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.
