21st December 1928 - Layston Church Expenses

Original image on Facebook

Layston Church Expenses

Layston Church is faced with a heavy deficit, and the Parochial Church Council are making every effort to wipe this out as soon as possible.

On Saturday a successful sale of clothing and other articles took place in the Women's Institute Hall in this connection, when a sum of over £8 was realised.

Mr F.W. Butler kindly made all arrangements for collecting and conveying the articles (given by parishioners and others) to the Hall, and the following assisted with the selling:

Mesdames Boniwell, Bonness, Brodie, Butler, Clarke, Corp, Dixon, Davies, Feasey, Geaves, Howard, Woodley and Mr G. Hill.

The organisers are very grateful to all who assisted.

24th December 1926 - Buckland Women's Institute

Original image on Facebook

Buckland

Women's Institute

The monthly meeting was held in the school on December 8th.

Besides the ordinary Women's Institute business, the treasurer and secretary put their annual reports before the members, both being passed with hearty applause.

Voting for the 1927 Committee was carried out, and Mrs C.R. Turney (always a welcome visitor) with Mrs Kingsley kindly acted as tellers. Miss N. Pigg and Mrs Morris were again re-elected president and vice-president respectively.

Miss Coleman needed no introduction, having been to this Institute before, and her subject, "Icing a cake," proved very interesting, and Mrs Hill moved a vote of thanks to her on behalf of those present.

Two competitions, "Best bowl in papier mache," "Best darned sock," were won by Miss N. Carter and Mrs F. Pigg.

Miss G. Pigg, Mrs Mildren, Mrs F. Pigg, Mrs Stoton sen., Mrs Shepherd and Miss P. Malyon were hostesses for tea.

Recitations were given by Mrs Morris, Miss P. Morris, and Miss G. Gilby, with songs from Mrs Stoton and Mrs C. Jackson were much appreciated.

14th January 1927 - Buntingford Petty Sessions

Original image on Facebook

Buntingford Petty Sessions

Friday last, before Mr J. Howard-Carter (in the chair), Capt. H.H. Williams and Mr Claud Fraser.

Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman

The Chairman proposed and Mr Claud Fraser seconded that Sir Charles Heaton-Ellis, C.B.E., be re-elected Chairman for the ensuing year.

Mr Claud Frader proposed and Capt. H.H. Williams seconded that The Hon. Baron Dimsdale be re-elected Vice-Chairman.

Probation Officer's Report

Mr H. Andrews submitted his annual report.

During the year five persons had been placed on probation by the Buntingford Justices. Two had finished their probation leaving three.

At the 15 courts attended by the Probation Officer, 111 persons had been placed under probation during the year. Of this number 105 had been good during 1926.

The chairman complimented Mr Andrews on his excellent report.

No Light

Arthur F. Coventry, of 27, Park Avenue, Timperley, Cheshire, was summoned for riding a motor cycle without a front light.

P.C. Gillett proved the case, and the defendant, who did not appear, was fined 40/- including costs.

Motor Case

Frederick C. Shadbolt, of Rye Park, Hoddeson, was charged with driving a motor car without a front light. There was a second charge of driving a car without have the rear index plate illuminated.

P.C. Williams, who proved the case, stated that he was on duty near the new railway bridge when he saw a car coming from the direction of Buntingford. There was no rear light, and no off-side extreme light. The head lamps were alight.

The defendant said his lamps had fused and that owing to his bright headlights he did not notice that the extreme off-side light was not working. His rear lamp was alight when he left Royston.

The Chairman said the magistrates had decided to take a lenient view of the matter. There would be a fine of 15/- including costs.

A Sunday Morning Episode

Cyril Robinson (23), a plasterer, and William Manning (60), a labourer, both of Norfolk Road, Buntingford, were summoned for trespassing in search of conies at Throcking on Sunday, 5th December last.

P.C. Hill, of Chipping, said he was patrolling the Buntingford - Throcking Road, when he saw the men in a field with a dog. Manning was carrying a gun. He called out to the defendants and Manning ran away.

Mr B. Nicholls, of Little Court, said the shooting on the land in question was hired by Captain Denny, and no permission to shoot on the land had been given to defendants.

In defence, Manning told the Bench that he went to Throcking to keep the rooks off of Mr Poulton's corn - he merely walked up the side of the hedge of the field where the trespass was said to have been committed. He did not run away when the Constable called.

Robinson, who pleaded not guilty, said he had nothing to say.

The Chairman said the Bench found both men guilty. Manning would be fined 10/- and Robinson 5/-.

A Cartage Contractor in Trouble

Magnus K. Smith, a cartage contractor, of Buntingford, was charged with failing to pay weekly contributions under the National Health and the Unemployment Insurance Acts. There were seven charges in respect of three employees - A.A. Smith, F.G. Howard and E. Gatward.

The defendant pleaded Not Guilty to all except two charges for failing to to affix unemployment stamps in respect of F. Howard and A. Smith.

Mr Robert Watson appeared for the prosecution and in outlining the case, said that all the defendant's employees were subject to both Unemployment and Health Insurance. There was no excuse for not stamping the cards, as if the employees failed to present their cards the employer should have obtained emergency cards from the Post Office and the local Labour Exchange.

The defendant was visited by a Government Inspector on 26th March, who found that the Books and Cards were not stamped.

On the Inspector's second visit on 13th October, he found that the books and cards were still unstamped, and he asked for the books to be handed over. This the defendant refused to do.

The three employees then gave evidence.

Mr Edwin E. Elwell an Inspector of the Ministry of Health Insurance, in giving evidence, said he interviewed the defendant on 26th March at the Buntingford Railway Station in the presence of his employees. He next saw him at Buntingford on 13th October, and again on 20th October, when he asked him whether the cards were stamped and whether he had obtained unemployment books from his employees. The defendant told him that he had not.

Mr Harry Clarke, Branch Manager at the Ministry of Labour, said that defendant had been reported to him on two or three occasions owing to the trouble of getting unemployment books.

The defendant told the Bench that he had paid Health Insurance since the Act came into force. He had never deducted any money for Insurance from his men's wages. When he employed Smith he asked about his cards and he told him that he had never had any. He (the defendant) went to the Prudential Agent and obtained a card for Smith and stamped it up. He had also been to the Labour Exchange for Howard's Unemployment Book but was told that the Inspector had taken it away.

Defendant to Mr Watson - "Why are half-yearly stamps used."

Mr Watson - "You can use them if you pay your men half-yearly, but do you know that persons using them must stamp the cards at the beginning of the half-year."

The defendant - "But they never do." (Laughter).

The defendant then handed over stamped cards and books in respect of two of his employees.

The Bench retired, and on returning the Chairman said they had carefully considered the case. They were of opinion that the greatest patience and consideration had been shown by the Inspectors, and the case was aggravated by the practical ignoring of the many warnings that defendant had been given.

Under the circumstances the Bench could see their way to impose no smaller fine than £2 on each summons.  To this would be added the Courts Fees £1 15s. 6d. and the Prosecutions Fee £2 2s. 0d. There would also be an order for payment of the arrears now outstanding (£2 5s.) making the total amount payable £20 2s. 6d.

The defendant asked for time to pay, and was allowed one month.

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.

3rd June 1927 - Buntingford Petty Sessions

Original image on Facebook

Buntingford Petty Sessions

Friday last, before Sir Charles Heaton-Ellis (in the chair), H.C. Marshall, William Steel, G.C. Coutts-Deacon, and G.W. Pepper, Esps. The last three named gentlemen took their seats on the Bench for the first time.

No Licence

Charles Clark, of 20, Balmouth Road, Borough, London, was charged with driving a motor lorry without being duly licensed, at Chipping.

P.C. Hill, who proved the case, said that he stopped the defendant, who was driving a six-wheeled vehicle, at 2.30 a.m. The defendant told him that he had lost his licence since last November.

A fine of £2, including costs, was imposed.

A Regrettable Case

What was described by all parties concerned as a very regrettable case, came before the Bench, when Daisy Hilda Page (aged 17), of Rushden, Buntingford, made application for an affiliation order against John Sydney Lyon (aged 15), also of Rushden.

The case lasted nearly two hours, the complainant being in the witness box for an hour.

After a short adjournment, the Chairman said that the Bench had given the case their very deepest and sincerest consideration, and they were of the opinion that there was inssuficient evidence to make an order.

The case would, therefore, be dismissed.

A Rate Summons

Harry D. Piper, of "Wedlands," Hare Street, Buntingford, did not appear to a summons for non-payment of Poor Rate.

Mr W.C. Kitchen, the Assistant Overseer, was granted a distress warrant.

30th July 1926 - Layston Sunday School Festival

Original image on Facebook

Layston Sunday School Festival

The annual festival in connection with the Layston Church Sunday School was held on Saturday last.

After a short service in St Peter's, the children, accompanied by Rev. A. and Mrs Howard, the teachers, mothers and other helpers, proceeded to Aspenden House at the kind invitation of Captain and Mrs Williams, who not only welcomed the Sunday School to their beautiful grounds, but provided a bountiful tea for all on the lawn.

After tea a well-planned programme of sports was carried out by Mr Albert Freeman and Mr George Hill, the races causing much interest and amusement to the lookers-on. Bucket ball was popular with all, including the mothers and teachers.

Mr and Mrs Claud Fraser and Miss H. Fraser and Mr and Mrs R.H. Hardy and their children were also present.

When the programme ended prizes were distributed to the winners, but by this time the rain, which had threatened to fall during the afternoon, became persistent, and after cheers for Capt. and Mrs Williams and the National Anthem the company broke up after a very enjoyable afternoon.

24th Feb 1928 - Braughing, An Interesting Will Case

Original image on Facebook

Braughing

An Interesting Will Case

The hearing of the Probate action in the matter of the estate of Ezekiel Walter Martin, late of North View, Braughing, Near Ware, retired farmer, who died on February 17, 1927, came on for hearing before Mr Justice Hill in the Probate Court on Tuesday, the 7th inst., and it related to the question as to whether the last will of the deceased, date September 23, 1924, was duly executed.

The will referred to, of Ezekiel Walter Martin, was made by him on a printed will form.

Mr W.O. Willis, K.C., and Mr Noel Middleton (instructed by Messrs. Hare and Son, of Much Hadham) were the council for the plaintiffs, the children of the late Ezekiel Walter Martin, who claimed that the Court should pronounce against the will and that the deceased died intestate; and Mr Cotes-Preedy, K.C., and Mr T. Bucknill (instructed by Messrs. S.J. and S.T. Miller, of Cambridge) were the counsel for the defendants, three of the grandchildren of the deceased, Walter, Arthur and Neva (children of Mr Harry Martin), who benefited [sic] under the will of the deceased.

The gross value of the estate of the deceased was stated to be £12,426 7s. 3.d

Mr Justice Hill said: This is a case very near the line, and of some difficulty. The document which was executed as a will bears date September 23, 1924. On the face of it, it is unimpeachable, and, indeed, if both witnesses were dead it would be impossible to impeach it. It is on a printed form. The writing throughout is that of the testator, with a number of paragraphs. There is no signature at the end of the last paragraph, but a little further down appears, in print, the formal attestation clause, with a bracket against it and against that bracket, on the first two lines, appear the signature and description of the testator, on the next two lines the first witness, and below that the second witness. It looks like a properly executed will. The presumption in law therefore arises, and is strong, that this was the duly executed will of the testator.

But, on the other hand, the two witnesses are alive, and they have both been called. To the recollection of the first witness, Miss Ashdown, I do not attach much importance, because she was evidently an elderly lady; she was extremely nervous in giving her evidence, and it is not so clear as it otherwise would be; and her recollection is, I think, not entirely to be relied upon.

So far as it goes, she said this: That the will was folded, leaving only the lower half of the second page upwards as the will lay on the table, and nearly all the space above the printed attestation clause was covered over with a bit of paper; and she says that when she put her name to that bit of paper, as she did, the name of the testator was not upon it. I have pointed out that in those circumstances it is odd that she should have begun to write her signature as a witness, not on the first line abreast the bracket of the attestation clause, but on the third line; and as it now appears the first line is occupied by "Ezekiel Walter Martin, retired farmer," and the second line by the village where he lived. Still, that is her definitive statement, that there was no signature.

Mr Simpson, the other witness, is much younger, and he is quite positive upon it that there was no other writing when he signed: "There was no other writing that I saw."  He again says that the bit of paper was put across the will, bringing it down to about the fold of the document as it then stood, that is to say, an inch or two above the attestation clause, and that when he signed there was no writing upon what was opened to him, except what Miss Ashdown had written.

He said his memory was quite clear. He is giving evidence now at the beginning of 1928 with reference to something that happened in September, 1924, but he had in an affidavit sworn in April, 1927, said the same thing; so that his recollection is the same throughout - it is not so very long ago.

In face of that evidence I feel bound to say that the presumption is rebutted, and it has been proved that this signature of Mr Martin's was not on the document at the time when the two witnesses signed, but has been put upon it at some later time. In coming to this conclusion, I am not ignoring the fact that Mr Martin had made wills before and that on a later occasion when he witnessed a will it was all done in proper order; but I cannot - I wish I could but I cannot; my sympathies are the other way - do other than find that this will was not properly executed.

I think it is the greatest possible misfortune, because it seems that so far as most of the members of this family are concerned, the thing has been driven to this legal decision. The costs will come out of the estate.

Mr Willis: Your Lordship, for the moment will pronounce against the testamentary papers of September 23, 1924?

Mr Justice Hill: Yes.

Mr Bucknill. I do not know whether your Lordship would say in this case that the costs should come out of the estate as between solicitor and client?

Mr Justice Hill: Certainly.

Mr Bucknill: It is a case where the matter has had to come to the Court.

Mr Jusitce Hill: I think so. I think that is fair.

Mr Willis: If your Lordship pleases.

20th Jan 1928 - Layston Choir Social

Original image on Facebook

Layston Choir Social

The members of the Layston Church Choir, together with the Sunday School teachers, numbering about twenty, were entertained at the Vicarage on Thursday evening in last week by the Rev. and Mrs Howard. Some members were unable to be present owing to illness.

Following various parlour games, in which the amusing and absurd actions of the players caused roars of laughter, the company assembled in the dining room, where an excellent repast was served and, needless to say, this was greatly enjoyed.

Following this, further games were indulged in, and the spirit of jollity reached its height. Songs were then contributed by individual members, and all joined in the singing of "Home, Sweet Home" and other well-known songs, Miss M. Macklin ably presiding at the piano.

The singing of two hymns, and the reading of a psalm and prayer offered by the Vicar, concluded a most enjoyable evening, which passed all to quickly. Before dispersing shortly before midnight, Mr G. Hill, on behalf of all present, thanked the Rev. and Mrs Howard for their kindness in entertaining them that night, and the Vicar suitably replied.