Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Taunton Courier. Bristol and Exeter Journal, and Western Advertiser Wednesday 05 Jul 1922
Page 5 Column 5
TAUNTON BOROUGH POLICE-COURT.
WEDNESDAY. - Before the Mayor, Alderman F. S. DODSON (in the chair), Mrs. J. G. LOVEDAY, Messrs. J. WHITE, F. W. PENNY, and H. E. GIBBONS.
HOSPITAL FETE APPLICATION.
Mr. Robert STEVENS, proprietor of the Black Horse Hotel, was granted a license to sell intoxicating liquor at the Hospital Fete on Thursday, July 6th, between the hours of 2 and 10 p.m.
OBSTRUCTING THE HIGHWAY.
Rodham MORRIS, of “Longs,” North Curry, Taunton, was summoned for obstructing the highway with a motor-car at Taunton on the 16th inst.
P.C. DOUGHTY stated that at 12.30 p.m. he saw the defendant's car in East-street, and was of the opinion that it was obstructing the highway. He could not find the defendant, but at 1.30 p.m. he saw him come out of an office. He asked him if he knew it was an offence, and he replied “I am sorry; it is not my car, but my father's.”
Defendant, who pleaded guilty, said he went into a shop, and when he came out he went across into his father's office, as he had not finished his business, and when he came out he found the constable waiting for him. - Fined £1.
CAR UNATTENDED FOR 45 MINUTES.
Dr. Charles Grant BRYAN, of 1, Institute-place, Lewymypia, South Wales, did not appear in answer to a summons for obstructing the highway with a motor-car at Taunton on the 16th inst., but sent a letter of apology.
P.C. COOMBES stated that at 5 p.m. he saw the car unattended in North-street, outside Messrs. W. & A. CHAPMAN's. He went into Maynard's Restaurant, but could not find the defendant, but at 5.45 he saw him and told him of the offence.
Mr. F. W. PENNY asked if a car could be left unattended for a few minutes.
Mr. BROWN, deputy chief constable, said they were allowed to stand there long enough to load and unload. They did not interfere with them for a time, but if motorists would only ask where they could go the officers would tell them. They generally sent them to Corporation-street. There were many other places to which they could go. - Fined £1.
DID NOT TAKE POLICE ADVICE.
Charles H. HUTCHINS, of 62, Mitchem-road, Tooting, London, was charged with driving a motor-car without illuminating his number plate at Taunton on the 11th inst. - P.C. HANNAM stated that at 1 a.m. he saw the defendant driving a motor-car without a light. Defendant was instructed by P.S. RANSOME that he could get the lamp repaired at Messrs. Hewins' Garages, but shortly after they saw him go along Fore-street without a light. - Fined 10s.
USING CARS WITHOUT LICENSES.
Eric V. FOSTER, motor proprietor, of North Curry, Taunton, pleaded guilty to a charge of using a motor-car without a license on April 18th.
Mr. Geo. E. WOLFENDEN, taxation officer, prosecuting, said the facts of the case were that the defendant was using his motor-car on the 18th April in East-street, Taunton. It was seen by a constable, who asked defendant why he was using it when the license had expired. Defendant replied that he had forgotten to take it out, and would do so immediately. He applied for a license on the 20th April by a messenger, but had not filled up any of the necessary forms. Forms were sent to him and also registration books, but they were not returned until two applications had been made to the defendant. The license was granted on the 6th June. He was liable to a fine of £20, or three times the amount of the tax. The defendant was stopped at West Monkton a short time previous by P.S. GREEDY and P.C. CHINN and warned of a similar offence, and said he would take out the license the following day, but did not do so.
Defendant said the following day was a Bank Holiday.
Mr. WOLFENDEN replied that the defendant did not apply until the 18th April. The license expired in March. They were usually given 14 days after the license expired, and the defendant had a chance even after that period, but he did not comply with the Act.
The Bench decided to fine the defendant £1, and said that it was carelessness on his part.
There was a similar charge against Cyril LONSDALE, of Brookgreen, Hammersmith, London, but Mr. Geo. E. WOLFENDEN applied for the withdrawal of the summons, stating that certain information had been received since the issuing of the summons, and had put a different complexion on the case. The defendant had been notified, and that was the reason for his non-appearance. He raised no objection. - The magistrates granted the application.
“NOISY MAN'S” BRUTAL ASSAULT.
Wm. CARPENTER, labourer, of Mountway, Bishop's Hull, Taunton, summoned Walter PADDICK, carter, of Black Horse-lane, Taunton, for assaulting and beating the complainant on the 5th May.
Defendant pleaded not guilty.
Wm. CARPENTER stated that he was going to his daughter's house in Black Horse-lane, Bridge-street, Taunton, to enquire if his wife had returned from Minehead, and as he was going through the lane he saw Mrs. PADDOCK and the defendant quarrelling. He said to the defendant “I should not knock about your wife.” Defendant asked him if he could fight, and from that time he remembered nothing. He was taken to the Taunton and Somerset Hospital and treated by Dr. MacDONALD. He had some stitches in his head, and his nose was cut. This took place on Whit-Monday at about 9 p.m. He had never spoken to the man before.
Annie CRIDLAND, of 11, Black Horse-lane, Taunton, said she was a distant relation of Mr. CARPENTER. She stated that she saw CARPENTER go up through the lane and heard him say to PADDICK “I shouldn't knock a woman; if you want to fight, fight me.” CARPENTER then turned around and asked her (witness) if his wife had returned, and with the same the defendant hit him between the eyes and the nose, and down he went.
The Defendant: You don't want to tell a pack of lies about it.
Defendant,
in making a statement, said that CARPENTER came to his house and
wanted to kick up a noise. He was on his allotment nearly all day,
until about three o'clock, when he went to his house. As he got to
the top of the lane CARPENTER insulted him and wanted to fight. He
brought up things about his children, but he did not knock him; he
only pushed him back.
D.C.C. BROWN told the magistrates that he
could find out no sense with regard to the case. There were several
previous convictions, including an assault (six months), drunk and
disorderly, stealing butter, and stealing a quantity of deal, and in
each case he was convicted. The last offence was in April, when he
was fined £1. He was a very noisy man indeed.
The Mayor: The magistrates have decided to convict you of brutal assault, and you will be fined £3, or 14 days' imprisonment. - Defendant was allowed until Saturday week to pay.
CHILDREN'S COURT.
WILFUL DAMAGE TO BRICKS AND TILES.
FOUR ROWBARTON SCHOOLBOYS' OFFENCE.
Four young schoolboys, of Rowbarton, were charged with doing wilful damage to bricks, tiles, &c., to the value of 1s, on the 14th inst.
The four defendants were Samuel Chas. BUDDEN (12), Thomas BUDDEN (11), Lewis HOOKER (13), and Arthur PARTRIDGE (14), all pleading not guilty to the charge.
Mr. F. W. CLARKE appeared on behalf of PARTRIDGE.
Mr. Derwent MOGER, prosecuting, said that on the 14th June these boys were in a yard belonging to Messrs. W. Potter & Son, Kingston-road. In the yard there was a quantity of bricks, trees, &c., and on that day several of the bricks and tiles were broken by these boys. During the past six months boys had been in the yard and had done damage to the extent of £25. A small wooden hut had been broken down, and also tiles, bricks, and the fence. Messrs. Potter & Son did not wish to press the case, but wanted it to be a warning, but if there was any more trouble in the future they would certainly press the case. It was not only small boys, but larger ones that did the damage in the yard.
P.C. WHITTLE stated that he was instructed by P.S. BARBER to attend to a complaint regarding damage to Messrs. Potter & Son's yard at Kingston-road, and at 7.50 p.m the same evening he went to the yard in plain clothes. He saw the two boys BUDDEN sitting outside the yard, and the other two boys in company with one other standing on a pile of bricks. These two boys jumped off the bricks, and then some bricks fell down and were broken. He went to the spot where the other two boys had been and found tiles broken. He saw HOOPER in the presence of his mother, and he said that he only jumped off the bricks. He was PARTRIDGE in the presence of his mother, and he said the same thing. He then saw the two BUDDENS in the presence of their mother, and they said that they were not in the yard, and that the tiles were only old ones. He interviewed Mr. WARREN, and he valued the damage done at 1s.
Mr. Sidney J. WARREN, foreman for Messrs. W. Potter & Son, said he went to the field to inspect the damage. £25 worth of damage had been done during the past six months to tiles, bricks, fence, and a wooden hut. He did not recognise any of the defendants, but he had seen other boys there on many occasions himself.
Mr. CLARKE said that there was no doubt PARTRIDGE was in the field, but the damage he had done was very small.
The Bench dismissed the case on payment of costs, and said that the boys had no right in the field, and that it would be a warning for them not to go there again. Someone broke the tiles, and they had been summoned for it.