The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-07-15 00:00:00

BRIERLEY RILL.

STEALING Irros.—At the Police Court on Monday,
before Messrs. J. Ho'croft and H. Smith, Clara Morgan
and Elizabeth Morgan were charged with stealing a
quantity of scrap iron, the property of the Great
Western Railway Company, on the 29th Jane. The
case was proved and prisoners were sentenced to 14 days
imprisonment.—James Pigott and Henry Powell were
charged with stealing a quantity of pig iron, the pro-
perty of Mr. H. 0. Firmatone, on the 29th ult.—David
Pritchard and Police-constable Storrer proved the case,
and defendants were sentenced to 14 days' imprison-
ment.
CHARGE UNDER THE METAL ACT.—John Pritchard
was charged under the ;old Metal Act with having a
quantity of old metal in his possession knowing it to be
stolen.—The case was proved by Police-constable Stlrrer
and defendant was fined £lO and costs.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

A. CAUTION.—Joseph Turford was charged by Ben-
jamin Whittaker with being on his premises for an un-
lawful purpose. Prosecutor said he had missed several
things lately and on the night of the Bth July he found
prisoner on his premises. He was arrested and locked
up.—Prisoner was sentenced to one month's imprison-
ment

TILE CHARGE OF PERJURY AGAINST A BRIERLEY HILL
POLICEMAN—At the Stafford Assizes on Thursday, he-
fore Mr. Justice Grove, Robert Holland (on bail) ivas
indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury on the 20th
December, 1875, at Wolverhampton.—Mr. Greene was
for the prosecution, and Mr. Underhill defended the
prisoner.—This case was partly tried at the last Assizes,
but in consequence of an order of affiliation against the
prisoner not having been signed, Mr. Justice Field
decided that the prisoner ought not to have been pat
upon his trial, and it was postponed until the present
Assizes.—The depositions of the prisoner before the
magistrates—out of which the charge arose—were read,
In which he stated that he was a police officer, i.nd
resided with Mr. Satchwell, whose daught, r had aftilia'• I
a child upon him. He swore that he had been called
into Satchwell's bedroom and there saw Satchwell in
bed with his daughter on several occasions, and it was
I, for having sworn this and insinuating that Satchwell and
' his daughter had been guilty of incest.—Mr. Greene
then called William Matehwell, a police-constable, who
said he was stationed in 1874 at Tividale. He was the
father of Mary Ann Satchwell, who with his grand-
daughter lived with him. The prisoner was a ledger
with him (witness), and slept in a room alone. In
Ostober, 1574, his daughter was taken ill with then-
matism, and during the time occupied his bed—it being
a large one. Witness used to return from duty about
three o'clock in the morning, and used to go into the
room where his daughter lay wrapped up in flannels.
His granddaughter was in bed with her at the time.
Witness lay on the bed with his trousers on, and his cost
and waistcoat thrown on a chair at the foot of the bed.
He was never inside the bed with his daughter. In
November his daughter was removed to her own bed-
room. In the month of December he was never in bed
with his daughter.—Cross-examined : If anyone had
come into the bedroom they could not have seen any
part of his body except his head and shoulders. A
young person used to visit his daughter, but she had
never been in the room when he was lying on the bed
with his daughter. Would not swear that he had not
lain on his daughter's bed in the middle of November.
Witness swore that he was always on night duty when
he used to lay on the bed with his daughter; but on
referring to his own diary that he was on the sick list at
that time, and that he had made a mistake in the dates.
He would not swear that he went on night duty during
the time he lay on his daughter's bed.—Mary Ann Satch-
well said, she remembered being ill with rheumatism on
the last of October and beginning of November. During
' that time her father used to come into the room to
"turn her" when she required. He lay upon the bed
under the counterpane, No impropriety ever took place
between herself and father. Holland never came into
the room when her father was there. After she recovered
from her illness something took place between herself
and the prisoner. That was on the 27th December,
1874, and a child was born on the 22nd September, 1875
After the birth of the child, prisoner was told that he
was the father of it, and he said, "What's done can't
be undone."—Cro: a examined Her fat :er never alel.t c n
the bed, and only used to stay about a quarter of an
hour. Simply turned her, and then went to his own
room. Never put any part of his clothes by the side of
the bed, except on one or two occasions, lie was not ill
himself at that time.—Maria Hartshorn, granddaughter
to Satchwell, gave some slightly corroborative and some
contradictory evidence.—Dr. Prse, praetising at Dudley
Port, said he attended Mary Ann Satchwell from 23rd
October to 18th November, and she was suffering from
acute rheumatism, and it was necessary she should be
wrapped in flannel.—Mr. Underhill. for the defence,
submitted that there was no case to go the jury, as the
evidence did not show that what the defendant swore
was sworn wilfully, and as to his having sworn that he
saw the father in bed with his daughter the fact of his
having been under the counterpane had not been die-
puted.—After some discussion the learned Judge
directed the jury to acquit the prisoner, which II s 4
done.
J.)—&t the Stafford
is Sa
'Justice
NZGLIICTING TO RIPAIB • CANAL BRIDGE.- Nam
v
Cbfenefoie nlirg
Mr. Brett. This
was an action brought by Mr, E. S. Poem, surgeon, of
Assize.,
oeuer,b
o ridli
Brierley Hill, for damages caused by the negligence of
the defendants in the repair of a bridge over their canal
Thursday Crasdna‘a y
at Brockmore. The defendants denied their liability to
keep the bridge in repair, denied the accident, and dam-
ages, and alleged contributory negligence. Mr. Starely
Q.C., Mr. Jell, and Mr. Nash were for the plaintiff
and Mr. Powell, Q .C., and Mr. Bosanguet were for the
defendants.—Mr. Jell, in opening the case, said the
action was brought for damages sustained in consequence
of the disgraceful state of the bridge which had been
made by the defendants, under their Act, across the
highway leading from Brockmore to Wordsley, and which
they were bound to keep in repair. There were a great
many holes and ruts, concealed by mud, in the bridge,
which was altogether in:a very shocking condition. On
the I)th of February, Mr. Peerse, who had an extensive '
practice in the district, was going from Brockmoor to
Wordsley, and had to cross the canal bridge. As he was
going over the bridge one of the wheels of his gig
dropped into one of the holes. There was a violent jerk,
a spring was broken, the groom was thrown out, the
horse was frightened and started off at a gallop, presently
smashing the gig to pieces, aud the plaintiff narrowly
escaped the fate of the groom by falling from the vehicle.
Mr. Pearse claimed £25, for the gig, £7, 10e. for the
harness, £l7. Ips. for the horse, .t 3. 3s. for medical at.
tendance to his injured ankle, £l2 for loss of practice
and some disbursements. Tt.e pllintiff in his cross-ex-
amination admitted that he lashed the horse, which had
been pluneing and rearing, and refused to go in the
direction he wished.—Mr. J. W. Beckley, surveyor to
the Brierley Hill Local Board, said he considered the
bridge dangerous for vehicles. Be had counted, since
the accident, eighteen holes in the bridge and its ap-
proaches, two of them two feet wide by four feet long and
six inches deep. They were nearly bidden from view by
water:and mud.—Mr. Wooldridge, surveyor, Stourbridge
said he examined the bridge on the 26th of February,
when the holes had been filled up with broken bricks
and other materials, and he found some of these holes
were four to six inches below the ordinary level of the
road.—Mr. Thompson, a member of the Brierley Hill
Local Board, Mr. M. Ravrlinson, surveyor, and other
witnesses were called.—For the defence Mr. Pow ell sub-
mitted that no liability had been proved against the
company. It was not a bridge at all, bin a road over a
culvert, and the company were not liable to keep it in
repair.—The Judge said he thought there was evidence
of liability, and Mr. Powell proceeded to address the
jury. He contended that the canal company were not
legally liable for the repairs of the bridge, and went on
to say that the plaintiff had himself brought about the
accident. He was driving an unbroken horse, which no
rational man would drive along a highway. He came up
the Brockmoor Road. and wished to go to Wordsley, but
when he reached the point where the roads branched of
the horse absolutely refined to go in that direction. The
plaintiff lashed the horse in the most furious and violent
manner, and after rearing and plunging for some time
the animal turned round and ran in an opnesite direction.
The plaintiff drove it round to the same point, still
lashing it violently, and it then went to the hill leading
to the bridge, where, in consequence of plaintiff's furious
driving, one of the springs of the gig snapped, and the
accident happened at a considerable distance from the
bridge.—Mr. Taylor, town surveyor, Stourbridge ; Mr.
Wood, lime merchant, Brockmoor ; Mr. Edward Turner,
surgeon. Wordsley ; Mr. Sankey, horsebreaker, Stour
bridge ; Mr. Meredith, surveyor of three districts in the
parish of Kingswiaford. and other witnesses, were called
to prove that the horse driven by the plaintiff was un-
broken and unmanageable; that he causad it to take
fright by beating it; and that the accident occured at
some distance from the bridge. Mr. Powell contended
that although the defendants were bound to provide
culverts, they were not liable to repair the roads over
them.—Mr. Justice Brett held that they were liable. If
they were not otherwise liable, they had made them-
selves so by undertaking the repair of the road .—Mr.
Powell summed up the defendants' ease, and Mr. Hill
replied —The learned Judge summed up the whole case,
and the jury retired to consider their yerdiet. After an
hour's absence, they returned with a verdict for the
plaintiff for £2o.—The Judge declined to give Mr.
Powell leave to move on the ground of misdirection.