16th Dec 1927 - Buntingford Petty Sessions

Original image on Facebook

Buntingford Petty Sessions

A Lengthy Agenda

A number of cases were down for hearing at the Buntingford Petty Sessions, held on Friday last. The proceedings lasted until nearly 5 p.m. Sir Charles Heaton-Ellis, C.B.E, presided, other magistrates present being Mrs Dimsdale, Capt. H.H. Williams, Mr Claud Fraser, and Mr G.W. Pepper.

LICENSING

An application for sanction to alterations at "The White Hart," Puckeridge, was granted. Mr Claud Fraser was appointed representative on the Hertfordshire County Probation Committee, and the Bench fixed Friday, February 3rd, for the annual licensing meeting.

The licence of "The George and Dragon" Hotel, Buntingford, was temporarily transferred to Fredk. S. Brigham, the Chairman commending the late tenant, Mr J.E. Holmes, on the satisfactory way the house had been managed.

Application for the temporary transfer of the licence of a beer house at Westmill from David Rayment to Albert Coxall was granted.

NON-PAYMENT OF RATES

Frank Brand, of Harestreet [sic], Buntingford, was summoned for non-payment of poor rate, amounting to £5 18s. 1d. 

An order for payment was made.

A STRAY DOG

Wilfrid Bentley, of Harestreet, Buntingford, was summoned for allowing a dog to stray at Little Hormead.

P.C. Gillett, who proved the case, said that when he spoke to defedant about the offence defendant remarked "I shall have to put up with it, I can get off with paying."

Defendant, who did not appear, was fined 10/- including costs.

ANOTHER DOG CASE

Henry Pigg, of Biggin, Buntingford, was summoned for allowing a dog to stray at Harestreet, and for failing to have name and address on the dog's collar.

The defendant told the Bench that he did not know it was necessary to have one's name and address on a dog's collar.

The Chairman said he was afraid that it was not generally known.

Supt. Wright: I will see that notice to the effect that the owner's name and address must be inscribed on a dog's collar, are posted in the district.

The Chairman: You will be fined 5/- including costs in each case, Mr Pigg, and in future you and I must read the posters. (Laughter).

GAME TRESPASS

Fred Warner, of Council Cottages, Ardeley, Stevenage, was charged with game trespass at Ardeley.

Thos. Hugh Sale, of Coates Manor, Ardeley, gave evidence of seeing the defendant in a field at 7.30 a.m. on 14th October. The witness saw defendant shoot at a pheasant. When witness spoke to him about it the defendant replied "Tell your father I will sting his pheasants up when the moon shines."

Alfred Carter, game-keeper, of Westmill, gave evidence, and after consultation the Chairman said it was quite clear the defendant was trespassing in search of game. The first witness had said that defendant put the barrels of his gun into his pocket when he left the field; this was not a proper action. There would be a fine of 15/- including costs.

SEQUEL TO A BUCKLAND DANCE

Horace Dearman, of Back Lane, Rushden, was charged with stealing a gent's overcoat, &c, at Buckland, on 21st October.

Thos. William Lawrence said he attended a dance at Buckland on the date in question. He had an overcoat, which he out on a chair in the lobby. He put his cap in the pocket of the overcoat. When he went for his coat after the dance it was missing.

George W. Andrews, of Cottered, said he attended the dance mentioned. When he came out into the lobby after the dance the defendant Dearman handed him a cap, saying "Here's your cap." The witness later found that it was not his cap, so it put it on his bicycle.

P.C. Hill gave evidence of interviewing defendant, who made a statement on the following Sunday morning.

Mr G.H. Maughan, of Messrs. Chalmers-Hunt & Co., represented defendant. The whole affair, he said, was a mistake. The defendant went to a dance at Buckland and put his coat on a chair in a very small and badly lit lobby. When he left the dance he picked up what he thought was his own overcoat and went home in it. He (Mr Maughan) agreed that the defendant should have reported the mistake to the police the next morning.

The defendant, in the witness box, told the Bench that he did not know he had the wrong coat until he was nearly home, when he heard something rattle in the pocket. In the pocket he found a tin of carbide, a scarf, belt and clips. He admitted to the Bench that his own coat differed a great deal from the one he took and also that his own coat pockets were torn.

After consultation, the Bench dismissed the case.

INTERESTING POSSESSION CASE

A case in which a Mrs Page, a London schoolmistress, applied for possession of a cottage at Sandon Lane, owned by her and occupied by Jonah Brown, was dismissed because the solicitors acting for the applicant had failed to read over a statutory notice at the time it was served to the defendant Brown.

Mr H.G. Woolfe, barrister, appeared for Mrs Page, and stated that the cottage was purchased in 1926, as Mrs Page, who was in ill health, wished to live in the country. The rent was 2/- per week. Defendant had been offered alternative accommodation. He was a thatcher by trade and the cottage offered him was quite suitable. The applicant had been paying rent for some time in respect of the cottage who had been offered Brown, in the hope that he would accept it.

The question of the notice to quit was discussed by the Bench. The notice was served through the post, but Brown, who was not respresented, although warned by the Chairman that he need not answer the question, admitted that he had received the notice to quit.

The question which led to the case being dismissed was one which the clerk put to the solicitor's clerk, Mr L. Hutchinson: "Did you serve the notice to appear at this Court, on Brown?" asked Mr Gisby. "Yes," replied the clerk. "Did you read it over and explain it to him?" "No."

The Chairman said he was in sympathy with Mr Woolfe, but the law had not been complied with. The statutory notice must be served personally, read over and explained.

The solicitor's clerk explained that defendant had used bad language to him and that he could not read the notice over to him.

Mr Woolfe said it seemed ridiculus to have to adjourn the case just to enable him to go through the formal business of reading over a statutory notice which Brown admitted having received.

The Chairman said they had no other course but to dismiss the application.

AFFILIATION CASE

A Buntingford woman applied for an affiliation order against Leonard Ward, of Wakeley Cottages, Buntingford. When the case came before the Bench in September last it was dismissed.

The applicant was represented by Mr H. Lathom, the defendant being represented by Mr R. Hartley, of Royston.

The hearing lasted over two hours and at the close the Chairman said the Bench had come to the undoubted conclusion that Ward was the father of the child. An order would be made for the defendant to pay 7/6 per week till the child reached the age of 16 years.

Defendant would also have to pay the cost of the day's proceedings and £1 1s. towards the cost of the confinement.

APPLICATION FOR POSSESSION

Hugh W. Sale, of Coates Manor, Ardeley, made application for the possession of a cottage owned by him and in the occupation of A. Culver. The man had received a week's notice to quit.

Mr G.H. Maughan, of Messrs. Chalmers-Hunt & Co., represented defendant, and told the Bench that the tenancy was a yearly one. When Calvert paid his rent, which he did by cheque, Mr Sale entered the rent in thr rent book as though it had been paid weekly.

Mr Sale submitted a certificate from the Agricultural Committee. He particularly wanted the cottage for a stockman. Alternate accommodation had been offered Calvert.

The Chairman said that in the eyes of the law Calvert was a yearly tenant and would have to be served with a year's notice for the application to be in order. The case would have to be dismissed.

24th Feb 1928 - Buntingford Petty Sessions

Original image on Facebook

Buntingford Petty Sessions

Friday last, before Sir Charles Heaton-Ellis, C.B.E. (in the chair), Capt. H.H. Williams, Claud Fraser, William Steel, and G.W. Pepper, Esqs.

NEIGHBOURS DISAGREE

Ernest Newman, of 15, Council Cottages, Cottered, brought a charge of common assault against his neighbour, Jack Gravestock. Gravestock pleaded "not guilty."

The plaintiff said that on Saturday, 7th January, he returned to his home shortly after 9 p.m. After he had been indoors some minutes he heard someone at the front door. He went to the door and the defendant took hold of him and tried to pull him out. Some men were standing at the front gate, and the plaintiff went down the path to enquire what was the matter. Jack Gravestock then took hold of him and pushed him on the village green, and dumped him in the mud two or three times. He afterwards reported the matter to the police.

Edith Newman, wife of the complainant, said she was having a few words with her husband on the night in question when the defendant came to the front door and tried to pull her husband outside. Later her husband went outside and was pushed in some mud by defendant.

Cross-examined, witness stated that her husband was not drunk that night.

The defendant, in giving evidence, said that at about 10.20 p.m. on the Saturday night in question he was indoors with his parents when he heard screams of "murder" and "help." He went to the front door, where he saw Mrs Newman, who asked him to hit her husband.

Newman then came out of the house and witness said to him "I want to see you; come on to the green." Newman walked over to the green and slipped down in the mud, where he laid for some minutes.

Mrs Hearne, of 14, Council Cottages, said that at 10.30 p.m. on the day in question she heard someone screaming. She ran outside, and saw Mrs Newman lying in the path. When Newman came out of the house she asked him to go to his wife's assistance, and he replied "She is only putting it on."

Harry Gravestock, the defendant's father, gave evidence, and said that when he went outside Mrs Newman was shouting "murder" and asking for protection. When Newman came out into the road he walked on to the green, and slipped and fell in the mud.

Harry Hearn and Joseph Pepper said they stood in the road and saw Newman fall down in the mud. The defendant did not push him down.

Mrs Gravestock, the defendant's mother, said there was an awful row outside, and when she went out Mrs Newman told her that Newman would kill her son. The witness went out on to the green where she saw her son (the defendant) standing with another man. She went up to the man, and, thinking he was Newman, smacked his face. She then discovered it was Mr Pepper she had struck. (Laughter). The witness added she helped Newman up and pushed him indoors.

The Chairman said the Bench were of the opinion that the assault had not been proved. The case would be dismissed.

ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A CHILD

Mrs K. Goss, a married woman, of Buntingford, was summoned by John E. Gibbs, of Buntingford, for alleged cruelty to his child, Frederick Gibbs, aged three years.

The plaintiff, in a lengthy statement to the Bench, said that while his wife was in hospital his three children were placed in the care of Mrs Goss. He paid her £1 per week for their maintenance.

On Tuesday, 20th December, Mr Goss brought the boy, Frederick, home, stating that the child had misbehaved himself. The complainant found that the child complained, and on examining him it appeared as though the child had been struck. He took the child to the Police Station, where he was examined by Police Officers. He also saw Mrs Goss, who denied thrashing the boy.

Mrs Goss, in giving evidence, said that when she took the children into her care they had chicken-pox. In consequence they had marks on their bodies.

On the morning of December 20th she attended to the boy, Frederick, as usual. When she went to dress him at 7.30 a.m. she found he had misbehaved himself, so she gave him a smacking. She did not smack his head, and the child seemed all right at breakfast. She had three children of her own, and would have treated any of them just the same.

Mr G.H. Maughan, of Messrs Chalmers Hunt & Co., defended, and pointed out that a person who has charge of a child is legally entitled to administer such punishment as is necessary. There were times when corporal punishment was necessary, and this occasion had been one of them.

The complainant then called his daughter (Barbara) to give evidence and further evidence for the defendant was given by her husband and daughter.

The Chairman, in addressing the complainant, said that the Bench had listened with great patience to all the evidence. They were impressed by the fact that the complainant had called no medical evidence to support his case. 

They further noted, from the evidence, that although an officer of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children had his attention called to the matter, there was some significance in the fact that he did not intervene in the case.

The Bench were of the unanimous opinion that the case must be dismissed.

POSSESSION CASE

The case in which Mrs Page applied for the possession of a cottage in the occupation of Jonah Brown, and which, as reported in our issue of 10th February, was adjourned for the Magistrates to inspect the alternative accommodation offered the tenant, again came before the Bench.

In dismissing the application for possession, the Chairman said that the alternative accommodation offered the tenant was, in the opinion of the Bench, unsuitable.

10th Feb 1928 - Buntingford Rural District Council

Original image on Facebook

Buntingford Rural District Council

Monthly Meeting

The monthly meeting of the Buntingford Rural District Council was held at the Board Room on Thursday in last week, when there were present: Capt. H.H. Williams (in the chair), Mrs Dimsdale, Messrs. C. Hummerstone, F.B. Cannon, H.C. Marshall, C. Fraser, H.S. Ward, A.W. Page, T.J. Stick, A.J. Hayes, G.C. Wilson, and W.J. May, with the Clerk (Mr E.C. Clarke) and the Surveyor (Mr E.G. Thody).

The Surveyor presented his monthly report. During the month the water consumption had been 1,060,000 gallons. The water level at the Waterworks had risen a further six feet, being six feet higher than at February last. Owing to this it was considered advisable to overhaul and re-leather the pumps.

Isolation Hospital

No cases had been reported during the month and the hospital was closed. Certain repairs were necessary to the building.

The Hospital Committee agreed to inspect the Hospital at an early date and submit a statement of what repairs were necessary.

Mr W. Houlden, of Buntingford, made application for assistance under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, and the necessary forms to be completed were issued.

The Clerk read a letter from Mr W.J. May tendering his resignation from the Board of Guardians and Rural District Council, as he was shortly leaving the district.

The Chairman said how much they all regretted Mr May's departure. They were all deeply conscious of the fact that he had been a very valuable member, and the Council would wish him the best of luck.

Mr Hummerstone, the Chairman of the Board of Guardians, associated himself with the Chairman's remarks, to which Mr May suitably replied.

The remainder of the business was of a formal nature.

10th Feb 1928 - Buntingford Petty Sessions

Original image on Facebook

Buntingford Petty Sessions

Friday last, before J. Howard-Carter, Esq. (in the chair), Claud Fraser, William Steel, G.C. Coutts Deacon and G.W. Pepper, Esqs.

GENERAL ANNUAL LICENSING MEETING

The superintendent presented his annual report, as follows:

Gentlemen, I am directed by the chief constable to report that the number of licensed houses within the Buntingford Petty Sessional Division is 33 fully licensed, 7 beer (one), 4 beer (off), 1 grocer's and 2 registered clubs; total 47.

Four houses have changed hands during the year, being the same number as last year. One licensee has been proceeded against during the year. No person has been proceeded again for drunkenness during the year, this being a decrease of one compared with last year.

The permitted hours in the Buntingford Petty Sessional Division are week-days, 10.30 a.m to 2.30 p.m., and 6 p.m. to 10 p.m.; Sundays 12 noon to 2 p.m., and 7 to 10 p.m.

The Chairman said he thought the whole bench would agree that the report was satisfactory. The renewel of all the licenses would be granted.

OTHER LICENSING BUSINESS

Application was made by Mr George Wickham, of "The Angel" Inn, Buntingford, for the extension of hours from 2.30 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Mondays (Buntingford Market Day). The application was granted.

FAILING TO ILLUMINATE IDENTIFICATION PLATES ON MOTOR CARS

There were two charges against car drivers for failing to illuminate their rear identification plates on motor cars. The defendants, who did not appear, were William B. Witts, of Heathfield, Bassingbourn, and Walter C. Salmon, of 4, Rye Road, Rye Park, Hoddesdon, both motor drivers.

Evidence in each case was given by P.C. Gillett, who said that the rear light of one of the cars was alight but did not illuminate the number plate.

Asked by the Chairman if it was because of dirt on the lamp or plate, the constable replied that the lamp was bright enough but threw a light on to the ground instead of on the number plate.

In imposing a fine of 10/- on each defendant, the Chairman said cases of this kind were becoming before the Bench more frequently. If this continued the Bench may feel it their duty to inflict a more severe penalty.

NO DRIVING LICENCE

Sidney Edwards, of 62, Catharine Street, Cambridge, was summoned for driving a motor car without a driving licence at Buntingford.

P.C. Williams said he saw defendant at Buntingford at 2.40 a.m. on 2nd January, and when he asked him for his licence the defendant said he had left it in another coat.

Supt. Wright read a list of former convictions in 1915, 1916, 1917, 1919, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1928, and the Chairman, remarking that the defendant had kept the police force busy, said there would be a fine of 10/- including costs.

GAME TRESPASS AT BRAUGHING

Herbert Petts, of Powel's Green, Braughing, Alfred Hagger, of the same address, and Frank Stacey, of Church End, Braughing, labourers, were chared with game trespass at Braughing. Petts did not appear.

P.C. Barker gave evidence of seeing the defendants in a field with dogs on a Sunay morning. The dogs were hunting the land. When he spoke to them they told him they were after rats.

Mr C.P. Mole, of Braughing, the owner of the sporting rights of the land in question, said he had never given the defendants permission to go on the land.

The bench inflicted a fine of 2/6 towards the costs in each case.

William Prior, of The Street, Braughing, was summoned for a similar offence.

P.C. Barker said he saw the defendant coming from a stack and noticed the legs of two rabbits protruding from the defendant's clothes. He told the defendant he would be reported, to which he replied "There they are; they are worth 1/6 each."

The defendant said that he was returning from work when his dog drove a rabbit into a hole. He got it out, and as luck would have it there was another rabbit in the hole.

The defendant, who had been fined twice previously for similar offences, was fined 10/- including costs.

POSSESSION CASE ADJOURNED

Mr G.H. Maughan of Messrs. Chalmers-Hunt & Co., solicitors, made application on behalf of Mrs Page for possession of a cottage situate at Sandon Lane, Buntingford, owned by her and in the occupation of Jonah Brown. The case came before the bench at a previous sitting, when it was dismissed as a notice had not been read over and explained to the tenant.

Mr Maughan stated that the applicant purchased the cottage in 1926. She was a London school teacher and was retiring on account of ill-health. Brown's rent was 2/- per week, and suitable alternate accommodation had been offered him. The alternate accommodation was at Buckland, and the cottage was larger than the one he was now residing in.

Mr B.E. Thody proved service of the statutory notice to the defendent to the effect that the owner was making application for possession at that Court.

Mrs Page and Mr Page both gave evidence, after which the defendant entered the witness box. He said that the cottage offered him was not suitable. It was three miles further away from his work, and his pony could not pull a cart up the road to the cottage. He objected to taking it.

The Bench discussed the case, after which the Chairman said it would be adjourned for 14 days to give the magistrates an opportunity of inspecting the property. [Transcriber note - Read about the next session here]

PROBATION OFFICER'S REPORT

The Probation Office, Mr H.J. Andrews, presented his report to the Bench. Of the seven cases placed in his hands by the Bench, six had proved successful and one had proved a failure. Mr Andrews then gave particulars of the number of cases - 91 - which had passed through his hands during the year, and said that there were only two failures. This meant that 89 persons had been helped to better things.

The Chairman congratulated Mr Andrews on his report, and said that the magistrates recognised in the Probation of Offenders' Act opportunity for the improvement of many people.

Mr Claud Fraser, a member of the Probation Committee for the county, said he was pleased to have recently made a satisfactory report on Mr Andrew's work.