Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Taunton Courier, and Western Advertiser 16 May 1888
Page 7 Column 2
TAUNTON POLICE COURT.
<section not transcribed>
SATURDAY.
Before Mr R. A. KINGLAKE (in the chair), Mr. T. WALSH, and MR F. W. NEWTON.
ON LICENSED PREMISES AFTER HOURS.
Wm. STEEVENS, Thorn Falcon, and Thomas STEEVENS, North Curry, were charged with having, on the 29th of April, been found on the premises of Sarah BRICE, Nag's Head inn, during prohibited hours. - P.C. WHITE repeated the evidence which he gave last week, when the landlady was fined for allowing the defendants to be on the premises on the morning of Sunday, the 29th of April. The defendant Thomas told witness that he had come for the cabbage plants his brother had left for him the previous night, and he should think he was entitled to a drink, having come nearly three miles. Witness had ascertained that Thomas STEEVENS lived 2½ miles from the Nag's Head, and the other defendant lived about 360 yards off. Wm. STEEVENS said he had called to mend the taps for Mrs BRICE. - Defendants corroborated the statement on oath, and both swore that they had no drink at Mrs BRICE's house. The jug which the constable saw contained leakings from the tap. - The bench fined the defendants 5s and costs each.
A CARELESS DRIVER.
George HODGES, Otterford, was charged with having, on the 3rd of May, being the driver of a waggon and two horses on the highway at Duddleston, ridden upon the waggon without having anyone to guild the horses. - P.C. SMITHERAM stated that facts, and defendant, who pleaded guilty, was fined 1s and costs, 6s in all.
DOG FIGHT AT NORTON FITZWARREN.
Thomas TALBOT, innkeeper, King-street; Henry LENNING, porter, King-street, Fredk. SEELEY, currier, King-street; and Samuel PEARCE, maltster, St. James's-street, were charged with cruelly ill-treating, abusing and torturing, and causing to be ill-treated, abused and tortured, two dogs, on the 29th ult., at Norton Fitzwarren.
Inspector ALLEN, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, prosecuted, and Mr A. G. TAYLOR defended.
Wm. KEMP, station-master at Norton Fitzwarren, said that about half-past four in the afternoon he saw two dogs fighting opposite the refreshment-room. About 150 people were around. A few minutes afterwards two passengers asked if he could not take steps to stop them. He inquired of several persons if the dogs belonged to anyone there, and someone said they belonged to a person in the village. He saw all the defendants except SEELEY. He said he should take steps to stop the fight. He called his porter and attempted to separate the dogs. The dogs were fighting against the hedge, and a ring was formed there. TALBOT said one of the dogs belonged to him, and added, “You leave the dog alone, otherwise I will smash your ---- head.” LENNING and PEARCE were “forcing” the dogs to fight. The dogs were separated by the porter (James HURLEY), and witness noticed at that time TALBOT's dog could not put one of it's feet to the ground. While he was separating the dogs HURLEY was struck by TALBOT across the hand with a stick.
By Mr TAYLOR: Others urged the dogs on to fight besides the defendant TALBOT.
James HURLEY, the porter, stated that on the afternoon in question he assisted the station-master to separate the dogs. Witness caught hold of one of the dogs by the tail, and tried to pull it away from the other. TALBOT said, “If you attempt to touch that dog I'll knock your ---- brains out.” LENNING pushed against him and said, “Leave the ---- dogs alone, and let them fight it out.” SEELEY wanted to know what witness interfered with the dogs for, and said, “If you want to fight I'll give you Jem SMITH.” PEARCE was flourishing a stick close by, and he used his utmost endeavours to prevent witness from separating the dogs. Witness heard the remark several times. “Well done, that's good,” when one of the dogs got the better of the fight. Witness received a nasty blow on the back of the hand while endeavouring to part the dogs. Both dogs were covered with blood, and TALBOT's could hardly walk. After the dogs were parted TALBOT tried to get away with his, and witness followed. TALBOT, finding he was being followed, returned to witness and threatened him. Witness continued to follow him until he met P.C. GRAHAM.
By the Bench: The fight lasted about a quarter of an hour. The station-master and witness were the only persons who attempted to separate the dogs.
By Mr TAYLOR: Did not hear TALBOT say he was not going to run the risk of attempting to separate the dogs, as one of them was a stranger. Witness showed the injury to his hand to Mr FARRANT, who said it was caused by a blow, and not a bite. Had heard the other dog belonged to a man from Bristol.
P.C. GRAHAM gave evidence to the effect that he met the defendants TALBOT, LENNING, and SEELEY with a fox terrier on the road leading to Taunton. The animal was in a very bad state, and the blood was upon its head and shoulders. Witness afterwards saw the other dog, which had been washed.
Inspector ALLEN stated that on the 1st of May he accompanied P.C. GRAHAM and HURLEY to Taunton. Saw TALBOT's dog. The near leg was badly bitten, and the dog was lame. TALBOT said he was going to part the dogs. LENNING admitted being there. SEELEY said he was there, but took no part in it.
By Mr TAYLOR: Had seen the dog that morning. There was not much the matter with it now.
Mr TAYLOR, for the defence, said that TALBOT, LENNING, and SEELEY went to Norton for a walk, and while in the refreshment room they were told that the dogs were fighting. TALBOT was asked by the station-master to separate the dogs, but as he had recently been bitten he refused to do so. The second dog was a vicious animal which had been about the streets of Taunton for the past few weeks. It belonged to a Bristol man, and had nothing to do with the defendants. He maintained that the defendants did not cause the fight, or urged the dogs on, and when the bench had heard the witnesses for the defence he though that they would come to the conclusion that the case was not proved.
Samuel BROOMFIELD gave evidence to the effect that the defendants were in the refreshment rooms when they were informed that the dogs were fighting. They immediately left, but neither of the defendants used the dogs to fight.
By Inspector ALLEN: Did not see SEELEY with his coat off offering to “give HURLEY Jem SMITH.” There were so many people there that witness would not swear SEELEY did not take off his coat.
Thos. CHURCHILL, a private in the 3rd Battalion P.A.S.L.I., stated that he told the defendants in the refreshment-room that the dogs were fighting.
Thomas FEWINGS gave evidence to the effect that the dogs had been fighting about five minutes before the defendants left the refreshment-room. Witness went out soon afterwards. Defendants were looking on. Did not hear them say anything.
By Inspector ALLEN: Had never seen the strange dog before that day.
Frank PERMBERTHY said that he was in the refreshment room with the defendants. When the witness CHURCHILL told them the dogs were fighting defendants left. TALBOT tried to separate the dogs as well as he could. Witness did not hear the defendants or anyone else urge the dogs to fight.
By Inspector ALLEN: Could not say that he was in “the inner circle.” There were about 100 there, and he could not say whether he was inside or outside (laughter).
James HAWKER gave corroborative evidence. He added that when leaving Taunton to go to Norton the defendant TALBOT endeavoured to drive his dog back, but it continued to follow him.
Frank BALE said he left the refreshment room with the defendants on learning that the dogs were fighting. Defendants did not do anything to urge on the dogs. The strange dog was a very vicious one, and he had seen it fighting in the Taunton streets.
By the Court: There were 100 or more people there.
HURLEY, re-called, said there was a lot of hooting and hubbub at the fight, and the defendants, who were inside the ring, seemed to be taking a more active part in the affair than anyone else.
This was the case, and the magistrates consulted a short time.
Mr KINGLAKE stated that the bench thought it was a case in which they might give the defendants the benefit of the doubt, and the summonses would be dismissed. The decision was received with applause from some persons sitting at the back of the court, but this was promptly suppressed.
<section not transcribed>
<Notes: Thomas TALBOT son of Frederick TALBOT and Sarah BULL, married Bessie TOZER>