27th August 1926 - Buntingford Petty Sessions

Original image on Facebook

Buntingford Petty Sessions

Friday last, before Sir Charles Heaton-Ellis, C.B.E., and Captain H.H. Williams, with the Clerk (Mr H.M. Gisby).

No Licence

William Brown, of Harestreet, Buntingford, was charged with keeping a dog without a licence.

P.c. Gillett gave evidence of calling on defendant at 10 p.m. on 21st June.

The Chairman, who referred to the absence of the defendant from Court, said there would be a fine of 10/- with 4/- costs.

A Motor Case: Sequel to an Accident

Cecil Charles, of Cottered, was summoned for driving a motor car without having efficient brakes attached, at Buntingford, on 14th July.

P.c. Williams, of Buntingford, stated that he was called to the scene of an accident during the afternoon of 14th July.

On arrival he found that a motor lorry, owned by Mr Charles of Cottered, had collided with a Calthorpe car at the junction of Baldock Road. He noticed a skid mark made by the front wheels of the lorry; there were no skid marks from the rear wheels. The road was in good condition.

On Friday, 16th June, in company with P.s. Dean, he examined the brakes and hooter of the damaged lorry which had been removed to the Tanyard. Both the front and rear brakes were inefficient; the front brake when pulled back had no effect on the brake, and when the foot brake was pressed down it went easily on the casting.

On Wednesday, 21st July, in company with the defendant and Sergeant Dean, he again inspected the loory. The rear wheel was jacked up, and although the hand brake was pulled on the wheel turned easily. He asked the driver for an explanation, and he replied that a new band had been recently put on the hand brake, and that both brakes were in order.

Cross-examined by Mr Reginald Hartley, solicitor, of Royston, who represented defendant, the constable stated that he had had little experience with motor cars. He did not examine the brakes on the day of the accident. The brake guide was not disconnected when he first examined the lorry.

P.c. Gillett stated that he was present when the lorry was examined by the last witness. He tested the brakes, and neither of them had any control over the amchine. The foot brake required taking up.

Cross-examined by Mr Hartley, the constable said the front part of the lorry was badly damaged.

Alfred Hale Hedges, motor engineer, of Buntingford, gave evidence of inspecting the damaged lorry at the Tanyard. The foot brake pedal went down on top of the transmission case casting without gripping the bands. The brake required taking up. The hand brake lever could be pulled right back, and judging from his experience the two brakes had no control over the car.

Cross-examined by Mr Hartley, witness said he had had 22 years' experience with motors. Since the war he had done a lot of work on Ford cars. The Ferodo lining might last two weeks or perhaps six months, it all depended on the quality. The brakes were intact when he examined the lorry. The brake guides would have no effect on the breaking.

In reply to the Chairman, witness said in his opinion the accident to the front part of the lorry had no effect upon the brakes.

Cecil Charles, the driver, stated that the brakes had been re-lined in June. He had used both brakes just before the accident, and they were efficient.

Herbert Crowe, motor engineer, of Stevenage, who stated that he had had nine years' experience with motors, said he examined the damaged lorry on Thursday, 19th August. The hand brake was holding on the off-side rear wheel but not on the near side. 

When he replaced the brake rod in the brake guide he found that the brake operated on both wheels. The front of the lorry was badly damaged, and he thought that the collision threw the brakes out of the guide. It was not possible to test the foot brake as the engine could not be started.

Mr Frank Charles, the owner of the car, gave evidence of driving the vehicle on the day previous to the accident, and said the car stood on a hill although it was loaded with 50 trusses of straw.

Alfred Baker, of Ware, gave evidence of witnessing the accident, and stated that the defendant was travelling slowly at the time and would not require brakes to pull up.

The Bench retired, and on their return, the chairman said they had given the case very careful consideration, and had come to the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction.

It was somewhat unfortunate that the condition of the lorry was not examined on the day of the accident by an expert.

28th January 1927 - Buntingford Petty Sessions

Original image on Facebook

Buntingford Petty Sessions

Cambridge Undergraduate Fined for Dangerous Driving

Foxhounds Injured by Motorist

Friday last, before Sir Charles Heaton-Ellis C.B.E., and Captain H.H. Williams.

John Daniel Hawthorn (21), of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, appeared on a charge of drivinga motor car in a manner dangerous to the public, at Buckland, on 20th November.

The defendant, who was represented by Mr Grafton Pryor, Barrister, of Cambridge, pleaded not guilty.

Mr G. Passingham, Solicitor of Hitchen, outlined the case for the prosecution. On November 20th (the case had been adjourned till now, because of the defendant's absence in America), the Puckeridge Hounds had just drawn a wood, and were on the highway between Buntingford and Royston, when a car, driven by the defendant, appeared two or three hundred yards away.

The car was travelling at a very fast pace, and the huntsman held up his hands as a signal for the driver to slow down. The drive did nothing till he was within 20 yards of the pack when he put on his brakes and skidded into the hounds, injuring three couples.

Robert Gardner, the Huntsman of the Puckeridge Hunt, said he was in charge of the pack on the day in question. The hounds were on the road when he saw a car about 200 yards away, and put up his hand as a signal to the drive to slow down. The driver did not try to stop till he got within 15 to 20 yards, when he put the brakes on, and the car skidded into the pack. Three or more couples were knocked over, one hound being pinned under the car.

Cross-examined by Mr Grafton Pryor: It was a wet day and the road was greasy.

P.S. Dean, of Buntingford, said that the width of the road at the point of collision was 17ft. 6in.

James Hewins, 1st Whip, corroborated the evidence of the Huntsman. While the hounds were being extricated from under the car, the defendant admitted that he saw the huntsman hold up his hand.

Arthur W. Griffin, the seocnd whip, also gave evidence.

Mrs E. Hargreaves, of Royston, said she was riding directly behind the pack on the day in question, when she saw a large motor car coming down the road at great speed. The came right on top of the pack, and the hounds were howling and screaming, some being pinned under the car. Some of the hounds were carried along on the front axle.

The defendant, in a statement made from the witness box, said he was the owner of the car, which was a 30-98 Vauxhall. It had four-wheel brakes, and was known as a "super-sports" model. On the date of the accident he was driving from Royston to Ware, and his speed was about 35 m.p.h.

As he came over the rise, he saw a man on horseback and thought he was meeting a detachment of soldiers. He put on his brakes, but the car kept going as the brakes would not hold. The hounds took up all the road, and there was no room for the car to pass. As soon as he realised what he had done, he jumped out and apologised. He had been driving a car for nine years, and had never been charged before.

Anthony Patrick Adamson, of Jesus College, who was riding in the front seat with the defendant at the time of the accident, also gave evidence. He said that the defendant did all in his power to pull the car up.

Jeffrey Thomas, another undergraduate, of Trinity Hall, who was sitting at the back of the car, said the defendant applied his brakes as soon as he saw the Huntsman raise his hand.

Addressing the Bench, Mr Pryor said that no one regretted the accident more than Mr Hawthorn. The defendant was not in the habit of driving at great speed and, as the Bench had heard, he had been driving a car for nine years, and had not been previously charged. The brakes of the car were defective and the weather conditions were bad. He (Mr Pryor) hoped that the Bench would "temper the wind of the defendant because of his clean sheet."

The Bench retired for ten minutes, and on returning, the Chairman said the charge against defendant had been proved. He wished to say that it was a very serious offence indeed to drive a high-powered car on a slightly foggy day down hill at the excessive speed of 35 miles per hour, whether there were sheep or hounds on the road.

The Bench had very seriously considered whether to suspect the defendant's licence for a considerable period but after what his Solicitor had said they had decided to inflict a fine of £5 and £3 7s. 0d. cost.

The defendant's licence would also be endorsed.

Ardeley Fowl Stealing Charge

H.G. Stroud, of Wood End, Ardeley, appeared on a charge of fowl stealing at Ardeley. The defendant, an Ex-Sergt. of the Garrison Artillery, had an excellent record, which saved him from prison, the Magistrates imposing a fine of £5 and 15/- costs.

Evidence was given by William H. Livings, a farmer of Gt. Munden, who said that on January 12th he received information that his fowlhouse at Orange End had been broken into. He saw footmarks near the house, and later found that 28 fowls were missing. These he valued at 10/- each. The defendant had previously been to him and asked for work.

P.S. Dean gave evidence of interviewing the defendant in company with Inspector Herbert.

Defendant at first denied all knowledge of the matter, but later told the Sergeant that he had taken 12 fowls, and hearing that the police were making enquiries as to their loss, he took them to a field and released them. The Sergeant and the Inspector went to the field, but there was no trace of the fowls.

Supt. Wright said the defendant had served 11 years in the Army, having served in France from 1915 to the end of the war. After the war he obtained work as a temporary postman, and later was employed at Woolwich Arsenal, where he was discharged in September, 1925, with a good character. He was a married man with two children.

The Chairman said it was a dreadful thing to see a man in defendant's position. Here was a man with a excellent character stooping to petty foggy stealing. He, the Chairman, saw no reason why the defendant should not go to prison.

Mr Livings said he was prepared to assist the defendant, whereupon the Chairman said that defendant would have to pay Mr Livings £5 and the Court costs 15/-, further than that the defendant would be placed on probation for 12 months.

"Mr Livings has treated you very leniently," said the Chairman to the defendant.

7th January 1927 - Funeral of the Late Mr Harry Woodley

Original image on Facebook

Funeral of the Late Mr Harry Woodley

The funeral of the late Mr Harry Woodley, licensee of "The White Hart," Buntingford, whose death was reported last week, took place on Thursday, December 30th.

The remains, encassed in a plain elm coffin, were conveyed to the Church by a Washington car.

The coffin was inscribed:

Harry Woodley, Died December 24th, 1926, Aged 65 years.

The first part of the service was conducted by the Rev. A. Howard, while the lesson was read by the Rev. John Cole.

The immediate mourners were: Mrs Woodley (wife), Miss Woodley (daughter), Mrs Fox and Mrs Chapman (sisters), Messrs. F.R. and L. Woodley (brothers), Mrs F. Woodley and Mrs L. Woodley (sisters-in-law), Mr Seller, Mr F. Seller, Mr and Mrs J. Seller (nephews and niece), Mr H. Gray, Mr F. Stoten, and the Rev. John Cole.

It will be re-called that the deceased served in the Metropolian Police Force for 25 years, and a  touching reminder of this was shown by the presence at the Church and graveside of Srgt. Dean, of the Buntingford Police Station.

Amongst other townspeople present, we observed Mrs E. Law, Mrs Warner, Mrs Thody, Mrs Borsberry, Mrs Winters, Mrs Robinson, Mrs Lawrence, Mrs Crouch, Mrs Watson, Mrs Plumb, Mrs Franklin, Mr S. Saggers and others.

There were several beautiful floral tokens, which were sent by the following:

From his sorrowing wife and daughter; George and Jane; Frank and Fanny and Family; Leonard and Clara; Jack and Kate; Jack and Rose, Billy and Mill; Brother Bob, Walter and Mabel; Flo, Walt, and Jack; Fred and Birdie; Mr and Mrs Stoten and Fred; Mr and Mrs Mottram and Sid; Rev. J. Cole; Mr and Mrs H. Gray; Mr and Mrs W. Gray; Mrs Robinson; Mr and Mrs Franklin; Mr and Mrs Haddock; and Miss E. Cato.

11th February 1927 - Buntingford Petty Sessions

Original image on Facebook

Buntingford Petty Sessions

Friday last, before Sir Charles Heaton-Ellis, C.B.E., and Claud Fraser, Esq.

Licensing

Inspector Herbert presented the annual report respecting licensed premises in the Division.

There were, he said, 33 fully licensed premises, 8 licensed for consumption "on the premises," four "off" licenses, and one grocer's licence, making a total of 46.

During the year, four licenses had been transferred. No licensee had been proceeded against, and there had only been one male convicted of drunkenness.

The Inspector then stated the times of the licensed hours in force in the Division.

The Chairman said the Bench were very satisfied with the report. It was satisfactory to the Bench, the Police and the Public, and the Bench wished to express their appreciation.

The application for the full transfer of the licence fo "The White Hart" Public House, Buntingford, from Harry Woodley to Mary Jane Woodley was granted.

A Cottered Theft Charge

Victor John Ginn (21), of Broadfield, Buntingford, appeared on a charge of stealing middlings and meal at Cromer, Stevenage, on 24th January, 1927. The defendant pleaded "Guilty."

Mr W.H. Kittow, farmer, of Bancroft, Cottered, said he sent the defendant with six bags of meal and five bags of middlings from Bancroft to Luffenhall Farm.

He was passing through Cromer between 3 and 4 p.m. on the day in question, when he saw the defendant turn his horse and cart into "The Chequers" yard. He (the witness) thought it strange, so he approached the defendant, who told him that he was taking some potatoes for Mr Gray to a Mr Paul. 

The witness then looked in a shed at "The Chequers" and saw four sacks of meal. He opened the bags and found that the meal was quite warm, having just come from the mill.

The defendant, who at first denied leaving the meal there, later admitted that he left one bag. He saw him again later, when he admitted leaving one bag of meal and three of middlings. The defendant, who had been in his employ for some time was receiving 34/6 per week.

P.C. Hill, of Chipping, said on receiving information from Mr Kittow he visited "The Chequers" yard, Cromer, in company with Sergt. Dean.

He later saw the defendant and conveyed him to Buntingford Police Station, where he made a statement to the effect that on 24th January he was ordered to take six bags of meal and five bags of dan to Luffenhall. He left three bags of dan and one of meal at Cromer for Mr M. Gray, who had asked him to bring him some.

Montague Grey, of Cottered, a farmer and dealer, was then charged with receiving the stolen middlings and meal. He pleaded "Not guilty."

Mr W.H. Kittow repeated his former evidence, and added that on the evening of the day of the offence Gray came up to see him.

The defendant Gray told witness that he was very sorry for what had happened, but said that he was not there when the meal was delivered at his building, and that he did not know anything about it. Mr Kittow added that he had known Gray for many years, and if he had known that he was short of meal he would willingly have sent him some.

P.C. Hill said he saw the defendant Gray in company with Mr Kittow on 25th January, when Gray made a statement to the effect that he saw Ginn two or three days previous to the offence and asked him to bring him some meal from Walkern Mill or Kitchener's.

He visited his premises at Cromer on Monday, 24th January, and found four bags of meal in a cart shed. He later saw Mr Kittow and told that the meal was not his (defendant's). He had never bought any stuff off of Ginn in his life, and he did not want other people's stuff in his shed.

In a statement to the Bench, the defendant said that Ginn had previously bought meal for him from Walkern Mill and from Cromer Mill. As the roads were in such a bad state, he could not get out with his own horse, so he asked Ginn to [word erased] him some meal from Cromer [or?] Walkern Mill or Mr Kitchen[er's] at Walkern.

He was not at "The Chequers" when the meal was left there by Ginn, and he was very sorry that Ginn had left it there on that occasion.

Inspector Herbert said that the defendant was a man of good character.

After consultation, the Chairman addressing Ginn said he had pleaded guilty to a very serious charge. The Bench, however, had decided to take a lenient view of the case, and instead of sending the defendant to prison he would be fined £2 and 15/- costs, and would be placed under probation for a period of two years.

With reference to Gray's case, the Chairman said the Bench did not consider that there was sufficient evidence to convict, and the case would be dismissed.

A Housing Tangle

Robert H. Clark, of High Street, Royston, made application for an ejectment order against Mrs Fox, for the possession of a cottage occupied by her at Buntingford.

Mr R. Clark, jun., said he father had been served with a notice by the Buntingford Rural District Council to put the property into habitable repair. His father was willing to do this provided he could get possession of the cottage. At present there were seven persons living in two rooms.

The Clerk: Is the rent in arrear?

Mr Clark: No.

The Clerk: Then the Bench cannot grant an ejectment order.

Mr Clark: Then what am I to do? The Council have served us with a statutory notice, signed by the Medical Officer of Health, and we cannot do the repairs necessary till the place is unoccupied.

The Clerk: The Council must take action themselves.

Mr Clark: It comes back on the owner every time. I had a similar case at Melbourn some years ago, and the Bench issued an ejectment order.

The Clerk: Yes, that was before the Rent Restriction Act come into force.

Mr Clark: I don't want to press for an ejectment, but you see our position. We are being pressed by the District Council, and yet we cannot get possession of the house. It is impossible to do the necessary repairs while the people are living there.

The Chairman: If the Council have condemned the property then they must close it.

Mr Clark: They have not condemned it, but have served us with a notice to put it in habitable repair.

The Clerk: The Council must take action under Section 11 of the Housing Act, 1925. This Bench has no power to issue an ejectment order under the circumstances of the case.