At the Petty Sessions held on Tuesday the 16th inst., the following magistrates were present, viz., the Hon. J. J. Carnegie, J. H. Waddington, J. B. Carter, and J. Martineau, Esqrs.
OVERSEERS IN TROUBLE.—Messrs. Legg and Aburrow, overseers of the poor of the parish of Colemore, appeared agreeable to summons, for neglect in not attending the special session on the 28th of September last, to verify the jury list of the said parish. Fined 40s. each and 6s. 6d. costs.
FALSE RETURNS.—Thomas Cannon, of Hawkley, was committed to take his trial at the ensuing quarter sessions for obtaining goods under false pretences from Mr. Lillywhite, a grocer, residing at the same place.
STONE THROWING.—Henry Marsh, of Petersfield, was fined 1s. and costs, for throwing a stone at Mr. John Mellersh, of the Borough farm.
Hampshire Telegraph - Saturday 20 November 1858
PETTY SESSIONS.—On Tuesday last, present Hon. J. J. Carnegie, (Chairman), J. W. Waddington, J. Bonham Carter, M.P., and J. Martineau, Esqrs.
Appeal.—The Rev. J. M. Sumner, v. the Overseers of the Parish of Petersfield.—This case was fully reported in the Telegraph last week, when the appeal was allowed by the Magistrates, but adjudication as to the amount of abatement was postponed until to-day. The Assistant Overseer (Mr. E. Durman) handed to the Bench a calculation based on data derived from a comparative estimate of the rent charge of Buriton, Petersfield, and Sheet respectively, (on the principle laid down by the Bench a fortnight ago), from which it appeared that the amount of abatement for Petersfield was 4l. 9s.; this calculation was adopted by the Bench and the assessment was reduced from 49l. 17s. to 45l. 8s.
Caution to Overseers—The Overseers of the parish of Colemore were summoned for having neglected to present the jury lists for that parish at the Sessions, held for passing such lists on the 28th of September last, whereby they had made themselves liable to a penalty not exceeding 10l. nor less than 40s. It appeared that the Overseers of this parish had been defaulters in the matter of jury lists in 1854, 1855, and 1857, as well as in the present year, they were accordingly adjudged to pay a penalty of 40s. together with 13s. cost.
— William Lambert, a navvy, was charged with trespassing in search of game, on land in the occupation of Edward Hill, of Woodcroft, in the parish of Chalton, on Tuesday, the 2nd inst. The case was clearly proved on the evidence of Henry Bone, who saw defendant leave his work and go about 50 yards into the field and set four wires. Defendant said he had two witnesses who would say that he never left his work nor went two yards from the ditch, but he had not brought them as he didn't want to pay for their loss of time in coming. This (if true) proved to be very mistaken economy, as the Bench convicted and fined him 25s. with 7s. 6d. costs.
— Night Poaching.—Samuel Spenser, carter to Mr. Cannings, of Finchdean, was charged on the information of Albert Hoar, with taking a hare on the night of Sunday, Oct. 31st. Albert Hoar deposed as follows—About half-past four on the morning of Monday, Nov. 1st, I was lying up by a hare caught in a wire, I got there about three o’clock. I was about seven yards from the hare, I saw Samuel Spenser come and untie the string; he drove his horses up the field till he came overright the hare and then left them and went to the hare, he untied the string and pulled the hare to get it through the hedge. I jumped up and said ‟Well, carter, I'm here first this morning,” he then threw down the hare and ran away. I said ‟It’s no use to run, I know you,” he then stopped and turned round and talked to me, and said he had not had anything to do with the hare. By Mr. Bonham Carter—Defendant could not have seen the hare till he went to look for it, as it was on the opposite side of the hedge from where he was. A letter was then handed to the Magistrates from Mr. Cannings, defendant’s employer, but the Chairman declined to receive it, observing that if Mr. Canning had anything to say he should have attended personally. We understand, however that the purport of the letter was that defendant had a good character, that he had a wife and family, and that his wife was very ill. The Chairman told defendant that the Bench considered the case clearly proved against him, and that the law left them no option of inflicting a fine in cases of night poaching, and therefore the sentence was that he be imprisoned with hard labour for the space of 14 days, and at the expiration of that term to find two sureties of 5l. each, or one of 10l., not to commit a like offence for one year.
— John Mellersh v. Henry Marsh.—This was a charge of assault by throwing a stone at complainant on Sunday, Oct. 31st. Defendant did not appear. Complainant on being sworn, gave a very full and particular account of the whole affair, but with such volubility that although we endeavoured for some time, with all our might, to keep up with the narrative, we found ourselves at length compelled to abandon the details and content ourselves with a brief summary. The facts appeared to be these—Complainant saw a lot of loose fellows in one of his fields on Borough Farm, on Sunday afternoon, playing at pitch and toss, he went towards them and they ran away. Defendant, who was among them, turned round and threw a stone at complainant, using at the same time very ‟abuseful” language, but the stone did not strike him. Fined 1s. and costs 8s. 6d. or seven days’ imprisonment with hard labour. As defendant was non inventus, complainant was called upon for the costs, being informed at the same time that on the capture of defendant the amount would be returned to him, this seemed anything but satisfactory, complainant remarking that it was ‟very much like paying for being assaulted.”
— Thomas Cannons, a boy aged 11, was charged with obtaining goods, to wit, two loaves of bread, 1lb. of cheese, and ½lb. of sugar, under false pretences, from Mr. Henry Lillywhite, of Hawkley. It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Lillywhite that the boy had worked for Etherington, although he told him he was not then in his service, and he was induced to let him have the articles. Mr. Etherington on being sworn, stated that he did not send the boy for the goods in question or for anything whatever on that day. Committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions. Bail was put in for his appearance.
COUNTY COURT.—The monthly court was held at the Town-hall on Wednesday last, before C. J. Gale, Esq,, the judge, when the following cases were disposed of
— David Colwell v. John Adams.—2l. 19s. 5d. for goods supplied. Defendant had admitted the debt and offered to pay the amount on the 14th of January next. Order to that effect.
— Same v. George Shawyer.—9l. 6s. 9d. Defendant did not appear, and the judge called on plaintiff to prove the debt, when he produced his book containing the entries, but the judge refused to receive this as evidence, remarking that a dishonest man might make any entries in his book and then summon the parties for the amount, and if this were to be taken as evidence no one would be safe. Plaintiff contended that defendant, having received the summons (service of which had been proved) ought to have attended to disprove the debt, but his honour informed him that the law was not that a defendant should disprove a debt, but that the plaintiff should prove it. There being no other evidence before him, than that of the book, which was in fact no evidence at all plaintiff must be non-suited. The same plaintiff had three suits against other parties, all of which shared the same fate as the foregoing and for the same reason.
— Mellersh v. Cutler.—The plaintiff is the registrar of this court, and the defendant a solicitor residing at Bell Yard, Doctors’ Commons, London. The claim was for 17s. for service of summons and other proceedings against a person in this town, the plaintiff stated that he had made several applications for the amount, but defendant had taken no notice of them, that an execution had been issued against the party, served with a copy of writ and the amount levied, but still the plaintiff’s fees were withheld. The judge adjourned the case for the plaintiff to subpœna the defendant or some witness to prove the signature of the several letters of the defendant which plaintiff could not prove.
— Alfred Barber v. Richard Hayes.—1l. 10s., to be paid in a week.
— Charles Parr v. John Husted.—5l. 13s. 7d. Mr. Mitchell appeared for plaintiff. Order 10s. a month.
— William and Henry Pescett v. William Doling.—15s. 6d., order 8s. a month.
— Thomas Baker v. Richard Head.—2l. 2s., order by consent to pay in a month.
— George Lock v. John Powell.—2l. 2s. for rent, 4s. a month.
— Samuel Woodbourne v. George Carpenter.—18s. for rent, order in one month.
— John Deer v. Henry Newman.—2l. 2s. His honour on looking over the account remarked that certain items amounting to 26s. were for spirits supplied in small quantities for which the law afforded no remedy, these were accordingly struck out, and an order was made for payment of the remainder in a week.
— Edward Stallard v. Stephen Lillywhite.—3l. 5s., being the balance on the sale of a horse. Defendant stated that the horse died in less than three weeks after he had it, but as there was no evidence of any warranty being given, defendant was ordered to pay the amount in a month.
— Same v. John Burnett.—Payment in a week.
— James Bridger v. Robert Crafts.—8s. for horse stand and hay and water at Goodwood. Defendant pleaded a set off of 18s. for ale supplied two years ago. There appeared to be some confusion of dates, plaintiff asserted that he returned a portion of the ale, and that he had twice done work for defendant since that time, and been paid for it without anything being said about the ale. His honour enquired of defendant why he had not required payment before, to which he replied that knowing plaintiff to be in straitened circumstances, he might have paid him for his work from time to time, but he did not see that this could cancel the debt.—Judgement for plaintiff.
— George Marsh v. Charles Osgood.—Summons for commitment for 14 days, for not appearing. The judge intimated that he should in future make no order for commitment of a defendant residing out of this county, but the plaintiff must proceed in the court of the district in which the defendant resided.