Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
The Somerset County Gazette 05 Oct 1867
Page 5 Column 4 & 5
WELLINGTON.
POLICE COURT, Thursday. - (Before E. A. SANFORD, S. FOX, V. J. REYNOLDS, and H. WARRE, Esqrs.) - Mr. Wm THOMAS, merchant, of Wellington, and Mr. Thos. BLAKE, yeoman, of Cutsey, were charged by Mr. Henry PRING, farmer, of West Buckland, with trespassing, on the 23rd September last, in a close in the occupation of James TWOSE. Mr. A. R. PAYNE, of Milverton, appeared for the complainant, and Mr. H. C. TRENCHARD, of Taunton, for the defendants. The case excited great interest, and the court was crowded, the defendants being well-known sportsmen of this district. It will be remembered that a few weeks since Mr. THOMAS charged Mr. PRING with trespassing on Sunday, the 1st September, when the latter was fined £5. Mr. PRING has since been on the alert, and now returned the compliment, extending it also to Mr. BLAKE. - The trespass on this occasion was proved by Mr. James TWOSE, of Buckland and Busssell's Farms, who was in the road and saw the defendants go through Mr. COLEMAN's field and thence into Brewer's Close in his (witness's) occupation, and belonging to BUSSELL's. They had guns and dogs, and tried the fields. The witness was sharply cross-examined, but his evidence was not shaken. The lease of the farm was produced, and showed that the game was reserved to the owner, Mrs. PHILLIPS, who had given it to her brother-in-law, Mr. PRING. The defence set up was that for the past 36 years Mr. THOMAS and for 18 years Mr. BLAKE, had shot over this farm; that they had the permission of the late Mr. PHILLIPS to shoot there, and had never been refused; that Mr. TWOSE had accompanied them, and had received some of the game; and that the occupier this year had given permission. Mr. TWOSE denied that he had given permission, or that he had the power to do so. Mr. TRENCHARD made an able defence; but the proof given by the lease that was produced quite cut the ground from under him, and the Bench considering that an illegal trespas <sic> had been committed, although in ignorance, inflicted the mitigated penalty of £1, with 6s. 6d. costs in each case.
Henry TROAKE, labourer, was brought up in the custody of P.C. MUNDY, and charged with having left his wife and five children chargeable to the common fund of the Wellington Union. The chargeability was proved by Mr. Stephen MORGAN, relieving-officer, who produced the certificate. The prisoner said he had gone away to get work; that he had left his wife with 5s., and had sent her 3s. He had got work at Westbury, and if the Bench would give him time he would support his wife, who had no occasion to go on the Union. It appeared that there was very little good feeling existing between husband and wife, and the prisoner was liberated on his promise to take her off the parish, send her means of subsistence, and pay the costs already incurred.
Edward WAYGOOD and James OSMOND, two boys, of Rockwell Green, were charged by William APLIN with wilfully damaging his apple trees, by throwing stones at the apples. The case was proved by P.C. MUNDY, and the offenders were fined 1s., with 6s. 6d. costs.
Just before the rising of the court William SPARKS, fishmonger, of Taunton, was brought up in custody under the following circumstances:- About the middle of the day he was selling pilchards in the High-street, and when just opposite the shop of Mr. BURROW, silversmith, &c., a poor woman named FOURACRE, of Kittisford, who had brought in with her the savings of her children, £3, with which to purchase their winter clothing, came out of a shop and made a purchase of fish. In carrying these away she unknowingly dropped her purse, containing the money, and went away. SPARKS, it was said, had picked it up, and put it into his pocket. Another fish-cart was passing at the time, and the driver saw what had occurred, but went on. The two fish-dealers met at the top of the street, and it is supposed the money there changed hands. The poor woman soon afterwards discovered her loss, and went to SPARKS, who denied having seen the purse. He had been seen, however, by Mrs. BURROW and her little son Herbert, to pick up something in the road, and put it in his pocket, and another woman stated that she saw him take out the purse, and smile as he did so. Under these circumstances the prisoner, who protested that he had never had the purse, was remanded until Friday.
<other articles about this incident include the names Robert and Mary FOURACRE>