but as the case was an important one he hoped that heavy sureties would be demanded. - The Clerk: As this offence was not committed within the borough the case had better be adjourned until Saturday. - The case was accordingly adjourned. Bail was accepted, himself in £25, and his father in £25.
USING OBSCENE LANGUAGE.
Robert PAVEY, of St. James's-street, pleaded guilty to using obscene language in Fore-street, on Tuesday, the 2nd inst. - A.S. BROWN stated that he heard the defendant using obscene and disgusting language to his brother. - Defendant was fined 10s including costs, with the alternative of seven days' imprisonment.
Henry RICHARDS, Charles RICHARDS, and Walter RICHARDS, cab owners, of the Bell inn, High-street, were charged with having assaulted Isaac FARLEY, cab-driver, in the employ of Henry RICHARDS. Mr BAKER appeared for the complainant, and Mr BERE represented the defendants. Cross-summonses had been taken out by the defendants and Mrs RICHARDS, wife of Henry RICHARDS, against FARLEY for assault. Mr BAKER in opening the case stated that on Friday last FARLEY returned with his horse and cab to the stables late at night, and, after attending to the horse, was met by Henry RICHARDS, who asked him to go into the office to book the day's fares. This was usually done by Mrs RICHARDS. FARLEY had scarcely entered the office before Mrs RICHARDS began to question him as to the fares he had taken, and glancing down the list, saw an entry to the effect that a fare had been driven to the Compass inn for one shilling, the usual charge. Mrs RICHARDS asked from whom he had received the shilling, FARLEY said he did not know the gentleman's name, but knew him well by sight. The defendant Walter then came into the office, and with an oath accused the complainant with having cheated his (Walter's) father. After some words had passed between them Walter said, “You stole 1s of my father last night.” FARLEY denied the charge, and said if there had been any mistake in making out the accounts the previous day it was Walter's fault. Walter then became very violent, and, catching the complainant by the throat, struck him several blows. Charles then rushed into the office and asked the cause of the disturbance. FARLEY requested Charles to look at his book and see if the entries were not right. Before Charles could do this Walter again struck FARLEY, and the other two defendants also began to beat him. FARLEY was knocked against the wall and most unmercifully ill-used. A man who works at a bakehouse in the yard behind the inn came in and attempted to stop the disturbance. He told the defendants that he had been in search of a policeman, and that he was disgusted at their cowardice in attacking an old man. The complainant was allowed to leave the office and he went into the bakehouse. It was then seen that FARLEY's chin was bleeding. Walter, not content with having assaulted the old man in the office, followed the complainant into the bakehouse and again struck him. Walter pulled the man's beard, and would have hurt him seriously had not a person named COLE threatened to interfere if Walter did not desist. Walter then went away, and the complainant, after putting up his cab, went home. He (Mr BAKER) had been informed that the defendants were all under the influence of drink at the time, FARLEY being perfectly sober. - The complainant was then called, and bore out the statement made by his solicitor. He said that when first attacked by the three defendants he was knocked against a table, which fell upon Mrs. RICHARDS. A second time during the fight Mrs RICHARDS was standing behind the table and it was again overturned upon her. James DENNETT, baker, High-street, said that he heard a disturbance in the house on the night in question, and after listening a while he went in. He did not, however, see the three defendants strike FARLEY, nor did he see blood upon his face. - Mathew MONKHOUSE, in the employ of the defendants, was also called, but could not give an account of the assault as he had not seen the affair. Without hearing the evidence for the defence the magistrates decided to dismiss the whole of the summonses. - Mr BERE said he was satisfied. - The defendants were accordingly discharged, each party having to pay their own costs.
ANOTHER ALLEGED ASSAULT.
Albert WALL, labourer, of West Hatch, was summoned for having assaulted Thomas CRIDGE, greengrocer, also of West Hatch, on the 4th inst. - Mr TAYLOR appeared on behalf of the prosecutor. - In his opening statement Mr TAYLOR stated that the prosecutor had been so badly beaten by the defendant that he had been unable to leave the house for two or three days. On Thursday at about 9.30 p.m. he was driving his donkey to a field, when the defendant and another man tried to frighten the animal by standing in front of it and bawling out something to the prosecutor. The donkey ran past the two men, and nothing more was seen of them until the prosecutor was returning from the field, when he was again met by the defendant who struck him a blow in the face. The prosecutor tried to protect himself, and the defendant again struck him. He was knocked down. With some difficulty he got up and shouted for assistance. No one was about when the blows were struck, but several people assembled when he called for help. He was scarcely able to walk home, but the neighbours refused to help him. The defendant, was very drunk at the time. - The prosecutor, whose face was cut and scarred, corroborated Mr TAYLOR's statement. In cross-examination he admitted that he might have said to the defendant when he met him on his way home, “Could you not let a brother pass?” but he denied saying that the defendant had no right to insult “his brother” (meaning the donkey). - James CHELLIS, for the defendant, stated that the prosecutor was the worse for liquor and that the two men had fought in the street. They were both under the influence of drink. - K. CHANNING stated that he was walking along the street when he saw the prosecutor meet the defendant. Prosecutor said, “Why did you insult your brother just now?” The defendant put his hands upon the prosecutor's shoulder and shook him. Prosecutor struck WALL in his endeavour to escape from his grasp. The two men afterwards fought for about ten minutes. Witness tried to separate them, but was unable to do so. - The case was dismissed. - After the business of the court was over the prosecutor's wife came into court, and, addressing the bench from the solicitor's table, protested against the verdict that had been given in favour of the defendant. The bench explained that they were there to judge of the facts brought before them, and the evidence for the defence in this case showed that the defendant was not altogether to blame. - The woman still persisted in addressing the bench, and the magitrates <sic> after repeatedly telling her to go away, ordered her to be put out of court.
ALLOWING A HORSE TO STRAY.
Frank HOWE, horse dealer, of Creech St. Michael, was fined 5s and costs for allowing a horse to stray in a bye-way at Creech St. Michael, on the 3rd July. P.C. SMITHERAM proved the case.
APPLICATION FOR AFFLILIATION ORDER.
Elizabeth HOWLE, of Princess-street, Taunton, applied to the magistrates for an affiliation order against J. LANKEY, bandman in the Somerset Light Infantry, who, she alleged, was the father of her illegitimate child. - The case was dismissed.
Before Mr R. A. KINGLAKE (in the chair, Mr E. CHISHOLM-BATTEN, Mr T. WALSH, Mr A. A. SOMMERVILLE, and Admiral HICKLEY.
THE CHARGE UNDER THE CRIMINAL LAW ADMENDMENT ACT.
Alfred YARD, cooper, a respectable-looking man, about 30 years of age, in the employ of Messrs. Arnold and Co., Rowbarton Brewery, Taunton, was charged under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, with having indecently assaulted a young girl under sixteen years of age, named Elizabeth BURFORD, who resides with her parents at Wrantage, North Curry. Mr E. F. PAULL prosecuted, and Mr A. G. TAYLOR appeared on behalf of the defendant.
Mr PAULL, in opening the case, said the prisoner was charged under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 48 and 49 vic., section 5, sub-section 1, with having unlawfully and carnally known Elizabeth BURFORD, then above thirteen and under sixteen years of age, the daughter of James BURFORD, farmer, Wrantage. The girl was fifteen years of age in April last, and the defendant was 29 or 30 years old. He had known the complainant since her birth, ad <sic> had worked for her father at intervals during the last ten or twelve years. During that time he had free access to the house, had received the confidence and trust of every member of the house, and had been regarded by the daughters as an elder brother. The defendant was a single man. As far back as May, 1886, when the girl was only fourteen, he had made improper overtures to her. Mr PAULL then narrated the circumstances connected with the case, as given in evidence by the girl herself.
Elizabeth BURFORD, examined by Mr PAULL, said: I have known the defendant all my life, and during the last six years he had been a constant visitor at my father's house. I am a member of the North Curry Wesleyan chapel, and the defendant used to attend there also. On the occasion of the anniversary in May, 1886, I went to chapel with the defendant, and at night he made improper overtures to me. On Christmas day last, my parents being away, ----
Mr TAYLOR here objected to Mr PAULL entering into details of offences not committed within three months prior to the information being laid.
Mr PINCHARD, the magistrates' clerk, said he could see why Mr TAYLOR should object to that evidence.
The question was not further discussed, Mr PAULL deciding to confine the evidence to the period limited by the Act
The complainant, continuing, said: At the beginning of May last I received a letter from the defendant, who was then employed at the Clandown brewery, near Radstock. The defendant wrote to me and promised to send his photograph. He sent me the one now produced in court. He got possession of the letter he sent me when he returned home and destroyed it. I recollect the 11th June last. On that day I went to the defendant's house on an errand. I saw the defendant there, but I had not gone to see him. Mr and Mrs YARD were just about to start on a journey in their trap when I arrived at the house. Mrs YARD got out of the trap and obtained for me what I had gone for. On leaving I and Mrs YARD had to go through the workshops, where the defendant was working, the front door had been locked by Mrs YARD. Defendant was in the workshop, and as I passed him, he asked me if I would remain behind, and not go out with his mother. I stayed, and he did what he wanted with me. When I was about to leave the defendant, a baker named Wm. JORDAN passed the workshop and YARD asked him if he could take up a passenger, meaning me. JORDAN replied in the affirmative, but I declined to get into the cart as JORDAN was not going in the direction I was going. I also remember the 21st June last, the Jubilee day. I was at the fête given at North Curry with the defendant and my sister. My father was also there, but he left at about eight o'clock. I asked him to allow me to stay until the donkey races were over, and, having obtained his consent I stayed until nine o'clock. I walked home with the defendant. After walking about half a mile we met a person names Susannah HAWKINS, but we did not stop to speak to her. We had to cross three fields on our way home. In the middle of one of these the defendant again assaulted me. I arrived home shortly before ten o'clock, but told no one of the defendant's conduct. A few days after this my father engaged the defendant to assist him in the hay field for eight days. During the eight days the defendant took his meals in the house, and I worked with him in the field. I was sometimes alone with the defendant, and on two occasions he had improper intercourse with me in the hayfield. Towards the end of last month I was unwell, and my mother took me to Mr OLIVEY, surgeon, and I was examined by him. I told my mother about the defendant's conduct towards me.
Cross-examined by Mr TAYLOR: I never told Mrs Louisa DERRICK that I was more to blame than the defendant, nor have I ever said that I would rather suffer than that YARD should. I never said anything to that effect to anyone. A woman named Mrs DENMAN once asked me if I had had improper intercourse with the defendant, and I denied that I had as I did not wish her to know.
Witness here sobbed hysterically, and was unable to answer Mr TAYLOR's questions for some minutes. When she had recovered herself sufficiently she said: I am well acquainted with a young man named Thomas BRUCENT. He stole a kiss (suppressed laughter) from me on the Jubilee day while I was talking to the defendant at the fête, and I slapped him in the face for doing so.
Mr. TAYLOR: You gave him a blow for a kiss, ah! (laughter).
Mr. KINGLAKE: This is no laughing matter, Mr TAYLOR.
Witness, resuming, said: The young man took the kiss by force. I know the defendant's nephew. He wrote the first letter the defendant sent me, and he afterwards took the liberty of writing five or six others to me. I remember in the course of some conversation with the defendant about his nephew that I made some remarks respecting my age. Last Christmas a young girl named Nellie BELLRINGER came to our house and in the defendant's presence we began to talk of our ages. I do not remember whether the defendant stated his age, but Miss BELLRINGER did, and I said “My birthday is on the 25th April and then I am fifteen.” Once a year the defendant's father, who is the superintendent of our school, takes the ages of the children. I did not, I am sure, tell him twelve months ago last March that I was fifteen years of age. A few weeks before that date he put me down in the books as fourteen years of age, although I was not that age at the time.
In the course of further cross-examination, in which Mr TAYLOR attempted to elicit the fact that the girl had behaved improperly with several other young men, complainant said that on one occasion a young man, while coming from church, did talk indecently to her and another girl. Another person had attempted to take liberties with her, and while in a lane one night a young man did assault her, but not as the defendant had. She had never told the defendant that she had behaved improperly with other young men, nor had she told any of her companions that “of all others she liked YARD best.”
Mr PAULL objected to such questions being put to the girl, as they were not material to the issue.
Mr TAYLOR said that indirectly the questions were material, as he was endeavouring to test the credibility of the complainant. Witnesses would be called to prove the facts mentioned in his cross-examination, and would show that the evidence of the witness was not to be relied upon.
After further questions of an unpleasant nature the complainant retired from the witness-box. While she was being cross-examined by Mr TAYLOR she cried several times, and the examination had to be stopped to allow her to compose herself.
James BURFORD, father of the complainant, said that his daughter was born in April, 1872, he believed on the 26th. He had know the defendant and his father for nearly 20 years, and both were on familiar terms with his (witness's) family. Last June the defendant was assisting him in haymaking, and the complainant was working in the same field. On the 1st August the complainant was ill, and was taken by her mother to the doctor's. - In cross-examination witness said the defendant had never walked out with his daughter to his knowledge, for he had never thought that he was courting her.
Mr Hugh Pengelly OLIVEY, surgeon, was called, but Mr TAYLOR objected to his giving evidence. It had been admitted by the complainant that she had misbehaved herself with other men and the evidence of the doctor would not be admissable <sic> in this case.
The Bench overruled the objection, and Mr OLIVEY said he had examined the complainant twice during the last few days. He thought the possibility was that she was pregnant (sensation).
A.S. BROWN said he arrested the defendant on a warrant on the 9th inst. He read the warrant over to the defendant, but he said he did not understand the charge. This the officer explained to him, and the defendant admitted he had behaved improperly with the complainant on the 21st June. After having been warned that whatever he might say would be taken down in writing and given in evidence against him, defendant said he would tell no lies about the case. He then made a statement admitting the whole charge, but alleged consent. He added, “I am very intimate with her, as we are all chapel people.” Defendant was then taken to the police station, where he repeated this statement in the presence of the superintendent. The statement was taken down in writing and signed by the defendant. This was the case for the prosecution.
The defendant, on being charged, on Mr TAYLOR's advice, said “I leave my defence to my solicitor.”
Mr TAYLOR pointed out that the Act provided that it would be a sufficient defence if it could be shown to the judge and jury that the person charged under the Act had reasonable cause to believe that the girl was above the age of sixteen. The appearance of the prosecutor would be an important guild in such a case. The complainant, in the present instance, it must be remembered, was past fifteen years of age and within a few months of being sixteen. The defendant had reasonable grounds for supposing the girl to be over sixteen, and evidence would be called to prove that what she had told others in the defendant's presence, and what she had told the defendant himself, as well as the defendant's father, had lead him to believe that she was over sixteen years of age.
No witnesses were called on behalf of the defendant, and he was committed to take his trial at the next assizes, bail being accepted, himself in £50, and two sureties of £25 each. The defendant's father and his brother-in-law became his sureties.
CLEVER CAPTURE OF A THIEF AT BURLESCOMBE.
A man who gave the name of John SMITH, tramp, of no fixed abode, was charged in custody with having stolen a pair of boots, a bottle of brandy, some sugar and soap, and a number of other articles, valued £2 1s 7d, the property of Wm. TOZER, Tangier, from the bathing station on the river Tone, in the parish of Bishop's Hull. - The prosecutor stated that on the 10th inst. whilst witness was in his ticket office the prisoner walked into the bathing station without paying the usual fee. Witness followed him into the station, and asked why he had entered so abruptly without purchasing a ticket. Prisoner said he had not money, and he was about to be turned out when a gentleman offered to purchase a ticket for him. Prisoner then began to bathe, but had every opportunity of seeing where the office was and what was in it. Nothing more was seen of him after he left. At six o'clock that night the station was closed, and the office locked up. When witness went to the station next morning he found that his office had been broken into. The office door was locked, but the little latch door had been broken open. In the room a bottle of ginger beer, half the contents of which had been drunk, lay upon the floor. There were also missing a bottle of brandy, a pair of boots, and several other articles. There were marks on the till as if someone had been trying to cut the lock, but had not succeeded. There was also a small fret saw lying on the floor. Two gentlemen were waiting at the station when witness arrived that morning and at his request they gave information to the police. - A.S. BROWN said that on Friday, the 12th inst., he received information of the theft. He ascertained that a person answering the description of the prisoner had been seen near the bathing station that morning, and he afterwards learned that the prisoner had gone along the Exeter road. Accompanied by another officer witness went in pursuit. When near the Red Lion inn he was informed that the prisoner had gone on to Wellington. On arriving there the officers learned that the prisoner had left and had gone on towards Exeter. Witness followed quickly, and at Burlescombe came up with the prisoner, who was in the company of a man and woman. He told the prisoner that he answered the description of the man who had been seen going form the bathing station that morning, and that he would have to charge him with having broken into the office. On being charged prisoner made no reply. Prisoner was searched, and the articles mentioned in the charge were found upon him. The prisoner was wearing the boots at the time. He had given some soap, and the bottle which had contained the brandy, to the persons whom he was with, and these were given up to the office. On the way to the station prisoner said to the officer, “If I had not stayed at Wellington you would not have caught me, as I ahould <sic> have been in Exeter before night, and would have sold the boots.” On being asked his name prisoner replied, “John SMITH.” The officer asked him if that was his proper name, and he said that was one of them, and that he could find any number of names if he liked. When asked if he wished to question the officer on the evidence prisoner said he did not desire to do so, but remarked that the officer had told a lot of lies. In answer to the charge prisoner said he had not stolen all the articles that it was alleged he had stolen.
Prisoner was committed to take his trial a the next quarter sessions.
After the case had been disposed of, Mr KINGLAKE said the bench wished to express to Mr DURHAM their appreciation of A.S. BROWN's skill and ability in bringing the prisoner to justice.
Mr DURHAM thanked the bench for their expression of commendation. He believed A.S. BROWN had done his work well on all occasions, and in this instance he followed the prisoner up very quickly. He again thanked their worships for the compliment they had paid A.S. BROWN.
A BOY SENT TO AN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL.
Mr PINCHARD (magistrates' clerk) , addressing the magistrates, referred to the application made on the previous Saturday on behalf of a widow named Selina TUCK, residing at Blagdon, to have her son, John TUCK, eleven years old, sent to an Industrial School, on the ground that she was unable to control him. Mr PINCHARD said that he had communicated with the authorities at the Somerset County Industrial School at Bath, and also the Formidable Training Ship. The latter would require a guarantee that 5s 6d a week would be paid for the boy's maintenance. He (Mr PINCHARD) did not think there was anyone who would give such a guarantee. The boy would, therefore, have to be sent to the school at Bath, which required no guarantee. The necessary application would have to be made, and the consent of the authorities would have to be obtained before the boy could be sent there. - The magistrates said that if the woman was able to pay a small sum for the maintenance of her son she would be compelled to do so. - Mr LANE, the relieving officer for Pitminster, said the mother was receiving parish relief at the present time. - The order was granted for the usual application to be made.
MORE DISTURBANCES AT BOROUGHBRIDGE. - THREATENED ACTION FOR PERJURY.
George Thomas CHILWELL, farmer, of Boroughbridge, was charged with threatening to do bodily injury to Caroline DUKE, wife of Henry DUKE, also of Boroughbridge. - Mr J. CRAWSHAW appeared for the complainant and Mr CARTER (Bristol), for the defendant. - Mr CRAWSHAW for the prosecution, stated that the complainant had suffered considerable annoyance from the defendant and his wife. The complainant had been tried at that court for perjury, but the case had been dismissed. Since that time she had been subjected to all kinds of objectionable annoyances. On the 1st inst., the complainant was in her orchard when the defendant passed in company with his wife. Without the slightest provocation the man used most disgusting expressions to the woman, and threatened to beat her brains out if he met her alone after dark. This was the threat complained of, and Mrs DUKE now craved the protection of the court. The complainant had issued the summons with no malice or spite, and merely asked that the defendant might be bound over to keep the peace towards her. - Mrs DUKES the complainant, said that on the 31st July last she was charged with perjury, but the summons was dismissed. On Monday, Bank Holiday, she went away in order to avoid the annoyance neighbours caused her by referring to those proceedings. She, however, returned home at about six o'clock, and about half-an-hour afterwards she was in the orchard, which adjoins the road, feeding the fowls. The defendant, with his wife, was coming along the road, and when they got near her, defendant said “I have not seen you since you got over those chaps” (referring to the charge of perjury). He also said that the money had not all gone yet. Complainant asked him whom he was talking to, and defendant with an oath replied, “If I catch you after dark I shall beat your brains out.” She complained that she was in great fear of the defendant doing her some bodily harm. She asserted positively that no one was in the road except the defendant and his wife, when the threat was used. - Cross-examined by Mr CARTER: Complainant said she never saw a woman named Charlotte PALMER in the lane with the defendant. If she had been there she would have seen her. She had received a summons for threatening the defendant's wife and had been tried the previous Saturday, but the case was dismissed. She had received the summons just before she took one against the defendant. She made no remarks of a disagreeable nature to the defendant as he passed. She had been charged with perjury, and had been convicted of felony. She did not know how many times she had been convicted, but it was thirty years since she had been imprisoned. She had not been convicted of stealing rings. - Mr CRAWSHAW objected to such questions being asked. - Mr CARTER said his instructions were that the complainant was a liar, and that she was not a reliable witness. The defendant denied using this language.
Re-examined by Mr CRAWSHAW complainant said she received the summons taken out by the defendant's wife when she returned home after issuing one against the defendant.
John BREWER, in the employ of Henry DUKE, said he was in the orchard at the time the defendant passed. The defendant came up the road and used most disgusting language to the complainant. The defendant said he would beat her if he met her out after dark.
Cross-examined by Mr CARTER witness said he knew the woman Charlotte PALMER, but he did not see her about when the defendant spoke to the complainant. Any person passing along the road could see him in the orchard. He was not sitting in the orchard. He saw the woman PALMER some hours after the occurrence in question; and she was then near the defendant's house.
Mr CARTER, in defence, said the magistrates would hear that the defendant was a person who bore an excellent character, and was a well-known teetotaler, whilst the complainant had been convicted of felony, and had on several occasions been before the court on other charges. In respect of the case the defendant denied that he had uttered any threats to the complainant. On the day in question he had passed the complainant without saying a word, though she had used most disgusting and vulgar expressions to him. The defendant's wife had been afraid of passing the complainant alone, and had waited for her husband to accompany her. The woman PALMER was also with them. The complainant, without any reasonable cause, issued the summons after she had received one from the defendant's wife Mr CARTER was proceeding to denounce the complainant as a woman of bad character, but Mr CRAWSHAW asked the magistrates to protect the woman from these insulting insinuations. - The magistrates asked Mr CARTER to verify the statements he had made. They thought the remarks were most unbecoming if they could not be proved.
Mr PINCHARD, at the request of the defendant's solicitor, referred to the police records, and stated that it was a fact that the complainant had been bound over to keep the peace in January last.
Mr CARTER: And she has admitted that she has been convicted of felony.
Mr PINCHARD: Thirty years ago.
Charlotte PALMER said that at about 6 o'clock on the 1st inst. she, the defendant, and Mrs CHILWELL were walking up the road when they passed the complainant, who was in the orchard. She swore at the defendant several times, but he made no reply. The witness BREWER was not in the orchard at the time.
In cross-examination, witness admitted that she lived with the defendant and was related to his wife.
Bessie TOTTLE, Clara TOTTLE and Mrs CHILWELL were also called, and corroborated the evidence given by the witness PALMER.
The defendant was also called to give evidence. He stated that he had not spoken to the defendant when she swore at him.
In reply to the Bench he said he did say something to his wife to the effect that all his money was not gone, and that he would summon her for using obscene language to him, but this was not addressed to the complainant.
In cross-examination he said he had not been a subscriber to the fund for prosecuting Mrs DUKE for perjury.
Mr KINGLAKE stated that the disturbances at Borough-bridge had been so frequent of late that they would have to institue <sic> an inquiry and probably proclaim the village.
James WINCHESTER was called to speak as to the defendant's character, but the bench thought the evidence unnecessary.
The case was dismissed.
Shortly afterwards Mr CARTER again came into court and asked for a summons against the complainant for perjury. Witnesses would be called to prove the complainant had made several false statements. The facts were before the court, and from the disgraceful acts which the complainant had committed that day outside the court, it would be clear to their worships that complainant had been guilty of perjury. The magistrates granted the summons.
THEFT OF A CHEESE.
Henry ANDREWS was brought up on remand charged with having stolen a cheese, of the value of 5s, the property of Thos. SLOMAN, cheese dealer, Bristol, who attends the Taunton market, a report of which appeared in last Saturday's Somerset County Herald. The prisoner pleaded guilty, and the prosecutor said that, as the prisoner had a large family he did not wish to press the charge. A fine of £1 was inflicted. The fine was paid.
Back to Miscellaneous Page
Back to Home Page
<NOTES: John TUCK son of James TUCK and Selina FACEY, married Olive CLARK>