Kington / Newent Reporter Newspaper 08 08 1914
Ledbury County Court, which should have been held yesterday, was postponed.
Kington / Newent Reporter Newspaper 15 08 1914
Before Alderman John RILEY (in the chair), Mr Spencer H BICKMAN, Dr M A WOOD and Mr H THACKER.
The license of the Wellington Inn, Colwall was temporarily transferred from Albert Richard HOUSE (deceased), to his widow Mrs HOUSE.
RECOVERY OF POSSESSION
Thomas WILLIAMS, of Castle Farm, Yarkhill, applied to recover possession of a cottage at Yarkhill in the occupation of Charles JENKINS, labourer.
An order to give up possession in 21 days was issued.
William JONES, farmer of Wittocks End, Much Marcle, applied to recover possession of a cottage at Much Marcle, in the occupation of Robert Floyd, labourer.
An order to give up possession in 21 days was issued.
George FARLEY, labourer, Much Marcle, was summoned by Lily FARLEY, his wife, for assault at Much Marcle on July 31.
Mrs FARLEY said she wished to withdraw the summons, as she had gone back to him and he had promised to behave better. He turned her out on July 31, and assaulted her, but was not sober at the time.
The Bench allowed the summons to be withdrawn.
WARNING TO FARMERS
Charles STACKHOUSE, farmer, Woodhouse, Ledbury, was summoned for failing to return a licence to the Inspector after the removal of pigs on July 14.
Defendant did not appear, and P.S. BRIERLEY having stated the facts the defendant was fined £1 and 9s costs.
LEDBURY BOYS IN TROUBLE
Stanley Walter HILL (15) and Walter Martin PARKER (14) were charged with stealing a bicycle lamp and toolbag containing two spanners, two tyre lifters and one lock, value 10s, the property of William John HOLLAND, on July 23 at Ledbury.
William John HOLLAND, grocers assistant, at Ledbury, residing at Bromsberrow, said the lamp, toolbag etc produced were his property. He lost the articles from the saddle room at the Royal Oak stables on Tuesday July 23. He left his bicycle there about 7.50 with the lamp and toolbag on and when he went for his bicycle at 10.10 pm he missed the articles at once. He gave information to the police next morning. He valued the goods at 10s. His name was on the bag - on a card with his name and address.
P.S. BRIERLEY said he saw PARKER on Thursday July 30, and in reply to his questions, PARKER said he had a lamp and bag at home. He asked PARKER to get it for him and he did so, and said that he and HILL had found them in Mabels Furlong on Tuesday night. He asked PARKER to show him the place and they went along the Southend. When near Dr HARRISON's house, he told PARKER he believed that was the lamp and bag he was making enquiries about, and PARKER said HILL took the lamp and he took the bag from the Royal Oak yard, and that they did it for a lark. He asked PARKER why they didn't return them, and he said that HILL promise to meet him to take the things back, but he didn't turn up. He asked PARKER if he knew who they belonged to, and he said he did not know at the time, but that he knew afterwards. Later the same day he saw HILL and questioned him, and he admitted that he took the lamp and PARKER the bag. Witness asked him if there was a name on the bag and he replied that there was. They were examining the bag in the Southend when the card fell out and he tore it up so that no one would know whose it was.
Both lads elected to be tried by that Court, and said that they intended to return the articles.
Superintendant WILLIAMS said in fairness to PARKER's parents he would say that he thought the articles were concealed at their house quite unknown to them. He knew nothing against the boy PARKER, and although there was nothing against HILL yet he could say nothing for him.
The Bench retired to consider the case and on their return, the Chairman said he was sorry to see the two boys in this position, a very sad position for boys of their age, because the Bench could not take their view that they took these things for a lark. Addressing PARKER he said: PARKER we take it that you were misled and influenced by HILL. We shall bind you over for twelve months to come up for judgement if called upon. You, HILL, will be fined and be put 10s and will be under a probation officer for 12 months. If the probation officer&~39; report of you is bad one you will be dealt with. It depends entirely on yourself what that probation officer' report will be. You have a chance now, mind you take it.
Kington / Newent Reporter Newspaper 29-08-1914
Before Alderman RILEY (in the chair), Mr Spencer H BICKHAM, Mr J Wilfred HEWITT, Mr Fred BALLARD, Mr H THACKER, and Dr Miles A WOOD.
STAGE PLAY LICENSE
Mr E H HOPKINS applied for the renewal of the stage play licence of the Royal Hall, Ledbury.
Supt. WILLIAMS said he had had no notice of this application, and he was not at all satisfied with the exit from the Hall to the bar, and he desired to lay the facts before the Chief Constable. He asked that the application be adjourned for a fortnight.
The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr C.B. MASEFIELD): You have got no theatrical companies in the next fortnight, have you ?
Mr HOPKINS said he did not know. He would like to explain the matter to the Bench. He did not think Supt. WILLIAMS was cognisant with the facts of the case, and he (Mr HOPKINS) could lay them before the Bench. He had not done anything contrary to the wishes of the Bench during the last 20 years, and in all cases what he had done had been done with their acquiesence , and with a desire to fall in with their wishes.
Mr THACKER: There is no alteration since last time ?
Mr HOPKINS : None whatever.
The Chairman : We will adjourn it for a fortnight and grant you a temporary licence.
DRUNK AND DISORDERLY
Thomas HANKINS of Wellington Heath, was charged with being drunk and disorderly at Ledbury on August 21.
The defendant was represented by his wife and after evidence had been given by P C BARRELL defendant was fined 5s.
Margaret BOALTER, married woman, Leddington, was summoned on a similar charge committed at the Ross road, Ledbury, on August 8. Defendant did not appear and P.C. BAYLIS having proved the case a fine of 5s was inflicted.
George FARLEY, labourer, of Much Marcle, was charged by Fanny BAKER with assaulting Felix BAKER (13) at Much Marcle on August 13.
The boy BAKER said he worked for Mr RILEY and on August 18 he was by Mr WARD's stable at Much Marcle with his brother, and defendant and other men were about.
Defendant swore at him and beat him with a horsewhip which had two knots in it and made marks on his legs. Defendant did not say what he hit him for. He could not run away as FARLEY had hold of him by the arm.
Cross examined by the defendant : He was in the stable and went when defendant asked him. He did not swear at defendant. MUSTO did not hit him with the whip outside the stable door: he simply cracked the whip. He denied throwing a stone at the door and at the corrugated iron which frightened a colt. He threw no stones at all.
Defendant admitted he gave the boy three cuts with the whip.
Walter BAKER, an elder brother of the previous witness, said he worked for Mr WARD, The Hill, and was coming by Mr WARD's stable on his way home, when FARLEY gave witness and his two brothers a horn of cider. FARLEY then ordered them out of the stable and they went out. FARLEY came out and thrashed his brother with the whip and said he would shift them. He gave witness two or three strokes with the whip as well.
Albert BAKER, another brother employed by Mr WARD, The Hill, gave corroborative evidence. FARLEY told witness to give his brothers some cider and he did so.
This closed the evidence for the complainant and defendant then went into the box and said he was waggoner for Mr WARD, The Hill. On August 13 at 7pm he went to the stable after reaping and the BAKER brothers were there. He told Albert BAKER to give his brothers a horn of cider and they were to get off home. The boys went out and stood in the road and when ordered off by another workman named MUSTO they said they were not going for either of them. Felix BAKER threw a stone at the door and another on the corrugated iron, causing a colt to jump back with fright and break a halter. He then went out with the whip and gave Felix three good cuts with the whip and Walter one. They then went home.
Mrs BAKER questioned the defendant at some length.
Thomas BROOME, blacksmith, of Rushall, gave evidence bearing out defendants statement.
The Chairman said defendant had no right to take the law into his own hands, and he would be fined 1s and costs 11s.
Alderman RILEY did not adjudicate in this case.
TAKING HOMING PIGEONS
Richard WATKINS : of Happy Land, Ledbury, was charged with wilfully taking a pigeon the property of Mr R J STEVENS, of Yeovil on July 24.
Mr A A MILLICHIP (West Bromwick) appeared for the National Homing Union, and Mr H W ORME (Messers RUSSELL and Co.) was for the defence.
Mr MILLICHIP outlined the facts of the case. Altogether defendant had in his possession six birds, all Homing Union pigeons, which had been trapped.
Rupert John STEVENS, of 71 Park-street, Yeovil, said the bird produced was his and was numbered. The bird was passed up to the Bench for examination of the ring, who agreed that it was quite plain. It was worth £1 and had flown 117 miles as a youngster. On May 7 it was sent to Bournemouth to fly to Yeovil in training for a cross-channel flight. He had 15 out of 16 return home.
By Mr ORME: He kept 140 birds. He had lost seven out of 80 flown. Defendant had willfully taken the bird by not reporting it. The proper method to adopt with a stray pigeon, was to feed and water it, then throw it up by itself.
John Edmund HORTON, of 59 Grange-road, West Bromwich, said on July 24 he went to the defendants premises with Supt WILLIAMS. Defendant said he had some stray pigeons which he had caught. He saw 15 or 16 pigeons there, and defendant said he was quite willing to let go those that he had caught. He took possession of six Homing Union birds all rung. The birds were locked in. He asked defendant how he gained possession of them and the defendand said that in the case of five he had caught them, and one he had given him. He had ascertained the name and address of the owner of each pigeon. Defendant had a trap to catch birds, such as would be used by a man who would catch pigeons.
Supt. WILLIAMS corroborated the evidence of the previous witness as to the visit to defendant's premises.
Mr ORME, for the defence, said defendant had not willfully taken possession of the pigeon, as he would prove in evidence.
Defendant then went into the box and said there was no string on the trap to the pen, and it was of no use as a trap. The pigeons were kept on a friend's premises, and were only let out on Thursdays and Saturdays. He had caught many pigeons, had fed them and watered them, and let them go. Some had gone away and others had come back. He had written to the Homing Union about pigeons and had received four replies about birds he had caught, but only once had he heard from the owner. He had never tried to trap a stray pigeon willfully, and he had never tried to catch stray pigeons. He had found a dozen to 15 pigeons in the last twelve months.
By Mr MILLICHIP : He knew that six birds were valuable birds. He had never been to Supt. WILLIAMS and told him that he had pigeons which did not belong to him.
Re-examined by Mr ORME : He had liberated this particular bird repeatedly.
Gilbert SMITH, a Ledbury youth, said he was a friend of the defendant, and had been with him when the birds were let out. He had seen him let stray pigeons up two or three miles away. Witness himself had liberated the particular bird concerned in these proceedings.
Ernest CHADD, of Newtown, gave similar evidence as did Edgar JONES of Homend street, Ledbury.
Jones, in cross-examination, denied that he told Supt. WILLIAMS that WATKINS had been catching pigeons. He had put a private ring on a bird that came to his pen.
The Bench, after long consideration, bound defendant over to be of good behaviour for six months, and to pay towards the costs.
There was another summons against WATKINS for willfully taking a pigeon, the property of J BIGGS, on Hednesford on July 24, and after the adjournment for lunch Mr MILLICHIP said he would withdraw the second case.
There were two similar summonses against Edgar JONES, a Ledbury youth, of taking pigeons the property of G E BIDDLE, of Gloucester, and A WEEKS of Cwm, on July 24.
Mr MILLICHIP also prosecuted on behalf of the National Homing Union, and Mr ORME defended and pleaded guilty.
The Bench allowed the cases to be withdrawn on payment of £1 towards the costs.
Ledbury Guardian Newspaper 05 09 1914
Charge of Desertion
George STEWART (33), was arrested at Great Malvern on Wednesday afternoon and charged with being a deserter from the Welsh Horse Regiment, now stationed at Cardiff. From information in the possession of the police it appears that STEWART early this week went to Newport and chartered a taxi to take him to Monmouth. From there he went to Ross and then to Ledbury. He stayed in town on Tuesday night, going back to Ross on Wednesday morning. He afterwards went to Cradley and eventually returned to Ledbury. On Tuesday night STEWART stayed at the "White Horse". He had bed and breakfast and put the car up. He gave a piece of paper to the management at the inn and told them to send it to some depot for payment, and to charge £3, out of which sum they were to hand him £1 with which to purchase petrol. The man was dressed in khaki, and represented himself as a recruiting officer. In the meantime, the police got to know of the affair, and STEWART took the 4.20 p.m. train to Malvern. The police followed, and the man was arrested as he was returning to Malvern station. He is also wanted by the Cardiff police. The case will probably be heard at the Ledbury Police Court this morning (Friday).
Ledbury Guardian Newspaper 12-09-1914
Before Ald. J. RILEY (in the chair). Messrs W. A. H. MARTIN, R.BUCHANAN, J.W. HEWITT, S.H. BICKHAM, T. BALLARD, H. WESTON and H. THATCHER
ROYAL HALL LICENCE
With regard to the renewal of the theatrical licence at the Royal Hall, which matter was adjourned at the last Court, Supt. WILLIAMS said the facts in relation to the exit from the Hall in the public bar had been laid before the Chief Constable and he (the Superintendent) had been instructed on his behalf to say that he would be quite satisfied with any order the Bench might make.
Mr. HOPKINS said the Chief Constable had made an inspection of his premises and had expressed himself as being thoroughly satisfied with the whole of the arrangements. The Chief Constable offered no objection to the renewal of the licence on the same terms as before.
The licence was accordingly renewed as heretofore.
Henry SMITH, New Street, Ledbury was summoned for selling milk adulterated with 14 per cent water on August 14th.
Mr. H.W. ORME appeared for defendant and pleaded not guilty on his behalf.
Supt. WILLIAMS stated that on August 14 he purchased a pint of milk from the defendant. He divided it into three parts, one part was kept by Mr SMITH, the second by witness, and the third was sent to the County Analyst. The latter's report was to the effect that the milk contained 14 per cent. of added water.
Mr. ORME, in addressing the Bench for the defence, said his point in the case was that the defendant had been unwittingly guilty of an offence. In the first place, Mr SMITH delivered milk at different hours in the town and bought it from Mr. G. COBB, Dunbridge Farm. Defendant had bought milk in this way for seven or eight years, and never had any complaints been made with regard to the quality of his milk. On August 14th, he went as usual to Dunbridge Farm, and when defendant received his milk he came straight into the town and commenced delivering it. In fact, it had been taken direct from the farm to the householder. As far as the defendant was concerned, he was not guilty of adding water to the milk. Mrs. COBB had written a letter in which she offered an explanation and took the sole blame for what had happened. As was usually the case at a dairy, a number of cans were always about for the purpose of washing. In this case Mrs COBB put Mr SMITH 's milk in one can and commenced washing out other cans. Unfortunately, in the course of this operation, she tipped water into Mr SMITH's can, thinking it was an empty one. She eventually realised her mistake and it remained for Mr SMITH to go without his milk or have it with water in it. Very foolishly, Mrs COBB adopted the latter alternative and let Mr SMITH have his milk without informing him of what had occurred. Under the circumstances, he (Mr ORME) hoped the Bench would not convict.
Defendant, who gave evidence upon oath, confirmed the statement made by his solicitor. He had never received any complaints from customers with regard to the quality of his milk. On August 14 he went to the farm as usual and had 4 1/2 gallons of milk. He came straight into the town and commenced to deliver it. He had always found his milk satisfactory before. When other samples had been taken no complaint had ever been made.
After deliberation, the Chairman of the Bench said the defendant's proper course was to have got out a warranty for the purity of the milk. The case would, however, be dismissed upon payment of the costs, 9s.
SOLDIER CHARGED WITH FALSE PRETENCES
MOTOR TOUR IN THE LEDBURY DISTRICT FOR "RECRUITS"
On Friday morning, at the Ledbury Police Court, before Mr S.H. BICKHAM (in the chair) and Dr. M.A. WOOD, George Stewart HOPKINSON (32), stated to be a deserter from the Welsh Horse Regiment, at Cardiff, was charged with obtaining food and lodging by false pretences, at the White Horse Inn, Ledbury, on September 1st. Prisoner appeared in uniform, and wore the South African War decoration.
John DINHAM, landlord of the White Horse Inn, Ledbury , stated that the prisoner came to the house in uniform between 6 and 7 o'clock on Tuesday evening, and witness said to him "What brings you here? " thinking that he was an old friend. Witness was in the Artillery some years ago and thought he recognised prisoner. When the man laughed he saw he (the witness) had made a mistake. Prisoner came in a motor car and said he was "going to Bosbury to collect recruits. " He demanded witness to put him up and also the car. Witness told prisoner that he hoped he would be straightforward and then he (the witness) would do his best for him. Prisoner said he was going in the car to Bosbury and witness could go with him for a ride if he liked. Prisoner did nothing at Bosbury, and no mention was made of recruits. They had a couple of drinks at the inn at Staplow, and then returned to Ledbury. The car was put up at the Plough Hotel, and witness made himself responsible for it. Witness's wife went to find lodgings for the chauffeur because there was not sufficient room at the White Horse. Prisoner gave witness a document to send to the military headquarters at Cardiff for payment. The document was for 16s 8d for board and lodging. Prisoner went to Bosbury again next morning with himself. He came back and stopped at the White Horse again. After a little conversation, he said he had to get back to Monmouth and wished witness goodbye. Prisoner came back again a short time afterwards and said he had to go to Cradley this time for "recruits. " Before he went, prisoner asked witness to allow his wife and sister to go with him, saying nothing would come of it. They went with the prisoner, who came back to Ledbury, apparently to stay another night. Prisoner called witness out in the back kitchen, and told him he was going to write him out another cheque as he was going to stop another night. The cheque was for £3. Prisoner then said "I want you to advance me £1 for petrol and pocket money. " Witness consulted his wife, and eventually became suspicious of him. Witness told the man he had not the money in the house and went out on the pretence of getting it. Instead of doing so, witness informed the police. In the meantime the prisoner departed.
Edith Mary DINHAM, wife of the previous witness, said she did not see the prisoner when he arrived on September 1st because she was out for a walk at the time. On her return about 7.30 pm she saw him. Prisoner asked witness and her husband to go to Bosbury for recruits. They went but no recruits were brought back and nothing was said about them at Bosbury. Prisoner said he was "on His Majesty's service. " Witness said she knew the prisoner as a working man in this district some time ago, and was naturally surprised to see him. He asked witness to put the driver and himself up. Witness told the man she could not do so, but offered to find lodgings for them, which she did. On her return prisoner told her he would not go anywhere himself, but was "going to spend the night with Jack. " On being told he could not have a bed, HOPKINSON said he would sleep on the sofa, which he was allowed to do. On the night of his arrival he had supper, but would not have any breakfast next morning. When prisoner wished them "goodbye" they thought he would be gone for good, after giving them the cheque. They were surprised to see him return.
Prisoner borrowed 2s. from witness at Cradley saying he would see it was right on the cheque. Witness knew the man was a customer at the house.
In reply to prisoner, witness denied she had asked prisoner to take her to the theatre at Worcester. As a matter of fact, the driver of the car asked her if she knew how HOPKINSON was going to obtain petrol for him.
Supt. WILLIAMS said that on September 2nd, as a result of information received, he went in search of the prisoner. He found that the man had gone to Malvern on the 4.20 pm. Witness arrested the prisoner at Malvern and asked him what regiment he belonged toɺ He said he was a sergeant in the Welsh Horse, Cardiff. Witness told him that he was not satisfied with his movements and accordingly brought him to Ledbury in the car which brought prisoner to the district. The car was from Newport. Witness asked for a remand until Wednesday next.
Prisoner said he would like his regiment to know he was a deserter.
Supt. WILLIAMS said he received a message from the Ross police, to the effect that the man was wanted at Cardiff as a deserter. He (Supt. WILLIAMS) had a message from the Cardiff police, who had undoubtedly informed prisoner's regiment of his movements.
A remand was granted until next Wednesday.
THREE MONTH'S IMPRISONMENT
John Stewart HOPKINSON was at the Ledbury Petty Sessions on Wednesday, was again brought up in custody and charged with obtaining food and lodging by false pretences from John James DINHAM, on September 1st and 2nd.
Prisoner now pleaded guilty and elected to be dealt with summarily. He was very sorry for what had occurred, which he said was due to drink.
The Bench decided that prisoner must go to prison for three months with hard labour.
Ledbury Guardian Newspaper 19-09-1914
Before Mr. H. THACKER
John SMITH (42), Arthur JONES (33) and William GREEN (41), were brought up in custody and charged with being drunk at Ledbury on the 14th inst. The prisoners, presented a dejected appearance and face bruises as a result of their conduct.
Sergeant BRIERLEY deposed that on Monday last, about 8pm. in consequence of information received he went to the Plough Hotel where he found the three prisoners helplessly drunk in the bar. GREEN and SMITH were lying down and JONES was sat up. Witness spoke to them but failed to rouse them. They were helplessly drunk, and he had to get assistance to bring them to the police station. The men were in company with another man, who has since died.
Superintendent WILLIAMS said that on that evidence he asked for a remand until Friday morning.
The prisoners stated that they were hop-pickers and had work to go to in the Bosbury district, and asked if bail could be allowed. One of the men said the four of them only had three quarts of beer.
On the suggestion of the Magistrates Clerk (Mr. C.B. MASEFIELD) a remand was granted until Thursday at 6 pm. Superintendent WILLIAMS stated that he only required a remand until after the inquest on the fourth man, whose name was Henry ANSELL (35) a polisher. The inquiry would be held on Thursday at 2 pm. at which he required their attendance to give evidence.
The men were accordingly remanded.
Before Mr. S. H. BICKHAM.
Fred HARPER (17), George JEVONS (19) and Michael COYLE (19), were charged with stealing a quantity of fruit, belonging to Mr. T. H. BOSLEY, Catley Cross, to the value of 5s. - Each defendant was fined 5s.
MYSTERIOUS DEATH AT LEDBURY
SCENE IN A LEDBURY PUBLIC-HOUSE;
FOUR MEN AFFECTED - IS IT A CASE OF POISONING?
INQUEST ADJOURNED FOR ANALYSIS TO BE MADE
On Wednesday the Corner for South Herefordshire (Mr. J. HUTCHINSON) and a jury, of which Mr. W. L. TILLEY was foreman, were engaged for three hours in the investigation of the death of Harry ANSELL, a polisher, of Birmingham, who had come to this district for the hoppicking. There is a considerable mystery surrounding the man's death, and the inquiry, which was held at the Ledbury Police Court, was adjourned for three weeks for an analysis to be made of the man's intestines. The deceased was of a party of four men who came to the town on Monday afternoon from Bosbury, where they had been hoppicking. In the evening the men were found by the police in the Plough Hotel apparently helplessly drunk, but it was subsequently discovered that the men were ill from some cause or another. After attention three of the men recovered, but ANSELL proved to be so ill that he died on Tuesday morning, despite every possible attention given to him by the police and two doctors.
The first witness was Joseph ANSELL, 146, Old Knoll Row ( Old Know Road ), Small Heath, Birmingham, who said he was a polisher by trade, and the body the jury had seen was that of his brother, Harry, who was also a polisher. He was about 35 years of age. Witness had not seen his brother for two months. Until last night witness knew nothing about the case. Deceased was in some measure addicted to drink. It took a great deal, however, to upset him, because he always ate so well. He was a single man.
William GREEN, 37, Dean Street, Birmingham, stated that he was a licensed hawker. About a fortnight ago he went to Cold Green, Bosbury, for the hoppicking, and the deceased came with him. Witness and the rest of them got their food from the village, each one getting his own. Witness in company with several others left the farm on Monday afternoon about one o'click (sic) to come into Ledbury There were four of them, and they walked along the main road. They did not stop anywhere before they got to Ledbury. They did not eat any berries off the hedge on the way along. Ledbury was reached about three o'clock. Their first stopping place was the Seven Stars, where they had a quart of beer between the four of them. They had not had any beer before three p.m. that day. At the Seven Stars they also had some bread and cheese and pickled cabbage, leaving there about 4 p.m. They then all went to the Talbot Hotel.
In reply to the Coroner, witness said the bread and cheese, etc., was fetched by John SMITH from one of the shops across the road.
Proceeding, witness said that at the Talbot they had another quart of beer between them. Witness left the Talbot first, and left his three companions in there. He believed this was all the drink they had at the Talbot. Afterwards, they procured baskets for blackberry picking, and intended to return to Bosbury, but on the way up the Homend they called at the Plough Hotel. Here they again had a quarter of beer, which was served them by a young lady. The Plough was reached about 6 p.m. There was a pint of beer on the counter when they entered the house, which the deceased poured in their cup.
The Coroner: You did not feel bad after drinking the beer which was poured into your cup? - No, not at the time.
Were you all sober? - Yes.
The Coroner: What happened after that? - I remembered nothing then until Tuesday morning, when he found himself in the police cells.
The Coroner: Did anything come over you? - It might have done. Something came over him a few minutes after the beer at the counter was poured into their jug, of which they all had a drink. He could not account for the state they were in.
Did you notice any difference in the taste of the beer after the pint was put into your jug? - No, I did not.
In reply to the Foreman, witness said they did not have any tea, only the bread, cheese and pickles. He did not notice any of his companions getting sleepy whilst they were in the Plough. He thought he went off himself first.
In reply to Dr. TROTTER, witness said he and his companions were not in the habit of chewing tobacco.
Superintendent WILLIAMS said it was about 6.45 p.m. when the landlord of the Plough sent a message to the police-station in regard to the men.
The next witness was John SMITH, general dealer, of no fixed abode. He confirmed the evidence given by the previous witness with regard to the visits paid to the public-houses mentioned. At the Plough Hotel they only had a quart of beer, in fact, he did not remember finishing that. When they entered the house there was just over half-a-pint of beer on the counter, which the deceased emptied into the quart jug. Soon after this incident he lost consciousness and remembered nothing more until he found himself in the police cells. The beer in the pint cup was "flat," and they had nearly finished their quart when it was poured into the jug. The last witness left the Talbot before the rest of them, and when he came out he remarked that he was not feeling very well. The man was quite sober. They had nothing to eat or drink between Bosbury and Ledbury.
Arthur JONES, basket maker, of no fixed abode, next gave evidence of a corroborative character. He stated that he felt alright in himself up to the time the beer in the pint cup was put into the quart jug. Witness had some of the beer. He did not notice anything peculiar about the taste of it, and thought they were drinking pure beer. Subsequently he lost consciousness, but he could not say how long afterwards. They were all sober when they went into the Plough.
Replying to the foreman, witness said GREEN certainly looked queer after they left the Talbot, and he went and laid down near the pens in the market.
Answering a juror, witness said he believed deceased had some bread and butter and tea for his breakfast that morning.
Edith BENNETT, barmaid at the Plough Hotel, said she did not recognise the men who had just given evidence, neither could she remember supplying four men with one quart of beer on Monday afternoon. She was not in the bar when the four men fell down and did not remember hearing anything about them being in the bar. She knew Mr MARKS went for the police, but she did not see the men. She went off duty about 6.30 p.m. At that time there was no one in the bar. She had no recollection of serving four men with a quart of beer, or of a pint of beer being left on the counter. It would be against her conscience to say she remembered serving the men with the beer.
In reply to Supt. WILLIAMS, witness said she left the house about half-past six. There was no one in the bar when she left the house.
Supt. WILLIAMS: Did you not ask Mr. MARKS a question about the four men being served.
Witness: I cannot remember anything about the men. Neither did she have any recollection of a pint of beer being left on the counter.
Ernest MARKS, landlord of the Plough Hotel, Ledbury, said he remembered the 14th inst. Whilst he was there four men came into the bar between 6.30 pm and 6.35 p.m. At that time the last witness was off duty. When the men came to the house he told them he did not want them, shut the door, and walked into the smoke room. He told the men this before they had time to ask for anything. One of the men appeared to have had enough to drink. Witness thought the man he objected to was the deceased. The men were not served with any drink by witness, or by anyone else to his knowledge. Witness was solely in charge when the men came to the house. When witness refused the men he went into the smoke room thinking they would have gone out, and when he returned to the bar he found, to his surprise, the men still in the bar, one of them being seated. Witness at once went for the police, which was about ten minutes to seven, when he found he could do nothing with them.
In reply to the Foreman, who asked a question with regard to the cup of beer on the counter, witness said that when he went into the bar the counter was clear. There was no pint cup or quart jug on the counter.
Dr. Leslie TROTTER, medical practitioner, Ledbury, stated that he had made an external as well as a post mortem examination of the deceased. There were no recent external marks on the body, and nothing to account for death. He first saw the deceased about 11.30 p.m. on Monday night, when witness went to the Police Station in company with Dr. GREEN. In the cells he saw four men lying down, three of whom were unconscious, including the deceased, whose condition appeared to be worse than that of the other men. Witness gave all the men an injection with a view to making them vomit. With the exception of the deceased all the men were sick. Witness cleared out the deceased's throat, mouth, and nostrils, as much as possible, because his throat seemed to be choked up with a nasty green substance. His condition was so bad that the man appeared to be on the point of dying. There was a strong smell of alcohol. The man was subsequently taken to the hospital, where the man's stomach was cleaned out. The other men did not take up a great deal of attention. The man passed away at 11 a.m. on Tuesday morning. Witness made a post mortem examination. The man appeared to be well nourished. His air passages contained a certain amount of green material. Both his lungs were seriously diseased, and of long standing. His heat was fatty, and the stomach contained the same green material, as also did the small intestines. All other organs were healthy. The man's brain contained no evidence to account for his sudden death. It was impossible from what witness found, to state the cause of death. At the same time, if the deceased's general condition had been better he would probably have survived.
The Coroner: Would any analysis throw a light on the subject?
Witness: A chemical analysis may throw some light on the cause of death. Samples had been taken of the contents of the stomach, with a view to an analysis.
The Corner said he did not think they could go any further with the inquiry that day. He certainly thought an analysis was necessary, and he would take the necessary steps for one to be made.
The jury agreed, and the inquiry was adjourned until October 15th.
GREEN, SMITH, and JONES, were subsequently brought before Mr. S. H. BICKHAM and charged with drunkenness, but in view of the fact that they had been locked up since Monday, they were discharged.
Ledbury Guardian Newspaper 26-09-1914
Before Mr. S.H. BICKHAM
"THE KNIFE WOULD NOT CUT"
John BENTFORD, (26) of London, and lately in the employ of Mr. T.C. WHITE, Little Marcle Court, Ledbury, as a hop-picker, was charged with attempting to commit suicide by cutting his throat on the 17th inst.
Only sufficient evidence was given to justify a remand.
Mr. T.C. WHITE stated that on September 17th he received information that prisoner had attempted to take his own life. Witness saw the man and asked him to explain his action. Accused said he wanted to take his life and had made an attempt to do so with the knife (produced). Prisoner also said "he was sorry he could not make a better job of it as the knife wouldn't cut."
In reply to the Clerk, Superintendent WILLIAMS said BENTFORD had a slight cut on his throat and another on his wrist.
Proceeding, Mr. WHITE said the man had behaved alright since he had been in his employ. He came for the hop-picking about a fortnight ago, and kept to his work until the 15th last. He did not come to work on Wednesday, however, but witness did not pay much attention to this fact. Prisoner did not start work the next day either and seemed strange in his manner. His "pal" remarked that he could make nothing of him although there had been no quarrel between them. Witness understood that accused started from London some months ago and had worked his way to this district. The man said he had been living a bad life. Undoubtedly he had got in a low state, probably through drink, excessive cigarette smoking, and lack of food. Witness did not think prisoner had been drinking much since he had been hop-picking. The affair caused a great deal of alarm amongst the hop-pickers. He would not stay in at night and would ramble about and upset his companions. Witness said they had tried to get to know if prisoner had any troubles but had not succeeded.
This was all the evidence taken, and prisoner was remanded in custody until the next petty sessions.
Before Mr. R. RILEY (in the chair), Mr. H. THACKER.
The license of the Wellington Inn, Colwall was permanently transferred from F.R. HOUSE, deceased, to his widow, Mrs. Emily HOUSE.
Mr. E.W. PALMER, New Inn, Ledbury, was granted an occasional license, from 10 to 6 p.m. on September 29th, on the occasion of a farm sale at Clencher's Mill.
George VERNALL, Cusop, Avenbury, was summoned for obstructing the highway at Tarrington, on September 3rd.
Mr. H. W. ORME appeared for the defendant.
P.C. MATTHEWS stated that on the day in question he was on duty at Tarrington, where he saw two portable engines stationary on the highway and working a threshing machine in a barn, near the road. The engine was obstructing the highway and it was impossible for any vehicle to pass along. Witness saw the defendant, who was in charge of the engine. He stated that his employer had given instructions for the engine to be fixed there. Witness found, however, that the engine could be fixed the other side of the barn, for the same purpose, and thus be clear of the highway. Witness saw the barn several times later, and no alteration had been made.
In reply to Mr. ORME, witness said he had had complaints about the obstruction before, but had not seen the engine there previously, neither was he aware that for over 10 years the engine had occupied the position in which he saw it for threshing purposes.
Mr. R.G. GURNEY, Surveyor, Ledbury, gave evidence to the fact that the highway in question was a public one.
Addressing the Bench, Mr. ORME said he was able to prove to the Bench, that this threshing had been going on for 48 years consecutively.
John SMITH, Stoke Lacy, who is a member of the firm owning the threshing tackle, contended that there had been no obstruction. It was impossible to fix the tackle differently as suggested by the police officer. There was very little traffic along the road. A baker's cart passed along occasionally. There was sufficient room for ordinary traffic to pass. At night the engine was taken off the highway and put in the greensward. When the belt was removed from the engine, witness was prepared to drive another engine passed the one driving the threshing tackle. He said this to allow that there was room for traffic to pass.
By Supt. WILLIAMS: The engine was not a danger in horse-drawn vehicles.
John COLE, farmer, New House, Tarrington stated there was very little traffic on the road. A cart or two passed along occasionally.
In reply to the Clerk, Mr. ORME said he had other witnesses to call who were prepared to give evidence with regard to the length of time threshing had been going on at this farm under the same conditions as at present.
No further evidence was called for, however, and the Bench dismissed the case.
SENT FOR TRIAL
John BENTFORD, hoppicker, was brought up on remand and charged with attempting to commit suicide.
John WATSON, another hoppicker, stated that he had been picking hops at Little Marcle Court along with the prisoner, who one day last week "seemed to go a bit funny." He ran across the field they were in and wanted to borrow a knife, saying he was going to "drown himself and cut his throat." Witness several times went after accused and brought him back until he (witness) got tired of going after him. On one occasion witness took the knife away from prisoner and subsequently he was taken charge of by the police. He (witness) did not see the man make any attempt upon his life, but was afraid he would use the knife. Accused kept sharpening it. There was a slight mark on his throat.
Mr. T.C. WHITE said that when he saw prisoner he was walking in and out the rows in the hopfield and seemed altogether strange in his manner. Witness sent for the doctor who did all he could for the man. After the latter's departure, prisoner requested witness to ask the doctor to "give him something to put him out of his misery."
P.C. HAYWARD gave evidence with regard to the arrest of the prisoner on the 18th inst. He made no reply to the warrant.
Supt. WILLIAMS said he did not think the man had been drinking a lot when he was brought to the police station.
Prisoner said he could not say much but would give evidence "at the trial."
Mr. WHITE added that accused told him "that his doom had been realed for ten months, and that someone was after him."
Prisoner was committed for trial at the next Assizes.
Ledbury Guardian Newspaper 10 101914
On Saturday, before Mr. S.H. BICKHAM and Dr. M.A. WOOD, James FLYNN, a rag and bone gatherer, was brought up in custody charged with breaking a window at the Brewery Inn, Bye Street. Ernest WEBB, assistant, stated that the prisoner came to the bar and asked for a quart of beer, and put down a sixpenny piece. Witness gave him 2d. change, and prisoner said that it was a shilling that he paid. Prisoner went out and returned soon afterwards and asked for the other change. Witness said he had given him his change, and could not give him any more. He then picked up a stone used to keep the door open and threw it at the window. - Mr. F. A. JAMES, landlord, said the value of the glass broken was 1s. 6d - Prisoner said he would swear he gave WEBB 1s. and because he disputed it, he (prisoner) lost his temper and threw the stone, for which he was sorry. He was fined 5s. , and ordered to pay 1s. 6d. damages, or seven days hard labour. - Allowed a fortnight.
Before Alderman J. RILEY, Mr. S. H. BICKHAM, Dr. M. A. WOOD, Mr. B. BUCHANAN, Mr. H. THACKER, and Mr. J. WILRRID HEWITT.
An occasional licence to sell intoxicating liquors on the racecourse at Colwall on October 19 was granted - A similar license was granted F. E. LINK, Crown Inn, Woolhope on the occasion of a farm sale.
ASSAULT ON THE POLICE
John BARNES, Hambrook, Ledbury, was summoned for committing an assault upon P. C. MORRIS at Pixley on September 20.
P.C. MORRIS stated that at 8.30 p.m. on the day in question he heard a disturbance outside his lodgings. When he went outside a woman appeared and assumed a threatening attitude. Witness pushed her out of the way, and defendant then came along and struck him in the face with a belt. He was also very abusive. Witness was obliged to come into Ledbury and have the wound stitched up.
Dr. A. R. GREEN of Ledbury, said he examined P.C. MORRIS on September 20. The Officer had a contused wound across the bridge of his nose and witness had to put one stitch in it. The officer lost considerable blood, and was not able to resume his duties for a week.
Superintendent WILLIAMS said that from information received in relation to the assault he had a warrant issued for prisoner's arrest. On the previous day witness arrested the man at Callow Hill, near his home. Prisoner said "he did not know he hit a police officer, and he was very sorry for what had occurred."
Prisoner confirmed the latter part of the Superintendent's statement, and expressed his sorrow for what had occurred.
P.C. MORRIS said there were several men about at the time, and he believed they were all under the influence of drink.
Defendant was fined £1. 5s. including costs. A fortnight was allowed for payment.
Austin HOPKINS (16), Yarkhill, was summoned by Joseph BEDFORD, Whitwick Manor, Yarkhill, for trespassing in pursuit of conies on September 23.
Joseph BEDFORD, son of the prosecutor, said that on the day in question he saw a rabbit in a wire on land in the occupation of his father. Witness got off his horse and killed the rabbit. Subsequently, he saw several more wires. At 5 p.m. on the same day he hid himself in some gorse, and stayed there until 7.30 p.m. At length HOPKINS came along and went to the wires. Witness said to him "Well, Austin, you got that rabbit then," and the boy said that he had. Witness took the lad and the wires to the house.
Defendant was fined 10s. including costs.
SCENE IN A HOPYARD
Marian MERRITT, Ledbury, summoned Ernest John DAVIES, jun., Hill House, Ledbury for assault at Ledbury on September 22.
Mr. H.W. ORME appeared for the defendant, and Mr. C. H. TOMLINSON (from the office of Mr. T.A. MATTHEWS, Hereford) represented the prosecutor.
Prosecutor stated that she was the wife of Thomas MERRITT, a carpenter. On September 22 she was employed in Mr. J.C. DAVIES's hopyard. She was working with Mrs. Rose KEMP, and they had a crib between them. They had worked until 8 a.m. when the defendant came along and told them to clear up their hops. He then went away but came back in half-an-hour. He said "Oh Mrs. MERRITT, I have been led to understand that your father has been putting it over the town that I am robbing people in their measures." Prosecutor said she had not heard her father mention the matter. Defendant, however, ordered her out of the yard, and told her, if she did not go, he would put her out. Defendant then caught hold of prosecutors shoulder and tore her blouse (produced). She swung around and defendant hit her between the eyes and nose with his fist. Subsequently defendant slapped her face. She then "rushed for him." Defendant used abusive language towards her and called her a ---- fool. Prosecutor had to see Dr. GREEN, who gave her a bottle of medicine.
Cross-examined by Mr. ORME, Mrs. MERRITT denied that she refused to pick hops last year because she was not satisfied with the payment. Prosecutor went of her own accord to pick hops this year. She never grumbled about the way in which her hops were measured. Neither had she ever pulled out a handful of hops when they were being measured. She had never grumbled about the payments made to her. Neither did she call defendant "a liar" when he spoke to her on the morning of the assault. She might have remarked to defendant that she knew all about him and his character. She did not say when defendant told her to clear out that by to-morrow morning he would not have a d------- picker on the place. She had been in the field about an hour when he struck her. When Mr. DAVIES told her to leave the yard she did not swing round and try to scratch his face. She did say to him that "she would like the boxing gloves on with him,"
By Mr. TOMLINSON, That week prosecutor earned 23 s.
Margaret DANCE (12), 100 Bridge Street, Ledbury, said she was working in the hopfield next to the prosecutor on the day in question. She heard the defendant tell Mrs. MERRITT to leave the hopfield, and that if she was not out in 15 minutes, he would "put her out." Mrs. MERRITT said "It would take a better man than you to do it." Defendant did catch hold of Mrs. MERRITT's shoulder. She did not see the prosecutor strike the defendant.
Cross-examined by Mr ORME: Witness said she saw defendant put his hand out in prosecutor's face.
Rose KEMP, wife of Victor KEMP, Albert Road, Ledbury, gave evidence of a corroborative character. From what she could see witness thought Mr. DAVIES expected to receive a blow from the prosecutor, and putting up his hand in self defence caught her in the face. Prosecutor did ask her stop picking hops, but she did not reply. Witness did not see Mr. DAVIES strike prosecutor, and she saw no mark on Mrs MERRIT's face.
Sophia JONES, wife of Fred JONES, Falcon Lane, Ledbury said she was in the hopfield on September 22. Her evidence was also of a corroborative character. She did not see any blows struck on either side.
Mr. ORME submitted that there was no case to answer.
The evidence for the defence was not called.
The Bench deliberated in private, and on returning to the Court the Chairman said the magistrates were of the opinion that there was no case.
LEDBURY COUNTY COURT
Before His Honour Judge Harrie LEA
THE PURCHASE OF WAR HORSES
The only case of importance before the Court was that in which Harry PEDLINGHAM, butcher, Colwall, sued E. J. PREECE, horse dealer, Worcester, for £70, for two horses sold and delivered. The defendant brought a counter claim for £2, being the cost of keeping one horse on tack for a month.
Mr. H. W. ORME, Ledbury, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. A. MAUND, Worcester, for the defendant.
Mr. ORME opened the case at some length for the plaintiff.
Plaintiff said that on August 6 he had a conversation over the telephone with Mr. Arthur JONES, a Master of Foxhounds and who was buying horses on behalf of the War Office. As the result of this conversation plaintiff sent two horses from Colwall to Worcester. Frank REYNOLDS and Albert JONES took the horses to Messrs. FRANKLIN'S yard at Worcester. This was where the buyer, Mr. Arthur JONES, was going to inspect them prior to buying the animals. Defendant gave his man REYNOLDS instructions with regard to the price. Later in the day plaintiff received a telephone message from Mr. PREECE with respect to the horses. Mr. PREECE asked him how much he wanted for the animals, and he (plaintiff) said he wanted £40 a piece. Defendant said that was too much, and that the horses were not big enough. If plaintiff would take £70 for the two he would buy them and send the cheque on. Plaintiff did not have any further communication from defendant that day, and later on the saddles were brought back to Colwall. Subsequently defendant again telephoned, saying "I have sold your two horses for £71." Plaintiff replied, "that is a bad price." At length defendant said "I have had the grey horse returned because they will not have grey animals." Plaintiff replied, "That makes no difference to me. I sold you two horses and £70 I want." Defendant said, "I will send you £36 for the one horse," and said he had given Mr. GRUNDY £1, but it did not matter about that. Plaintiff then said "You sold the two horses when my men were there and they were branded." Defendant said, "You had better have the grey one back." and the plaintiff replied, "Certainly not, I sold you two horses and you sold them to the Government again." Defendant replied, "I can see who is the mug now. I ought to have made the Government keep them, but I could not do that because I sell them such a lot of horses." Plaintiff answered, "If I do not receive a cheque I shall come into Worcester for the £70 on Monday morning. The plaintiff did and went into the yard at Worcester, where he saw Mr. PREECE, and said to him, "What about these horses?" He said, "Are you going to take the £36 and have the other one back?" Plaintiff again replied in the negative. In conclusion plaintiff said, "If I do not get a cheque by a certain time I shall put the matter into my solicitor's hands.
Cross-examined by Mr. MAUND, plaintiff denied that he had said to Mr. PREECE over the phone, on August 7. "Don't take less than £35 a piece for them." Mr. PREECE did not say "that he would take them up and show them." It was wrong to say that on August 7 nothing was said about a cheque. Plaintiff did say to Mr. PREECE with regard to the grey horse, "They have bought him and branded, and they must keep him"
Defendant did not say, to plaintiff's knowledge. "You cannot play with the Government: I can't help it." On the Monday Mr. PREECE did not say "what about this horse." neither did he ask him to go and see the "vet" who was buying them,. There was a suggestion on the telephone that Mr. PREECE had bought the horses from him. Plaintiff sold the horses to Mr. PREECE and it had nothing to do with the Government. The value of the horse in question was much more than £20
Re-examined by Mr. ORME, plaintiff said defendant had never mentioned a word to him about commission, neither did he ask plaintiff to pay him commission.
Frank REYNOLDS, employed by the plaintiff at Colwall, said he took one of the horses in question to Worcester. They were taken to FRANKLIN'S yard to be sold to Mr. Arthur JONES. Before witness left Colwall Mr. PEDLINGHAM gave him instructions with regard to the price. At Worcester witness spoke to Mr. PEDLINGHAM over the telephone and afterwards went to FRANKLIN'S yard and waited for some time. At length Mr JONES came out and said something, and in consequence the horses were taken to the defendant's yard. When the horses arrived Mr. PREECE was not there. When the defendant came into the yard witness told him that he had been told by Mr. GRUNDY to bring the horses to him and that he would buy them. Defendant then looked at the horses. Afterwards the defendant went away for a few minutes. When he returned Mr. PREECE said "he had bought the horses." Witness went away for a short time and after tea came back to the yard again, when he met Mr, PREECE, who said he had sold the horses again, and asked them how they were going to get back. Subsequently witness asked defendant about the money and defendant said "That will be alright."
Cross-examined by Mr. MAUND, witness said they were in the yard when defendant told him he had bought the horses. Between 7 and 8 p.m. defendant said he had sold the horses and he could get back to Colwall.
Albert JONES, Yew Tree Inn, Colwall, and brother-in-law to the plaintiff, next gave evidence. He accompanied the last witness to Worcester with the horses. Witness stated that he heard defendant say that he had bought the horses and the remark he (JONES) made was "And a jolly good job too".
Witness was cross-examined by Mr. MAUND at some length.
This was the case for the plaintiff, and Mr. MAUND addressed his Honour for the defence. He contended that there could not have been any contract for the purchase of the horses when Mr. PREECE interviewed the plaintiff over the telephone. His Honour had to decide whether a sell and purchase was made over the telephone.
William BUTCHER, employed by the defendant head groom, stated that early in August Mr. PREECE was buying a lot of horses for the War Office and the ones unsold were returned to their owners. When the horses in question arrived in the yard REYNOLDS said they were from Mr. PEDLINGHAM of Colwall. Witness subsequently heard defendant speaking to Mr. PEDLINGHAM over the telephone. Defendant said "That could not be done, but I will do the best I can for you." Mr. PREECE then went back into the yard, up to which time he had not had any opportunity of seeing the horses. The saddles, etc., were then taken off the animals, and they were shown at Mr. CARLESS'S yard.
Cross-examined by Mr. ORME, witness said defendant's usual business was to buy horses and sell them for the best price he could get. Early in August defendant did a fair trade in horses as the result of the outbreak of war. Horses were brought before the "vet" and trotted up and down to see if they were level and afterwards branded. The grey horse in question was branded.
Edith POLE, housekeeper to the defendant, next went into the box. On August 7th the last witness came to the house with a telephone number and witness telephoned to plaintiff and asked him if he could give her any particulars with regard to the horses brought in. Plaintiff said, "Horses are making a good price" and witness answered "fair." At that moment Mr. PREECE arrived and spoke to Mr. PEDLINGHAM over the 'phone. She heard Mr. PREECE say "I will do my best for you." There was no mention of price by Mr. PREECE and there was no bargaining of any kind. The following morning about 10 a.m. Mr. PREECE again spoke to Mr. PEDLINGHAM over the telephone and she heard him say that the grey horse had been returned. Mr. PREECE said "You cannot play with the Government. They have returned the horse and you must have it."
Cross-examined by Mr. ORME, witness said "she did not hear Mr. PREECE make the remark "That is too much."
E. J. PREECE, horse dealer and jobmaster at Worcester, said that early in August he was very busy finding horses for the Government and many horses were brought in to sell. The arrangement made was that he should have £2 for every horse sold. He had sold horses for many people on these terms. On August 7th he heard nothing about the horses until he went to send you two horses to try to sell. Witness said "What do you want for them." the telephone and spoke to Mr. PEDLINGHAM who said, "I am advised by Mr. GRUNDY and he said "Don't take less than £35 a piece." Witness said "Very well, I will do my best for you." Nothing was said about commission. Up to that time he (defendant), had not seen the horses at all. He subsequently saw the animals and they were taken to Mr. CARLESS'S yard. Mr. BARRETT purchased the one horse for £36 and the other for £35. which price they agreed between themselves privately. Next morning he saw Mr. BARRETT, who said they had received a wire from the War Office that they would not accept grey horses, so the grey one would be returned. There was no option in the matter. Defendant had had horses returned before after the price had been agreed upon and before the cheque had been paid. When the horse was returned defendant again spoke to the plaintiff on the telephone and told him he had sold one horse for £36 and the grey one for £35, but the grey one had been returned as the Government would not take grey horses. Plaintiff said "I shall not have it back because it is branded." Defendant said "You must have the grey horse back." and plaintiff said "he should not," and said he would put the matter in his solicitor's hands.
Cross-examined by Mr. ORME, defendant said he did not say to REYNOLDS that he had bought the horses. He did not say to the plaintiff over the 'phone, "£80 is too much for the horses, will you take £35 a piece." Proceeding, the defendant said the horses were branded after the price had been agreed upon.
Mr. ORME; Then the contract was complete?
Defendant; Not until I have received the money for them. (Laughter). Proceeding, defendant denied that he said over the telephone "I can see who the mug is; I sell so many horses. I am not like you."
By Mr. MAUND; He had never had any retaining fee from the War Office. All he had was what he made out of the horses he sold.
George GRUNDY, dealer, Worcester, said he was in the BUTTS when horses were being bought for the Government. He had on several occasions sent horses to Mr. PREECE to sell for the Army authorities, although he was a dealer himself. If any of the horses were not sold he took them back. No arrangements were made beforehand for commission but £2 was deducted from the sale of each horse. This he considered to be a fair price.
This concluded the evidence, and Mr. ORME addressed the Bench for the plaintiff. He submitted that so far as the sale out and out was concerned the preponderance of the evidence adduced was in his favour. If his Honour held that the horses were delivered for sale on commission he suggested that he was entitled to recover the £71 less the defendant's proper commission. He (Mr. ORME) contended there was a complete contract of sale and delivery. He could not see how it could be suggested that there was not a completed sale.
His Honour dismissed the action and gave judgment for the defendant with costs, and allowed £1 on the counter-claim.
Ledbury Guardian Newspaper 17-10-1914
MAN'S MYSTERIOUS DEATH AT LEDBURY
THE JURY'S VERDICT
The mysterious circumstances surrounding the death of Harry ANSELL, a polisher, of Birmingham, who had come to this district for the hoppicking, were again inquired into yesterday (Thursday) when the inquest which was adjourned a month ago for an analysis to be made of the deceased's organs and contents of the stomach, was resumed. The analysis threw little light on the exact cause of death and the proceedings on Thursday were of short duration. It will be remembered that ANSELL was one of a party of four men who came into Ledbury from Bosbury where they had been hoppicking. In the course of the afternoon the men visited several public houses in the town and in the evening they were found by the police in the Plough Hotel. To all appearances they were helplessly drunk, but it was subsequently discovered that while the men were undoubtedly suffering from the effects of drink they were also ill from some cause unknown. After attention three of the men recovered, but ANSELL proved to be so ill that he died despite every possible attention given to him by the local police and two doctors. Such are the facts surrounding the affair as reported in a previous issue of the "Guardian."
THE RESUMED INQUIRY
At the outset of the proceedings the Coroner said the jury would recollect that the inquiry was adjourned last month for the purpose of getting an analysis of the contents of the stomach and organs of the deceased. He (the Coroner) had experienced great difficulty in getting a doctor to make the analysis, but ultimately he secured the services of Dr. Bostock HILL, the Hereford City Analyst, whose report the Coroner read in detail. The report was to the effect that the contents of deceased's stomach and organs had been subjected to a careful examination, but he had failed to discover the presence of any poison. He had searched for various poisons likely to be present, but the result had been in the negative. The symptoms did not appear to be those of any definite poisoning.
The Coroner said that under the circumstances he thought the best thing to do would be to read over the evidence given at the last hearing, which he did. This would enable the jury to arrive at their verdict. There was no chance of any further evidence beyond that already adduced.
Dr. Leslie TROTTER, medical practitioner, of Ledbury, who had a post mortem examination of the deceased, was recalled by the Corner and the following questions were put to him:
The Coroner: Does Dr. HILL's report assist you in any way in forming an opinion as to the exact cause of death?
Dr. TROTTER: I cannot say it does.
The Coroner: You said in your evidence on the last occasion that there was a strong smell of alcohol?
Dr. TROTTER: Yes, there was a very strong smell. The men must have taken a great deal.
The Coroner: Would not a man suffering from phthisis be more subject to the effects of alcohol than a strong man?
Dr. TROTTER: Yes, I would say he would.
The Coroner: And he might die in a manner similar to that of deceased?
Dr. TROTTER: That is so.
The Coroner: And with similar symptoms?
Dr. TROTTER: Yes.
The Foreman (Mr. W. L. TILLEY): I should like to ask the doctor whether he smelt beer or spirits when he examined the deceased.
Dr. TROTTER: It is difficult to say, but I should be inclined to say both.
Ernest MARKS, the landlord at the Plough, was also recalled and asked several questions.
The Foreman: Will you tell us if you keep spirits in the bar and where?
Mr. MARKS: There is one tin barrel containing gin but it is impossible to reach it outside the counter. Even if the men got on top of the counter they could not get at it.
The Foreman: It would be quite impossible for the men to get spirits from your house?
Mr. MARKS: From outside the counter, of course.
The Foreman: Would it have been possible for someone to have got behind the counter and emptied spirits into the jug? Would you say that was impossible?
Mr. MARKS: Unless anyone got on the other side of the bar, but I do not think they would do that.
A Juror: Would you know if anyone took a pint of whisky out of the barrel?
Mr. MARKS: There is no whisky in the bar.
The Coroner, in summing up, said he thought they had done all they could to sift the affair to the bottom and it appeared to him to be useless to proceed any further with it. He knew of no other evidence they could get to help the jury to arrive at their verdict. It was a mysterious case, undoubtedly. But they had heard from the doctor that day that the symptoms perceived in the deceased were consistent with death from phthisis and alcoholic poisoning. That was, assuming that the deceased had more than his share of the three quarts of beer the men said they had. The men were in the town from 2 to 6 p.m. and had stated that they had two or three quarts of beer between them. This might be the truth, but the jury had to ask themselves the question: Is it probable? Were they (the jury) given on the last occasion a correct account of the quantity of beer the men had? There was the mystery that the men all collapsed when they were in the Plough, while on the other hand they had William GREEN going out of the Talbot to lie down. This rather pointed to the fact that they men had something more than the jury had heard of. If the jury thought this probable, and if they thought the cause of death was natural causes, it was for them to say so. Because not only did the deceased suffer from consumption, but he had other complaints which would aggravate the disease of the lungs. The quantity of beer ANSELL had apparently had would also irritate the complaints and no doubt accelerate death. There was no suspicion of foul play, neither were there any internal marks of violence.
The Foreman: I had one or two hints given me after the last inquiry that the men were treated rather roughly when they were conveyed to the Police Station. The jury would doubtless like information on the point, as such reports got abroad and spread.
Superintendent WILLIAMS: I think the jury are exceeding the bounds of their duty. You are here to inquire into the death of this man, and not into the conduct of the police.
The Foreman: We are trying to find out the cause of the man's death.
The Superintendent said the men were being conducted to the Police Station before he arrived on the scene, but as far as he knew there was nothing unusual in the way in which either of the men were handled. After years of experience he had learned that the first move on the part of such men was to cripple the police officer, and he (the Superintendent) always regarded the protection of his body as being a sacred duty.
The Foreman: That is very satisfactory.
After a brief deliberation the jury returned a verdict to the effect the deceased "died from consumption, accelerated by drink."
Before Mr. S.H. BICKHAM and Dr. M.A. WEBB
A PIXLEY AFFAIR
Lionel SMITH, hoppicker, no fixed abode, was charged with doing wilful damage to a window and door to the value of 5s. 6d. at Pixley Court on October 10th.
Mr. T. E. DAVIES, Pixley Court, stated that prisoner had been in his employ as a hoppicker. On Saturday evening, Mr. Alfred HARRIS was "paying out" at the window, when SMITH came up and said he wanted to see witness. He (witness) told Mr. HARRIS to settle with the man himself, as he was very busy. The man, however, persisted in his object and refused to go away. As prisoner would not accept the money due to him and continued to create a scene he was pushed out of the way. Finally SMITH smashed the window using very bad language. At the same time he threatened what he was going to do. The result was that the man was locked up in a coalhouse and the police were sent for. While in the coalhouse prisoner smashed the door in trying to escape. Altogether he did damage to the extent of 5s. 6d.
Prisoner: Did you not break the window yourself; and did you not hold out a revolver and say "I will blow your brains out"? Also did you not carry the revolver down to the hopyard ? This was what made me nasty.
Mr. DAVIES : This has nothing to do with the case."
Alfred HARRIS corroborated the evidence given by Mr. DAVIES.
Prisoner : The way in which Mr. DAVIES is serving hoppickers is a disgrace to the "neighbourhood" of Herefordshire. One of them came out at me with a croquet stick, and threatened to "smash my brains out."
Prisoner was let off on paying for the damage to the window.
Before Mr. S.H. BICKHAM and Mr. H. THACKER
Henry SMITH (19) jun., Welsheston Court, Woolhope, was brought up on remand and charged with unlawfully wounding Thomas GRIFFITHS, labourer, also of Woolhope, on October 11th.
Mr. H.W. ORME, appeared for the defendant.
Thomas GRIFFITHS stated that between 10 and 11 pm on the day in question he was standing by his garden gate talking to friends when he saw defendant standing behind a Mr BAYLIS. The next thing he knew was that he received a blow near the eye which rendered him unconscious. The blow was a very heavy one and he was knocked down. He did not know whether defendant inflicted the blow with his fist or with a stick. After he had done the injury defendant ran away. Prosecutor was subsequently attended by a doctor.
Cross-examined by Mr. ORME, prosecutor said he had known defendant for about six years. He did not see the defendant outside the "Crown" on Saturday night. Prosecutor did not go into the inn because it was "club night". He had been on friendly terms with defendant but admitted striking him at Christmas. Prosecutor had not threatened defendant since because he had had no reason to do so. The gate of his cottage opened on to the road and there were steps leading up to it. There was a bolt on the gate, similar to the one produced. On the night in question the gate was not open. When prosecutor fell down he did not strike the bolt on the gate. Prosecutor was attended by the Doctor the same night.
By the Clerk: Prosecutor was facing the road when he was talking to Mr. BAYLIS. He was standing with his back to the gate.
Mrs. BAYLIS, wife of Wm. BAYLIS, labourer, Woolhope, said that on October 11th she was standing by Mr. GRIFFITHS' garden gate some time after 10 pm. She was waiting for her husband, who was talking to prosecutor. Witness saw defendant strike the blow. She was sure it was SMITH who afterwards ran away. Witness saw prosecutor fall down and he was bleeding from the nose.
Cross-examined by Mr. ORME, witness said she did walk along with SMITH in company with her husband that night. At length, they met GRIFFITHS who was talking to her husband a little time before the blow was struck. She could not say whether prosecutor struck anything when he fell down.
William BAYLIS, husband of the last witness corroborated his wife's story. He could not speak as to the nature of the blow. He did not see GRIFFITHS hit but saw him fall. Prosecutor was in a state of unconsciousness for a minute or two.
By Mr. BICKHAM : When prosecutor came round he said, "I did not think it was coming off like that, what did he do it with?"
Proceeding, witness said that when he walked up the street with SMITH he did not see anything in his hand.
Dr. J. RAE, of Fownhope, said he attended prosecutor on October 11th. He had a punctured wound on the left side of the bridge of the nose, extending towards the inner angle of the left eye. The wound was about a quarter of an inch long and there was a good deal of bruising under the eye and on the upper left side of the nose. The lower and upper lids of the eyes were swollen, and the wound was bleeding slightly.
By Mr. BICKHAM : He thought the wound must have been inflicted by a sharp instrument. The bruising was probably caused by a fist.
The Clerk : What was the depth of the wound ? - It went into the left nostril.
Mr. BICKHAM: If SMITH struck the blow and had something in his hand at the time would that account for the wound? - Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr ORME, the doctor said the bruising on the face, excepting the wound, could have been caused by a fist. If prosecutor fell on anything sharp it would cause the wound. It was a clean cut. The fact that prosecutor complained of a pain across the forehead was due to the injury he received to the eye.
P.C. HAYWARD, stationed at Much Marcle, deposed that on October 12th he went to the defendant's house and charged him with the offence. Defendant replied: "I hit him with my fist, he hit me last Christmas." He was then conveyed to Ledbury.
In reply to the Bench, Mrs. BAYLIS said she could not say whether SMITH was sober or not on the evening in question.
Defendant gave evidence on oath. He stated that he had known GRIFFITHS for some time. At Christmas, prosecutor hit him without any cause whatever. He did strike GRIFFITHS with his fist. There was nothing in his hand at the time. As a result of the blow prosecutor fell down on the steps.
Mr. ORME next addressed the Bench and asked that the charge should be reduced to one of common assault. He would then advise his client to plead guilty. Whilst he (Mr. ORME) was prepared to admit that SMITH struck GRIFFITHS a hard blow, he thought it was probable that prosecutor struck the bolt in falling.
After deliberation, the Chairman said that after the doctor's evidence, the Bench could not reduce the charge to one of common assault. Defendant would have to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions. Bail would be allowed in a surety of £25, and defendant in £10.
Ledbury Guardian Newspaper 24-10-1914
Before Mr. S. H. BICKHAM and Dr. M.A. WOOD
CHARGE AGAINST A GERMAN ALIEN
A German alien, giving name of Henry DREW (47), a single man described as a dock labourer, was brought up in custody charged, under the Aliens Act of 1914, with changing his address without giving notice to the police. It appears that prisoner had worked in the docks at Cardiff, and about a month ago came into the Ledbury district ostensibly for hop-picking. He speaks English fluently, and seemed thoroughly to understand the nature of the charge.
The Magistrates Clerk (Mr. C. B. MASEFIELD) at the outset, told prisoner that in regard to the offence with which he was charged he was entitled to be tried by a jury if he so wished.
Prisoner: I don't care which it is.
The Magistrates' Clerk: You might have to wait in gaol for your trial for some weeks.
Prisoner: I should like it to proceed as soon as you can, if you please.
Superintendent WILLIAMS stated that on September 9th he received information from the Gloucester police of the intention of Albert Henry DREW, a German alien, to remove into the Ledbury district. On September 10th DREW arrived at Ledbury, and he told witness that it was his intention to get work in the Ledbury district if possible. Witness sent a police officer with prisoner to a common lodging-house in the town. Two or three days afterwards inquiries were made about him at the lodging -house, but it was found that he had gone away. Witness then circulated information concerning this alien in various directions, but he failed to get any particulars concerning him. That morning (Friday) he turned up at Ledbury Police Station and informed witness that since he left the lodging-house he had been at a farmhouse hop-picking. Prisoner could not, or would not, give the name of the farm, but from what he said, and the description he gave of the district, witness concluded he referred to Aylton Court. When prisoner arrived here first on September 10th, witness asked him if he was conversant with the Aliens' Act, and he replied. "Yes, I know I cannot go more than five miles from my residence." Prisoner added that he should stay a few days in Ledbury and then decide where he should move to. Witness distinctly told him that he must notify the police of his change of address.
The Magistrates Clerk: Why did he come here today ?
Superintendent WILLIAMS: He told me he was going on to Malvern and Worcester, and then to work his way to Birmingham.
Dr. WOOD: You have no evidence where he has been and what he has been doing during the past month?
Superintendent WILLIAMS: Not the slightest. He has caused a great deal of trouble, to the police.
Prisoner said he did not know what to say. "I know I have done wrong." he added,
"in not reporting myself and in not informing the police of my change
The Magistrates Clerk: If you had informed the police where you were going, it would have been all right.
Prisoner: Yes, I understand that now.
The magistrates heard no evidence as to where prisoner had been during the past month.
The Chairman (to prisoner): The sentence upon you is three months' hard labour.
Prisoner turned sharply round, and without making any comment, was removed to the cells.
Before Mr. J. RILEY (in the chair), Mr. S. BICKHAM and Dr. M.A. WOOD
Occasional licences to sell intoxicating liquor were granted Mr. E.W. PALMER, New Inn Hotel, Ledbury, on the occasion of farm sales.
COLWALL DEFENDANTS HUMOUR
Henry James MITCHELL, boot repairer, of Colwall, was charged on the information of Thomas Charles BRIDGES, of Colwall, with stealing a peck of fruit, value 1s. on October 5, the property of Mr. Stephen BALLARD, of Colwall.
Mr. H.W. ORME appeared for the prosecution.
Thomas Charles BRIDGES, assistant sawyer in the employ of Mr. BALLARD, gave evidence to the effect that there was an orchard near the Vinegar Works belonging to Mr. BALLARD, On October 5, about 10.30 p.m., he heard a rustling in the orchard. Witness looked round and saw defendant picking apples of a tree. Witness spoke to the defendant, who said "I am caught." Witness informed him that he would have to report the matter to Mr. BALLARD, and defendant asked him not to do so.
Frederick VALE, gardener, in the employ of Mr. JONES, of Colwall, stated that at 10.30 p.m. on October 5 he saw the defendant in the orchard picking apples off a tree and putting them into a bag. Defendant said "I am caught."
In reply to defendant witness denied that he said anything to him about boots.
The Clerk: What did you want to get at?
Defendant: If I had repaired his boots it would have been all right and the affair would not have come out.
Mr. ORME: Did defendant offer to mend your boots free if you did not report it ?
Defendant (dramatically): Gentlemen, I plead guilty to stealing the apples, and I leave myself entirely in your hands.
The Bench considered the practice was one which ought to be stopped, and defendant would be fined 10s. including costs.
Defendant: The money will be paid.
The Chairman: You will be allowed a fortnight to pay.
Defendant (excitedly): Thank you kindly gentlemen. I will now go and have a glass of beer to think that I am out of prison.
The Clerk: If you don't pay you will get 14 days.
Putting on his hat, defendant hastily left the Court with a smiling countenance
, evidently pleased with the verdict of the Court.
THE "EXTRA CIDER"
Thomas MOLE, labourer, Back Homend, Ledbury, was charged with being drunk in Homend Street, on October 5.
P.C. BAYLIS stated that on October 5 he found the defendant in the Homend lying on the pavement helplessly drunk. Witness had to get assistance to take him home.
Defendant admitted that he was drunk. He was very sorry, but he had walked seven miles and had had a drop of extra cider. He was 76 years of age.
Superintendent WILLIAMS said defendant was a very peaceable man, and he had not known him to be any trouble before.
In reply to the Magistrates' Clerk, defendant said he was in receipt of the Old Age Pension, which was all he had to depend upon.
The Chairman of the Bench said defendant was old enough to know that he must not "make a beast of himself," and he would be fined 5s.
William PARKER, Pixley Court, Ledbury, was summoned for driving a trap without a light at 9.45 p.m. on October 5.
Defendant pleaded guilty, and said the light had only just gone out when the officer stopped him.
P.C. GRIFFIN proved the case and said that the defendant's lamps were neither warm nor cold when he stopped him. Witness could see along the road for half a mile and saw no light when he heard the trap coming.
Defendant was fined 9s. and 2s. costs.
HEREFORDSHIRE QUARTER SESSIONS - LEDBURY CASES
TARRINGTON BURGLAR SENTENCED
At the Herefordshire Quarter Sessions held at the Shirehall, Hereford on Monday, William CRAWLEY (38) labourer, was indicted for burglary at Tarrington on the 25th June i.e. entering the home of Mr. William A. BOUGH stealing a jacket, several pocket knives, 13 lbs of bacon, 4 1/2 lbs tobacco, two and a half boxes of cigarettes, a tin of tomatoes, two tins of herrings and a quantity of tea.
Mr. H. G. FARRANT prosecuted, and said the prosecutor kept a small grocer's shop, which was broken into during the night of June 25th. Several of the items stolen were found in the prisoner's possession.
Prisoner admitted a conviction for felony at Newport on March 19th.
Judge INGHAM said burglary was a very serious offence. Prisoner had a long list of convictions on which short sentences had been passed and evidently they had no effect. He would be sentenced, therefore, to 18 months' hard labour.
John BRENTFORD (27), labourer, was charged with unlawfully wounding himself with a knife at Much Marcle on September 17th.
Mr. FARRANT prosecuted and the prisoner pleaded guilty.
Dr. J. O. LANE, the prison doctor, said he had had the man under observation. He suffered from delusions with a strong suicidal tendency. He had attempted suicide in prison. He broke a china object with which he scratched his throat.
Fortunately he was caught in the act. Later on he was found tearing up a sheet, and was evidently going to do something with it. He thought that people were trying to do him harm, and that the world in general was against him. Witness did not think it safe for him to be at large.
Prisoner was remanded until the next sessions.
PITCHFORK ASSAULT AT MATHON
James MORRIS (36), labourer, pleaded guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm upon George Richard LAWRENCE at Mathon, on July 1st.
Mr. H. G. FARRANT said, prisoner was employed as a labourer by Mr. LAWRENCE. On the day in question prosecutor's son told the prisoner to go to Hereford to fetch some sheep. Prisoner refused on the ground that he had not had his lunch. Prosecutor put his hand on his shoulder and told him to go off. Prisoner walked away a short distance and then picked up a pitchfork and went at prosecutor's son with the pitchfork raised. LAWRENCE raised his arm to protect himself and a prong penetrated his arm. Prisoner also threw a stone.
Prisoner, who had nothing to say was sentenced to four months' imprisonment in the third division. He had already been in custody for three months.
THE WOOLHOPE ASSAULT
Henry SMITH, jun. (19), labourer, was charged with maliciously wounding Thom. GRIFFITHS at Woolhope on the 11th October.
Mr. FRIEND (instructed by R. and C.B. MASEFIELD of Ledbury) prosecuted, and Mr. FARRANT (instructed by Messrs RUSSELL and Co, Ledbury) defended.
The prosecutor said he was a general labourer. He stood by his garden gate talking at night. A man came up and he received a blow. It was too dark for him to see the man.
Cross-examined: The wound on his face could not have been caused by the bolt (produced) from the garden gate. He admitted having struck the prisoner on Christmas night.
Re-examined: He had not had any trouble with the prisoner since.
Elsie Lily BAYLISS, wife of William BAYLISS, said she saw the prisoner deliver the blow. She did not see anything in the prisoner's hand.
William BAYLISS, husband of the last witness, corroborated. He heard a blow struck, GRIFFITHS fell and the SMITH ran away.
Dr. Arthur Joseph RAY, Fownhope, said he found a punctured wound on the left side of the prosecutor's nose. There was a good deal of bruising. The wound must have been caused by some sharp instrument. He did not think the bolt produced could have caused the wound.
P.C. HAYWARD, Much Marcle, said the prisoner in replying to the charge said "I hit him with my fist. He hit me last Christmas.
Prisoner said his father was a farmer at Woolhope. Last year prisoner struck him on the nose and he had two black eyes. It was quite true he had struck the prosecutor in October, but he did not have anything in his hand.
Cross-examined: He could not account for the punctured wound, although prosecutor may have fallen against the gate.
The jury found the prisoner guilty of common assault.
Evidence of good character was given by Mr. Thomas PRICE.
Mr. J.A. THOMPSON, a magistrate, endorsed the statement.
The Chairman said the assault was a bad one as prisoner had nursed his ill will. He would be fined 40s. or two months' in the third division. He would also have to pay the costs of both courts and be allowed a month to pay.
Ledbury Guardian Newspaper 31-10-1914
ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES AT BOSBURY
CUNNING LEDBURY YOUTH
At the Ledbury Police Court on Thursday morning, before Mr. S.H. BICKHAM (chairman) and Dr. M.A. WOOD, John VICARAGE (16) of Ledbury, was charged with obtaining various sums of money by false pretences on October 23.
William James LINK, bailiff to Mr. R. BUCHANAN, Bosbury stated that on October 23rd he saw defendant at a farm sale at Wallhills. Witness engaged him to drive ten sheep to Bosbury, for which he was to be paid 3s. Witness told defendant that he would meet him on his way back to Ledbury, and would then pay him the money. There were two other lads with the defendant, and witness gave VICARAGE sixpence to give to the boys if they would help him out on to the road with the sheep. Subsequently witness met VICARAGE in Bosbury about six o'clock, and asked him if he had taken the sheep there all right. Defendant replied "Yes, sir". Witness said "Who did you see at Bosbury House? " VICARAGE replied that he saw no one, and had taken the sheep to witness's house. He gave him 1s 6d., half the amount promised, and said that if the sheep had been taken to Bosbury all right he would give him the remainder at Ledbury the following day. Witness told defendant he had not given the lads the sixpence, but VICARAGE said he had.
Sarah LINK, wife of the last witness, stated that on Friday defendant came to her house about 5.30 p.m. He had ten sheep with him, and witness showed him where to have them. He said he had not been paid, and witness gave him 3s 6d.
Selina WALTON, a maid at Bosbury House, said a lad came to the house on October 23rd. He said he had brought some sheep for Mr. BUCHANAN, and was to receive 3s. She paid him the money.
Superintendent WILLIAMS stated that he arrested defendant on Wednesday evening. In reply to the charge, VICARAGE said "I only had the one lot. " Superintendent WILLIAMS added that he had known the boy for three years, and was sorry he could not say one word in his favour. He was a continual nuisance about the town.
Defendant was committed for trial at the next Assizes.
Ledbury Guardian Newspaper 07-11-1914
LEDBURY BOY SENT TO REFORMATORY.
At the Assizes held at Hereford on Tuesday, John VICARAGE (15), labourer, Ledbury was indicted on three charges of false pretences with intent to defraud, and obtaining 3s. 6d. from Sarah LINK, 3s. from Robert BUCHANAN, and 2s. from William James LINK on October 23rd, 1914. He pleaded guilty.
Mr. H.G. FARRANT (instructed by Messers R. and C.B. MASEFIELD) prosecuted, explaining that the boy obtained the money by representing to the people named that he had not been paid for driving a flock of sheep home for Mr. LINK.
Superintendent WILLIAMS, of Ledbury, said both the police and school authorities had always regarded the lad as a year older than he really was, and the justices, when they had him before them, were under the same impression. During the three years he had been known to the witness he had caused the police no end of trouble. Numerous complaints had been made respecting him, and his father had even complained to the police that the boy was unmanageable. His father was "up" with the Territorials, and before he went he told witness that he had been trying to get the boy into the Navy.
The Judge: They would hardly like him there. He has spoiled his chances for the Navy.
Superintendent WILLIAMS added that prisoner had been convicted of various small offences.
The Judge said the boy was guilty of a deliberate false pretence and a cunning which showed that he had already had experience at the age of 15.
His Lordship ordered that the boy should be sent to a reformatory school for three years, and until the institution was selected he should be detained by the police.
Ledbury Guardian Newspaper 07 11 1914
Before Mr. H. BRAY (in the chair), Dr, M. A. WOOD and Mr. H. THACKER
CASE FROM FROOMES HILL
Maria LEWIS, Froomes Hill was summoned for using abusive language on October 17. Defendant did not appear.
Ellen PREEDY, Froomes Hill, stated that she was in the Homend, Ledbury, on October 17 about 3 p.m. when the defendant came up to her and used abusive language. She also called her names of a disgusting character. On the following Monday the defendant repeated her conduct.
P.C. BARRELL deposed that on October19 he was in the Homend, Ledbury, when he heard the defendant talking rather loud. He then heard her call the complainant disgusting names. Witness requested defendant to go away which she did and witness saw no more of her.
Defendant was bound over in the sum of £5 to keep the peace for twelve months. She was also ordered to pay the costs.
Ledbury Guardian Newspaper 21 11 1914
A LIGHTLESS BICYCLE
Allen BULLOCK, Box Cottage, Upper Colwall, was summoned for riding a bicycle without a light.
P.C. Henry CAMPION, stationed at Bosbury, stated that at 9pm on November 8th he was on duty on the Worcester Road when he saw the defendant riding a bicycle without a light or a lamp. When spoken to the defendant said he had broken the lamp and had thrown it away, and that he had tried to borrow a lamp. Defendant, who did not put in an appearance, wrote a letter to the Bench stating that he thought he would have been home before lighting up time.
A fine of 10s, including costs, was imposed.
FIREWORKS IN THE STREET
Albert WATKINS (16), of Bye Street, was summoned for letting off fireworks in the street. Defendant did not appear.
P.C. William BARRELL deposed that on November 5th at 6 p.m. he saw the defendant in Bye Street "let off" a number of crackers. Witness spoke to him about it, and defendant said he only bought a halfpenny worth.
The boy's mother said he had gone to work that day at Little Marcle. The lad did not think he was doing wrong it being "Bonfire" night.
The case was adjourned for a fortnight in order that defendant might attend court.
Harry George EMERY, Bye Street, Ledbury, was summoned by Sidney W. MILLS, school attendance officer under the bye-laws, for not sending his daughter, aged 12 1/2 years, regularly to school.
Defendant did not appear, but sent to say that the child was subject to fits.
Mr. MILLS said that the girl had had exams, but that was some time ago. She had been fit to attend school for the past three months. The parents had not troubled to get a medical certificate.
Defendant was fined 2s.6d.
William BRADLEY, of Wallhills, was similarly summoned respecting his two children, Doris (11 1/2) and Frances (8 1/2) - It was 2 1/2 miles to the Ledbury School.
Defendant stated that the children attended Little Marcle School.
A fine of 2s. 6d. was inflicted in respect of the elder child, the other case being dismissed.
Mr. BICKHAM did not adjudicate in the above school cases.
Ledbury Guardian Newspaper 05 12 1914
Before Mr. J. RILEY (in the chair) Dr. M. A. WOOD and Mr. S. H. BICKHAM.
FIREWORKS IN THE STREET
Albert WATKINS (16), Bye Street, was summoned for letting off fireworks in the street.
At the last hearing, P.C. BARRELL stated the facts and the case was adjourned until the next Petty Sessions to give defendant an opportunity to attend the Court.
Defendant said he only let off four little crackers.
The Chairman said it was a dangerous thing to let off crackers in the street. The case would, however, be dismissed this time and the Bench hoped it would be a warning to the defendant.
Elizabeth MORRIS, Much Marcle, was summoned for using a cart without the name being printed thereon, on the 17th inst.
P.C. BAYLIS stated that on the 17th inst. he was in Newmarket Street, Ledbury, when he saw the defendant's cart, which had no name on.
Defendant's son appeared and said his mother was not aware that a name ought to be on the cart. They had had the cart for 20 years as far as witness could say (Laughter).
Supt. WILLIAMS : I hope the Bench will bear in mind the fact that witness is only 19 years of age.
Witness: That is no reason why I should not tell the truth, is it?
The case was dismissed upon payment of the costs - 6s. 6d.
1914 - 1919 Ledbury Guardian Newspaper - Herefordshire History
1916 Tilley's Almanack
Photographs are credited to the owners
Comments are from members of the Old Ledbury Facebook Group
Cuttings from Ledbury Reporter newspapers
Transcribed by Janet MEREDITH