Taunton Courier 05 Nov 1919 Taunton Borough Police Court inc BLACKMORE 28 High Street Elizabeth BICKNELL 26 High Street COLLIHOLE St James Street STILL Kingston Road

Sarah Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper Articles


Taunton Courier. Bristol and Exeter Journal and Western Advertiser. Wednesday 05 Nov 1919

Page 5 Column 2


TAUNTON BOROUGH POLICE-COURT.

WEDNESDAY. - Before the Mayor (Mr. H. J. Van TRUMP) and Messrs. J. P. SIBLEY, C. J. GOODLAND, and J. C. LANE.

WORKHOUSE OR PRISON.

Mr. T. BROOMHEAD, local hon. secretary of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, mentioned to the Bench a case which had come before them some time since when a man named YARDE and his wife were convicted for child neglect. The man was sent to prison, and the case against the woman was first adjourned for her mental condition to be enquired into, and subsequently it was further adjourned on account of her promise to go into the Workhouse. This she now declined to do, although the children were there, and was staying outside and supporting herself. - The Mayor remarked that the Bench told the woman that if she did not go into the Workhouse she would be sent to prison, and he imagined that they should adhere to that decision. Unless the woman went into the Workhouse within 24 hours she would be committed to prison for two months.

NO LIGHTS.

The following persons were fined for riding either motor-cycles or “push bikes” without lights:- William ARLIDGE, dairyman, Taunton (who was represented by Mr. H. G. SPILLER), 5s; Foster BOND, apprentice, Taunton, 6s; John LONGMAN(?), apprentice, Taunton, 5s; Walter HAMBLING, Taunton, 5s; Clifford ROGERS, engine cleaner, Bishop's Hull, 5s; Reginald GUEST, porter, Durston, 5s. - Mrs. ENGLAND, of West Hatch, was fined 5s for driving a horse and cart without a rear light. - Frank SMAILES(?), motor driver, of Bristol, was summoned for not having a rear light on a motor lorry in East Reach on the 6th inst., but he wrote that while engaged for the Ministry of Food to come to Taunton during the railway strike he had his rear lamp stolen, and under these circumstances the Bench dismissed the case on payment of costs.

FOOD CONTROL PROSECUTIONS AT TAUNTON.

CHARGES OF BREAD SHORTAGES AND EXCESSIVE FISH PRICES.

Fred JONES, baker, of 49, High-street, Taunton, was summoned for having exposed for sale bread not of correct weight, as prescribed by the Bread Order, on the 15th September. - He pleaded not guilty.

Mr. W. T. BOOKER, solicitor, of Wellington, prosecuted for the Taunton Food Control Committee, and said the Bread Order came into force on the 1st June, 1918. One of the clauses of that Order provided that no loaf of bread be offered for sale unless its weight be 1lb or an even number of lbs. On the 15th September Inspector House, who at that time was in the service of the Ministry of Food at Bristol, visited the defendant's shop and found exposed for sale 20 2lb. Loaves. The Inspector asked Mr. JONES to weigh the loaves in his presence, which the defendant did, and the result was that not one of the 20 loaves were up to weight, but were deficient more or less. Seventeen of them weighed 1lb. 15oz., and the other three 1lb. 15½ oz. JONES said that the bread was stale and had been baked 24 hours or more. It might be (Mr. BOOKER added) that a baker had difficulties in ensuring absolute uniformity, but there were ways and means by which he could correct this.

John HOUSE, of Bristol, stated that on September 15th, whilst in the service of the Ministry of Food he visited defendant's shop, and asked him to weigh 20 loaves there exposed for sale. Seventeen of the loaves weighted 1lb. 15oz., and three 1lb. 15½oz. Some bread just taken from the over was brought into the shop, and weighed before him. All these loaves were up to weight. - In reply to defendant witness said he could not swear it was him (defendant) he saw in the shop. The man he saw there he took to be Mr. JONES, and a young woman present he understood was defendant's daughter.

Samuel WIDDICOMBE, executive officer to the Food Control Committee, proved his authority to prosecute in the case.

Defendant said the bread found short weight had been baked about 50 hours, and had been placed aside on order. When allowed to get stale bread always lost a little in weight, especially at the present time when the flour they were using contained a great deal of rice, which caused it to dry more quickly. The Inspector weighed every loaf in the shop, and all excepting the stale bread were up to weight. On the following day the Inspector stopped his man with the barrow and found the bread correct in weight. The stale bread was in a bin and not exposed for sale.

Inspector HOUSE (re-called) said some of the short weight loaves were in a bin, and some were exposed for sale about the shop. - The Bench imposed a fine of 10s.

Ernest BLACKMORE, baker, of 28, High-street, Taunton, was summoned for a like offence in respect of five loaves, and he pleaded guilty.

Mr. BOOKER said on the 15th September Inspector HOUSE went to the shop and saw Mr. BLACKMORE and found five loaves exposed for sale. At the request of the Inspector defendant weighed the loaves, and the result was that one loaf weighed 1lb. 15oz., the second 1lb. 15¼oz., the thired and the forth 1lb 15½oz., and the fifth was all right. In this case the loaves had only just been baked, so there was no question of depreciation in weight applying in this case.

Defendant alleged that three of the weights had been wrongly stated. He had no small weights to correspond with the weights which had been given, and in each case the Inspector guessed the shortage.

Inspector HOUSE denied this, and said defendant had an half-oz. weight, but no quarter-oz. one, and therefore the difference between the half and the oz. had to be guessed.

The Chairman thought the Inspector should have been provided with his own weights in order to prove his case.

Inspector HOUSE said his case was that the loaves were all under two lbs., as that was proved by defendant's own scales.

Defendant went in the box and swore on oath that the weights which had been given for the prosecution were incorrect. He admitted that the loaves were just against the balance of 2lbs. These were tinned loaves, which dried quicker than other kinds of bread.

A fine of 10s was imposed in this case.

Elizabeth BICKNELL, general grocer, of 26, High-street, pleaded guilty to a similar charge, in respect of 12 loaves of bread exposed for sale on the 15th ult.

Mr. BOOKER stated that when the Inspector went to the shop he found 20 loaves on sale, and asked Mrs. BICKNELL to weigh them. This she did with the following results. Eight were correct, one weighed 1lb. 14½oz., five weighed 1lb. 15oz., and six 1lb. 15½oz., each. The bread had been baked the same day.

Defendant said she usually weighed the bread when it was sent in by Mr. BLACKMORE, and had never found it short weight. She did not weigh it on the morning of September 15th, being every busy at the time. - Fined 10s.

Annie COLLIHOLE, general grocer of St. James's-street, was summoned for selling tinned salmon above the maximum price on September 16th. - She pleaded not guilty, but admitted a second charge of not exhibiting a price list of canned fish, as required by the Order.

Mr. BOOKER said the Canned Fish Order came into operation on September 16th(?), 1918, and was supplemented by a further order in May, 1919. The Orders required retailers to exhibit a schedule of maximum prices in a conspicuous position, clearly visible to customers. The prices fixed under the May Order included that for pink salmon, such as Mrs. COLLIHOLE sold to the Inspector. The maximum price for the small “half flat tin” ws 9d, but when the Inspector asked for a tin he was charged 10½d. He pointed out to the defendant that she had charged him 1½d too much, and she replied that she had to pay more than 9d each for the tins. He asked for her list of prices, and she said she had never heard anything about it. Mr. BOOKER added: “No wonder wives of working men can't make both ends meet if they are charged 15 per cent. above the maximum charge for tinned salmon. This particular shop is in a poor neighbourhood in St. James's-street. It is called 'The little gold mine' – (laughter) – a name not altogether inappropriate if these are the methods followed.”

Inspector HOUSE proved having purchased the salmon at 10½d on the date in question.

Defendant produced an invoice from the wholesaler (dated July) showing that the tins of salmon had been supplied at 9s 9d per dozen or 9¾d each.

The Chairman, in fining defendant 10s, and 1s in the second case, said it was the duty of retailers to see that they were complying with the requirements of the law when they bought goods for which maximum prices were fixed. The Bench quite recognised that there had been no profiteering in this case.

At the request of Inspector HOUSE the invoice produced by defendant was handed over to be sent to the Divisional Food Commissioner.

Harry STILL, grocer, of Kingston-road, Taunton, was also summoned for selling tinned salmon above the maximum price, and for failing to exhibit in this shop the price of same. - He pleaded not guilty in the first case, but admitted the second.

Mr. BOOKER, prosecuting in these cases, said the particular class of goods defendant sold to the Inspector consisted of a tall tin of pink salmon, the maximum price of which was 1s 2½d. The Inspector went to the shop and bought one of these tins, for which he was charged 1s 4½d by Mrs. STILL, her husband not being at him at the time. “Here you have a case” (remarked Mr. BROOKER)” of a man charging his customers 15 per cent. above the maxium price, and if that is not profiteering I confess I have some difficulty in understanding what it is.”

Inspector House gave evidence bearing out Mr. BOOKER's statement, and added that Mrs. STILL failed to find any invoice for the tinned salmon.

Defendant said they hardly ever sold pink salmon and this was some very old stock. He had the invoice to prove that they paid in December last 2s for all the tins of salmon they had of that sort, so that he did not see where the profiteering came in, as by selling it even at 1s 4½d they sustained a loss of 7½d on every tin they sold. He was not aware that they had to have a list exhibited of the prices until the Inspector so informed him.

The Bench fined defendant 15s with costs in the first case, and 1s without costs in the second, and they also allowed an advocate's fee of £2 2s, to be divided between the defendants.

The Mayor retired from the Bench as a member of the Food Control Committee whilst these cases were being heard, and Mr. SIBLEY occupied the chair.

AN UNNEIGHBOURLY ACT.

Annie EVANS, married woman, living in a court in Paul-street, did not answer a summons taken out by Mrs. Beatrice PIDGEON, a neighbour, for assault, but a letter was read from the defendant in which she admitted that she assaulted complainant by throwing at her a pint of clean water, her excuse being that she lost her temper – Complainant gave evidence that she and defendant had always been good friends, but on the 25th October when she (complainant) was outside her front door defendant began swearing at her, and subsequently she poured some water from the tap and threw it over her. - The Bench adjourned the case to the next court for the attendance of the defendant.


Back to Miscellaneous Page

Back to Home Page






<NOTES: Elizabeth BICKNELL is Elizabeth VIRGIN daughter of Joseph VIRGIN and Susan BRUFORD, married Hubert John BICKNELL>