Taunton Courier 01 Oct 1924 Wiveliscombe Petty Sessions includes Unfenced Machinery FOURACRE Bros Arthur FOURACRE Timber Merchants Milverton

Sarah Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper Articles

Taunton Courier, and Western Advertiser Wednesday 01 Oct 1924

Page 6 Column 7


<section not transcibed>


TUESDAY. - Before Mr. Arthur CAPEL (in the chair), Mrs. BROADMEAD, Messrs. G. STAUNTON WING, W. BROWN, and T. K. PONSFORD.


Thomas SMITH, naval pensioner, of Wiveliscombe, pleaded not guilty to having been drunk and disorderly on the highway at Wiveliscombe, on August 4th. - P.C. STEVENS stated that about 9 p.m. he saw defendant in the Market-square. He was very drunk and entered the White Hart Inn. Witness entered the inn and drew the licensee's attention to his condition. Defendant then returned to the Market-square, and accused a man of having sent witness in. He became very abusive and disorderly, and witness took him home. P.S. HORLER corroborated, and said defendant had been to Milverton sports. - Defendant denied that he was drunk and said he had not received any complaints. - Fined 7s 6d, and allowed 14 days in which to pay.


Eleanor SHERE, shopkeeper, of Wiveliscombe, pleaded guilty of allowing a shop to remain open for the serving of customers after the hour of closing. - P.S. HORLER stated that on the 13th inst. at 9.50 p.m., he saw a woman enter defendant's shop. She placed a bottle on the counter and was served by defendant. When asked why she served the woman, defendant said she did not think it mattered. He had received many complaints of defendant keeping her shop open. - Dismissed on payment of the costs, 4s.


Messrs. FOURACRE Bros., timber merchants, of Ford, Milverton, pleaded guilty to having on the 11th inst., at Milverton, failed to securely fence the fly-wheel of a steam engine at their saw mill. - Mr. Joseph OWNER, Inspector of Factories and Workshops prosecuted, and said the fly-wheel of a semi-portable steam engine was absolutely unfenced. The factory was visited in 1920 and instructions were given for the engine to be fenced. The factory was again visited in August, 1923, and on August 13th of this year he (Mr. OWNER), personally visited the words and found the whole of the machinery unfenced. On September 11th he again visited the works, and found the engine working with the fly-wheel still unfenced. No notice had been taken of letters written to the firm, and he was now asking the Bench to assist him in seeing that the conditions in factories in the neighbourhood were made reasonably safe. His department had done all that public officers could be expected to do.

Arthur FOURACRE, a member of the firm, said that all their saws were properly protected and the fly-wheel of the engine was more than 4 feet from the ground, and, therefore, there was no need for it to be guarded. They were running two belts off the fly-wheel, and these had to be removed two or three times a day and a guard would make this difficult. They employed three men and a boy, and he did not think they came under the Factory Act.

Mr. OWNER said there was no limit as to the height of the fly-wheel from the ground, and there was no exemption on account of the number of men employed. If there was only one person employed where mechanical power was used for sawing timber, it came under the Factory Act. Defendant had never raised that question.

The Bench imposed a fine of £3 3s, and ordered the engine to be properly safeguarded within a week, adding that the fine was heavier because defendants had neglected it so long.

Defendant: It is already done, sir.


Back to Miscellaneous Page

Back to Home Page