PETERSFIELD.
Agent—Miss Duplock

     PETTY SESSIONS, August 24.—Present the Hon. J. J. Carnegie (Chairman), J. H. Waddington, Esq, Sir J. C. Jervoise and J. Martineau, Esq.

—This was the annual day for granting licenses to public-houses, and the whole of the old licenses were renewed. Mr. Superintendent Fey, on being asked by the Bench, stated that he had no complaint to make against any of the houses.
— William Clark applied for a license for the Good Intent, in the parish of Catherington, which was granted.
— Henry Hounsome, of the parish of Steep, was charged by William Painter, P.C. 174, with having, on the night of Monday, the 9th instant, kept his house open for the sale of beer after ten o’clock. Defendant pleaded guilty, and two convictions having been recorded against him he was fined 1l. and 7s. 6d. costs, and cautioned that if a second conviction should take place within the year he would be liable to a penalty of 10l., and for a third  conviction within the same period 50l.
— Henry Newman was charged with an assault on James Thomson. Defendant did not appear. Police-constable Wm. Painter deposed that he had not been able to serve the summons on defendant personally, but had left it at his usual place of residence. The Bench decided that this was not sufficient, as the act requires personal service in a case of assault. Complainant was afterwards told that a fresh, summons would be issued without further expense.
— George Winter v. Wm. Newman and Henry Newman—This was a case for malicious damage. Defendants did not appear. (Henry Newman was the defendant in the former case, which, in fact, arose out of the present one, as James Thomson was assisting Winter when Newman assaulted him.) Complainant deposed as follows: I keep the Half-Moon at Sheet. On the 8th instant, about 20 minutes before nine in the evening, William and Henry Newman came into my house; William was a little in liquor, and stripped to fight any one. I asked him to leave the room. He said he would not for me. My wife and I got him out of the tap-room into the passage. He sat down in the passage, and swore I should not draw any beer for anyone else unless I brought him some. I said I should not do so. I then put him out of doors and shut the door. Henry was in the tap-room all this time, and when he found his brother was out he wished to get him in again. I would not allow it, and got him out also; this was nearly ten o’clock. I went out of the side-door, and saw them both shaking the front-door with their hands and kicking it with their feet. The sill gave way and the door and frame came out. They then went away. The shaking lasted about ten minutes. I have had the damage repaired, and it cost me 3s. Defendants were fined 7s., with damages 3s. and costs 10s., or, in default, 21 days’ imprisonment.
— Ellen Lambert v. Ann Lock.—This was a charge of assault, arising out of some long standing bickering between the parties, who live in adjoining cottages in the parish of Buriton. Complainant alleged that defendant knocked her down between seven and eight o’clock on the morning of Thursday, the 12th inst. She called a little girl (her husband’s sister) as a witness, who stated that the assault took place between four and five in the afternoon. Defendant denied having struck any blow at all, although complainant repeatedly said, ‟Come and hit me.” She merely put her hands against her bosom and pushed her from her door. Defendant’s statement, like that of complainant, was supported by the evidence of a very little girl. The Magistrates, after a patient hearing of the case, dismissed the complaint.
— Sarah Heath v. George Eaton.—This was another assault case, in which defendant did not appear. Complainant, who keeps the Railway Arms, in the Square, Petersfield, deposed that defendant came to her house between three and four in the afternoon of the 9th instant, and asked for a quart of stout; he was the worse for liquor and she refused to draw it for him. He then commenced a volley of abuse against her and her daughter, using such bad language that her daughter was compelled to leave the room. She (complainant) tried to put him out. He resisted, pulled down the blinds, broke a chair, and tore her dress, besides hurting her hand, so that she had scarcely been able to use it since; Fined 1s. and 7s. 6d. costs, or 7 days’ imprisonment.
— Elizabeth Rogers was brought up under a warrant charged on the information of Mr. Henry Glasse, Clerk to the Board of Guardians of the Catherington Union with having from the 18th September, 1855, neglected her children, Rebecca and Moses, whereby they had become chargeable to the parish of Chalton in the said Union. Defendant pleaded not guilty. James Pickford, the master of the Union house, proved the chargeabiIity of the children, and that they had been admitted by order of the Board of Guardians on the 18th September, 1855, and were still inmates of the house. Kitty Wells, deposed: I am the wife of John Wells, of the parish of Chalton, defendant is my daughter, she has three children, she is a widow, two of the children are in Catherington Union house, their names are Rebecca and Moses, their ages about 9 and 7, my daughter lives in London, she works at her needle, she is now at home with me, unwell, is out of employ, and has nothing to live upon. I am certain she has no means of keeping the children. I have often remitted money to her to keep her off the parish, she has been in the country seven weeks, living with me, she maintains one child with her in London, that child is not 3 years old, it is not by her husband, who died about five years ago. The Bench enquired of Mr. Glasse, if he had any proof of defendant’s ability to keep the children, to which he replied that he had not. Defendant stated that she was quite unable to keep the children, she did not earn more than 4s. a week. When her husband died she staid a year and a half with her parents, and then went out to service, she lived in service in Petersfield, and afterwards went to London, she could not possibly do more than support herself and one child on her scanty earnings. The Bench having deliberated for some time, the chairman announced that as the case involved a most important principle, the magistrates would take time to consider their decision, and the case was therefore adjourned to that day fortnight.