PETERSFIELD.
Agent—MR. G. DUPLOCK
PETTY SESSIONS, Tuesday.—Present the Hon. J. J. Carnegie (chairman), Sir J. Clarke Jervoise, M.P., and J. Bonhan Carter, Esq., M.P.
— This was a special sessions for the transfer of ale-house licenses. The ‟New Inn,” Eastmeon, was transferred from James Dear (deceased) to his widow. The ‟Coach and Horses,” Gravel Hill, was transferred from George Gamblen to Thomas Welch. The ‟Trooper,” Froxfield, was transferred fromn Thomas Carter to Reuben Heath. The outgoing landlord in the last case has held the house for more than 50 years, and the chairman commended him for the exemplary manner in which he had always conducted it.
— A highway rate was signed for the parish of Greathan.
— Ann Oliver v. Harriett Moore.—This was an assault case from Sheet. Both parties are married women, and it appeared from the evidence that they, with their husbands and several other persons, were at the ‟Queen’s Head” till about twelve o’clock on Saturday night, the 24th ult., when, on the house being cleared by the landlord, Mr. Bailey, a quarrel took place between the women, which led to a regular set-to in the yard, and a subsequent ‟skrimmage” in the street. The language used by each party towards the other was anything but complimentary, and the whole scene, as described by the witnesses, was of a most disreputable character. One witness stated that the women were so drunk that they fell in the road ‟like a sack of sand.” The Bench, after hearing the evidence, dismissed the summons, and the chairman told both parties that if they appeared there again their husbands would be bound over for them to keep the peace, or in default they would be sent to prison.
— A newly-constructed highway in the parish of Steep, called Ridge-road, was certified, and adopted by the parish.
— James Newman, of Buriton, a labourer on the railway, was brought up under a warrant, charged by William Haylock, gamekeeper to W. Green, Esq., of Ditcham Park, with taking a pheasant in the parish of Chalton on the night of Sunday, January 25th, ahout half-past ten o’clock. Complainant deposed as follows: On Sunday night about half-past ten I and another person were watching a pheasant which had been caught in a trap set in a quick fence by the side of the the railway. The fence was at the bottom of an embankment. James Newman came along the line, went down the bank, took the trap and the pheasant, came up again, and went on the metals towards Buriton. I said nothing to him, but went the next morning to his house, and asked him what he had done with the pheasant. He said ‟What pheasant?” I said he might just as well own it, for we knew all about it. He made no reply. We were about seven or eight yards from him when he passed. I am quite sure prisoner is the man; he had a flannel jacket on, with dark trowsers and a cap.—James Nash, an assistant keeper, who was with the last witness at the time, corroborated the foregoing evidence, and added that he had seen the defendant pass the place twice before on that day, and that each time he had on the flannel jacket, and he was quite sure he was the man that took the pheasant.—Prisoner strongly denied the charge. He admitted having passed along the line in company with several other persons, about the time at which the offence was alleged to have been committed, but declared that he never saw any pheasant, and never left the line for a moment. He called as witnesses John Grey, Ann Powell, John Flipp, and Mary Higgens, whose testimony all agreed, and amounted substantially to this: John Coombs, a agagsman on the line, living at Woodcroft, had invited a party to the christening of his child on Sunday, the 25th uIt. Prisoner, together with William Powell and his wife, John Flipp and his wife, and Mary Higgens, were of the party, and they all returned together to Buriton in the evening in a ‟trolly,” the women riding, and the men pushing the ‟trolly” in turn. The four witnesses mentioned above, and called for the defence, swore distinctly that Newman was either pushing the ‟trolly” or walking by the side of it the whole of the distance; that he never left the line at all, and that he could not possibly have done so without their seeing him, and moreover they all swore that he was dressed in a black coat and waistcoat, and dark trowsers. Such is a brief summary of the evidence for the defence, the hearing of which occupied the Bench for a long time.—The Chairman, in announcing the decision of the Magistrates, said they did at not in the least discredit the evidence of complainant, but as there was just the possibility of a mistake as to identity, they would give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt, and dismiss the case.