Special Constables
We omitted last week the name of Mr George Lindsell in the list of specials who were awarded medals on Sunday, Oct. 21st.
The following have also received medals: Mr G. Handy, Mr J.L. Cornwell, Mr T. Kingsley, Mr W. Reed, Mr W. Gillett, Mr E. Jackson.
Buntingford Petty Sessions
Friday last before Col. C.H.B. Heaton-Ellis, C.B.E., The Hon. Baron Dimsdale, Capt. H.H. Williams and H.C. Marshall, Esq.
Poor Rate
The Cottered Poor Rate was signed by two Justices. The rate was at 5/- in £.
LONDON MEN BROUGHT UP ON REMAND
Wrong Names and Addresses
The three London men, who, as reported in our last issue, were remanded for stealing three pairs of motor goggles, the property of the Herts. County Council, were brought up on remand, and were formally charged with theft. All the defendants pleaded guilty.
Supt. Wright informed the Bench that from enquiries made it had been ascertained that when the men were arrested by P.S. Dean they each gave wrong names and addresses.
The defendant who gave his name as Sullivan and address Beaconsfield Road, Shoreditch, was George Wright, of 18, Marnesbury Terrace, Canning Town. Anderson's correct name was Frank Slade, of 84, Clarence Road, Canning Town, and the defendant Jones, who stated he resided at Beaconsfield Road, Shoreditch, was R. Murphy of 61, Croydon Road, Plaistow.
Herbert Smith, of Gt. Munden, a road foreman in the employ of the Herts. County Council, stated that he missed the goggles from a bag attached to his cycle, which was standing near Hamels Park. The goggles (produced) were the ones in his care. They were valued at 2/- each.
Sergt. Dean stated that on Monday, 31st May, he was on duty when he received information that five pairs of motor goggles had been stolen between Buntingford and Standon. He went towards Standon, and saw three men lying on the grass.
He told them he was a police officer, and that he was making enquiries about some stolen goggles. He started to search the defendants, when Anderson produced three pairs of goggles, two other pairs being found on Sullivan by P.C. Gillett. The defendants stated that the goggles were given them by a man.
Supt. Wright stated that nothing was known against Wright and Slade, but it had been found that Murphy had been previously convicted for stealing £1 16s. 10d. in 1920. He had also been sent to an Industrial School, and was discharged from there in 1922.
One of the defendants told the Bench they were all three sorry for what they had done; they had been in prison since Monday and they hoped the Bench would deal leniently with them.
After consultation the Chairman said all three defendants would be dealt with alike; they would go to prison for 14 days with hard labour.
Occasional Court
A Smart Capture
At an Occasional Court, presided over by Capt. H.H. Williams, on Tuesday, three Shoreditch men, Frank Anderson (21), Richard Jones (19), and John Sullivan (19), all of Beaconsfield Road, Shoreditch, were remanded in custody until today (Friday) for stealing five pairs of motor goggles, value 2/- each, the property of the Herts County Council.
Sergt. Dean stated that on Monday, 31st May, he was on duty when he received information that five pairs of motor goggles had been stolen between Buntingford and Standon. He went towards Standon, and saw three men lying on the grass.
He told them he was a police officer, and that he was making enquiries about some stolen goggles. He started to search the defendants, when Anderson produced three pairs of goggles, two other pairs being found on Sullivan by P.C. Gillett. The defendants stated that goggles were given them by a man.
Supt. Wright asked for a remand until Friday, and this was granted, as stated. One of the defendants refused to have his finger prints taken, and the Supt. made application to the Chairman for a request to be made to the Governor of Brixton Prison for the finger prints to be taken. The application was granted.
--------
Read the Petty Sessions report dealing with this case a week later.
Buntingford Petty Sessions
Friday last, before Lieut-Col C.H. Heaton-Ellis, C.B.E., Mrs Dimsdale, and Capt. H.H. Williams.
POOR RATES
Poor rates for the following parishes were presented by the Overseers and signed by the Justices.
It was stated that with the exception of Layston parish there were no arrears: Layston Poor Rate 5/-, lighting 3d.; Aspenden Poor Rate 5/-, lighting 6d.; Wyddiall Poor Rate 5/-; Buckland 4/8; Throcking 6/-; Little Hormead 5/-; Braughing 4/8.
AN ARREARS CASE
Jack Cecil Cook, of Hay Street, was summoned by Mr H.J. Andrews who stated that money due under an affiliation order had not been paid. The defendant did not appear, and the Chairman signed a warrant for his arrest. The police left immediately, and brought defendant to the Court within a few minutes.
P.C. Gillett then gave formal evidence of arrest. He stated that he had just arrested the defendant in Harestreet.
Asked by the Chairman why he had paid no money under the order made in November last, the defendant said his wages were only 25/- per week; his father was ill, and there were two children at home.
The Chairman said the defendant would have to pay or go to prison. He had not attempted to pay anything. Defendant would be committed to prison for one month, but the order would be suspended until Friday, May 7th, to enable the defendant to pay.
CHAIRMAN'S ADVICE TO A YOUNG LAD
A Buntingford lad was summoned by his late employer for stealing a shilling. The defendant's late employer stated that he did not wish to press the case as he had had no previous trouble with the lad.
The Chairman, who said he knew the lad's parents were very respectable, gave the defendant some good advice, and bound him over for two years.
NO LIGHT
Gladys Cook, of Hay Street, Braughing, was summoned for riding a cycle without a light at Westmill, Buntingford.
P.C. Williams said he was on duty at Westmill on 12th April at 8.40 p.m., when he saw a cyclist approach. He signalled to her to stop as he noticed there was no lamp on the machine. He asked her for an explanation and the defendant replied "I have been to the hairdressers; I did not think I should be there so long."
The Chairman read a letter from the defendant, who did not appear.
Supt. Wright stated that the defendant was a sister of the defendant Cook who had been brought up on arrest.
The Chairman, in imposing a fine of 10/-, said the family seemed to have no respect for the Court. He also instructed the superintendant to see that the girl was informed that had she been present the magistrates might have taken a more lenient view of the matter. She had not appeared and would therefore be fined.