Taunton Courier 01 Feb 1893 Taunton Police Court inc Albert OATEN aged 9 No 15 Cann Street Edward STAPLE Stoke St Gregory George LEACH Bathpool

Sarah Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper Articles

Taunton Courier. Bristol and Exeter Journal and Western Advertiser Wednesday 01 Feb 1893

Page 7 Column 1



Before Mr. W. M. CHAPMAN (the ex-Mayor), in the chair, and Major CHISHOLM-BATTEN.


Walter SHEA was summoned for being drunk and disorderly in No. 3 Court, Tancred-street, on the 21st. inst. - Defendant pleaded guilty. - P.C. BARTRUM proved the case, saying defendant was noisy and drunk, and wanted to fight a man named MALONEY. - Defendant: “I am really in default, gentlemen.” - Defendant, against whom there was no conviction, was fined 5s including costs. Allowed a week to pay. In default, seven days' imprisonment.


Annie MALONEY was summoned for creating a disturbance in No. 3 Court, Tancred-street, on the 21st January. Defendant pleaded guilty. - P.S. HAYES deposed that on the evening of the day named the woman was shouting in the court and quarrelling with SHEA. The woman was behaving like a mad person, and the neighbours complained to him of the noise she was making. - Mr. DURHAM said it was part of the row already referred to. The woman at first endeavoured to act as peace-maker, and then lost her temper. - Fined 2s 6d including costs. Paid.


The licence of the Golden Lion inn, East-reach, was transferred from Charles BAKER to Fred MACEY.


Bessie DAVIS was summoned for being drunk and disorderly in High-street, on 23rd January. - Defendant pleaded not guilty. - P.S. HAYES deposed that on the evening named he was in High-street with P.C. WOOD. They were both in plain clothes. In consequence of something said to him he spoke to the woman, and found she was drunk. He advised her to go home but she would not do so, and she shouted and created a great disturbance. A crowd collected. Defendant's husband and witness both tried to get the woman home. - Defendant said she was “having a few words with her husband.” - P.C. WOOD gave corroborative evidence. - Defendant denied the charge, saying another woman caused the trouble. - Fined 2s and 7s costs. Allowed a fortnight to pay, in default seven days' imprisonment.


James EDNEY was summoned by his wife, Mary Ann EDNEY, to show cause why he should not be bound over to keep the peace, he having used threats towards her. - Complainant said that on the evening of the day named her husband called her bad names. She said if he did not leave off she would “have a summons out against him.” He used more bad language, and said he would “have her brains out.” That was the only threat he used, and she had been living with him since. - Defendant said he was very sorry. - The Chairman told the defendant he should be very careful in the future and behave properly to his wife. - The case was dismissed.


Albert OATEN, aged nine, was summoned for having on the 18th January stolen 4lbs of bread, value 5d, the property of Joseph TOTTERDELL. - Prosecutor, a baker, living at No. 4, Shuttern, deposed that on the 18th inst., at 7.15 p.m., he was in a room over his shop, watching his bread cart, which was in front of the shop in the road. A boy, Wm. DUNSTER, in witness's employ, was packing the cart with bread. Then the boy DUNSTER went into the bake-house, and prisoner came to the cart, and took from it the two 2-lb loaves produced. The boy then ran away towards his home. - Mrs. OATEN, the mother, on behalf of her son, wished that the case should be tried summarily, and then her boy pleaded not guilty. - Witness continued his evidence, saying that he followed the boy. As the boy went along he ran against a coachman, named HYLES. Witness called to him to stop the boy, but he did not do so. Witness lost sight of the accused, and afterwards went to the house of the lad's parents, No. 15, Cann-street. Witness saw the lad there and charged him with the theft. The boy said nothing, but the mother denied the charge, saying she had sent the boy for bread to witness's shop. He then sent for a police man, and P.C. WARREN came. Witness charged the lad, and gave him in custody. Mrs. OATEN took the loaves from a cupboard while the policeman was in the room. The boy was afterwards let go, and a summons issued. Witness was sure it was the boy, and that he took the loaves from the cart, and not from the shop. Defendant denied that he took the loaves. - Prosecutor, in answer to Mr. PINCHARD, magistrates' clerk, said he was sure it was the boy, for the light was shining from the shop. He was watching, and missed two loaves from the cart. He had missed bread before. - Defendant again denied that he took the bread, but had nothing else to say. - Prosecutor, re-examined, said he knew the boy at once when he (prosecutor) entered the house. At the station the constable asked the boy what he had done with the money given him to purchase the bread, and he replied that he had given it to a boy to fetch the bread. The constable said, “Do you know the lad?” and he replied, “No!” and added in answer to the policeman that he did not do that very often. - Cross-examined by Mrs. OATEN, witness denied that he said on entering the room that the defendant was not the boy who took the bread. - Sentenced to four strokes of the birch rod.


Before Major-General EMERSON (in the chair), Major CHISHOLM BATTEN, and Mr. W. H. FOWLER.


Edward STAPLE was summoned for assaulting Albert WILLIAMS on the 19th January, at Stoke St. Gregory. Defendant did not appear. - Complainant, a baker, living at Stoke St. Gregory, deposed that on the day named he saw defendant at his (witness's) back door. He went there in consequence of what his wife told him. Witness said to defendant, “What is the matter?” and he replied, “You have sent in my bill twice, and I have paid it.” Witness replied, “You have paid two instalments, but there is a balance owing.” Defendant then used bad language, and witness told him to go away. He would not do so, but struck witness a blow on the breast with his fist. Witness then knocked defendant down, picked him up, and pushed him out of the gate. Witness also told STAPLE that if he did not go away he would find himself in Taunton that evening. - Emily LAVER, servant to the prosecutor, deposed that defendant said to her that he would knock prosecutor down and give him a good scolding. Later on witness heard a kick at the door, and locked it. She heard defendant ask if prosecutor were in, and then STAPLE added, “Tell Albert WILLIAMS to come out, I want him.” Defendant used bad language. - Mr. DURHAM said the defendant was a very violent man, and all the publicans refused to supply him with drink because he always created a disturbance. - Fined 12s and 8s costs. A commitment order was made.


George LEACH was summoned to show cause why an order should not be made on him to abate a nuisance arising from a pit near the railway bridge at Bathpool. - Defendant said the nuisance had been abated for five weeks. - Mr. W. F. B. DAWE, clerk to the Rural Sanitary Authority, prosecuted, and said the nuisance was from some refuse which was thrown in a pit by the town scavengers, by arrangement with the defendant. A most offensive smell arose from it, and water from it drained into the river, polluting it. - Andrew RICHMOND, inspector of nuisances to the Authority, said he had received complaints of the nuisance, which was on land of which defendant was owner and occupier. The nuisance had continued for some months. About the middle of November the stench was horrible. The depositing of town refuse in the Authority's district was a continual source of nuisance. He served the notice to abate on the 24th November. The refuse had been partially covered from time to time by earth. He visited the place that morning, and found there was a smell arising from the scavenging matter which had been deposited there. Black water was flowing into the river, polluting it. The spot was about 70 yards from the nearest house, and 30 yards from the road. That morning defendant had expressed a desire to continue to deposit the town scavenging there to fill up the pit in which it was placed. - Cross-examined by defendant witness said that in the summer he had told defendant there was then no nuisance. The nuisance occurred in wet weather, and it was very bad a week ago. - Re-examined by Mr. DAWE witness said that town scavenging put together in large quantities became a great nuisance especially in wet weather. - Dr. ALFORD, medical officer of health to the Authority, deposed to visiting the place in November. The stench was very bad, and it was one of the worst cases he had met with in his 20 years' experience. Witness went again on the 17th January, and found that the nuisance had to a certain extent been abated by the refuse being covered by earth, but a large quantity was exposed, and was offensive. The nuisance was dangerous to health. Bathpool was one of the most unhealthy hamlets in the district, and it was therefore most important to take steps to keep it as sanitary as possible. In reply to Mr. FOWLER witness said the nuisance could be avoided if the matter were covered with a sufficient depth of earth. - Defendant said that the nuisance had been abated. The water sometimes came into the pit from the river, that was why water was seen to come from it, and then, added defendant, “We get all the nuisance from the sewage works.” - An order was made to abate the nuisance within 14 days, and to prohibit its recurrence.

Back to Miscellaneous Page

Back to Home Page