The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-10-14 00:00:00

DUDLEY.

ASSAULTING TIIE POLICE.—On Monday, at the Police
Court, James and Lawrence May, brothers, of Birming-
ham Street, were charged with assaulting Police-con-
stable Dunn. Both prisoners had been charged with
similar offences. James, who was the more seriously
implicated, was sentenced to two months' imprisonment,
with hard labour; and Lawrence to one month, with the
same conditions.

MITCHELL V. VAIIGHAN.—it the bearing of this case in
the County Court a verdict for £5O. was given as damages
for a broken arm. On Tuesday. before Mr. Rupert
Kettle, judge, Mr. Shakespeare, who appeared for Mr.
Vaughatn, asked for a new trial, on the ground that he
had three witnesses who would contradict plaintiff's
witnesses as to the position from which the latter re-
ceived the alleged assault. Mr. Kettle said if Vaughan
at the new trial repeated the evidence he had previously
given the words of three credible witnesses would not
alter his opinion, because the position of Mitchell's wit-
nesses wouid not be material. Sti 1 there was no impro-
priety in making the application. Mr. Shakespere said
he did so at the desire of his client.

AN UNWILLING PROSICUTRIX.-011 Thursday, at the
Police Court, an ironworker, named William isavons,
was charged with a violent assault on Margaret Hill, a
wpm)* with whoa he had been living. The ease had
been adjourned in eonsetaesice of tke uneatislaotory way
Ist Which the woman gave evidence. On Thursday. she
said that a wound she had was caused by herself, for she
was striking defendant with box, and he oily parried
the blow with a knife in his hand.—lnspeetor Kapp said
the woman had told him that defendant stabbed her in
the arm with a knife.—Dr. Higgs said the woman told
him a similar story ; but also said that she had been
asked to state that a broken window cancel the wound.
The 'cut was not made by glass.—The defendant declared
he was innocent, after which the Bench somewhat
reluctantly discharged Jeavons.
PERJURY SOMRWHERE.-At the same Court, Thomas
Rolling, labourer, at the Ley Furnaces, Brockmoor,
was charged with being the putative father of a child be-
longing to Mary Jones, The woman called five wit-
nesses, who detailed in the most circumstantial manner
strong evidenze against Rothiug.—Mr. Waldron, who
defended, called the defendant, and he deliberately
swore that he did nol know the girl beyond a " nodding "
acquaintance; he did .nd know her mother or sister,or any
of Vie people who had sworn they had seen him pay
money to the girl end give other money to the
After this evidence, the Bench sent fur witnesses whose
names had been incidentally mentioned. Rothing was
remanded until Saturday on a charge of committing wil-
ful and corrupt perjury.

IMPORTANT- TO C-OALMAIITDRS AND COLLIER3.—At the
Court, James Williams, miner of Wright's Lane, sued
William Mills, coalmaster, °lithe Waterfall Lane Colliery,
for 1:1 lie 'lid, made opus follows : Five days' work.
at 40 lid per day; two hours, Is. ; and one ten of fire
coal. lUs . Mr. Clulow (Brierley Hill), was for the
plaintiff.—On the 19th August, defendant discharged the
plaintiff viihout notice, and Mr. Breakwell, the agent,
went to him and told him he was wrong. Defendant
then took Williams on, and gave him a proper fourteen
days' notice. During the time of working out his notice
plaintiff had but seven days' work found for him. In
answer to the judge, the plaintiff said he had demanded
his fire coal, and Mr. Mills had told him he could not
send it, but he (Willianis)might pick some, and this the
plaintiff did. In summing-up, the Judge said Mr: Mills
would have to pay the plaintiff for five days' work, al-
though he had not done any. It was for the employer to
find the men full work during the fortnight unless some
accident over which he had no control should have
happened. As to the coal picking he regretted that suck
a wasteful and tempting system should survive if in bat
one pit in aionth Staffordshire. No man can have ot
lawful claim to pick and yet have fire-coal allowance,
i
and as plaiuliff had established his right to pick t
must stand. The verdict would, therefore, be for Li Os
71.