PETERSFIELD.
Agent—MR. G. DUPLOCK
PETTY SESSIONS. Tuesday, Present Hon. J. J. Carnegie (chairman), J. Bonham Carter, Esq., M.P., and J. Waddington, Esq.
— A poor rate for the parish of Bramshott, and highway rates for the Parishes of Hawkley and Liss were signed.
— Thomas Royal, of Hambledon, was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment for non-compliance with an affiliation order. The order was made in 1857 and this was defendant’s sixth appearance for non-compliance with the same.
— Mr. Hoskins, solicitor to the Petersfield Railway Company, applied for and obtained an order for compulsory possession of a piece of land, 3a. 2r. 5p., belonging to Mr. Henry Boys, situated in the tithing of Sheet. Mr. Wyatt, of Chichester, was appointed the valuer.
Chichester Express and West Sussex Journal — Tuesday 27 January 1863
PETERSFIELD — PETTY SESSIONS, TOWN HALL, TUESDAY.—Present: The Hon. J. J. Carnegie, (chairman), J. Bonham Carter, Esq., M.P., and J. Waddington Esq.
— Mr Attree, the valuer, in the Liss Inclosure, applied for summons against Mr. Hull, timber merchant of Godalming, and others, for trespass and damage of a certain road called the Hurst-road, now in course of construction under the said Inclosure.—Granted.
— NON-PAYMENT OF AN ORDER OF AFFILIATION.—Emma Grout v. Thomas Royal.—It appeared that both complainant and defendant resided in Hambledon. The defendant, a pig b??her, came up upon summons for the non-payment of an order of affiliation, being for twelve weeks at 1s. 6d. per week, this being hi sixth appearance in the same way during the last three years.
Adjudged to pay the sum of £1 6s. 6d. including costs; in default of payment, defendant was committed to Winchester for six weeks’ imprisonment.
— ASSAULT.—George Wheatley v. John Gammon.—Defendant not appearing, proof of serving summons was given by P.C. Wilson, and the case was adjourned upon the application of defendant to enable him to summons a witness who was present at the time the charge of assault occurred.
— ANOTHER ASSAULT CASE.—George Lillywhite v. James Smart.—Upon being called upon, it appeared the parties had settled the matter out of court.