Newspaper Transcripts
Some Selected Reports from The Windsor and Eton Express
26th November 1842
Literary Institution
On Wednesday evening last Mrs.C.L.Balfour delivered a gratuitous lecture on "The Moral and Intellectual Influence of Woman on Society."
This subject is a highly important one, and pre-eminently adapted for a lady lecturer, as being principally directed to the fair sex, but
which indeed on this occasion, proved equally interesting and instructive to the male part of the audience. After some preliminary
remarks, the fair lecturer proceeded to an investigation of the differences of opinion as to the moral qualities, the mental capabilities,
and the social rights of Woman, and in language distinguished alike for beauty and depth of argument and reasoning, exhibiting great
talent and deep research, maintained that Woman should occupy an elevated position in society, as tending by her many amiable
qualities, to give a tone and impetus to intellectual pursuits, and a stimulus to rational enjoyment, and proved by reference to the
inhabitants of various countries, that where Woman was placed in slavish bondage, society was in a wretchedly low state, and in
exact proportion as Woman enjoyed the undoubted rights and privileges to which she was entitled, society progressed in refinement.
That though she was not fitted to encounter the rude storms of the political arena, there was one sanctuary in which she was
priestess, and where she had the power of dispensing happiness, which was Home. The fair lecturer then remarked on the
influence of woman as a patroness of literature, and adduced many instances proving incontestably how much literature in indebted
to the fair sex. Mrs. Balfour concluded her lecture by adverting to the responsibility attending mothers in the cultivation and tuition
on the infant minds of their children, illustrating her observations by many interesting anecdotes. This lady has a most pleasing
delivery, and a flow of language of the purest diction, and the lecture (which was entirely extempore), if we may judge from the
applause which was very liberally bestowed, gave the greatest pleasure to a most respectable company, that filled the theatre to excess.
Pigeon Shooting
The entries for the fat hog, put up by Mr.Veal of the Three Tuns Inn, for competition on Thursday, did not fill. Eight
gentlemen however shot for a sweepstakes of �1 each, divided into two prizes (�6 and �2), the first of which was won by Mr. Bang,
and the second, after a double tie, divided by Messrs Croft and Bacon. A sweepstakes of 5s each, nine entries, was also won by
Mr. Bang; and a match for �10, at nine birds each, between Messrs. Why and Colley, was won by the latter killing five.
Steeple Chase Match
A match between a bay mare of Mr. Sharpe's of the White Hart Inn, Slough, and a grey mare belonging to
Mr. Skivins, livery-stable keeper, at the Dolphin Inn, near the latter place, has recently been made, and was fixed to come off on
Tuesday last, but the weather (certainly it was bad enough) prevented it taking place. We are now informed that it will positively
take place on Thursday next. The start is to take place in a field close to Slough, by the side of the Bath Road, thence to Eton-common
and back to the starting place, making a distance of about two miles, and crossing and re-crossing the well-known Chalvey Ditch.
Footpads
On Wednesday evening a bricklayer, who is occasionally employed at Lord Montague's, at Datchet, while returning to
Windsor through the Home-park, was stopped near Adelaide lodge by a footpad, who seized him by the collar. The bricklayer,
however immediately knocked the fellow down, on which two other ruffians came up, and they succeeded in overpowering the person assailed, but on rifling his pockets and finding he had only three halfpence in them, they felt disappointed in their hopes of plunder and refused to take it. They then made off after giving him several blows on the head, which, however, did no serious injury to him.
Brutal Attack
On Thursday evening, between six and seven o'clock, as Mr.Stacey, builder, of Eton, was returning in his cart from Old Windsor, his hat was blown off into the road by a high wind when near Mr.Mills, the carpenter's residence. He stopped his horse and called out to a person named Fisher, who lived in a cottage close by, to come out with a light, that he might find his hat, and he alighted at the same time, but he had scarcely got out of his cart when he was suddenly attacked by a ruffian, who stuck him a violent blow with some sharp instrument, just under the right eye. Mr. S called out "Murder," and Fisher at that moment coming out of his house
bled so profusely from his eye, which had received a severe and extensive wound, that he deemed it best to return to the Bells of Ouseley to recover himself from the shock, on reaching which he was extremely faint from the violence and the loss of blood. He there got some temporary assistance , and his eye bandaged, after which he was driven to his own residence at Eton by some other person. What the object of his brutal and ferocious assailant could be, whether to rob or assassinate him, or who he is, remains at present a mystery.
Sheep Stealing
On the night of yesterday week, or early on the following morning, a sheep was stolen from the mead field of Mr. John Nash, of Langley. A reward of thirty guineas has been offered for the apprehension and conviction of the offenders; and within the last few days Mr.Larkin, chief constable of Iver and Langley, had apprehended a man on suspicion of having committed the robbery.
The late robbery at Mr. Trumper's of Dorney
Some short time ago, it will be recollected that we gave an account of some thieves having broken into the premises of Mr.Trumper, of Dorney, and stolen a very large quantity of bacon, a portion of which was afterwards found secreted in some fields in the neighbourhood of Salthill, and we intimated at the time through the exertions of Larkin chief constable of Iver, and Jerome, one of the constables of Eton, who had the case in hand; there was great reason to believe the robbers would soon be brought to justice. We are now glad to find that as regard, two of the three persons concerned in the robbery, they are in safe custody. One of them, named Benjamin Clements, now in Reading gaol, undergoing a sentence of 18 months imprisonment , for an offence subsequent to Mr.Trumper's robbery, has been identified by Larkin as one of the thieves, and the other Jeremiah Case, was apprehended by Larkin at Reading
on the 17th inst. This latter was on Tuesday last taken before Mr.Thomas Carter, at Eton, when a very long examination took place - no less than 13 witnesses having to be examined. One of the witnesses, named Henry Middleton of Eton, fully proved that Clements, now in Reading gaol, was one of the party of thieves from that prisoner's own admission, for on the 1st of October, Middleton met Clements, who told him to look up into a tree in his (Clement's) garden and he would find some bacon, but he was not to "split" upon him.
Clements added it was some of Mr.Trumper's bacon, that there were two of them in it, and that Jeremiah Case was one. The witness informed Mr.Trumper of these facts, and on searching afterwards where Clements had directed, a quantity of bacon was found. This witness also swore to having seen the two prisoners, Clements and Case, together the day after the robbery. The evidence being complete against Case, he was fully committed to Aylesbury to take his trial, and it is intended to apply for Clements removal from Reading to Aylesbury to take his trial at the same time.
Melancholy Death from "Larking"
On Monday last an inquest was held before Mr.Marlin, coroner for the Borough, at the Clarence Hotel, on the body of a young man named John Richards, a journeyman carpenter, aged 24 years, who met his death under the following circumstances.
Thomas Scott, ostler at the Clarence, deposed that on Saturday night, about half past nine o'clock, the deceased was in the tap-room of that hotel, in company with John Arrowsmith, Thomas Taylor, and Henry Pitt. Deceased had been there about two hours, but was sober, having had a little beer, but not much. They were all at play together - struggling with each other - and they fell down in the room several times, sometimes one being undermost, and sometimes another.
After the last fall, which was the worst, the deceased complained of being hurt in the chest. There were all four of them down together. They appeared to be friendly, and were only "larking." They always seemed to be very good friends, and very partial to each other. The deceased had commenced the "larking." They did not attempt to kick each other. They were almost always at play when they came together. Witness did not see any blows struck, nor anyone fall with his knees on the deceased. He was certain they were only playing.
When the deceased got up the last time, he put his hand to his chest, said he had got enough, and left the house. Witness had no idea the deceased was injured until the next morning , when his (deceased's) father called and said he was very ill. Deceased did not appear to want any assistance when he left. On the Sunday the witness twice visited the deceased, who said he had got it all by "larking," and that it would be a warning to him if ever he got over it. He said he was in fault as much as any of the others, and complained of being very ill. All the parties were sober; they had had a little beer, but were not tipsy.
Robert Richards, the father of the deceased, deposed that his son came home between 10 and 11 o'clock on Saturday night, and complained of being much hurt. Witness insisted on his telling where he had got hurt, and he said it was while "larking" at the Clarence with Arrowsmith, Taylor, and Pitt. Witness said he would go and see the rights of it, but deceased replied it was of no use, for he was as bad as they were, and that they were all "larking" together. Deceased said he was hurt in his bowels and breast; that they
were all down together, and he thought that the knees of one of them came upon his breast, he thought it was all up with him, and that he should never get over it. He made no complaint of anger on the part of any one, but on the contrary said they were all in good fellowship. He had a very bad night of Saturday night, and witness on Sunday morning sent for Mr.Soley, the surgeon. The deceased expired about half-past nine o'clock on Sunday night.
Mr. Thomas Apreece Soley, surgeon, said he was called on to attend the deceased about nine o'clock on Sunday morning, when his assistant attended, and found him labouring under the effects of some internal injuries. Witness's assistant prescribed the proper remedies, and saw him twice again during the day, and in the evening witness himself (who was prevented attending before) saw him.
He then complained of great pain in his stomach, and there was certainly a great distension of the stomach. Witness attributed the injuries to a rupture, probably of some internal vessels. He had not opened the body, not having been authorised to do so. He was quite satisfied with what his assistant had done for the deceased. Witness had understood that deceased had received some heavy falls, and he felt satisfied that the injuries which caused his death had arisen from the men falling on him.
Eliza, the wife of John Blandy, stated that she went to the Clarence to request he husband to go home, and she saw the "larking" and the various falls. Her evidence, which was merely corroborative of that which the first witness, went to prove that the unfortunate deceased and his companions were good friends, and that not the slightest anger or animosity was perceptible on the part of any one of them.
The jury felt satisfied that the occurrence was purely accidental, and they returned a verdict accordingly.
Windsor Police - Monday
[Before Robert Tebbott, Esq., (Mayor), John Clode , Esq., and W.Legh, Esq.]
Thos.Hawkins, a waggoner in the service of Mr.Thumwood, was charged with embezzling some money belonging to his master, and also with getting drunk while having charge of his master's team, and leaving the property in the waggon exposed in the road.
Mr.Thumbwood said he did not want to press the charge of embezzlement if the prisoner would make that good, but he felt bound to press the charge of drunkenness, because it was a serious matter to leave the waggon and horses while he was getting drunk in a public house. On a former occasion he (Mr.Thumbwood) had to pay �6 for property lost through such negligence on the part of the prisoner.
The magistrates allowed Mr.Thumbwood to retire with the prisoner and arrange as to the payment of the money said to be embezzled, and they did so, On their return,
The Mayor lectured the prisoner on his conduct, and fined him 5s for being drunk, allowing him a week to pay the money, and telling Mr.Thumbwood that it would be for him hereafter, incase the prisoner did not make good his payment, to consider whether he would not prosecute him for the embezzlement.
John Thomas, a young man who had at the station house given the name also of George Mason, was charged with two larcenies, viz., stealing about 1 3/4lb of bacon from the shop of Mr.James Darling, grocer, &c., of Thames-street; and a handsome cane, with gold eyes and mounted, valued at 10s, from the shop of Mr.Henry Lamb, jeweller, &c., of 97 Peascod-street.
It appeared that on Thursday evening in last week, Mr.Henry Swaine, while coming up Thames-street, saw the prisoner looking in a suspicious manner into Mr.Darling's shop, and believing he was after no good, watched him. He presently saw the prisoner enter the shop (in which there was no one else), take up a piece of bacon, put it inside his jacket, and was about to depart with it, when Mr.Swaine stopped him and took him back. He then called Mr.Darling, who was upstairs and who on coming down identified the bacon. Mr.Darling was about giving the young thief a rap or two on the head and letting him go, but perceiving he had a valuable looking cane in his hand, he asked him where he had got it, on which the prisoner said he had walked from London with it. Believing that it was stolen, Grass, a policeman, was called in, and the prisoner was given into his custody. Enquires then were made by Grass for the owner of the cane, and it was at length discovered to have been stolen from the inside of Mr.Lamb's shop, where it had been exposed for sale.
The prisoner was fully committed to take his trial on the two cases.
Harriet Tomlins, a poor distressed-looking object (a stranger to Windsor), was charged with damaging the fence of a field near the gas works, the property of Mr.Thos.Hughes, farmer, of Clewer.
Clarke, a policeman, stated that on Saturday morning, at a quarter past eight o'clock, he saw the prisoner taking wood from Mr.Hughe's hedge, and putting the pieces into a basket. Some pieces she pulled out of the ground. He then took her into custody.
Mr.Hughes stated to the magistrates that the damage was about one shilling.
The prisoner begged the bench would be as lenient towards her as they could. She was very short of money, and had, on her return to Clewer, merely taken a few pieces of wood out of the ditch to make a fire.
Mr.Hughes said he did not wish to press hard on the woman, but he thought some notice should be taken of the case.
The Mayor said certainly, for the farmers were severe sufferers from such depredations.
Eventually the case was decided by the consent of Mr.Hughes, by the prisoner's husband (who was present) paying 2s, (being all that he had except a few halfpence), including the damage and costs.
The prisoner was discharged.
Eton Police - Wednesday
[Before C.Clowes,Esq., the Rev.T.Carter, M.Swabey, Esq., and C.Tower, Esq.]
The licenses of the following houses were indorsed by the magistrates:- That of the White Hart, Slough, from Mary Luff to Wm.Sharpe; and that of the Dog and Pot, Stoke, from William Sharpe to Henry Southon. These indorsements will enable the incoming tenants to carry on the business until the regular license and transfer day.
The Bench was occupied for a considerable time in the swearing in the constables of the several parishes in this district, who were appointed under the new Constabulary Act. The provisions of this Act, so far as it concerns the duties of churchwardens and overseers, to return to the magistrates a list of persons, selected by the inhabitants of the vestry, from which list the magistrates are to make the appointments,
do not seem to be generally understood, for the officers of two or three parishes had omitted to attend with returns at the last bench day, the day that had been appointed, for which neglect they were liable to be fined in any sum not exceeding �5. One of those parishes was Stoke, and one of the overseers attended today with his list. The bench said it was necessary that the parish officers should know their duty, and that the best mode of teaching it them was to fine them for neglect.
They therefore inflicted a fine on the officers of Stoke 20s, to be paid between them. The churchwardens and overseers of Wyrardisbury were fined in a similar sum for the like neglect.
John Banister was charged with having on the 7th instant, at Stoke Poges, unlawfully set some snares for the purpose of taking and killing game, but the evidence not being sufficient to support the case, the information was dismissed.
Thomas Lawrence, landlord of the Five Bells, at Horton, was charged with having permitted drunkenness and other disorderly conduct in his house at three o'clock in the morning of the 18th of October.
Mr.Williams acted as counsel for the defendant.
Captain Bulkeley, a gentleman residing in Horton, attended, and wished to explain to the bench that scenes of riot frequently took place in that village, to the great annoyance of the inhabitants.
Mr.Williams rose, and protested against Capt.Bulkeley's addressing the bench to prejudice the defendant. It was wholly illegal for him to do so.
Capt.Bulkeley insisted he had a right, as an inhabitant who had been annoyed, to explain why he and other respectable inhabitants had caused this matter to be taken up. Such scenes occurred not once, but three or four times a week.
After some little warm discussion between the two gentlemen.
David Ratcliffe was called in support of the information. He said, on Tuesday morning, of the 18th of October, he was in the defendant's house - [here he stopped short, quite bewildered, fumbling with his hat, and unable to answer the question frequently put by the magistrates, and their clerk as to what he saw while he was there]. After some time he said, he saw no rioting or drunkenness there on that morning, and he conceived that there was some mistake, and that this case was confounded with another case. [This was all that could be got from him.]
Mr.Swabey asked if there was any other witnesses, and the constable answered in the negative.
Mr.Williams - Then I must ask that the case be dismissed.
Captain Bulkeley said the witness knew well enough there was a riot on that occasion.
Mr.Williams - You must not contradict your own witness, who says he saw no riot or drunkenness.
The case was then dismissed.
Mr.Swabey then seriously cautioned the defendant as to the future conduct of his house, for he understood there had been very many scenes there.
The defendant said he was not aware that there had.
Mr.Swabey, holding up a printed bill announcing a ball at the house, asked defendant if he knew anything of it.
The defendant said he had seen that bill before, but he had not authorised it to be issued; that had been done by other parties. He admitted that he occasionally had dancing parties in his house, but he thought there was no harm in that as he had only followed the practice of his predecessor in the house.
Mr.Swabey said there was this harm in it, that the defendant placed his licence in peril; and the persons who frequented his house for dancing were also liable for punishment. He therefore cautioned him in the future.
The defendant promised to attend to the caution , and left the court.
Alexander Hayter, a respectable looking man, who described himself as a schoolmaster, was charged with being drunk at the house of the above named defendant on the 20th of October.
The defendant admitted that he was in fault, and was very sorry for it.
The magistrates reserved their decision until they had heard the following case, which was connected with this one.
Joseph Stroud, Isaac Scotcher, and Thomas Bradford, were charged with assaulting the defendant in the preceding case, Alexander Hayter.
It appeared from some observations of Captain Bulkeley that the information against the three present defendants was not laid by the person injured, Alex.Hayter, but at the request of himself (Capt.B) and other inhabitants; and that Mr.Hayter was in fact a reluctant witness.
It appeared, from Hayter's evidence, that there had been a supper at the Five Bells, at Horton, on the night of the 19th of October, and that early on the following morning the defendants and Hayter, all of them being in liquor, had a dispute, which they went outside the house to settle, when Hayter and one of the defendants had several rounds, in which Hayter got the worst of it, and while down was kicked on his side by one of the others.
Captain Bulkeley said, Hayter was shockingly beaten and was much mutilated.
David Ratcliffe stated that he was called out of bed to assist his brother in stopping the fight. Hayter and Bradford were fighting, and the former was knocked down. As he was getting up Scotcher gave him a blow on his side; Hayter called out "None of that," and Bradford exclaimed, "I don't want anything but fair play." Witness saw no more blows.
Mr.Swaby - Which was the most drunk of the party ?
Witness - It was impossible to say; they were all forward in liquor. Scotcher was seconding Bradford. It was about four o'clock in the morning, and they had been at the Five Bells all night.
Mr.Swabey asked how it was that Hayter himself had not laid the information.
Captain Bulkeley said Hayter was not willing to lay the information. There was such a riot that the respectable inhabitants were themselves obliged to take the matter up, and they desired Ratcliffe, the constable , to lay the information.
Ratcliffe, the constable, confirmed his brothers testimony.
Mr.Swaby said he had no doubt there was a riot, and if the parish officers chose to inflict all the parties concerned for it, they could do so. But this summons must be dismissed, because Hayter was as bad as the rest, and he had not chosen to lay the information.
Mr.Clowes said it was a most disgraceful occurrence, and he thought the landlord himself (Mr.Lawrence) was the most to blame.
Mr.Swaby inquired if the landlord had left the court, and was answered in the affirmative, on which he desired a constable to see if he were in the neighbourhood, and if so, to bring him before the bench.
The constable returned, but Mr.Lawrence was non est.
Captain Bulkeley said he and the other inhabitants would most certainly carry the case of riot to the sessions.
The bench then dismissed the charge of assault, but ordered the three defendants and Hayter to enter into their own recognizance of �10 each, to keep the peace for three months, within which period the quarter sessions would be held, and they could all be indicted for a riot, if Captain Bulkeley pleased to do so. As to the charge of drunkenness against Hayter (the preceding case), they were not, under the circumstances, disposed to place any fine upon him for that offence.
The parties were then all bound over, and having paid the fees of court, 5s each, they were liberated.
John Talbot, a youth of bad character, who had been twice before in custody for wilfully damaging the property of Mr.Richard Ayling, landlord of the Swan at Iver, was charged for a third time with the like offence, on the preceding (Wednesday) evening.
It appeared that the prisoner went into the Swan tap-room during Mr.Ayling's temporary absence, and called for a pint of beer, with which he was served by the ostler in an earthern mug. The ostler shortly afterwards saw him with his elbow on the table push the mug off on to the floor, and it was broken. The fellow then took up one of the broken pieces, and deliberately threw it at another mug, which was also broken. He then took up another broken piece, and going outside the house, he threw it through a square of glass. He was then given into custody. The value of the mugs was 6d, and that of the square of glass, 2s 6d.
The defendant admitted breaking the mugs, but said he did not throw the piece at the window "in particular."
Mr.Clowes - Does his father pay for any of these pranks ?
The constable - No, sir, he always allows the law to take its own course.
The defendant was then fined 3s damage and 13s 6d costs, and in default of payment ordered to be committed to hard labour for two months.
Defendant - I am very much obliged to you, gentlemen.
Wm.Dawson, a servant to Mr.Murray, the auctioneer and wine merchant, of Uxbridge, appeared to a summons charging him with wilfully running against the cart of Mr.Wm.Filby of Egham, and doing damage to the cart and harness to the value of �2.
The case occupied a considerable time. Mr.Voules attended in support of the information, and a gentleman (whose name we understood to be Batt) from the office of Messrs.Riches and Woodbridge, solicitors, of Uxbridge, appeared on behalf of the defendant.
Mr.Voules on stating the circumstances of the case called
Wm Cooke, who stated that he formerly kept the Bell public house at Uxbridge. On the 10th of November he applied to the defendant for a debt he owed him, and called him a thief. This was at Uxbridge, and the witness went to Mr.Murray, the defendant's master, to complain of such language. On the same day the witness was driving Mr.Filby's cart, he and Mr.Filby being in it, towards Iver from Uxbridge, when at a distance of about 150 yards in the road, they saw the defendant in Mr.Murray's cart coming along at a rapid rate the opposite way. When the defendant came within a few yards, he shook the reins over the back of his horse to make it go on faster, which it did, and when close to witness's cart, defendant pulled the rein and drove his cart into witness's with great violence, turning it quite round in the road. So great was the concussion that the defendant's shafts broke off, and the horse taking fright ran off with the remains of them. Witness was thrown out and pitched on his head on the road, by which he was stunned for a few minutes, but next day he was so bad as to be unable to leave his home. There was plenty of room for the defendant to have passed them. Witness's cart and harness were damaged to the amount of about �2.
Cross-examined by Mr.Batt - The cart witness was in was not Mr.Filby's, it had been hired.
Mr.Batt then submitted that the claim could not be sustained, as the summons stated it to be Mr.Filby's cart, which was not true.
Mr.Voules said that the cart must be taken to be Mr.Filby's for the time he hired it, as undoubtedly Mr.Filby was responsible for any damage that should be done to it.
In this view the bench concurred, and the objection was overruled.
Cross-examination continued - Witness was going at the rate of seven or eight miles an hour, but defendant was going at the rate of 16 or 18 miles, though he could not say the horse was galloping.
Mr.Clowes said he could scarcely believe a horse could go 16 or 18 miles an hour, unless he were galloping very hard.
The witness continued - He had been drinking, but he was not drunk. He had been to the Bell Inn, but he was not even "fresh." He could not tell what he had drank that day. After defendant had abused him at Uxbridge, he (witness) certainly threatened to knock his teeth down his throat. Defendant then wished witness to strike him, but he said he would have nothing to do with such a paltry puppy.
Richard Martin was called, but he did not see the occurrence. He saw the defendant's horse galloping up the road with the shafts attached to it, and he afterwards saw the two carts locked together in the road.
Mr.John Filby, the father of the complainant, proved that the damage done to the cart and harness amounted to upwards of �2 at a fair price. When his son and Cooke reached home they were perfectly sober.
Mr.Batt then addressed the bench for the defendant, characterising this proceeding as a most disgraceful one, and stating that he would call witnesses who would prove that both the witness
Mr.Cooke and Mr.Filby were in liquor, and that they were driving very recklessly. If he proved these facts, he trusted that the magistrates would be of the opinion that the collision was not caused by the defendant.
Mr.Harvey Hickman, a farmer at Colnbrook, stated that on the day in question he was returning from Uxbridge market, when he met Mr.Murray's cart between Iver church and the railroad bridge. The cart was going a fair tradesman's pace which was about eight miles an hour. He did not see any other cart.
Mr.Stephen Pullen, a farmer of Horton, deposed that on the same day he was driving along the same road, and when near the Fox, at Cowley, he heard a cart coming as fast as possible. He drew up near the palings, and saw the cart, with the witness Cooke and Mr.Filby in it, and they began beating their horse. Witness's horse started in consequence, and he had great difficulty in stopping him.
Witness called out to the two men, "You fools, you were like to have caused a serious accident to us." They drove on as fast as they could,and galloped out of the witness's sight. When witness got to Iver Church, he met a horse running away, with the shafts attached to him, and shortly afterwards he reached a part of the road where were a van and the two carts, viz., Mr.Murray's and Mr.Filby's. Witness was of opinion that the two men (Filby and Cooke) were drunk , and he accused them of being so.
Joseph West, of Uxbridge, deposed that on the day in question he was travelling with Mr.Hetherington's van on the same road. He heard a tremendous noise behind him, and turning round he saw Cooke and Filby coming along the road very fast, and calling to him to get out of the way. They grazed the tire of his wheel in passing and startled his horses. This was about 300 yards from where the accident happened. Witness thought they were tipsy from their driving so fast. Witness did not at all wonder at the accident. He met Mr.Murray's horse galloping with the shafts attached to him. When he got up to the spot where the accident occurred, the two men (Filby and Cooke) asked him whether he thought they had been on the wrong side of the road.
Mr.Voules then addressed a few observations to the bench on the part of the complainant, and submitted that it was a case for conviction.
However the magistrates thought differently, and they dismissed the complaint.
Mr.Batt, for the defendant, then applied for his client's costs, but the bench decided that it was not a case for costs, and each party must pay his own.
Mr.Filby then paid 14s costs, and the defendant 8s 6d.
It was understood in the court that an action at law is still pending in reference to this affair.
Chas. Woods was charged with having, on the 9th inst., trespassed on the lands of Benj.Way.,Esq, of Denham, in the pursuit of game. He was convicted and fined 10s and 22s costs. In default of payment he was committed to hard labour in the Aylesbury gaol for 14 days.
Staines
Scientific And Literary Institution
On Tuesday, November 15, a lecture was delivered by the Rev.R.Porter, on the introduction to astronomy; the lecturer treated the subject in the most able manner, and endeavoured to impress upon the juveniles the study of so interesting a science, and having a telescope he explained the nature and advantages of it, which gave great satisfaction to a highly respectable audience.
The Late Incendiary Fire at Teddington
On Monday John Morris, who had been in custody since the 6th instant, on suspicion of having on the previous night, wilfully set fire to the barn, sheds, wheat-ricks, &c., belonging to Mr.William Gunner, farmer, of Teddington, Middlesex, whereby the whole was totally destroyed, was brought up from the New Prison, Clerkenwell, for final examination before Sir John Gibbon,Bart., Col.Wood, M.P., and Messrs. C.Devon and G.Patterson, the sitting magistrates, at the petty sessions in this town, and fully committed to Newgate for trial.
Petty Sessions - Excise Information - Caution
Mr.John Yeldham, a highly respectable grocer, who is also a wholesale wine and spirit merchant, residing in this town, appeared on Saturday last before Sir John Gibbon, Bart. (chairman), Colonel Wood, M.P., and C.Devon and G.Patterson, Esqrs., the sitting magistrates, to answer information at the instance of the Excise, charging that he, not being duly licensed to do so, did sell wines and spirits by retail, whereby he had incurred two penalties of �50 each.
The case excited great interest amongst the inhabitants of Staines, and the magistrates room was much crowded.
Thomas Hughes deposed that he lived on the Hackney-road, London, and was the Supervisor of Excise. On the 24th of September last, he went with two females, whom he believed were personally known to the defendant, to Mr.Yeldham's shop, and asked if he could have a bottle of gin. The defendant said he had not a licence to sell a quantity under two gallons, but eventually said if he did let him have it, it must be considered in the light of a sample bottle. Witness told him he might call it what he liked, but he wanted a bottle of gin, upon which the defendant took an empty bottle which one of the women had brought with her and went to another room and filled it. Witness then asked if he could let him have a bottle of wine. The defendant said he had not yet got his wine license, although he had applied for it, and if he did so they must also be considered as sample bottles. Witness then paid the defendant 2s for the gin, 3s 6d for a bottle of sherry, and 3s 6d for a bottle of port.
Mr.Yeldham, in answer to the charge, declared that he had been entrapped into the commission of the offence by the very supervisor who had given evidence against him. He then proceeded at some length to detail the circumstances under which the sale took place, alleging that one of the females who accompanied the witness Hughes was a woman named Payne, the wife of the conductor of the Staines omnibus, who was a frequent purchaser of groceries at his shop, that on the night in question, which was a Saturday night, she came accompanied by Hughes and a woman, and having purchased grocery as usual, she stated that they had formed a fishing party for the next day (Sunday), and as they would not be able to get anything the next morning, owing to all the public-houses being closed, she would esteem it a favour if he would be so kind as to let them have a bottle of gin. He told them that he had no retail
license, as the witness Hughes had stated, but they begged and prayed of him to oblige them, saying his gin was better than any they could get elsewhere, that he was induced to let them have a sample bottle. They then recollected that as some of them would be ladies they should require some wine, and he was induced to let them have two bottles at the same price at which it had been charged to him.
Mr.Hughes then seeing that he (defendant) also dealt in ale, and stout, became very thirsty and begged him to sell him a pint of ale; defendant, however , gave them a glass each, for which Hughes pressed him to take the money, but he fortunately refused to do so, or he supposed he should have a third information against him. These he declared were the real facts of the case, and he submitted that if he had erred, it was an error of judgement, and not with the intention to defraud the revenue.
The witness Hughes having admitted that the defendant's statement as to the ale was correct.
The Chairman in strong terms deprecated the conduct of the supervisor, and expressed his utter detestation of such a system of entrapping, and
The bench having conferred together, expressed their regret that an offence having been legally committed against the excise laws, they were bound to convict Mr.Yeldham. They would, however mitigate the penalty to the lowest moiety, viz., �25, and would one and all support any memorial the defendant might address to the Commissioners of Excise for a total remission of the penalty, and would take care that a circumstantial account of the transaction should be laid before the Excise Board.
Mr.Yeldham was then fined �25.
Chertsey
Mr. Field's Concert
On Tuesday last the second monthly concert of Mr.Field took place at the lecture room of our institution, and from the programme of the amusements, which had been circulated, the public were induced to anticipate a great treat, and which was most fully realized in the result. The performance commenced with the overture to Massaniello, by Miss and Master Field; the popular duet of the "Chough and Crow" was given by Miss Stevens and Mr.F.N.Crouch, whose names alone were sufficient to ensure success. The performance of the evening was principally a selection from the latter gentleman's compilation of the "Echoes of the Lakes," in which Mr.Crouch's powerful and melodious voice was highly applauded; the well known duet of "Row,Brothers,Row" by Miss Field and Mr.Crouch was rapturously applauded.
Miss Stevens was very great in the cavatina of the echo from "Echoes from the Lakes." The concert concluded with "God save the Queen" by the performers. Although the weather was most unfavourable we were much gratified to find the room was completely full.