18th January 1924 - Buntingford Petty Sessions

Original image on Facebook

Buntingford Petty Sessions

On Friday last, before H.C. Marshall, Esq., in the chair, Claud Fraser, Esq., Mrs C.R. Dimsdale, and the Clerk (Mr H.M. Gisby).

A Sunday Morning Episode

Albert George Stacey, 42, of Green Hill, Braughing, appeared on a charge of being found in unlawful possession of a rabbit and two snares at Braughing.

P.c. Briden, of Braughing, said that on Sunday, 23rd December, at 10.55 a.m., he was on duty at Green Hill, Braughing, when he saw the defendant coming down Bell Lane.

He met him near Malting Cottages, where he stopped him, and told him he should search him. Defendant ran away, but witness caught him and on searching him found on him a rabbit and two snares. He told the defendant he should report the case.

The constable stated that Stacey was a single man. He was living at home, and was a good workman. He had not lost a day's working during the three-and-a-half years he (witness) had known him. His employer was Mr F. Brown of Braughing.

The skin and snares were then produced, and after consultation the Chairman said the snares would be confiscated, and the defendant would be fined 10s. including costs.

The fine was paid in court.

Probation Officer Re-appointed

The Probation Officer's annual report was submitted to the Bench.

The report showed that during the year there was one fresh case. The number at present under the care of Mr Andrews was two, one being a woman, and the other a man, both over 16. During the year four persons had completed their period of probation, and all four cases were satisfactory.

The Bench re-appointed Mr Andrews as Probation Officer, and the Chairman, who said he was sorry Mr Andrews was not pressent, asked the Clerk to convey to the officer congratulations on the excellent way he fulfilled his duties, and the thanks of the Bench for his work in the Buntingford area.

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.

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.