PETERSFIELD.
Agent—Miss DUPLOCK.
PETTY SESSIONS.—Tuesday, present, Hon. J. J. Carnegie (chairman), J. H. Waddington, G. Forbes, and J, Waddington, Esqrs.
— Henry Warner and John Bennett, to answer an information made by Mr. Superintendent Fey, for the non-repair of a road leading from Lower Green to Mabbott’s farm. Defendants admitted their liability, but stated that the road was in a better repair than it had been for a long time. Two of the magistrates, Mr. Forbes and Mr. J. Waddington, undertook to view the road and to report thereon at the next Bench.
— Thomas Messingham was brought up on remand charged under the Crininal Justice Act with stealing in the parish of Bramshott, a saw, value 4s., the property of James Ware. Prosecutor deposed that he kept the Wheatsheaf at Liphook. On Sunday before Christmas day he had a saw, which was lying in his yard adjoining. It was missed. Chairman: Did you miss it? Witness: no, but a man who worked for me told me. Chairman: we cannot hear what anyone told you unless it was said in presence of prisoner. Is the iman who told you here? Witness: No. It appeared from witness’s further replies to questions from the Bench that he knew nothing of the disappearance of the saw himself, and that he had no witness. According the case broke down and the prisoner was discharged.
— Mr. William Foster, coal merchant, Emsworth, was summoned on the information of Mr. Superintendent Fey, charged with having an unjust weighing machine in use at his coal store, at the Petersfield Railway station. Mr. Stening (of Portsea) appeared for defendant. Mr. Superintendent Fey deposed: I was inspecting weight and measures on the 23rd inst. I visited the coal-yard at the railway-station, and a machine was pointed out to me by a man there as belonging to Mr. Foster. I tested it, and found on one side of the machine a bushel measure. I asked the man if that was as he used it in weighing coals up, and he said ‟Yes.” I found two iron weights on the other side. I asked him what they were for, and he replied ‟To balance the measure.” On testing them I found a difference of 4lbs. against the purchaser. I asked him how he accounted for this, and he said it was owing to its being wet.—Cross-examined by Mr. Stening: The man asked me to allow him to clear out the loose coal from the machine, but I refused to let him do so till I had tried it. There was another machine of a different construction, which was quite correct, but that of which I complain was wet when I examined it.—Mr. Stening then rose, and said he had the honour to appear for the defendant, who was the representative of an old and highly-respectable firm of upwards of 60 years’ standing, and against which such a complaint as the present had never before been made, and he felt confident that their Worships would not allow such a stigma to be cast upon the fair fame of Mr. Foster as was implied in the charge now before them. He contended that the machine (which was produced in Court) had not been fairly tested: he did not mean by this remark to cast any reflection upon Mr. Fey, who had no doubt done what he considered right in the matter, but he would inform the Bench that the same machine had been repeatedly tested by Mr. Harvey, the inspector at Fareham, who had invariably dealt with it in a different manner from that in which Mr. Fey had done, as he always tested it without the measure, which clearly formed no part of the machine, any more than a bag or basket would have done. Suppose a person went to a grocer’s shop for an article which had to be weighed in a bottle, the empty bottle was placed in the scale and balanced, no one would consider that such bottle formed any part of the weighing machine; and if an inspector were to enter the shop while the empty bottle was in the scale he would never think of treating that bottle as forming any part of the scales which it was his duty to examine; and, by parity of reasoning, he (Mr. Stering) contended that the measure which was placed on one side of the machine in question, and counterpoised by weights on the other side, was no part of the machine itself. He would also call the attention of the Magistrates to the fact that Mr. Foster had another machine of a different construction in the yard, in which the scoop or receptacle for the coals form a constituent part of the machine, and this instrument was found to be quite correct.—The Magistrates retired to consider the point raised by Mr. Stening, and on their return into Court the Chairman stated that the Magistrates were unanimously of opinion that Mr. Superintendent Fey had acted quite right in bringing the matter forward, but they considered that the measure for containing the coals did not form a part of the machine, and therefore dismissed the summons.—[It is due to Mr. Foster to state that the machine, apart from the measure mentioned above, was perfectly correct.]—There was a like information against Mr. William Richardson. Mr. Albery, of Midhurst, appeared for defendant. The evidence and the defence were the same as in the last case, and the summons was dismissed on the like grounds
— Application was made for a new license for the ‟Railway Accommodation.” It appeared that the late tenant, Edward Stallard, had left the house, and for some unexplained reason refused to sign the usual notice for transferring the license to the new tenant, James Heath. Evidence of such refusal having been taken on oath, the Magistrates granted a new license to the said James Heath.
— Henry Voakes, an inmate of the Petersfield Union Workhouse, was charged with stealing a bag containing a sixpence, a threenennypiece, and fourpence in copper, belonging to Richard Pennicott, another pauper inmate. A previous conviction for larceny was proved against the prisoner, and she was committed for trial at the next assizes at Winchester.
(see also 03-Mar-1860 John Voakes)
— Damaging a Footpath.—This was a case of considerable public-interest. George Cannings and John Standen were nominally complainant and defendant, but the parties really at issue were the trustees of the Petersfield, Alresford, and Alton turnpike road, and Mr. Robert Crafts, the proprietor of the ‟Railway Hotel.”—Mr. Albery appeared for defendant.—George Cannings, who is in the employ of the trustees, on being sworn, deposed that on the 27th of January, in the fore- noon, he saw defendant drive Mr. Craft’s omnibus with one horse across the footpath adjoining the turnpike road near the Railway Station; he drove from Petersfield into Mr. Crafts’ yard, and then turned round and crossed the footpath again and went to the station. Could not say that any particular injury was done to the path at this time, but it had been very much injured by the omnibus frequently driving across it.—Mr. Albery contended that Mr. Crafts had a right of access to his premises across the footway, and that he never heard anything more extra- ordinary than the present charge. If this could be sustained, half the houses in the town might be shut up, as they only had access by crossing the footpath. He submitted that the Bench had no jurisdiction.—Mr. Mitchell, clerk to the trustees, explained to the magistrates that the trustees were desirous of coming to an arrangement with Mr. Crafts; they were quite willing that he should have ample space for ingress and egress to and from his premises, but at present the whole frontage was open for a distance of 24 yards, and the consequence was that the public were seriously inconvenienced.—Mr. Atkinson, as one of the trustees, addressed the bench to the same effect, and added that at a recent meeting of the trustees Mr. Crafts attended, when an offer was made to him, which he took time to consider, and engaged to meet them again on a certain day, but failed to attend at the time specified: and he (Mr. A.) hoped it would go forth to the public that the trustees had shown themselves willing to meet Mr. Crafts and come to any reasonable terms, their only object being to protect the interests of the public.—Summons dismissed, on the ground that the evidence did not sustain the charge of wilful damage as required by the statute.