Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
The Shepton Mallet Journal. City of Wells Reporter, and County Advertiser. Friday 03 Sep 1920
Page 4 Column 2-4
SHEPTON MALLET PETTY SESSIONS.
FRIDAY, before Messrs. G. B. NAPIER (chairman), F. H. BERRYMAN, R. A. HOBHOUSE, J. R. ALLEN, C. E. BURNELL and E. E. PARFITT.
AN OCCASIONAL LICENSE.
Mr. H. C. BUDD, secretary of the Mid-Somerset Agricultural Society, appeared in support of an application for an occasional license to sell refreshments on the Mid-Somerset Agricultural field on the day of the show. - The application was granted.
CASE DISMISSED.
Charles John PRINCE, of Chowell, Temple Cloud was charged with stealing a bucket, an enamel jug, and a hatchet, valued at 16/-, the property of R. A. HOBHOUSE, Pondsmead, Oakhill, between the 7th and 8th August. The case was heard at great length, and occupied the Court a little over two hours. Mr. LITTLER, of the firm of Nalder and Littler, conducted the prosecution, and Mr. J. Guy HEAL defended the prisoner. In opening, the former briefly related facts, which were to the effect that up till August 7th last, prisoner was in the employ of Mr. HOBHOUSE. Shortly after he had left, a galvanised bucket, which was usually kept beneath the tap in the cow stall, was missed, also a hatchet, and an enamel jug from the fowls' house. Enquiries were made, and the missing articles were traced to the residence of the prisoner at Temple Cloud.
Mr. HOBHOUSE, identified the articles produced and stated the value to be about 15/- or 16/-, second hand. Prisoner was in his employ until the 7th August, when he left. It was two or three days after when witness missed the articles. The hatchet had been missing for some time. He gave information to the police, and the next time he saw them was when the constable brought them to him. At this stage, Mr. HEAL asked witness if he would raise any objection to his gardener being fetched to give evidence. Mr. HOBHOUSE readily consented. Mr. HEAL said he had not received his instruction in time to permit the gardener to be subpoened. There was just one question he wished to ask him which might prove a material help to the defence. - A car was at once despatched to fetch Mr. ORCHARD. Mr. HEAL very closely cross-examined Mr. HOBHOUSE. Defendant had been in his employ for several months, and up to this particular occasion had, so far as witness was concerned, always been honest. - Witness: Things have been missed, but I was unable actually to bring them home to anyone in particular. Mr. HEAL then put in a type-written testimonial sent to prisoner's present employer by the witness. It stated: I think you will find PRINCE quite honest, sober, and trustworthy, I gave him notice because his wife is unable to make butter, and there is a likelihood of my present dairymaid leaving me. I wish therefore, to get a man with a wife who can make butter.” - Now sir, asked Mr. HEAL, in view of that reference, do you mean to tell me that you had any suspicion in the back of your mind as to prisoner's character? Witness: Not at the time. - Mr. HEAL: And yet you thought it necessary to place the matter in the hands of the police at once? - Witness: Yes, because there had been a lot of petty thefts. - Mr. HEAL: And you wanted a general investigation? - Witness: Yes. - Mr. HEAL: Because you thought that perhaps the things might possibly be found with prisoner. So you had your suspicions previously? Witness: After I gave the reference. - Mr. HEAL: Can you explain anything which made you have your doubts? - Witness: Yes: certain things had been missing, eggs, etc., which stopped after prisoner had left. He did not tackle him about it previously. - Mr. HEAL: When a man is moving house and is busily engaged in loading up a lorry such as the prisoner was, I suppose you would say it was possible for the things to be placed on the lorry without his noticing them. Am I wrong in suggesting that he kept the bucket at his house for the purpose of taking hot water to the cows. - Witness: I do not think he got hot water from his own house. - Mr. HEAL: He used the jug for drenching the cows. - Witness: The drenches were as a rule kept in the stable of the Beeches. Referring to the hatchet, Mr. HEAL, asked witness if he had not often seen prisoner chopping up his own wood with it, as well as that for the house. - Witness: Yes. - Mr. HEAL: And you took no exception to it? Is it not a fact that when a man is out in general and domestic service, that he oftentimes uses the tools of his employers? He was under the impression that it was so, and thought it quite a reasonable thing to think. Contrary wise, if he wanted a bucket for the use of his employment and was unable to find one, he would use one of his own. - Mr. HEAL: I put it to you, that you never raised any objection to PRINCE using your hatchet whilst he was at your place to chop wood, or to his using his own jug, or to his keeping the jug at his house for the purpose of drenching the cows? Do you know, as a matter of fact, that prisoner before he left found he had some wire netting of yours, which he had been lent for his fowls' run, that he went to the gardener and said: “Here is some of the governor's stuff. Will you take it back?” Witness: I do not remember it. - Mr. HEAL: Mrs PRINCE also returned a baby's chair, which Mrs. HOBHOUSE had kindly lent her. You do not suggest that they have been thieving on a wholesale scale, and quite apart from your general interest in the case you would be quite prepared to admit that in loading up the lorry a mistake might quite easily have arisen? - Witness: I do not think it likely in this case. - Mr. HEAL: Do you think PRINCE loaded up himself. - Witness: He was on the lorry and there were three other men helping – Mr. HEAL: Can you swear that PRINCE put these articles on the lorry, or that he saw them there. - Witness: No, I cannot. - Mr. HEAL them reminded witness of a certain conversation he had with the prisoner prior to his leaving, in which it was agreed that when ready, his potatoes should be conveyed to his new home by a motor lorry when passing in the course of its round. Further cross-examined, witness said he knew nothing about defendant's wife, and could not prove anything against the man himself. In reply to the Justices' Clerk, witness said he probably did say something about the conveyance of the potatoes. He did not think they had yet gone to Temple Cloud. Replying to Mr. LITTLER, respecting defendant's good character, and his (witness's) suspicion of him after he had left, witness said there had been certain petty thefts, vegetables from the garden, and there seemed to be a shortage of eggs, which ceased after PRINCE had gone. - Mr. HEAL ridiculed any such idea that PRINCE was in any way responsible for these petty thefts – it was absurd.
The next witness was Angelica BAKER, a married woman in the employ of Mr. HOBHOUSE. During the brief time she had been in his employ she had seen the articles produced. The bucket was kept under a tap in the cow stall, and the jug down in the stable. She had used the bucket to wash her hands in, two or three times a day when milking. One morning she missed it, about a week before prisoner left. She said to PRINCE, “The bucket has disappeared.” but he never answered her. Up to that time the bucket had always been under the tap. It was used for washing the cows. PRINCE had also occasion to use the bucket. After having missed it she did not see it again. She only mentioned the matter to PRINCE on the one occasion. - Cross-examined by Mr. HEAL, witness said she daresay there was more than the one bucket kept. Since its disappearance they had to wash their hands by simply holding them under the tap. When she mentioned it to PRINCE he did not answer her, and she did not know if he had heard what she said.
P.C. MARSH, stationed at Oakhill, stated that in consequence of complaints received he made enquiries about the articles produced. On Saturday, 21st August, he went to Cholwell House, Temple Cloud, and there saw prisoner. He told him the nature of his visit. Prisoner said, “I have them here.” and handed the articles to witness. Witness then charged him with stealing them, and cautioned him. He replied, “My wife put them in the lorry in mistake, and I am returning them the first opportunity that a lorry passes.” Witness took him into custody, and brought him to Shepton Mallet, where he was later bailed out. - Mr. HEAL: When you charged him, did he not say, “Well, well, that is the latest!” - Witness: I do not remember. The foregoing completed the evidence for the prosecution.
Mr. HEAL, prior to the defendant being formally charged, submitted that no case had been made out, and that he had nothing to answer. There was neither proof of the offence, or of intent. Generally, in proceedings of this kind, the onus fell upon the defence, but in this particular case it rested, he thought, rather with the prosecution. - The Bench differed from Mr. HEAL, who decided to proceed with the evidence. - PRINCE was then formally charged. Mr. HEAL pleaded not guilty, and intimated his desire if the justices decided against him, for prsioner <sic> to be tried by a jury at the next Quarter Sessions. He would, however, first call his evidence for the defence, upon which the Bench would decide whether or not they would commit prisoner for trial. Addressing the Bench at length, in the course of his remarks, Mr. HEAL said it was absolutely essential to clear defendant's character. He totally denied that the goods were taken by him, or that he knew of their being on the lorry until the next day. He also denied that defendant was wrong in using them whilst in the employ of the prosecutor, or that evidence had been brought to bear that he was a guilty man. Mr. HEAL quoted the law, with a view to showing the absolute necessity of proving intent. They had heard the evidence of Mr. HOBHOUSE, and no one would doubt that his word could be thoroughly relied upon; but was the evidence sufficient to damn the man's reputation for life. He did not dispute the facts, but he did dispute the deductions which had been made from them. It was absolutely essential to prove the prisoner had a guilty conscience or knowledge. Having further enlarged upon the good character of the prisoner, and his excellent war service, Mr. HEAL proceeded to call his witnesses.
PRINCE went into the witness box, and on oath related what happened at his last interview with Mr. HOBHOUSE, when he received notice. Mr. HOBHOUSE said to him: “I wish you to look out for another job, as I want to get a man and wife that can make butter and do the cows as well. Did he think he could get a job in a month.” Witness said he did not know but he would try. Mr. HOBHOUSE said he would not stand in his way if he had a job to go into at once or within a few days. He then applied for a situation, and on the strength of reference given by Mr. HOBHOUSE, he got the job. At the time Mr. HOBHOUSE never asked him for an explanation of the missing articles. During the time he had been in his employ he used the bucket very often, to get hot water from his house, sometimes in the middle of the night. The drenches, a lot of them, used to stay in his house until the Beeches stables were handed over to him. With reference to Mrs. BAKER's statement, witness did not hear her say anything to him about the bucket disappearing. The bucket was carried all over the place. Witness used to chop stick for Mr. HOBHOUSE and for himself with the hatchet. In fact once he sent across for it. The night before they started to load up his stuff, the driver said he wanted to get it over as soon as possible. There were six helping to load the lorry. Witness was loading off and on. He did not see any one of these articles, which he had been charged with stealing, on the lorry until the next day. When he discovered them, he did not use them, but put them in the corner by the back door in the yard, the two articles in the bucket, with a view to returning them on the lorry on the first opportunity. Witness thought it not necessary to go with them to Oakhill, because he was expecting a lorry out with some potatoes, and he thought they could be returned in that. He kept a look out for a lorry when he was able. When the policeman arrived, he did say: “Well, well, I am surprised at Mr. HOBHOUSE.” The goods were not yet all unpacked. He was prepared to swear he did not see the three articles on the day he left Oakhill, and that he did directly he saw them make up his mind to return them on the lorry the first opportunity. In reply to Mr. LITTLER witness said the morning he moved he did look round the house to see if he had any goods of Mr. HOBHOUSE. He did not see the articles mentioned. He denied Mrs. BAKER spoke to him about the disappearance of the bucket. In reply to the Bench witness said the goods were in the yard from the 8th to 21st August, and had never been used.
Barton ORCHARD, the gardener, said he was in the employ of Mr. HOBHOUSE. The last few days PRINCE was in the employ of Mr. HOBHOUSE, he said to witness that he had a roll of wire that had been lent to him, and wished to return it.
May Ellen PRINCE, wife of the prisoner, explained to the Bench the part she took in the packing of the lorry on the day they left Oakhill. She put up the odds and ends, including the buckets. The next morning when straightening out a bit, her husband found the articles, and said to her, “these things belong to Mr. HOBHOUSE.” She saw him put them aside altogether by the back door in the yard. Neither one of the three articles was used after having been placed aside. She kept a look out for a Oakhill lorry, but failed to see one. Further, witness said, she may have put the articles on the lorry. In reply to Mr. LITTLER witness said she did not see the articles on the lorry. There were others loading.
The Bench after a brief retirement said they were of the opinion that the evidence was insufficient to send prisoner to the Quarter Sessions, but were of opinion that he was ill advised in not notifying the possession of the goods. - The case would be dismissed.
Mr. HOBHOUSE did not adjudicate in this case.
ANOTHER PLATE CASE.
Thos. Jas. KING, motor driver of 6, Hinton Road, Green Bank, Bristol, was summoned for having the figures on his identification plate not easily distinguishable. - Mr. Hy. Comer TEEK, of Axbridge, defended and pleaded guilty.
P.S. THORNE said the char-a-banc pulled up in the Market Place. The number on the rear identification plate was indistinguishable. When spoken to defendant said “What can you expect with all this dust on the roads.” He cleaned his identification plate when he left Weymouth.
Mr. TEEK said defendant was going to clean the plate when the Sergeant spoke to him. - Defendant was fined 10/-.
EJECTMENT ORDER.
Mr. C. E. BURNELL, managing director of the Charlton Brewery Company, made an application through Mr. LITTLER for the ejectment of C. VAUGHAN from the Brook House Inn, Ditcheat. Mr. LITTLER said this was an application for ejectment from a public house known as the Brook House Inn, Ditcheat. The tenancy was determined under an agreement on the 24th June last, and just prior to notice to quit application was made for the transfer of the house to the new tenant. Mr. Catley VAUGHAN had signed the necessary transfer notice and had received his proportion of the license duty, and had altogether acted as if he was going to give up possession, but when the new tenant wanted to go in he refused to turn out, his excuse being that he could not get a house. They waited for a few days, and eventually Mr. CATLEY obtained possession of the licensed part of the premises, but he was not in full possession of the whole premises now. He should prove service of the necessary notices to quit. Complaints had been made as to the conduct of the defendant and his family in the dwelling part of the premises, both by the police and private parties, and and <sic> that was a serious matter for the present tenant. The service of the usual notice was then proved, and Mr. BURNELL explained why defendant was given notice to leave. CATLEY, the new tenant, informed the Bench that he was only in possession of part of the premises.
After other evidence had been given, the Bench made the usual order for possession within 28 days.
HIGHWAY OFFENCES.
Ernest BOND and Kathleen SPIRRELL, of Pilton, were respectively summoned for driving without lights, and were fined 15/- each.
Thos. SNAPE, secretary of the Co-operative Society, Shepton Mallet, was summoned for driving a motor cycle and side car without a rear light, and was fined 10/-. - P.C. PARROTT stated the facts.
Walter WOOD, a haulier of Gurney Slade, pleaded guilty to driving a horse and trap without front or rear lights, and was fined 10/-.
CHILDREN'S COURT.
Before Messrs. F. H. BERRYMAN (in the chair) and C. E. BURNELL.
THEFT FROM THE RAILWAY.
Helen GREEN (12) and Albert GREEN (10) children of Bowden GREEN, of Board Cross, Shepton Mallet, were summoned for stealing, on the 22nd July, 100 lbs. of scrap iron and steel, of the value of 4/6, form <sic> the Goods Yard of the Great Western Railway Company.
Mr. DANIELL, of Cruttwell, Daniel and Cruttwell, Frome, prosecuted on behalf of the Railway Company, and said the facts were that on the 14th July a quantity of broken metal, broken chairs, and various material connected with the railway, were stored in the yard hut at the Great Western station yard. About 4.30 on the afternoon of the 22nd July these children were observed on the railway, and in the neighbourhood of the hut, by a policeman who happened to be on his allotment. He afterwards saw them dragging a heavy sack through the grass, and he left his allotment and followed them. As soon as the children saw him they left the sack and went and sat on a gate. He went up to them and asked the girl what she had in the sack, and she said, “I have just got it for Dad,” and that he worked at Mr. TILLEY's. He examined the sack and found it contained a quantity of broken metal, the weight of it being 76 lbs. He found a further 24lbs. of similar metal near the fence, which the children had apparently thrown out of the sack, being too heavy to drag along. The Railway Company did not wish to press the case against the children, they felt the thing would not have happened if the father had exercised proper control over them.
Thos. WEBBER, ganger, living at 13, Town Lane, Shepton Mallet, identified the metal produced as similar to that he left near the hut. He valued it at 4/6. P.C. PARROTT said about 4.30 on the afternoon of the 22nd July, he was in his allotment, Compton Road, when he saw the two children on the Railway siding near the station. Later he saw them dragging a bag through the grass, towards West Shepton, when they saw him they dropped the bag. He asked the girl what was in bag, the girl replied “I have just got it for Dad,” and that he worked for Mr. TILLEY. He found the bag contained a quantity of scrap iron and steel. It weighed 76lbs. He found 24lbs., of similar metal outside the railway fence. The children said they were going to take it home. The children were allowed to run wild all over the place. - WEBBER said all the sack contained was exclusively railway material.
Inspector PARFITT said it was the result of the recent accident to a railway engine. - In reply to the Bench he also said the children attended school regularly, but after leaving school they were allowed to run wild, and he had received complaints about their running over other people's property.
Both children pleaded guilty. - After a long consultation in private the Magistrates readmitted the public, and the chairman having admonished the children, bound them over in £5 each to be of good behaviour for 12 months. The father was bound over in £10, and ordered to pay the costs of the case, the chairman telling him the offence was largely due to his neglect to exercise proper control over the children.
A COSTLY TOMATO.
Albert George MACEY, a youth of 21, pleaded guilty to stealing a tomato, valued 5d., from the exhibition tent in the Flower Show Field, at Shepton Mallet, on August 2nd. - P.C. POTTER, briefly stated the case, namely, that on the day in question he was on duty in the tent in plain clothes, when he saw defendant take the tomato. - Mr. DOBELL, chairman of the committee, giving evidence, said the society were desirous not to press the case, but were bound to initiate the proceedings inasmuch as they had suffered so much on previous occasions from similar thefts. - Inspector PARFITT gave defendant an excellent character. - A fine of 10/- was imposed.
EXCEEDING THE LIMIT.
Alfred George LILLE, Walter Hy. MORDEN and William POOL, motor drivers, all of Bournemouth, not appearing, were summoned for exceeding, on July 24th, the speed limit of 12 miles per hour, as laid done <sic> for motor chars-a-bancs. Inspector PARFITT gave evidence in each case, and stated the tests were made over a measured mile of road. In the first case the speed was found to be 21 miles per hour, in the second 20 miles per hour, and in the third, 32 miles per hour. - A fine of £5 was inflicted in each instance.
ILLTREATING A PONY.
William WALKER, baker, of Upton Noble, pleaded “not completely guilty,” to illtreating a pony at Batcombe, by using it when unfit, on 14th August. - P.C. HOLYARD deposed that at 4.40 p.m. he was on duty on the main road in the Parish of Batcombe, when he saw defendant driving a dark pony attached to a bread cart, and noticed it was in a frightfully poor condition. Witness stopped defendant, and on examining the pony found a wound under the cart pad, about five inches long, part of which the pad was pressing. The front part of the pad was covered with grease and discharge. Witness pointed it out to defendant and told him it was a very bad case. He replied “I knew it was a bit sore when I left home, but it has been irritated coming down the hill.” He said he knew it was there, and he would not have used the pony but his daughter who resided with him was using her pony which he occasionally drove, and so it was not available. In reply to defendant, witness admitted that every facility was given him to examine the pony.
Inspector HOWARD of the R.S.P.C.A., said that on 16th August, he called at defendant's premises at Upton Noble. The pony was very poor and aged, upwards of 30 years he should say. There was a 5in by 1in. sore on it. It was totally unfit for any work, apart from the wound.
Defendant on oath said he bought the pony at the latter end of March or beginning of April, and it had always done its work very well, and never caused any trouble. He had never known the pony fail or stumble, and it always come back from work as fresh as it went away. The hair was partly off. He was not guilty of wilfully, and knowingly illtreating the pony. -
Fined £1.
<NOTES: William Norman WALKER son of Richard WALKER and Elizabeth WALKER, married Emma BIRD>