Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Taunton Courier. Bristol and Exeter Journal, and Western Advertiser Wednesday 16 Apr 1919
Page 6 Column 4 & 5
TAUNTON POLICE-COURT
WEDNESDAY. - Before Mr J. P. SIBLEY (in the chair), Messrs. C. J. GOODLAND, G. HINTON, and J. C. LANE.
LICENSING. - On the application of Mr. F. W. WILLMOTT (Messrs. C. P. CLARKE & Co.), the license of the London Hotel was temporarily transferred from the late Mr. W. F. WHITTINGHAM to his widow. - The Bench also granted extensions until three a.m. on April 10th and 22nd, on the occasion of private dances.
OBSTRUCTING THE HIGHWAY. - Archibald CLARKE, labourer, of Paul-street, pleaded guilty to having, on the 29th March, obstructed the highway in North-street by leaving a covered van thereon. - P.C. HANNAM stated the facts, and defendant was fined 10s.
LIGHTING OFFENCES. - Arthur WEBSTER, whip at The Kennels, Henlade, pleaded guilty to having, at eleven p.m., ridden a bicycle without a rear light. - P.S. GILES stated the facts, and said defendant's excuse was that the wind was rough, but he had no lamp on the machine. When this was pointed out to him he said he had left it at home. - Fined 5s. - John LOVE, chauffeur, of 3 Court, King-street, did not appear in answer to a summons for having, at 7.50 p.m. on the 29th ult., driven a motor-car without a red rear lamp. He was also summoned for having, at the same time and place, failed to illuminate the rear identification plate of his car. - P.C. HANNAM stated the facts, and said defendant had a white light at the rear of his van, and it did not illuminate the number plate. - The case was adjourned for a week for defendant's appearance.
AFFILIATION ORDER INCREADED. - Mildred SWEET, of Taunton, applied for an increase in the payments under an affiliation order obtained against George BOOTH for 5s per week. - Applicant stated that she was “married” to defendant, and that a female child was born. Subsequently defendant was convicted of bigamously marrying her, and she obtained an order against him for 5s per week. - The Bench increased the order to 10s per week.
USING THREATS. - The adjourned case in which Florence FRIEND, of King-street, charged her husband, Chas. FRIEND, with having used threats was again before the Court, and the Bench bound both parties over in the sum of £5 to be of good behaviour for six months, remarking that they hoped the parties would come to some arrangement in the meantime.
A GIRL WITH A BAD RECORD.
Lily Lucy WRIGHT (18) pleaded guilty to having, between the 31st March and April 4th, stolen a £1 Treasury note, and a silk scarf, value 13s 11d, the goods of Beatrice MANUEL, of High-street.
P.S. GILES said that for some few weeks defendant had been employed as a day girl in the town, and lodged with Mrs. MANUEL. On the 31st March complainant put a purse containing five £1 Treasury notes on the mantelpiece, and later she missed one. On the following Friday she missed a silk scarf from the kitchen, and interviewed defendant, who denied all knowledge of it. Prosecutrix reported the matter to witness, and he saw defendant, and told her of the complaint. She admitted taking the £1 note, but denied taking the scarf. On the way to the Police-station she said she took the scarf and broke it up, and threw it over French Weir at about 11.30 p.m. on Sunday. When formally charged she made no reply.
P.S. HART said defendant had a very bad record, and was convicted at Dulverton on January 10th for stealing a purse containing £1 17s 6d, and sent to prison for 14 days. She was in a reformatory school in 1910, and there were several documents against her character.
Miss ELLIOTT, superintendent of the Home at 9, Portman-grove, stated that after the conviction at Dulverton defendant came to the Home for a week, but was very restless.
The Bench, in sending defendant to prison for two months, said it was a sad case, and they wished there had been some other course which they could have adopted.
UNUSUAL AFFILIATION CASE.
Edgar Lionel STRINGFELLOW, an ex-soldier, of The Sanatorium, Cheddon-road, Taunton, was summoned by Beatrice GUEST, single woman, of Taunton, in respect of the paternity of her three children, born on April 22nd, 1912; April 23rd, 1913; and May 15th, 1915. - Mr. F. W. WILLMOTT, for defendant, denied the paternity. - Applicant said she met defendant in 1911, and in November, 1914, he took a house for her. He left Taunton in December, 1914, to proceed to India, and promised to make her an allotment from his Army pay. Defendant paid the expenses of the birth in respect of the first two children, and he gave her sums of money for their maintenance. - Mrs. BULPIN, who attended applicant in her confinement in 1912 and 1913, stated that she was engaged by defendant, who on each occasion paid her 5s. He frequently visited the house whilst witness was there, and seemed to be proud of the children. - Mr. WILLMOTT said there was no money paid in respect of the first two children, and with regard tot h third child the onus was upon the complainant to prove that defendant was the father of the children. He submitted that this had not been done, and that he had no case to answer. - The Bench held that there was no corroboration in regard to the third child, and that the case therefore failed. - With regard to the other two children, defendant denied paternity or that he had paid her any money in respect of them. He did not pay for the doctor, neither did he make any payment to Mrs. BULPIN, although he might have gone to her house. Money sent in a letter from India was not in respect of the children, but he had given complainant money from time to time to help her. - Inspector PEARCE, N.S.P.C.C., stated that applicant made a statement to him. She had four children, and she said she had an order in regard to the first for 3s 6d per week. He could not definitely say what she said with regard to the three children in question. - Mr. WILLMOTT said the girl must bring strong evidence of payment within twelve months of the birth before the Bench were justified in making an order. Upon the evidence before the Court there was nothing to show that such payments had been made. - The Bench made an order for the payment of 10s per week (5s in respect of each child).
NEGLECTING TO PAY MINIMUM RATES OF WAGES.
LOCAL MANUFACTURER FINED.
AN OBLIGING DEFENDANT.
There were 23 cases against Alfred Kirk COOK (trading as A. K. COOK & Co.), of the Excelsior Works, Taunton, charging him with having failed to pay not less than the minimum scale of wages fixed by the Shirt Making Trade Board in respect of the following workers:- Marion and Beatrice CHAMBERLAIN; Alice M. WORTHY; Eva PARRY; Kate CROSS; Jane LEGG; Harriett CACKLIN; Ellen WHITEFIELD; Eliza J. SMITH; Violet V. BOON; Alice NORTHCOTT; Julia PAVEY; Maggie THATCHER; Olive PETHERICK; Maud MUSSELWHITE; Rose THATCHER; Queenie ATTWELL; Florence BIGGIN; Minnie CHIDGEY; Eva ATTWELL; and Ethel M. ASHTON. He was also charged with having failed to post a notice in his factory relating to the Order.
Mr. George Sydney LOCKE prosecuted on behalf of the Ministry of Labour, and defendant pleaded not guilty to the whole of the charges.
Mr. LOCKE said defendant's plea was a great surprise to him, as he understood from Mr. COOK that he would plead guilty, and, unwisely, as it seemed, he (Mr. LOCKE) suggested that the witnesses need not attend, but should remain at their work.
Defendant: That is so. The cases are quite clear, we're paying the minimum wages as far as I know.
Mr. LOCKE: I find it difficult to go on with my case.
Defendant: If you think I have abused the understanding between you and myself I will plead guilty.
The Magistrates' Clerk: You quite understand. You plead guilty to failing to pay the minimum wages. Are you satisfied? - No.
The Magistrates' Clerk: Then you cannot alter your plea of not guilty. Are you satisfied in your own mind you are guilty or not guilty? - I must say I am guilty then.
Mr. LOCKE said he was given authority to prosecute under Section 17 of the 1909 Act. Shortly, the objects of the Act of the Trade Board were to secure to workers a fair and living wage, and in a case like the one before them there was not only a breach of the law, but also a withholding from the workers the sufficiency to live, and that was what made the case rather more serious, especially in these times when the cost of living was so extremely high. With regard to the posting of the notice it was defendant's duty to post it in his works so that the workers could see what rates of wages had been fixed, and which the employers were obliged to pay. A notice was issued on the 22nd November last stating that the minimum should be 6d per hour for female workers, and that notice had not been posted by defendant. The other case dealt with the non-payment of the minimum rates, both to time workers and piece workers. Mr. LOCKE then dealt with the various cases in detail, and pointed out that in the case of Marion CHAMBERLAIN she was paid at the rate of 3d per hour, whereas the minimum was 5d per hour. Beatrice CHAMBERLAIN, was was a learner, was entitled to 8s 1d for 47½ , but she received only 5s 6d. Alice Maud WORTHY was a forewoman in the laundry, and she should have received 6d per hour, but was paid only 5d, which was the old rate prior to November 22nd. Mr. LOCKE also dealt with the other workers in groups, and pointed out that the amount they received either for time or piece-work was below the minimum, and that most of the workers must be regarded as ordinary workers, entitled to the minimum wage. Mr. LOCKE said he must leave it to the Bench to impose such penalties as they thought fit, having regard tot he circumstance, and under the Act he would ask that an Order be made for the underpaid amounts to be paid to the workers. He had calculated the amount due to the workers, and was prepared to prove them, and had called upon defendant to produce his books for that purpose.
Defendant: We're prepared to deny it. I prefer to have it adjourned, and a new case tried.
The Chairman: May we ask you after that statement, do you wish to withdraw your plea of guilty? - Those figures want to be verified and the statement substantiated.
Mr. LOCKE proceeded to read an elaborate statement respecting the amounts due to each worker, but the Chairman said they were quite beyond their understanding, and suggested that if they could come to an agreement it would simplify matters.
Defendant: Everything should be checked; I had no idea it was coming to this. In that statement no allowance is made for slow workers.
The Chairman: Now, Mr. COOK, we are prepared to hear what you have to say.
Defendant: I am not prepared to say anything. I have come here without any books. Mr. LOCKE made all sorts of statements that I didn't expect to hear. I only received one notice, and that was put up in the office on account of my bad sight. They promised to send four more, but they did not do so. He was quite prepared to have Mr. LOCKE's figures checked and to come to an arrangement.
The Bench retired, and on their return announced that they had decided to impose a fine of 10s 6d in each of the 24 cases, and that defendant must pay such sums as was found to be due to the persons named, the amount, if possible, to be settled between defendant and the prosecution. In the event of their being unable to reach a settlement the case must come before the Bench again.
Mr. LOCKE pointed out that the case had been an unusually difficult one to deal with, and that he had had to bring down one or two clerks from his office, one of whom was present as a witness. He asked that he be allowed costs, and that he also be allowed costs for the witnesses to whom conduct money had been paid.
The Bench decided to allow the amount of conduct money (22s) paid to witnesses, but refused to make any further order.
<NOTES: Beatrice MANUEL is Beatrice May BICKNELL daughter of Hubert John BICKNELL and Elizabeth VIRGIN, married Alfred James MANUEL>