Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Taunton Courier. Bristol and Exeter Journal, and Western Advertiser Wednesday 24 May 1905
Page 3 Column 6 and 7
TAUNTON COUNTY POLICE.
SATURDAY. - Before Major-General EMERSON, MR. A. C. SKINNER and Mr. J. BADCOCK.
NORTH CURRY MAN WANTED TO FIGHT.
The pugilistic tendencies of William DUKE, of North Curry, led to his making his first appearance in court on a charge of having, on the 9th inst., behaved in a disorderly manner in the streets of the village. When Police Sergeant READ saw the defendant just before ten o'clock at night he was shouting and swearing and wanted to fight another man. He said he could beat a dozen such men single handed. Defendant gave as his reason for behaving as he did that he had lent a machine to a chap and he had sold it. This “rose his temper” and caused him to challenge the man. He had lived in the village many years and had never had a stain on his character before. Taking this into consideration the Bench discharged defendant on payment of the costs amounting to 5s.
STRAY HORSE AND COW.
While P.C. OSMENT was on duty on the Ham-road, Creech St. Michael, he saw a horse and cow straying. He called the attention of William HOPKINS, the owner, who carried on the dual business of farmer and butcher at Creech, to them, and told him as he had cautioned him of the same thing before he should now report the matter?. He was therefore summoned, but did not appear, and the magistrates fined him 5s and 6s costs.
STOKE ST. MARY FAMILY IN COURT.
SON AND DAUGHTER KEEP UNLICENSED DOGS.
MOTHER USES BAD LANGUAGE AND CHARGES FARMER WITH ASSAULT.
FATHER SUMMONS HIS EMPLOYER.
A Stoke St. Mary family named OATEN, living on the hill had quite a field day in court. Charges of keeping a dog without a license were preferred against a son named Walter, and his sister, Ellen, while the mother, a garrulous woman, whose name was Caroline, was summoned for using obscene language. She, in turn, summoned John T. GOVIER, farmer, Henlade, for assault, and the father, Charles Robert OATEN summoned Mr. GOVIER, his employer, under the Employers' and Workmen's Act, in order to recover 12s, alleged to be due for wrongful dismissal.
Walter OATEN, the son, who is employed as a farm labourer, pleaded guilty to having kept a lurcher dog without a license. - P.C. SMITHERAM said when he spoke to defendant the reply he got was “I shall kill the --- ---.” Defendant remarked that the dog was now dead and buried. - Fined 2s 6d and 5s costs.
Ellen OATEN, the daughter, pleaded not guilty to the charge against her and asserted that her dog was not six months old till the second prox. - It subsequently transpired that this animal had since the service of the summons died of distemper. - P.C. SMITHERAM said defendant had the dog before Christmas, and it was two or three months old then. - Defendant was ordered to pay 2s 6d towards the costs.
In the case against the mother for using obscene language on Stoke Hill on the 13th inst., P.C. SMITHERAM said he could hear the defendant shouting and swearing before he got within sight of the house. Her language was some of the worst a person could possibly use. She was dragged into the house by her husband when witness came upon the scene, and she then went upstairs and threatened to jump out of the bedroom window.
She was apparently under the influence of drink, and carried on in this manner in the presence of her children for about an hour. - Defendant, who gave evidence on oath, absolutely denied using the language attributed to her by the constable, although she admitted making use of certain other vulgar expressions. She did say she would jump out of the window and come down the plum tree, because they had locked her in. (Laughter.) - The husband also gave evidence, but the magistrates were convinced that the language in question had been used, and fined defendant 5s and 8s costs. - The Chairman described the case as a very bad one, and cautioned the woman that if she was brought before them again for such an offence she would be very severely dealt with.
The next of the series of cases was one in which John T. GOVIER, farmer, of Henlade, was summoned for having, on the 15th inst., assaulted Mrs. OATEN. - Defendant, who was represented by Mr. C. P. CLARKE, pleaded not guilty, and in the prosecutor's own evidence there was nothing to show that an assault had taken place. She said as she was going through a field where she alleged there was a path, the defendant came to her and ordered her back. She accused him of using very bad language, samples of which she gave without hesitation during the recital of her evidence, and also of threatening to knock her --- --- head off. - Complainant's husband gave similar evidence, after which the magistrates dismissed the case. - Mr. CLARKE remarked that so far as the language was concerned he should have been able to prove that is was used by the woman herself and not by his client.
Charles Frederick OATEN, the father, figured as complainant in the last of the cases, and he sought to recover from Mr. GOVIER, his employer, 12s damages for alleged wrongful dismissal. OATEN alleged that on the 25th April last defendant and his father went to him while he was at work, and after calling him everything but a gentleman, ordered him off the premises, threatening if he did not go they would kick him off. He had worked for defendant over 12 months and had been paid 12s weekly. He now claimed 12s in lieu of a week's notice. - For the defendant, who was again represented by Mr. CLARKE, it was stated that when defendant received notice to quit his cottage in March, he told Mr. GOVIER he would have to look out for another man and gave notice. He was, however, allowed to remain on, and was given time off to look for another job. On Easter-Monday, instead of doing his work, he walked about the yard all the afternoon using very bad language, and making various remarks about not caring for defendant or his money. Accordingly, on the following day, defendant told OATEN to go. Mr. CLARKE said defendant was willing to pay him his wages from the Friday to the Tuesday, and the Bench awarded complainant 6s of the amount claimed.
AN UNLICENSED DOG.
When P.S. READ asked Charles LOVERIDGE, farrier, of North Curry, why he had not taken out a license for his Airedale terrier he said the dog belonged to a Mr. VILE, of Langport. Enquiries, however, elicited that such was not the case, and LOVERIDGE, who did not appear, was now fined 10s and 6s costs for keeping the animal without a license.
RIDING WITHOUT A LIGHT.
CYCLISTS CAUGHT IN THE ACT.
“Never ride without a light, even though you have only a short distance to go,” is a motto every cyclist might with profit act upon, and three local patrons of the wheel would certainly have been 6s better off if they, on the 7th and 12th inst. respectively, had done so. - Charles BREWER, labourer, of Bishop's Hull, was one of the trio, and he was caught by P.C. TRASK on Stone Gallows-hill. His plea was that he only had a short distance to go, but he was fined 1s and 5s costs. - In the case of Henry BATEMAN, gentleman's servant, of Creech St. Michael, who was similarly fined, defendant said he had only ridden about 300 yards. - Mr. BADCOCK: How very unlucky. (Laughter.) - The third defendant was Edward BENNETT, of Taunton, who was caught by P.C. LIPPITT, on the Bridgwater-road, just outside the borough. - Defendant, who was riding a tandem with a lady, said they had had a piece of bad luck in the shape of a puncture, otherwise they would have reached home before lighting up time. - Fined 1s and 5s costs.
A DANGEROUS PRACTICE.
The punishment meted out to Beadon WAY, mason, of Creech St. Michael, should make him more careful where he leaves his horse and cart when he requires a drink in future. On the 6th inst., at 9.30 p.m., P.C. LIPPITT saw defendant's cart in the middle of the road outside the Ruishton Inn. The night was dark, and as there were no lights attached to the cart the constable very rightly considered it constituted a public danger. He found WAY drinking in the public-house. When served with the summons defendant said to the constable “I shan't attend, you can have your own way.” - The Bench took him at his word, and imposed a fine of 10s and 6s costs.
SECOND COURT. - Before Mr. A. EASTWOOD (in the chair) and the Major of Taunton (Councillor J. LEWIS).
MAINTENANCE CASE.
STAPLEGROVE BUILDER SUMMONED.
Mr. W. F. B. DAWE, on behalf of the Taunton Board of Guardians, summoned Wm. LOWE, carpenter and builder, of Staplegrove, to show why an order should not be made against him to maintain his daughter whilst she is an inmate of an asylum. Mr. A. CHANNING defended. - Mr. DAWE stated that defendant was a builder, undertaker, and contractor, and at present had no children dependent upon him. The daughter in question was an epileptic, and had for years been kept at home, but became so troublesome that defendant obtained an order for her to be admitted to an asylum, thus relieving himself of maintaining her. Defendant was the owner of some property, the total assessment of which was £81 gross, and in addition to that he estimated that the profit on his business as builder and contractor was about £100 a year. The cost of keeping the daughter in the asylum was 9s a week, which the Guardians had to pay, and they considered that defendant was in a position to contribute the whole of that amount. He therefore asked for an order for the payment of 9s per week. - Mr. CHANNING said defendant's daughter had been an epileptic since the age of 14 years, and when she had a bad attack the doctor recommended sending her to a private asylum. As defendant, however, had not the means to do that, the relieving-officer was communicated with, and the young woman sent away, Mr. LOWE having nothing to do with her being placed in the asylum. The question arose as to what liability there was on the parent to maintain his child. He did not deny that there was a liability, but defendant was only called upon to maintain his daughter as his means admitted. If she was at home the cost would not be more than 5s a week, which he submitted was quite enough for defendant to pay. Defendant's property did not bring in more than a net total of £31 a year, and defendant was in reality a carpenter, and did not earn anything like the sum mentioned. - Mr. S. R. CHAPMAN stated that defendant came to him for the order to send his daughter away. - Defendant: Yes, by the doctor's orders. - The Bench made an order upon defendant for the payment of 8s a week.
NEGLECT OF EDUCATION.
Thomas CLAY, of Stoke St. Gregory, was summoned for neglecting to send his child regularly to school. - Order made with half costs, 2s. - Joseph DINGLE was summoned for disobedience of an order in respect to one child, and also for neglecting to send another regularly. - Fined 5s and 4s costs in the first case, and an order was made in the second. - Mr. W. F. B. DAWE prosecuted on behalf of the Board of Guardians, and the cases were proved by Mr. LEWIS and Mr. TRICKEY?, school attendance officers.
<NOTES: Charles Robert OATEN son of Robert OATEN and Anne OATEN, married Caroline Louisa KITCH
Caroline Louisa KITCH daughter of John KITCH and Sarah TRUMP, married Charles Robert OATEN>