Sarah Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper Articles

The Somerset County Gazette, Bristol Express and Devonshire News. Saturday 24 Mar 1883

Page 10 Column 5 and 6

TAUNTON POLICE COURT.

SATURDAY. - Before R. A. KINGLAKE, Mr. A. MELLOR and Col. RAWLINS.

SCHOOL BOARD CASES. - Frederick MORRISH was charged by the School Attendance Committee of the Taunton Board of Guardians with employing a lad named CORNISH, of Norton Fitzwarren, on the 1st March, knowing the lad to be under thirteen years of age. - Mr. DAWE, who appeared on behalf of the Guardians, said there was so many children who did not attend school regularly on the plea of being at work that the Guardians were obliged to take steps to prevent farmers and others from employing them whilst under age and, being the cause of the attendances being so small. - Fined 7s. 6d. including costs.

The following were fined for neglecting to send their children to school:- Edward ASHMEAD, 1s.: John DARE, 6d.; Henry HARVEY, 6d.; Alfred HAKE, 2s.; Thomas HECTOR was ordered to send his child to school regularly and pay 1s. towards the costs incurred. John MILLER was also ordered to send his child to school. Joseph COLEMAN was charged with non-compliance with an order made upon him to send his children to school at Creech St. Michael. - Fined 2s. 6d., and an order was made.

RATES. - Percy SHOULER, of Creech St. Michael, was summoned by the overseers of Ruishton for non-payment of 10s. 1½d. poor-rate. - The Bench made an order for the payment of the money, with costs.

MONDAY. - Before Mr. R. A. KINGLAKE and Mr. H. J. BADCOCK.

THEFT OF MEAT. - John Oliver CRIDLAND, who described himself as an agent for the Pearl Life Insurance Company, of North Petherton, was charged with stealing ½ lbs. of beef from Charles BOND, of Bathpool, on Saturday last. - The prosecutor, it appeared, was going home from Taunton to Bathpool on Saturday night carrying the meat in a basket, when he was overtaken by the prisoner, who asked him if he would allow him to carry the basket for him. Prosecutor allowed him to do so, and the man carried it about a mile, and handed the basket again to prosecutor and went on. The prosecutor found that the meat had been taken from the basket, and he followed the prisoner, and, on overtaking him, accused him of having stolen the meat. The prisoner denied having done so, but prosecutor saw it sticking out of the man's pocket, and told him that he had done so. The man then threw the meat out of his pocket and attacked the prosecutor, and they had a scuffle. A policeman shortly afterwards came up, and the prisoner was given in charge. - The prisoner's defence was that he was going along the road towards North Petherton, when he saw prosecutor lying by the side of the road the worse for drink, between eleven and twelve o'clock at night. He was carrying two baskets and he helped him along and carried one of the baskets for him. The meat must have fallen from the prosecutor's basket, as he never took it. - P.C. WESTGATE stated that he found the two men struggling together on the night in question. Prosecutor charged CRIDLAND with having stolen his meat, and witness took him into custody. He found the meat lying on the side of the road. - The magistrates were of opinion that the case had been proved, and fined the prisoner £1, with the alternative of a month's imprisonment.

WEDNESDAY. - Before the Mayor (Mr. J. BARRETT), Mr. R. A. KINGLAKE and Mr. W. H. FOWLER.

OBSCENE LANGUAGE. - Selina SPARKS and Emma SPARKS, of King-street, were charged with having used obscene language towards Sarah Jane SAUNDERS on the 17th March – Mrs. SAUNDERS stated that she saw the two defendants on the day in question standing in the street, while she was returning from the factory, when she told them that she would not have her husband drinking with them. In reply they said “Go on, you dirty rotten -----.” They also used other filthy and abusive language. Her husband was in the habit of keeping company with the defendants, and made his home miserable. - The defendants cross-examined complainant with a view to show that the complainant used “bad language.” - John CHICK, a witness who lived in the street, stated that he heard the defendants use most disgusting language. He was corroborated by his wife. - Annie HAWKINS also stated that she heard the bad language used. - The defendants denied having used any bad language, and stated that the complainant's husband had never been in their company. Lydia PELLY, alias “Timber Dick,” stated that the defendants used no bad language, but the complainant called them bad names. - Charolette <sic> DAWE corroborated this statement. - Mr. GOLDSMITH stated that both girls had been convicted for various offences, and were living on the town. The defendants were each fined £1 and costs, with the alternative of a month's hard labour. They were allowed a week to pay. - The magistrates expressed a hope that the owners of property in King-street would look out for a better class of tenants.

CHARGE OF SELLING SPIRITS OF INFERIOR QUALITY. - Eli Charles SAUNDERS, innkeeper, Norton Fitzwarren, was charged with having sold to P.C. TROLLOPE, to the prejudice of the purchaser, on the 24th February, half a pint of brandy which was not of the nature, substance and quality demanded by the purchaser. - The defendant pleaded guilty, and Mr. CRAWSHAW stated in extenuation that since the summons was issued Mr. SAUNDERS had the bulk of the brandy analysed, and there was no doubt it was ten degrees under proof. - Supt. GOLDSMITH stated that the brandy was sold to the constable, who asked for the best brandy, and in answer to the defendant's wife, the constable stated that his wife was ill. The constable afterwards stated that he was going to have the brandy analysed. - Mr. CRAWSHAW stated that Mr. SAUNDERS became tenant of the house in question, the Ring of Bells, at Norton Fitzwarren: and Mrs. SAUNDERS, believing that the police-constable wanted the brandy for his wife, who was ill, went to the cellar for some old brandy which was of superior quality, although, as a matter of fact, it was under proof. It had been in stock when he became tenant of the house two years ago, and had evidently been many years there. It was, however, most wholesome brandy. - The Bench said that under the circumstances they would not deal with the case very severely, but would fine the defendant £1 and costs. They advised him, however, to be more cautious in future.

CHARGE OF DRUNKENNESS AND GAMBLING IN A PUBLIC HOUSE. - Thomas TALBOT, landlord of the Dolphin beer-house, in King-street, was charged with being drunk on his licensed premises on March the 6th. - Mr. GOLDSMITH stated that the case arose out of one which had been heard by the magistrates a week ago. - Walter FRY, residing in King-street, stated that the landlord was drunk on the evening of the day in question. Witness went into the house, and was taking a cup of beer which had been given to him, when the landlord interfered and struck him. He also followed him to the house of John SPARKS, and abused him. - Mr. COOK cross-examined the witness as to what had taken place at the house of Mr. TALBOT on the night in question, and who were present there. He had been summoned for an assault on the landlord committed that night, and there was another summons against him for tossing outside the house, which had been withdrawn at the entreaty of Mr. TROTMAN. - Emma SPARKS, Selina SPARKS and John SPARKS gave evidence in support of FRY's statement, the whole of them stating that TALBOT was drunk, and that he followed FRY to the house of John SPARKS. - John SPARKS was cross-examined by Mr. COOK with a view to showing that he had been charged with stealing turnip-greens and cups. - Mr. COOK, for the defence, submitted that what took place before the magistrates on Wednesday last would have to be left out of consideration. He submitted that FRY's evidence should be received with the greatest possible caution, as he was defendant in a case brought against him on Wednesday last, and he could have no good feeling towards Mr. TALBOT. He had simply stated that Mr. TALBOT was drunk, but gave no account of what he did to show that he was so. He (Mr. COOK) had declined to cross-examine the girls SPARKS, who had conducted themselves in such a manner in the town, and it was a notorious fact that their evidence was utterly untrustworthy, and the man SPARKS had been ordered to keep away from the house, as he had been in the habit of stealing things from Mr. TALBOT. He contended that Mr. TALBOT had not been drunk on the day in question, and would call several witnesses in support of the fact. - Thomas TALBOT stated that on the afternoon in question FRY was in his house, and some time in the evening the two girls SPARKS and a gentleman came in and had some beer. After the girls and the gentleman had left the house FRY took up one of the cups of beer, and was carrying it away, when he prevented him, and FRY struck him. He was not drunk on that day. - Cross-examined by Mr. GOLDSMITH, TALBOT stated that he kept the scores on the day in question. He kept the score when FRY and a man named TOZER and another man were playing skittles. There was no beer played for, but they had some drink there which was paid for by FRY and TOZER. - Sarah Jane SAUNDERS stated that on the evening in question, about half-past ten o'clock, she went into Mr. TALBOT's house, and he was then perfectly sober. - In answer to Mr. GOLDSMITH, he stated that her husband was in Mr. TALBOT's house that evening, and he was rather tipsy. - Mr. GOLDSMITH was proceeding to examine the witness as to the condition of several other parties who were in the house that night, when Mr. COOK contended that there really must be a limit to this sort of examination. He was anxious that the inquiry should be of the fullest possible character, but he did not see what bearing the condition of the persons who were in the house could have upon the charge. - Mrs. ASHTON, who gave evidence for the defence, stated that she was in the house that evening, and the defendant was not the worse for drink. He was in his usual state. She heard TALBOT and FRY having some angry words about a cup of beer, which the latter wanted to carry away. - Mrs. CLINCH stated that she went to the Dolphin Inn that evening to look for her husband. She saw TALBOT there, but he was not the worse for drink. - Sophia? FUDGE, residing in King-street, also gave corroborative evidence. - George DAWE, labourer, King-street, also stated that TALBOT was sober about ten minutes before eleven o'clock on the night in question. - This was the case. - Mr. GOLDSMITH said there was just one comment which he wished to make on what had taken place. - Mr. COOK protested against Mr. GOLDSMITH being allowed to do such a thing. It was most unusual, and was never tolerated by any other Bench. - Mr. GOLDSMITH said the Bench had granted this on former occasions. - Mr. COOK: It is most unusual. - Mr. GOLDSMITH: Mr. COOK himself has been granted the privilege. - Mr. COOK: Never in my life have I asked for a privilege of this sort. - Mr. GOLDSMITH: I beg your pardon. - Mr. COOK: I say you have no right to reply, and, strictly speaking, you have no more right to interfere than the prosecutor in an ordinary case. - Mr. KINGLAKE: The Bench, I think, have a discretion as to whether they will hear him or not. - Mr. COOK: I must appeal to you to ask your Clerk in a case of this sort. - Mr. KINGLAKE: I think Mr. GOLDSMITH only wants to throw some more light on the matter. - Mr. GOLDSMITH: Precisely. - Mr. COOK: You must form your own views from what you have heard. Your Clerk will bear me out. - Mr. KINGLAKE (to the magistrates' clerk): What do you think of the matter? - Mr. PINCHARD: In all cases there is no right to reply on the part of any one, but occasionally benches of magistrates have permitted a reply under Jarvis's Act. - Mr. COOK: When professional men are engaged on either side. - Mr. GOLDSMITH: There is no doubt Mr. COOK would monopolise the whole of the time of the Court for professional men, but we are not allowed the aid of professional men in our capacity. That is our misfortune. - Mr. COOK: I say it is a misfortune. - Mr. KINGLAKE: I think that under the circumstances we will not hear any further remarks from you, Mr. GOLDSMITH. After some consultation between the magistrates, the Chairman said the case was a very distressing one, and as the evidence was somewhat conflicting, they would dismiss it. They were, however, unanimously of opinion that the house had been unsatisfactorily conducted, and hoped that in future the house would be better conducted. - Mr. COOK: Pardon me; you are now forming an opinion as to the mode in which the house is conducted before you hear all the evidence. I venture to say you have no right to make such remarks when there is another case to come before you. - Mr. KINGLAKE: We are of opinion from what we have heard already that the house is not satisfactorily conducted. Notorious prostitutes had no right to be allowed to enter the house and sit there drinking under any circumstances. If they went there for their liquor they could be supplied with it, but they should not be allowed to sit there drinking it. - Mr. COOK: You have no evidence that they were allowed to remain in the house. - Mr. KINGLAKE: It has been stated in evidence that they remained there. - Mr. COOK: On the part of the prostitutes themselves it has been stated so, but utterly denied by every respectable witness. - Mr. KINGLAKE At all events the house has not been conducted in the manner that it ought to have been, but as to the present charge we will give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. - The defendant was also charged with having permitted gambling in his house or on his premises on the same day. - Mr. GOLDSMITH stated that the parties was allowed to play skittles in the defendant's alley for beer and tobacco, which they paid for. - Walter FRY stated that two men, named STEEVENS and TOZER, played skittles in the alley for two quarts of half-and-half, and the landlord brought the beer in. Witness also afterwards played skittles in the alley for beer. He did not see the beer paid for, but it was lost on the game. - Cross-examined by Mr. COOK, witness admitted that on the day named he was more drunk than sober. He had been an old soldier at it since he lived down in King-street. - Mr. COOK: You have no feeling against Mr. TALBOT in any way? - FRY: I don't know. - Mr. COOK: You would not like to say? - FRY: I don't hardly know sir – Mr. KINGLAKE: You have no unkindly feeling towards him? - FRY: Not the least. - Mr. COOK: Quite indignant at the suggestion; you were not angry with him because he summoned you last Wednesday? FRY: No, no. I should think he was angry himself. - Selina SPARKS proved to having heard some conversation about skittling at the Dolphin Inn, and she stated that the landlord took her down the alley on the following day, and showed her the chalk marks of the scores of games of bowls on the wall. - P.C. John REGAN?? stated that on the day in question he went to the house of Mr. TALBOT, and saw the man STEEVENS there, who looked the worse for drink, and he told the landlord that he must not serve him with any more, or he would report him. The landlord replied that he would serve him with as much as he liked. There were other parties in the house who had evidently been drinking. - Cross-examined by Mr. COOK: The landlord looked as if he had had something to drink. He could not tell how he looked like that. He only could give the explanation that he looked as if he had been drinking. Pressed by Mr. COOK for a reason for forming this opinion, witness said the landlord looked “silly.” (Laughter.) - Mr. COOK, for the defence, submitted that an attempt had been made to bolster up the charge. The only person who proved that there was any gambling in the legal sense of the term was FRY, and his evidence must be accepted with the utmost caution. No doubt if his evidence was unanswered it would appear that there would have been gambling between STEEVENS and TOZER and afterwards between him (FRY) and TOZER. There was no confirmation of his statement, however, not even the evidence of the prostitute (SPARKES) was corroborative of it, although there was bowling going on between STEEVENS and TOZER there was no gambling. The parties might have been bowling some hours, but they were not playing either for money or for money's worth. - Mr. KINGLAKE: Do people check the game and keep the score when they do not play for anything. - Mr. COOK: Most undoubtedly. A question might arise as to who would win the greatest number of games. People can play a game at bowls without any consideration in the same manner as they would play a game at cricket or football without any consideration. - Thomas TALBOT, the landlord of the beer-house, stated that although several games of skittles were played in the alley that day, and a score was kept, no drink was played for. - Cross-examined: He could swear that no drink was supplied to the men on the game, nor was there any tobacco. It was true that three half-ounces of tobacco had been supplied to STEEVENS and TOZER, but they paid for them. It was not an unusual thing for persons in the position of these two men to have such a quantity of tobacco without gambling for it. He could not say what number of games of skittles were played, nor could he say in what sum TOZER was indebted to him when he left that day. He was not indebted to him for anything that had been played on the game. - William TOZER, a naval pensioner, stated that he was playing skittles in the alley on the day in question, but only played for amusement. He neither played for money nor for money's worth. - Cross-examined: He did not know in what sum he was indebted to the landlord for drink supplied to him that day, but he was indebted to him for something. - By Mr. COOK: As a matter of fact, he paid what he owed to the landlord quarterly, when he got his pension. Some drink was supplied in the alley. - Mrs. TALBOT, the wife of the defendant, also gave evidence for the defence, stating that it was not true Selina SPARKS was taken down the skittle alley on the following day and shown the scores. - In answer to Mr. GOLDSMITH, she stated that no beer had been supplied to STEEVENS in the alley. - Mr. GOLDSMITH was proceeding to cross-examine the witness as to the disturbance which had taken place that evening in the house, when Mr. COOK submitted that there really must be a limit to the questions put. The case in connection with what had taken place in the house had been concluded. - Mr. KINGLAKE said Mr. GOLDSMITH was only seeking to elicit the truth. - Mr. COOK: But there must be a limit to that. (To the witness): Don't answer any more questions; I will take that upon myself. - William TALBOT, the defendant's brother, stated that he kept the score while the skittling was going on in the alley. There was no gambling going on there. He was a cockle merchant, and he left in the evening to sell cockles, and when he left he sent his son to set up the pins. He was not drunk that day. - The magistrates were unanimously of opinion that gambling had taken place, and fined the defendant £3 and costs; and expressed a hope that this would be a warning to him. - Mr. GOLDSMITH asked for the costs of the witnesses, which were granted. - The maximum penalty for the offence is £10. - The magistrates said they should not endorse the licence.

FURIOUS DRIVING. - William BULPIN, hay-dealer, East-reach, Taunton, was charged with having on Saturday last driven a horse and carriage furiously. - The defendant pleaded guilty, and Mr. GOLDSMITH stated that the defendant was driving a spirited animal, and he ran against another trap. - The defendant stated that the animal was very fresh. - Mr. KINGLAKE said it was becoming customary in the town for people to drive horses furiously on Saturdays. Although the defendant stated that was a first offence, not that the horse was a young one, the magistrates said they did not care whether it was a first offence or not, and fined the defendant £2 and costs as a caution.

APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME REFUSED. - Mr. GIST, landlord of the Old Angel Inn, Taunton, applied for an extra hour on Good Friday evening next, on the occasion of the annual dinner of the men employed at the locomotive department of the Great Western Railway, that being the only day in the year that they could get off. The dinner had formerly been held at another public-house, and the Bench had invariably granted a license on the day in question. - Mr. KINGLAKE said the dinner ought to be held on some other day, and declined to grant the application.

Back to Miscellaneous Page

Back to Home Page

<NOTES: John Oliver CRIDLAND, married Mary Sully WILLIS and Louisa
Lydia PELLY daughter of Francis PELLY and Sophia GOLLOP, associated with Abraham ESCOTT
Thomas TALBOT son of Frederick TALBOT and Sarah BULL, married Elizabeth or Bessie TOZER>