Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Taunton Courier. Bristol and Exeter Journal, and Western Advertiser Wednesday 15 May 1929
Page 5 Column 1 & 2
TAUNTON BOROUGH POLICE.
LICENSEE AND LODGING MONEY.
DENIED USING THREATS.
'BUILDERS MUST BE PROTECTED.”
THEFTS FROM SITE BY BOYS.
MIDNIGHT STREET GAMLERS.
STERN WARNING TO YOUTH.
WEDNESDAY. - Before the Deputy-Mayor (Mr. Howard WESTLAKE) in the chair, Mrs. C. MINETT, Dr. R. Liddon Meade KING, Mr. J. WHITE and Mr. G. REX.
DANGER TO GENERAL PUBLIC.
Harry VIRGIN, chimney sweep, 3 Court, Canon-street, William TOLLER, labourer, 10, Wilton-street, and William MARCHANT, brickmaker, 76, East Reach, were each fined 5s for riding a bicycle without a front light.
On seeing P.C. STONE in Leycroft-road, at 11 p.m., VIRGIN dismounted and said he had only come from “three doors down.” He had no lamp on his bicycle. TOLLER, was was stopped in Wilton-street at 11.30 by P.C. BROOKS, said he was “sorry it had happened.” He had no lamp. The same fact applied to MARCHANT, who, on approaching P.C. BROOKS in East-street, at 11.40, dismounted and started to ride on one pedal.
The Chairman warned defendants that the riding of unlighted bicycles exposed not only themselves to danger, but the general public as well.
FOOT-AND-MOUTH (PACKING MATERIALS) ORDER.
“CANNOT BE USED AS BEDDING.”
Permitting packing material to be moved from his premises in contravention of the Foot-and-Mouth (Packing Materials) Order of 1925 was the charge preferred against Ernest W. OATEN, cabinet maker, 36, East-street. - He admitted a technical offence.
P.S. BULL stated that on the afternoon of Monday, April 29th, he was on duty in Bridge-street, where he saw a man named James BEEMER in charge of a horse-drawn cart loaded with bags of straw and shavings. Witness stopped him and in consequence of what he told him he accompanied BEEMER to defendant's shop, where he saw OATEN and told him BEEMER had informed him that he had had the straw from his premises. Witness added that it appeared to him to be packing straw. Defendant agreed, saying he had had it from Bristol, and that BEEMER was taking it to use as bedding for horses. When witness pointed out it could not be used for that purpose, defendant replied “I did not know that, I thought it could be used for anything other than pigs or anything like that.” Mr. OATEN then instructed a man to go with BEEMER to the sewerage works and have it destroyed.
Defendant confirmed the Sergeant's statement.
Superintendent CHAPMAN pointed out that the Foot-and-Mouth Order was issued in 1925, and in November of that year he caused all shopkeepers to be warned of the importance of complying with it. As, apparently, the Order had been overlooked he had brought the case as a warning to people that packing straw must not be used for bedding of any description. It could be used again for packing purposes.
The Chairman said the Bench would take a lenient view and dismiss the case on payment of costs, but they were very glad the Superintendent had called attention to the Order, because non-compliance with it might prove a very serious matter.
ALLEGED THREATS BY LICENSEE.
CASE DISMISSED.
The licensee of the Three Mariners Inn, High-street, Frederick John HARVEY, was accused by Harry Marshall ISAAC, labourer, Victoria-place, of having threatened to strike him on Saturday, May 4th. Mr. R. W. YOUNG (Messrs. ALMS & YOUNG) pleaded not guilty on behalf of defendant, and also opposed an application by complainant for an adjournment, on the ground that his (ISAAC's) witness was unable to attend. - The Bench decided to proceed with the case.
Complainant stated that when returning from work at 12.30 p.m. On Saturday he met defendant in East-street. HARVEY turned to him and said “You dirty black--dog. I have come to meet you.” Complainant asked him what was the matter, and defendant replied “I will show you, you dirty --- dog,” thereupon raising his hand to strike. Witness then put up his arm to protect himself, telling defendant that if he did not leave him alone he would call police assistance. Defendant followed him to the Parade. He (ISAAC) wished the protection of the Court. He had served over 32 years in H.M. Forces, and had an excellent character.
Mr. YOUNG: Were you frightened by my client?
Complainant: I do not expect so. I have seen too much of foreign countries to be frightened. He added that a policeman was within 100 yards, but he did not call him.
Complainant denied that defendant asked him on Saturday to go to his house. On the previous Thursday defendant invited him to his skittle alley, but he did not say why he wanted to see him.
Mr. YOUNG: The reason for Mr. HARVEY speaking to you on the Saturday was simply because of the money you owe him? - I owe him no money whatever, not a farthing.
It is not a matter for this Court, but as a matter of fact you left his house without paying some lodging money? - I deny it.
You know he says you owe him money. - He has never told me, but his wife met me three times in the street and said I owe her something.
Didn't Mr. HARVEY speak about this money last Saturday? - No.
Defendant, giving evidence, said he claimed that ISAAC owed him money for lodgings. On Thursday he met complainant and asked him to come to his house. ISAAC replied that he “would be round between seven and ten past.” When he (defendant) met him on Saturday he did not threaten to strike him in any way, but simply asked him why he did not come round on the Thursday, as he had promised to do.
Complainant: Did you use any obscene language?
Defendant: I called you a d---- dirty dog for not coming round to see me to settle this matter, if you want the Court to know.
Mr. YOUNG remarked that complainant had given his whole case away when he said he was not in fear of defendant. The matter was somewhat trivial, but to a licensee who had hitherto held a good character it was important to prove that he had not used the threats alleged against him. Was it likely that in a crowd of people, at 12.45 on a Saturday, and practically under the nose of a policeman, his client was going to lay himself open to such a charge?
The Bench dismissed the case.
THEFT OF BUILDER'S MATERIALS.
ERRAND BOYS' OFFENCES.
Stuart H. CROWDEN (17) and Samuel J. JEFFREY (17), errand boys, of Taunton, were charged jointly with stealing a scaffold pole, value 3s, the property of Henry TAYLOR, builder and contractor, 30, St. Augustine-street, on May 1st. - CROWDEN pleaded not guilty, and JEFFREY guilty.
Mr. TAYLOR stated that he missed the pole from a building site in Priory-road. When he recovered the pole from the police it had been sawn in two. A sign, which had been attached to it, was still missing.
P.C. PULLIN stated that when P.C. WHITE and he interviewed CROWDEN he replied “The pole is not up my place, I can tell you that. It is up Sam JEFFREY's.” Witness later recovered it from JEFFREY, who said “I took it for a line post.” CROWDEN admitted helping JEFFREY to take the post home, JEFFREY accounted for having sawn it in halves by saying he wanted to balance a rabbit box on them.
CROWDEN told the Bench he saw JEFFREY leaving the ground with the pole, JEFFREY asked for a loan of the bicycle he (CROWDEN) had in his possession, and he let him have it.
Supt. CHAPMAN said nothing previously was known against CROWDEN, whose employer gave him a very good character.
The case against CROWDEN was dismissed on payment of the costs, 7s 6d, but before giving their decision in respect of JEFFREY the Bench decided to hear two other charges against him, namely, of stealing a deal post, value 2s, the property of William MARKS, dairyman, Priory Dairy, between December 25th and January 25th last, and of stealing a quantity of builder's timber, value 10s, the property of Henry TAYLOR, builder, between April 1st and 2nd last. He pleaded guilty in both cases.
After Mr. MARKS had given evidence, P.C. PULLIN said he recovered the deal post from JEFFREY's home. Defendant first said he had brought it at Penny's yard for a shilling, but afterwards he admitted he had had it from Mr. MARKS' rick barton. Witness also questioned JEFFREY respecting a heap of builder's timber in his possession, including new match boarding, a 20ft. Scaffold pole sawn in three, &c. Defendant replied “It came from the same place” (meaning Mr. TAYLOR's building site in Priory-road).
Superintendent CHAPMAN stated that defendant was given a very good character by his employer. He had no father, and his mother was a highly-respectable nurse in the town. She was usually engaged until late in the evening, and he (Mr. CHAPMAN) did not think she was aware that the boy had taken any wood home. She thought he had been behaving very well.
The Bench bound JEFFREY over for 12 months, and imposed the condition that he should be indoors at 10 p.m. during the summer, and 8 p.m. in winter. He was ordered to pay 7s 6d towards the costs.
The Chairman said the Bench would deal more severely with any future cases of that kind. It was obvious, he said, that if builders had to leave materials in such positions that it was sometimes an easy matter to take them away. They must be protected.
“WHIST FOR A PENNY UP.”
MIDNIGHT GAMING UNDER STREET LAMP.
Playing cards under a street lamp in the Crescent at midnight on Saturday, April 27th, three Taunton youths – Clifford MANNING, Mark CHALLIS, and Thomas TURNER, all unemployed - were surprised by the stealthy approach of P.C. PLUMMER, who asked them what the game was. MANNING replied, “Just a game of Wembley whist for a penny up.” The constable had watched three lots of money won and lost.
CHALLIS and TURNER were present in Court and admitted the offence, but MANNING was on a visit to Bournemouth with a view to obtaining work.
P.C. PLUMMER explained that defendants were playing under the street lamp just outside the Masonic Hall.
Superintendent CHAPMAN reported that MANNING had been summoned for riding a bicycle without a light on two occasions, and on March 9th of this year he was fined £1 for driving in a manner dangerous to the public. CHALLIS had twice previously been charged in that Court – in 1926 for gaming on the highway with cards, when he was placed on probation, and in January, 1928, for playing cards for money when he was bound over for six months. Nothing previously was known against TURNER, who had been out of employment about seven months. His company was to blame.
Mr. J. G. SEDDON (probation officer) stated that CHALLIS reported regularly during his first probationary period, and his conduct was fairly good. He was, however, never in employment. He (Mr. SEDDON) had tried to get him work, and had also visited the Barracks on his behalf, but he did not pass for the Army owing to his weight and chest measurement being deficient of the required standard.
The case against TURNER was dismissed, and that against MANNING dismissed on payment of the costs.
CHALLIS was bound over for 12 months, and warned by the Chairman that that might be the last time he would be let off with anything less than imprisonment. A condition of his probation was that he be indoors at 10 p.m. during the summer, and 9 p.m. in winter.
Turning to the magistrates, CHALLIS asked, “Do you think I am the ringleader of this game?”
The Clerk: We have finished with the case.
CHALLIS (defiantly): I shall not keep the conditions.
The Clerk: You have to pay 4s costs.
CHALLIS: You will have to give me time to pay!
The Clerk: You owe me some costs on the old case.
CHALLIS: You can't get blood out of a stone. I have no money to pay.
Are you on the dole? - Yes.
Then you can pay. - What about my keep at home?
You should not come up here. - I can't help that. I can't pay anything.
He was allowed a week in which to find the money.