Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
The West Somerset Free Press, Williton, Minehead, and Watchet Journal Saturday 04 Aug 1900
Page 8 Column 3 & 4
WILLITON PETTY SESSIONS.
THURSDAY, AUGUST 2ND.
Before D. BADCOCK, Esq. (in the chair), the Hon. R. C. TROLLOPE, and Capt. A. F. LUTTRELL.
OBSCENE LANGUAGE AT A RAILWAY-STATION. - John BURNS, seaman, of Watchet, Walter HOWARD and Charles BERRYMAN, of Old Cleeve, and Walter PERKINS, of Watchet, labourers, were summoned by the Great Western Railway Company for using obscene language at the railway-station at Watchet on the 16th June last. Mr. W. HENDERSON (of the firm of Fussell and Co., solicitors, of Bristol) appeared on behalf of the company, Inspector SHATTOCK, of Taunton, being also present. BERRYMAN pleaded guilty, and the other defendants not guilty. - Albert Benson SMELT, booking-clerk at the railway-station at Watchet, deposed that a copy of the bye-law under which the prosecution was taken was hung outside the booking-office at Watchet. On the evening in question he was in charge of the station, and at about a quarter to eight he heard a disturbance. On going to ascertain the cause, he saw BERRYMAN on the platform in company with PERKINS and HOWARD. They were using obscene language, BERRYMAN being the chief offender, and he (witness) spoke to them and told them to desist, which they did after a time. About twenty minutes afterwards, he heard the disturbance renewed at the other end of the platform, BURNS on this occasion being engaged in a quarrel with BERRYMAN. Both defendants were then on the platform, using language of a most disgusting character, a written copy of which he handed to the Bench. On hearing the second disturbance, he ordered BURNS off the premises, and, taking hold of his arm, led him outside the gate. Afterwards BERRYMAN came over to the fence dividing the platform from the roadway and invited BURNS to strike him, which he did. Subsequently the police-sergeant arrived, and he (witness) then resumed his duty. There were several ladies on the platform at the time, some of whom became much upset on hearing the language referred to. By the Bench: He did not hear PERKINS or HOWARD use obscene language. - P.S. TOMPKINS stated that on June 16th he saw BURNS, accompanied by another man, cross the footbridge at Watchet and make for the entrance to the station. He heard BURNS challenge BERRYMAN to come out and fight, and BURNS also swore at him, principally using the term, “You B-----.” About the same time he saw BURNS strike someone on the platform, on which he (witness) took hold of him, and the disturbance ended, BURNS being subsequently led away by his companion. BURNS make no resistance to witness. He (the sergeant) corroborated the previous witness's evidence as to the number of passengers and the annoyance caused them, afterwards stating that he spoke to BERRYMAN, telling him it was all his fault, but he would not acknowledge it. He saw no disturbance between BERRYMAN and PERKINS or HOWARD. - George MILTON, signal-porter, at Watchet, gave evidence as to BERRYMAN threatening and striking HOWARD, and also making use of obscene expressions. - The Bench at this point discharged Walter PERKINS and William HOWARD on the ground of insufficient evidence, and BURNS, when asked if he had anything to say, said he was a bit aggravated at the time, but he did not use obscene language on the platform, according to the wording of the summons. - BERRYMAN made a lengthy statement as to the disturbance being caused by a difference between PERKINS and HOWARD over a wrist strap, which was subsequently thrown into his (defendant's) face. Both thereupon rushed at him, HOWARD striking him in the face, whereupon he retaliated. If it had not been for HOWARD, there would have been no row. As to BURNS, he had seen nothing of him for the day until he hit him over the railings – BURNS, when asked if he had any witnesses to call, said several persons had seen the occurrence and he had trusted to their generosity to attend, but they had failed to do so. - The Bench characterised the conduct of the defendants as most disgraceful and fined BERRYMAN £1 10s. and BURNS 15., costs being included in each case.
A WARNING TO STATION TRESPASSERS. - John BURNS and Walter PERKINS, two of the defendants in the previous case, were again placed in the dock, on a charge of trespassing on the “railway station” and refusing to quite when requested to do so, the proceedings being instituted under Sec. 16 of the Railways Regulation Act, 1840. - PERKINS pleaded guilty, and BURNS not guilty. - Mr. HENDERSON, having recapitulated the facts, pointed out that neither of the defendants was a passenger, and though BURNS left the platform, he was still on the company's premises while he remained outside the railings. - Mr. SMELT was again called as a witness and repeated in effect his evidence in the previous case, stating, however, that BURNS made no effort to resist when requested to leave the platform. - The case really turned upon the point whether the ground outside the platform could be included within the term “station,” though it belonged to the railway company, Mr. HENDERSON contending that the term “station” comprised the actual buildings, line of metals, &c. - The Bench thought it rather a nice point, and discharged BURNS; PERKINS, who had pleaded guilty, was fined 5s. and costs, 5s.
OCCASIONAL LICENSE. - An occasional license was granted to Mr. G. WATTS, of the Anchor Hotel, Watchet, from 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. on bank holiday, for the sale of intoxicants on the sports ground.
MAINTENANCE CASES. - Matthew James PEARSE, manager of Elliott's Hotel, St. Mary-street, Cardiff, was summoned by the guardians of Williton Union to show cause why he should not contribute towards the maintenance of his father, Wm. PEARSE, now chargeable to the Williton Union, at a cost of 5s. per week. - Mr. F. W. HUGGINS appeared on behalf of the guardians and stated the facts, which were briefly that defendant had promised to pay 2s. 6d. a week direct to his father, but not through the guardians, and the guardians, not considering this a sufficient guarantee, applied for an order to be made on defendant to pay 2s. per week to them. - Mr. F. A. SNOW, relieving officer, proved that, Wm. PEARSE was in receipt of relief to the amount of 5s. a week, and Mrs. DENBURY (sister of defendant) spoke to his occupation. - The Bench granted the application, costs to follow. - There was a similar case against Robert PEARSE, another son of William PEARSE, also of Cardiff, the application being for 1s. a week. - Mr. HUGGINS stated that defendant had promised to pay the amount applied for, but had omitted to do so, and though a letter had been written to him on the subject, no reply had been received. - Mr. SNOW deposed that defendant worked on the Cardiff Corporation water-works, earning 29s. a week, and had a wife and two children dependent on him. - The application was granted, with costs. - Neither of the defendants appeared in court.
APPLE STEALING AGAIN. - John ATTIWELL, Frederick WESCOMBE, and Ernest HOLE, lads, of Watchet, were charged with stealing a quantity of apples, valued at 3d., from an orchard belonging to Mr. G. G. POLE, of Snailholt Farm, on July 12th. Defendants chose to be dealt with summarily, ATTIWELL pleading guilty, WESCOMBE not guilty, while the last-names was represented by his guardian. - P.S. TOMPKINS said that on Thursday, July 12th, he was watching Mr. POLE's orchard at a few minutes to nine, when the defendants and the lad HOLE came into the orchard and commenced picking apples from the same tree. On seeing witness, they ran away but he could not say whether they placed the apples in their pockets. He caught ATTIWELL, and took him to Mr. POLE. By the Bench: He distinctly saw each of the lads pick some apples. - Mr. POLE stated that he did not wish to press the case severely against the defendants, but he had an orchard near the paper-mills, and it was difficult without the help of the police to keep the apples. He only wanted to protect the orchard. - P.S. TOMPKINS said he had had no trouble with the defendants in the streets of Watchet. - ATTIWELL was fined 4s. 1d., and WESCOMBE and HOLE 5s. 1d., including costs.
DAMAGE BY WOODPICKERS – Charlotte VILLIS and Eliza HILL, of Nether Stowey, and Jane KNIGHT, of Over Stowey, were charged with having, on the 7th July, destroyed certain oak saplings, to the value of 3s., growing on Danesborough Hill. VILLIS pleaded not guilty, and KNIGHT and HILL guilty. - Frederick VILLIS, gamekeeper, employed by Sir A. A. HOOD, Bart., said that on the 7th ult. he was on Danesborough Hill and saw the three defendants. He saw KNIGHT breaking down wood, some green and some dry, and on looking behind him a little later he saw VILLIS running away. On going in the same direction, he found some large sticks (produced), whereupon he told the three women that he should report them, to which one of them replied that “she did not care a b---; she had done seven days in KNIGHT's time, and she did not care whether she had another.” By VILLIS: He did not see her break the wood, but he saw her come from the direction where it was found. - When asked if they had any questions to put, KNIGHT made a statement that she “tore down a bit of 'ood, but did not have nuther chopper to do it with.” while HILL admitted taking “three or four bits of wood, the biggest not bigger than my finger or my thumb.” - Joseph RYMER, head gamekeeper to Sir A. A. HOOD, spoke of the damage recently done in plantations by wood stealers, and testified to seeing the damage in this particular case, which was very considerable. He did not know whether the defendants had been summoned before, but, he remarked amid laughter, “that nearly all Stowey had at different times.” - VILLIS was fined 7s. and KNIGHT and HILL 5s. each, costs included.
OBSCENE LANGUAGE. - Henry CHAMBERLAIN, labourer, of Old Cleeve, and Thomas WEBBER, labourer, of Hareland, Withycombe, were summoned, under the county bye-laws, for using obscene language in the parish of Old Cleeve on July 28th. - Defendants pleaded guilty, and Albert JAMES, farmer of Beggearnhuish, stated that he was standing near the Railway Hotel, Washford, waiting for the train, which was rather late, on July 28th, when he saw both defendants fighting between the hotel and the station. He did not take very much notice of their language, but some of it was bad. After scrambling for some time, CHAMBERLAIN struck WEBBER rather low, which doubled him up, and CHAMBERLAIN then left him, but returned again and tried to lift him up, when WEBBER said, “I give in; you are the best man.” WEBBER eventually got up, and CHAMBERLAIN then beat him about three or four different times and also struck his (WEBBER's) wife between the shoulders. By the Bench: He did not particularly notice the bad language, but he heard some. - P.C. TAMLYN, stationed at Washford, said that he heard CHAMBERLAIN making use of bad language. He (witness) was fetched, and saw defendants jumping about and making use of obscene language, and at his approach they went away. - WEBBER stated that he went to the Washford station to meet the 3 o'clock train on Saturday to help his wife home with her luggage from Watchet. When taking the luggage to the hotel, he found the other defendant and a man named JONES there. He (witness) had his dog with him, and after being there a few minutes CHAMBERLAIN took the dog up and pulled it about, with the result that it scratched him, at which JONES said that if the dog had scratched him he would have knocked its brains out. He (WEBBER) told them that if they hit his dog he would hit them, and after some further altercation they all went outside, and before he had time to take off his jacket CHAMBERLAIN knocked him down and knelt on his chest. - CHAMBERLAIN said he could prove that he did not arrive at Washford until 5 o'clock. He seldom went into a public-house, and simply went there to get a glass of beer. When he went into the inn, he heard WEBBER talking very loudly and quarrelling with his wife, being at the time very much the worse for drink. He (CHAMBERLAIN) stayed there some time quietly, and the WEBBER threatened to knock his brains out, a threat which he (CHAMBERLAIN) told him was rather serious. WEBBER then invited him outside the inn, and pulled off his jacket, while he did not even take his off. - Fined 1s. and 5s costs each.
AN ASSAULT CASE. - A second charge, arising out of the previous case, was laid against Henry CHAMBERLAIN, viz, assaulting Elizabeth Ann WEBBER, wife of Thomas WEBBER, at the same time and place. - Mrs. WEBBER gave evidence as to CHAMBERLAIN striking her twice on the side of the head, while she endeavoured to push him off her husband, defendant then kneeling on his chest. Continuing, complainant said the defendant had threatened to knock her brains through the gate if she did not get away, and Mr. JAMES gave corroborative evidence as to CHAMBERLAIN intentionally striking Mrs. WEBBER between the shoulders. - For the defence, Horace JONES, of Torre, stated that defendant did not strike WEBBER, but only pushed her away. - Thomas CHAMBERLAIN, a brother, was also called, and contended that his brother struck Mrs. WEBBER unintentionally. He affirmed that Mr. JAMES was not in a position to see what happened. After hearing the evidence, the Bench fined CHAMBERLAIN 2s. 6d. and costs. 9s.
SCHOOL CASES. - For not sending their children regularly to school, Gilbert WEBBER, of Watchet, was fined 1s. and 2s. in respect of his sons Walter and Charles, the amount in the former case to be remitted on the production of a doctor's certificate; William GOULD, of Watchet, 3s. for his son Arthur; Robert BINDING, of Watchet, 5s. for his son Robert; and John BINDING, of Watchet, 5s. for his son Stephen.
VACCINATION EXEMPTION. - Abraham Thomas BANKS, of Old Cleeve, applied for a certificate of exemption from vaccination in respect of his child, Violet Lilian, born June 30th, conscientiously believing that it was prejudicial to the child's health. - The application was granted.