Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Taunton Courier. Bristol and Exeter Journal, and Western Advertiser. Wednesday 05 Feb 1913
Page 3 Column 6 and 7
TAUNTON COUNTY PETTY SESSIONS.
SATURDAY. - Before Mr. H. J. BADCOCK (in the chair), Mr. J. E. W. WAKEFIELD, Mr. A. E. EASTWOOD, Mr. E. C. TREPPELIN, Major. W. Marwood ELTON, Major A. G. BARRETT, Mr. C. Leslie FOX, Mr. J. WHITE, Mr. C. TITE, and Mr. Robt. BRUFORD.
ANNUAL LICENSING MEETING.
This was the annual licensing meeting of the Bench, and Deputy-Chief-Constable T. BROWN presented the following report for the Taunton county licensing district for the year ended January 31st, 1913:- “There are 40 ale houses, 15 beer-houses 'on,' and one grocer's license. The population of the district is 14,171, this being one licensed house to every 257 inhabitants. There are three clubs registered under the Licensing Act of 1910. Five males had been convicted for drunkenness, as compared with six males and one female in the previous year, showing a decreased of one male and one female convicted. There has been no conviction against any of the licensees during the year. The licensed houses have been well conducted.”
Mr. C. P. CLARKE applied, on behalf of the Taunton and West Somerset Licensed Victuallers' Association, for the renewal of the whole of the licenses.
There were no objections, and the Bench agreed to renew all the licenses, which were then granted in another Court.
COLLARLESS DOG.
John DENMAN, a farmer, of North Curry, pleaded guilty to allowing his dog to be on the highway without a collar at Creech on January 15th. - Ordered to pay 5s costs.
EMPLOYEE
SUMMONED BY MASTER.
SUCCESSFUL CLAIM FOR WAGES IN LIEU OF NOTICE.
Francis SHORT, a farm labourer, of Taunton, was summoned by Robert BRUFORD, of The Nerrols, Cheddon Fitzpaine, Taunton, for wrongfully leaving his employment. Mr. BRUFORD also claimed £2 8s damages, being three weeks' wages at 16s a week. - Mr. C. P. CLARKE appeared for Mr. BRUFORD, who did not adjudicate in this case. - Mr. CLARKE outlined the case, and said the action was brought as a matter of principle, as it was very inconvenient for an employer to be left in such a away as defendant left Mr. BRUFORD.
Robert BRUFORD, of Nerrols, Taunton, stated that up to January 3rd, Francis SHORT was in his employ at 16s a week and one month's notice on either side. Defendant was a labourer, but had a good deal to do with the stock. On January 3rd defendant gave witness a month's notice to leave, and continued to work for witness until January 11th. Defendant did part of his work on Sunday, January 11th, but when witness came out he found defendant had gone home. Witness had to do some of defendant's work and arrange for the other work to be done. This Sunday work was outside the contract, and defendant was paid extra for it.
Master Robt. BRUFORD, son of the previous witness, said on January 12th his father sent him to SHORT's house and Mrs. SHORT told witness that her husband had gone away to see some relatives and she did not know whether he would be able to attend to the stock. Witness told her that was what his father had sent him to enquire about, and witness told her that Mr. SHORT need not come down again that day as they had had to do part of his work already.
Fredk. COPHAM, a herdsman, employed by Mr. BRUFORD, said on January 14th he went, at Mr. BRUFORD's request, to see defendant. He told defendant Mr. BRUFORD had said that he (defendant) was to come and do his work or he would be summoned, and defendant said “So he can,” adding that on Sunday Mr. BRUFORD sent word to say that he did not want him (defendant) again. Now he (defendant) had another place and another cottage.
Defendant did not appear, but his wife, on oath, said Mr. BRUFORD's son told her to tell her husband he need not come to work any more, which she did. Master BRUFORD did not say any more that day. - By Mr. C. P. CLARKE: She did not know where her husband was that day; he might be in Canada by that time. It was only a week's notice her husband gave Mr. BRUFORD, and he only went on the Sunday to oblige Mr. BRUFORD, who was short of men. Her husband had not communicated with her since January 25th, when the summons was served, and when he told her to appear that day.
The Bench made an order for the damages claimed and for the costs.
WORKING AN UNFIT HORSE.
Jas. D. CLARKE, a farmer, of Pitminster, was summoned for causing a mare to be worked in an unfit state at Pitminster on January 27th, and Wm. OATEN, a carter in the employ of Mr. CLARKE, was summoned for working the mare in an unfit state. - Both defendants pleaded guilty.
P.C. ELKINS said on January 27th he saw OATEN driving two horses in a manure putt. The roan mare in the traces was very lame in both front feet. On being told of the horse's condition OATEN said “Yes, the horse is not fit for work on the roads,” adding that his master knew it, but if he (OATEN) did not work the horse as his master ordered he would lose his place. Witness told defendant (OATEN) to take the horse home. The next day witness visited Sweethay Farm with Inspector BOWSKIN, and Mr. CLARKE said the mare had not done any work for several months, and had only done three days' work since the last harvest. The horse had been fired three years ago, and now had ringbone.
Defendant CLARKE had been specially summoned to bring the mare to Court that day to produce it to the magistrates. When asked why he had not brought in the mare, defendant said “The policeman told me I could please myself.” - P.C.. ELKINS said he did not tell defendant that, but defendant said “I am not going to take the mare in there. I shall have ELDER, the vet. What do magistrates know about horses?', He (P.C. ELKINS) advised defendant to convey the mare into Taunton in a float.
Inspector W. H. BOWSKIN, R.S.P.C.A., said the reason for his taking out a summons was because of the circumstances. The horse suffered from loin and side ringbone, the hoof was considerably overgrown, and altogether the horse was totally unfit for work. He thought the best thing would be to let the magistrates see the horse, for themselves, as perhaps the defendant would consent to have the horse destroyed under a magistrate's order. When he saw the horse with its feet and fetlocks in mud and water the inflammation was most keen.
OATEN said he worked the horse under his master's orders, and as he was getting up in years he was afraid if he lost his situation he would not easily get another.
When asked if he would have the mare destroyed, defendant CLARKE said it was a young mare and ran to play on the day preceding that Court, like a kitten. The mare was seven years off. OATEN supported this statement, and defendant CLARKE undertook not to work the mare on the roads, but the inspector said the mare was not fit for work on the land.
The Bench adjourned the case for a fortnight, and said defendant CLARKE must either satisfy the Bench that the mare was destroyed or produce a veterinary surgeon's certificate to the effect that the mare was fit for work.
Defendant CLARKE was very deaf, and Mrs. CLARKE said her husband had been ill and ought not to have been at that court that day. She was afraid the excitement would cause him to be taken ill.
The case against OATEN was then dismissed.
HARE POACHING AT TRULL.
DOGGED POACHER'S THREATS.
William WILLS and Joseph FURZER, both of Taunton, pleaded not guilty to a charge of trespassing in pursuit of game at Trull on January 27th, on the land of Mr. Robert C. BERE. - Mr. H. G. MOGER was for the prosecution, and after outlining the case he emphasised the fact that the defendants were at Milverton and would not touch Trull on the way home; therefore, it was a reasonable question to ask what defendants were doing at Trull.
Mr. Robert C. BERE, farmer, of Three Bridges Farm, Bradford, said he farmed land called GATCHELL at Trull. He had seen FURZER in that locality, and had seen some wires set in the hedge. - By the defendant: He saw no-one put the wires there.
Mr. G. W. HODGKINSON, master of the Taunton Vale Harriers, said on January 27th he was hunting at Oake, Milverton, and saw defendants out there for most of the day. He had spoken to Mr. BERE about the poaching at Trull, and witness was given permission to try to catch the poachers.
Henry Robert TUCKER, bailiff to Mr. HODGKINSON, spoke to watching the field, in the company of his master and P.S. SWEET on the previous Sunday morning and said he saw defendants near the field. On the following Monday witness went to the field about three o'clock in the afternoon and found the hare now produced, in a wire. The hare was dead and partially hidden so that no one coming from Comeytrowe would see it unless they were looking specially for it. Witness hid himself and waited. About 20 minutes to six witness heard the two defendants coming along from Comeytrowe. Witness heard one of the defendant's say to the other, “That is where I had one t'other day.” They said under their breath as they were passing where witness was hiding. “There's nobody about.” The defendants were then about two yards away from witness. Then witness saw FURZE take the hare out of the wire. Witness at once jumped out of the hedge and ran towards defendants, who both ran away. WILLS ran down the path, but FURZER turned away from the path and went to the hedge were witness saw him push his hand under the hedge. Witness shouted to them that it was no good to run away and then stopped. They had not a hare with them and witness told them he saw where FURZER put the hare in the hedge. Witness knew FURZER, but not WILLS, who would not give his name. After walking with defendants to the roadway witness went back and got the hare out of the hedge where FURZER had put it. Later witness found nine wires altogether. The defendant FURZER, in cross-examination of this witness, said he (FURZER) had never seen the hare. He would not put down rubbish like the wires now produced, for wires. A man who had any sense about putting down wires would not put wires there.
TUCKER, replying to FURZER, said he found traces where two other hares had been caught in wires.
FURZER said he had never put down a wire in his life, but would put down a few if he got anything for this case.
P.S. SWEET spoke of complaints being made of defendants, and their poaching habits in the neighbourhood. When spoken to WILLS admitted being with FURZER on the evening in question, and said he did not give his name as he did not consider he had done anything.
FURZER said he knew nothing of the alleged offence. He had never seen the hare or wires.
WILLS said he had never poached and never intended to do so.
Deputy-Chief Constable BROWN proved a list of convictions against FURZER for stealing, begging, assaulting the police, and poaching. He (FURZER) was fined £2 and costs or one month in 1906 for poaching. Since then he had been convicted for three thefts and for begging. There was nothing about WILLS.
FURZER was fined £2 and costs, or one month's imprisonment, and WILLS was fined 5s and costs, or seven days. - WILLS was allowed a fortnight in which to pay.
FURZER said “Alright, I will catch a few more hares for this.”
Deputy-Chief Constable BROWN: You can't do that.
FURZER: “Well, I will when I come out, please God.”
SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.
John PAUL, a butcher, of Stoke St. Gregory, was summoned for not sending his child Joseph, aged 13, regularly to Stoke St. Gregory School. - School-attendance Officer MEDWAY stated the case, and an order for the child's attendance was made, with costs.
A PARTICULARLY SAD CASE.
MOTHER'S WANT AND HUSBAND'S LAZINESS.
John HOLLEY, a small boy, of Ruishton, was charged with stealing two sovereigns at Ruishton, between January 17th and 21st. - The boy's mother, Mrs. Ethel HOLLEY, was charged with receiving the two sovereigns, well knowing then to have been stolen.
William HASKINS, a labourer, of Ruishton, spoke to losing two sovereigns from a small box unlocked, placed in his clothes box, also unlocked, at the top of the stairs. In consequence of rumours he asked Mrs. HOLLEY if she had had the two sovereigns which the children had taken out of his box, and she said “No,” but later said she would pay it back. Later on Mrs. HOLLEY sent for him and said “I'll own up that I have had your £2; John brought it home to me.” Mrs. HOLLEY's children and witness's younger brothers and sisters played together in witness's house, where he lived with his mother.
Elizabeth HASKINS, mother of the last witness, said on the 18th January she was away from her house from 10.30 till 4.30. Before 4.30 her children got in by means of the key that was left for them at witness's mother's house. Witness saw the money in the box on the previous Friday. In consequence of village rumours she spoke to Mrs. HOLLEY, who denied seeing the money, but John said his little sister, Mary, took the money out of the box and took it home to their mother.
Mrs. HOLLEY pleaded on her own behalf and on behalf of her son. She did it out of want. Her son, John, said he went with Mrs. HASKINS' little boy to look for a penny, and he saw the money in the box and took it. He did not tell her that at the time he brought the money home, but afterwards. She was very sorry. Bursting into tears, Mrs. HOLLEY said she had to keep the home together herself, and had to pay 4s a week rent and 4s a week for her baby, to keep a house over their head. Later she informed the Deputy-Chief Constable that she earned 13s to £1 a fortnight, but that lately work had not been plentiful.
Deputy-Chief Constable BROWN and Mrs. HOLLY had a very hard life and had to maintain the home. She had never been brought up before. She wo ked <sic> at the factory at Creech. He husband, who was considerably older than her, would lie in bed till 11 or 12 o'clock in the day. He could get work, but would not do it. She had three children.
After a retirement the Chairman said they considered this a very sad case. Her proper course would have been to take the money back. They had no doubt want made her keep it. The magistrates would put both her and her son under the probation officer for six months to see how they conducted themselves. Her best plan would be to apply to the Guardians for relief and the Board would see if they could not induce her husband to do something to support his wife and family.
Mrs. HOLLEY: I thank you, sirs.
<NOTES: Robert BRUFORD son of Robert BRUFORD and Elizabeth Coles MUSGRAVE, married Francis Maria JEFFERIES>