Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Taunton Courier. Bristol and Exeter Journal, and Western Advertiser Wednesday 29 Aug 1923
Page 5 Column 4 and 5
BRIDGWATER COUNTY PETTY SESSIONS.
TUESDAY. - Before Mr. Jas. BAKER (in the chair), Mrs. J. COOKE-HURLE, Messrs. R. O. SULLY, J. H. CANN, G. W. RADFORD, C. B. GREENHILL, W. H. PALMER, and H. H. BROADMEAD.
RESULT OF FORGETFULNESS.
William Herbert T. BEATTIE, engineer, of Birmingham, was summoned for driving a motor-car without being duly licensed, at North Petherton, on the 29th July. - Mr. Ivor? JONES (Messrs. Alms & Jones, Taunton) appeared for the defendant, and pleaded guilty on his behalf. - Superintendent MUNRO stated that on the 29th July, at 3.35 p.m., P.C. HILL stopped defendant at Heathfield and asked him to let him have a look at his driving license. The constable, on examining the license, found that it expired on the 12th July. In reply to the constable, defendant said, “I am surprised to fined the license had expired.” - Mr. JONES said his client had been driving for 15 years, and had never had a charge of any sort brought against him, and this offence was due entirely to a lapse of memory. In the district from which he came it had been the custom hitherto? to send out notices when driving licenses were due for renewal, but this year they had not done so, although, of course, there was no obligation on their part to send out notices. - The Bench fined defendant £1.
ORDER FOR POSSESSION.
Mr. Arthur KING made an application on behalf of Lord WHARTON, of Halswell Park, Goathurst, for possession of a cottage on his estate, in the occupation of a labourer named Ernest STONE. - Mr. KING explained that STONE was formerly I the employ of Lord WHARTON, and occupied the cottage as a condition of his employment. He was given notice to terminate his employment some considerable time ago, but the notice was withdrawn out of consideration for him. He was subsequently given notice to leave, which expired on the 30th June, and since that date he had been occupying the cottage. Another man had now been engaged in defendant's place, and was waiting to go into the cottage. - Defendant said he had got another house now to go into at Cannington, but he had his garden of the present cottage full of produce, worth £10 or £12, and he could not afford to lost that. - Mr. KING pointed out that that would be a matter for arrangement with the new tenant. - The Bench made an order for possession within 30 days.
NORTH PETHERTON MAN'S GRAND-CHILDREN.
AN INTERESTING CASE.
Walter WINSLADE, blacksmith, of Shearston, North Petherton, was summoned by the Guardians of the Bridgwater Union, who stated that his daughter and her four children were chargeable to the common fund of the Union, and as he was of sufficient ability to maintain them, the Board applied for an order for their maintenance. - Mr. F. P. TYRRELL appeared for the Guardians, and Mr. Arthur KING represented the defendant to contest the application.
Mr. TYRRELL, in opening the case, said relief had been granted by the Guardians to defendant's daughter, Mrs. DAY (wife of Douglas DAY), and her four children. The Bench would remember very well that an order was made against a young man named DAY, of North Petherton, of separation, under which he was to pay a stated sum per week for the maintenance of his wife and family. He did not pay and went to prison, and he subsequently applied to the Bench to vary the order, because he said he was not able to pay the amount, an the Bench reduced it from £2 down to 35s per week. The man DAY absconded, and was still away, and the Guardians would like to know where he was. The wife and children became chargable to the Guardians as long ago as the 6th July, 1922. Some payments had from time to time been made in repayment of the relief, but the amount the family were receiving was now made up as follows:- Mrs. DAY, 7s 6d; each child, 3s 6d; total, 21s 6d per week in all. Mr. DAY's father, a farmer, of North Petherton, was approached, and Mr. WINSLADE also, with a view of ascertaining whether they would contribute to the amount disbursed by the Guardians, and Mr. DAY made an offer to pay half the amount. Mr. DAY, senr., could not under any circumstances be responsible in respect of his daugther-in-law – that was the responsibility of Mr. WINSLADE – but both grandfathers were equally liable in respect of the grandchildren, so that Mr. DAY's offer was accepted by the Guardians. Mr. WINSLADE, on the contrary, after an interview between Mr. KING, Mr. NEWTON (clerk to the Guardians), and himself (Mr. TYRRELL), followed by correspondence, decided that he was not going to pay, and owing to the attitude defendant took up the Guardians were bound to summon him to appear before the Court. He (Mr. TYRRELL) asked the Bench to order Mr. WINSLADE to pay the amount of 10s 9d a week, to put him on the same footing as the other grandfather, and also the costs of the Court and an advocate's fee. There was no reason why the ratepayers should support these grand-children, or pay any expense in respect of any proceedings which the Guardians were bound to take. The position which Mr. WINSLADE took up was that he agreed to pay the 7s 6d in respect to his daughter's maintenance, but he objected to pay the odd 3s 3d for the maintenance of the children. “He is (said Mr. TYRRELL) no doubt annoyed to think that owing to his son-in-law having gone away he should be called upon to pay for the maintenance of the wife and children. No doubt everyone sympathises with him – and personally I do myself – that he should find himself in this position, but on the other hand, I would like to point out that Mr. DAY, the father of the young man, who may have even assisted his son in going away – and I think that is the idea in Mr. WINSLADE's mind – is paying through the nose for it, because he is paying 10s 9d a week.”
Mr. H. C. NATION, relieving officer for the North Petherton district, proved the chargeability, and said the amount of relief given by the Guardians to Mrs. DAY and her children totalled to date £55 7s 3d, against which he had received back £24 4s 3d, leaving a balance of £31 3s. The sum re-paid had been received in various amounts from Mr. and Mrs. Walter DAY and Mr. WINSLADE.
In reply to Mr. KING, witness said Mrs. DAY had been residing until quite recently with her father, but was now living in a cottage. No doubt Mr. WINSLADE had had to assist his daughter and her children over and above the amount they received from the Guardians.
Defendant was sworn, and in reply to Mr. KING said he was the owner of the house and the blacksmith's shop which he occupied. Since the orders were made against his son-in-law he (Mr. WINSLADE) had been allowing his daughter and her children to live with him until a week or two ago, when they went into a cottage. He had assisted them with food and clothing, and was willing to assist them in any way he could. He was willing that the relief to his daughter should cease, and he would take over the responsibility of keeping her entirely, but he was not willing to have the burden of the children put on him. His reason for that was that he considered the husband had been assisted to evade payment by his father.
The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. E. TREVOR): That won't affect it.
Mr. KING: It shows his reason for refusing to pay.
In reply to further questions, Mr. WINSLADE said Mr. DAY, sen., took possession of all the stock on his son's farm when the latter went away.
The Magistrates' Clerk: Would that have anything to do with this case?
Mr. KING: It was said by Mr. TYRRELL that Mr. DAY had has to pay through the nose through his son going off, but he has had the ricks and stock on the farm, so that his position in the matter is not quite as had as has been made out. (To defendant): Have you ever been able to find out where your son-in-law is?
Defendant: Only that I have heard he was in Canada. He was seen on board the boat by a man who went out on it from Farringdon. There were two men on board the same boat who saw him, but he was under an assumed name.
Answering Mr. TYRRELL, defendant said he was unable to maintain the children, because he was only a working blacksmith. He was 65 years of age, and had bad eyesight, and he had to work hard to keep himself. He wanted all the children “put on” Mr. DAY. “It is (added defendant) quite time I gave up work myself, without having to maintain a second family.”
The Chairman: What are your earnings?
Defendant: I may earn 50s a week, working 14 to 16 hours a day.
In reply to the Clerk, defendant said his daughter was unable to earn anything, and if she could not pay the rent of the cottage he would have to be responsible for it.
Mr. KING, addressing the magistrates, said so far as Mrs. DAY was concerned Mr. WINSLADE was liable, and that liability he was prepared to shoulder. As regards the children, either of the grandfathers was equally liable. Whether the Bench could apportion that liability or not was doubtful, but what Mr. WINSLADE said was that these four children were getting 3s 6d a week each. It was obvious they could not be kept in food and clothes for that amount, and Mr. WINSLADE said that Mr. DAY, sen., should be made to pay the whole 14s 6d, and he (Mr. WINSLADE) would do what he had done in the past, provide them with anything they required over and above that. He was answerable for the rent of the cottage and gave the children clothing, which must be a considerable expense to him, therefore he (Mr. KING) asked the Bench to adopt the view that it would not be equitable to saddle defendant with anything further in respect of these children. The magistrates had a discretion in the matter, and could make any order they thought fit against either grandparent. The Guardians had thought fit to accept 10s 9d from Mr. DAY, but the Bench were no party to that arrangement, and it was for them to say whether they would make an order against him for what is effect amounted to 3s 3d a week, in addition to the 7s 6d he was prepared to pay for his daughter's maintenance. Whatever happened, Mr. WINSLADE was bound to contribute towards these children, and he was already doing far more than Mr. DAY was doing. It was well known that Mr. DAY assisted the son to escape, and he would not disclose where he was in Canada. If he would do that the wife would attempt to enforce the order which she had obtained against the son, but Mr. DAY, sen., would not help in any way.
The Bench retired, and on their return the Chairman announced that they had decided to make an order of 7s 6d a week, with an advocate's fee and the costs of the Court.
FARMER FINED.
Leonard TROTT, farmer, of Chilton Polden, was summoned for riding a bicycle without a light at Chilton Polden on the 1st August. - He did not appear, and P.C. WENSLEY having given the facts, a fine of 15s was ordered.
MORE MOTOR LICENSE CASES.
Charles William PACKWOOD, licensee of the Langport Arms, Langport, did not answer a summons for driving a motor-car without a license authorising him to do so, at Othery, on the 5th August. - P.C. WARE said defendant produced a license which expired on the 20th July. When this was pointed out to him he said “It is forgetfulness. I will post it to-night.” - Fined £1.
Wilfred Davis SMALLWOOD, of Redditch, was summoned for a like offence at Othery on the 5th inst., and he failed to appear. - P.C. STANDEN said defendant produced a license which expired on the 25th March last, and said it was an over-sight. - A fine of £2 was imposed.
Ernest James APLIN, of Kilve?, pleaded guilty to driving a motor-car without a license at Charlynch on the 22nd July. - P.C. HEARD said when he asked defendant for his license he replied “I have not got it. Just before I left home I sent it off to Taunton to be renewed.” - The Clerk said the old license expired on the 10th July. - Fined £1.