PETERSFIELD.
PETTY SESSIONS.—On Tuesday, present Hon. J. J. Carnegie (chairman), Sir J. C. Jervoise, Bart., J. H. Waddington, and J. Martineau, Esqrs.
— William Porter and George Cooke were convicted on the evidence of George Holmes, keeper to J. Bonham Carter, Esq., of trespassing in search of rabbits on land in the occupation of C. J. Louch, Esq., in the parish of Buriton. Fined 1s. and costs, 4s. 9d. each, or 21 days imprisonment; the money was paid.
— John Bligh v. Elijah James.—This was a charge of assault arising out of a tap-room squabble at the Spread Eagle, Petersfield, which took place between ten and eleven o'clock on Saturday night last. The case occupied the Bench upwards of three hours, there being about half a score of witnesses called, and some of those for the defence not being forthcoming till repeatedly sent for. The substance of the evidence, which was very conflicting, was as follows :—Complainant swore that he and two others went into the Spread Eagle about ten o’clock on the night in question, and that whilst standing at the bar defendant came and struck him a blow on the eye with his fist, then seized hIm by the hair of his head, and held him for a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes, hitting him right and left all the time; that he (complainant) did not strike a blow, and that not a single word was spoken by either party from first to last during the affray. This latter very improbable statement was contradicted by witnesses on both sides, from whose evidence it appeared that very disreputable language was used, and that blows were freely dealt on both sides; but as to which struck the first blow it was quite impossible to discover amidst the conflicting assertions of the several witnesses. The Magistrates, after a patient hearing, gave defendant the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the summons. One of the witnesses in this case (William Frewen) was severely censured by the chairman, and threatened with committal, for twice attempting to evade kissing the book when being sworn. In the first instance he did not bring the book within several inches of his lips, and on being required to correct this irregularity, and the words of the oath having been again repeated to him, he was seen adroitly to kiss his thumb instead of the book; but on finding that the Bench would not be thus trifled with, and that he was likely to get into trouble, he took the oath in the prescribed manner. The Chairman, however, in summing up the evidence, and giving judgment on the case, stated that he and his brother Magistrates were quite unanimous in rejecting his testimony altogether as being utterly unworthy of credit.
— William Ashley was charged by Mr. Superintendent Fey with being a deserter from the Wilts Militia. Prisoner pleaded guilty, and was committed to the lock-up for safe custody till he should be sent for by the military authorities.
— A poor’s-rate was signed for the parish of Bramshott.
— Mr. Ebenezer Durman, assistant overseer of the parish of Buriton, applied for a warrant of distress on the goods of Edwin Hill, of Titchfield, for non-payment of 1l. 6s., poor's-rate, due to the said parish of Buriton. Granted.
— Joseph Giles was charged with stealing an apron, the property of Ann Aburrow, and two handkerchiefs, the property of John Coombes. It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner had lodged in the house of James Aburrow, the father of Ann Aburrow, in the parish of Buriton, and that John Coombes also was a lodger in the same house; prisoner had left his lodgings about three weeks ago, and on the 28th of August last he went to the house to fetch away his clothes. Ann Aburrow brought his things down stairs and placed them on a table on which were lying at the time an apron belonging to her and two handkerchiefs belonging to John Coombes. Prisoner tied up his clothes in a bundle, and left about eight o'clock in the evening, stating that he was going to Brockhurst. On Sunday morning the apron and handkerchiefs were missed, and were afterwards traced to the prisoner's possession, who was found living at Brockurst. The prisoner’s defence was that the articles in question being on the table with his things he tied them up in his bundle by mistake; that as soon as he got to Brockhurst he found them, and immediately told George Randall, an acquaintance, who had formerly lodged at Aburrow’s, that he had got an apron that did not belong to him, and requested him to write to Aburrows to tell them of it. It further appeared from the evidence of Elizabeth, wife of James Aburrow, that a letter had been written by a Mrs. Rose to her husband (James Aburrow), stating that the prisoner had mentioned having the apron, but said nothing about the handkerchiefs; and as it turned out, upon comparing dates, that the letter was not written until after the prisoner was in custody, the Chairman stated that it was a case of very strong suspicion, but, in, the absence of clear proof of an intention to steal, the Bench would give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt.—He was discharged.