Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Taunton Courier. Bristol and Exeter Journal, and Western Advertiser Wednesday 08 Aug 1928
Page 5 Column 1
<This newspaper article is very faint in places, rather than have question marks every word that is unclear, I've only added them to the important words that were difficult to make out>
TAUNTON POLICE-COURT.
CHARS-A-BANC EXCESSIVE SPEED.
SEQUEL TO WELLINGTON-ROAD CHECK
A FATHER'S PAINFUL DUTY.
SON CHARGED WITH FALSE PRETENCES.
FURTHER CHANCE IN SAD CASE.
WEDNESDAY.- Before the Major (Mr. Howard WESTLAKE?), Messrs. W. G. POTTER, J. P. SIBLEY, and F. W. Pritchett BROWN.
SCHOOL ATTENDANCE CASES.
Two Taunton parents – Edwin BEST, 44, Portland-street, and Ernest COLES, 47, Wood-street – were summoned by Sylvia Beatrice COLLINS, education officer, for failing to send their children to school. Promises were given that the children should attend regularly in future and defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the summonses.
CYCLING IN RECREATION GROUND.
Charles CALLOWAY, carpenter, of the White Hart, East Reach, Taunton, was fined 5s for riding a bicycle in the Victoria Recreation Ground contrary to the by-laws.
P.C. YOUNG, who was in plain clothes at the time of the offence, said he stopped defendant, who admitted knowing that cycling was not allowed in the Recreation Ground, but being in a hurry and seeing no-one about he decided to ride? through.
Superintendent CHAPMAN remarked that the constable was on duty in consequence of complaints received, and the Major said the Bench would take a serious view of any similar cases in future.
NO REFLECTOR.
A summons against Amos PAYNE, painter, of Dipford?, Trull, for riding a bicycle without a red reflector?, was dismissed on payment of the costs.
OUT-OF-DATE DRIVING LICENSE.
Kathleen Sophia SPICER, married woman, of 8, Mount-terrace, Taunton, was summoned for driving a motor-car without a license on Saturday, July 21st.
P.S. MANNING said he had occasion to speak to Mrs. SPICER and when he asked her to produce her? driving license he found it had expired on May 28th. He understood that defendant took out? a license on the following Monday (July 23rd).
Defendant, against whom there was no previous conviction?, was fined 10s and costs.
SPEED OF CHARS-A-BANC
BRISTOL DRIVERS' CONVICTED.
Three Bristol char-a-banc drivers were summoned? for driving their vehicles at a speed exceeding? the limit of 12 miles per hour on Saturday, July 21st.
Superintendent CHAPMAN informed the Bench that in consequence of communications he had received from time to time alleging excessive speed against chars-a-banc on the Taunton-Wellington road, he decided to carry out a check? between the London Inn, Wellington, and the Shirehall, Taunton, and the three cases to be heard that day were the result of it.
The first defendant was Stanley COTTERED, of 521??, Fishpond-road, Bristol, who was represented by Mr. R. W. YOUNG (Messrs. Alms & Jones, Taunton), and pleaded not guilty.
P.C. COOMBES stated that the distance from the London Inn Wellington, to the Shirehall, Taunton, as recorded by the speedometer of the county police car (in which he was accompanied by Superintendent CHAPMAN), was exactly six miles. The speedometer was regularly tested and registered accurately.
P.C. WATTS (Wellington) stated that on the evening in question defendant entered the measured distance at 8.16¾ p.m and immediately afterwards P.C. MAPLEDORAM telephoned to the Taunton Police-station.
P.C. YOUNG stated that defendant passed the Shirehall, Taunton, at 8.32 25 secs. He had thus covered the six miles from Wellington in 15 minutes 40 seconds, which was at the rate of nearly 22½ miles per hour. The char-a-banc was licensed to carry 19 passengers, and was full. Witness stopped defendant and he was told by P.S. CHINN that he would be reported.
LIMIT TO BE EXTENDED?
Mr. YOUNG, addressing the Bench for the defence, said it was a matter of some interest. --hough? the speed even alleged by the prosecution was only 22 miles an hour, that the Minister of Transport announced on the previous day that as from October 1st next the speed to be allowed to heavy vehicles would be 20 miles an hour, provided they were fitted with pneumatic tyres, as was the case with his client. It was realised, therefore, that a speed of 20 miles an hour was perfectly admissible. Defendant's vehicle had four-wheel brakes, and he (Mr. YOUNG) was instructed? that on the evening in question it had a clear road. There was no suggestion that he was driving dangerously, but, unfortunately, his speedometer had gone wrong that very day. Defendant had held a driving license for 12 years and there was nothing previously know against him.
The Bench fined defendant £1 and costs.
HEAVIER FINES.
Similarly summoned, John WHEELER?, of 6, Stepney Walk, Whitehall, Bristol, was stated to have averaged over 27 miles an hour on the same evening. - He was fined £2 and costs.
“It is no use my disputing it,” said William E. ALDER, of 184, Wells-road, Knowle, when stopped at the end of the check and told by P.S. CHINN that he had exceeded the limit. His average was stated to be 25¼ miles per hour. For similar offences in 1923 and 1924 he was fined £3 and three guineas respectively.
He was now ordered to pay £3 and costs.
The allegation against Alfred Herbert DICKSON, of 30, Eldan-road, St. Paul's, Bristol, was that he covered the six miles in question at an average speed of nearly 30 miles an hour. For two similar offences in 1927 he was fined £3 and £1 respectively.
He was now fined £4 and costs.
BOY AND THE SHOES.
ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES: MERCIFUL DECISION.
John Clement CRIDLAND (17), unemployed, of 11, Cleveland-street?, Taunton, was charged with obtaining a pair of patent leather shoes, value 14s 11d and a pair of socks, value 2s 6d, the property of Reginald W. DANIELS, of 51, Station-road, by false pretences, with intent to defraud, on July 17th.
Defendant said that he had the shoes, but not with intent to defraud Mr. DANIELS, which was accepted as a plea of not guilty.
Albert PEPPIN, manager in the employ of Mr DANIELS??, said on the morning in question defendant called at the shop and asked to be supplied with a pair of shoes and socks for himself on the account of his father. Witness looked at the book and saw his father's account was in good order and supplied him.
Charles CRIDLAND, father of the defendant, said that he had not authorised him to incur that debt on his account.
Defendant said he went to the shop for the pair of shoes because his boots were worn out. Mr. PEPPIN said, “Who are they for?” and he replied “Myself.” The manager then said, “Who shall I put them down to, your mother?” and he replied, “Yes, you might as well.”
The Bench found defendant guilty.
A SAD CASE.
Superintendent CHAPMAN described the case as a sad one. The boy, he said, first came to his notice when he was brought to his office by his father. That concerned a matter at home, and the parents could do nothing with him. He (the Superintendent) talked to the boy and thought it might do him good but unfortunately it did not. The next thing that happened was that he was charged with breaking and entering an office in January, 1927, but on account of his youth the charge was reduced to one of simple larceny and he was placed on probation for 12 months. His father had since done his best for the boy and it must have been a painful duty for him to have to give evidence that morning, but he (Mr. CHAPMAN) thought that it was the right course, because the lad was absolutely beyond his father's control. Defendant was not in employment at present, but he understood that the firm which had engaged him temporarily would do so again if a vacancy?? occurred.
Mr. C. MINETT informed the Bench that defendant was placed on probation on February 9th, of last? year, for 12 months. For the first three months his conduct was fairly good, but later he gave a great deal of trouble. - so much so that he appeared? in Court again in October 5th for failing to carry out the conditions of the probation order. The Bench then adjourned the case for a week to give him an opportunity of joining the Army, but in this he was unsuccessful as he did not fulfil? requirements as to chest measurements. His probation ceased in February last and he came out all right in the end. He (Mr. MINETT) did his best for the lad during his probation and had since heard nothing against him until the present charge.
AN ADJOURMENT.
The Mayor told CRIDLAND that the Bench were going to deal very leniently with him, because they wanted to help him. He must understand, however, that he was liable to be sent to prison, as the charge against him was a very serious one? and might have blighted his prospects for the ----? of his life. The case would be adjourned for two months, and if during that period he got work? and kept steady the Bench would do their best?? to help him, but if he did not conduct himself? as he should they would have to deal with him very severely.
An order was made for the restitution of the shoes to Mr. DANIELS.
<NOTES: John Clement CRIDLAND son of Charles Clement CRIDLAND and Elizabeth STAPLE>