The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1876-04-18 00:00:00

POOLE

PLITT Sas6l,lllll, Th—urlttlitv.—B•fore Met.rs. F. T.
Rogers, C. .J. Stone, H. D. Ellis, W. D. Davisle, G. H
an 4 .1. B. 'hunt
. . . .

_
ElizabstA Janva wife of Arthur James. was urumontxl
for inciting William Rixey, to commit a breach of the
peace at Poole, on the nth April. —Mr. IL Aldridge for
complainant; Mr. IL T. Trcvanion for defendant —The
parties are neighbours, and c plainant alleged that
defendant dew at hint, wrung her fists in his fare, touched
hint under the ear, and said, with im satli, she would do
something for him, at the Milne time making use of
threatening language. —Frederick Goff gave evidence for
the defence contradictory of that of .-omplainarit—Before
deciding this case the Bench heard a charge against
William Bizey, of wilfully damaging a quantity of rain
water, the property of Arthur Jarues, on the same
occasion.—lt was proved that defendant emptied his slop
pails into the complainant's water huitiand • sample of
the water, which smelt frightful, was produced in court.
--The Bench sentenced Bitey to a month's hard labour.
and dismissed the first case.

—iieg-j-a.n.iiii"-I.:a7;e•-i;;who-liad been remanded on a charge
of stealing • blanket the property of his daughter, was
brought up and discharged, the magistrates being of
opinion that it bad not been clearly proved he was aware
the blanket belonged to his daughter.
Edward Kalamai', painter, was summoned for assaulting
Charles Hill Smith, at Upper Parkstone. on April nth.-
Smith was also summoned for assaulting the son of
Kellaway on the previous Sunday- Mr.
appeared for Kellaway. -The Bench considered neither of
the cases ought to have been brought before thou, and
disiuisaud them.

11-C7i;‘,.. irederiek Greenslade. and /Aboard Daeis,
three boys, pleaded guilty to playing at piteh and to.a in
the Lady' Walking Field, Longfleet, n Sunday evening
last--The offendere were cautioned and judgment wai
suspended whilst they behaved themselves.
BOARD OF GUARDIANS.

The usual meeting of this 11;ard was held. on Thurs.ler,
and was attended by the following elected Guardians:—
Mr. .1. Harman (rhainuan), Messrs. K. C. Oakley. J. W.
Buckley, J. W.lf, R. Slade, F. 31illns, J. Rawlins, 6.
Curtis, and W. Meadus.
_

-167 • •im Ida cm re i) the LEINE it appeared that the
expenditure during the past half.year had amounted to
.C 3,010 13a sd.

Tilt IX-OPTICIO ijrtSTION.
The CLF.RII read the copy of a letter he had &Wrested
to the Local Government Board, with reference to the
refusal of the Chairman at the list meeting to sign a
cheque for payment of hit increased salary. Mr. Slade,
in his letter, did nnt give the Chairinan's reasons for
refusing to sign the cheque, and this we, commented
on by the CHAIRMAN, Mr. CURTIS. and other Guardians.
A letter that had been received that morning on
the question from the Local Government Board was
now read. It merely referred the Board to a MRs
of correspondence that had already passed on the
matter, some of which was dated KN. In that year the
Poor Law Commissioners, in answer to Mr. U. Kemp-
Welch, the Clerk to the Justices, expressed an opinion
that the justices of the borough had aright to sit and vote
its ea-official. A letter from the Poor Law Board in ISM,
in answer to • communication (rein Mr. lower, showed
that although the Attorney. General, Sir William Follett,
had expressed himself somewhat favourably to the right
3f the es-ollsioi to vote, he added that the matter had
never been decided in • court of law, and the interpreta-
tion of the clause of the Act of Parliament was not free
from doubt.
. . . . . .

These letters having been read, the Guard ens were left
in exactly the same position as before.
Mr. CURTIS was of opinion that if the Cgairman had
signed the cheque he would have been liable to be
sereh.mea the amount, in the face of the resolution
that had been p•i•ed rescinding the increase. Having
spoken of the Clerk's letter, he proposed a resolution
to the effect that the Clerk be instructed to write to
the Local Government Board, enclosing a copy of the
resolution passed on December the 9th, by which the
resolution of the 25th of November granting the increased
salary was rescinded, which was one of the reasons for the
Chairman's refusal to sign the cheque ; • further reason
being that the Chairman was waiting a reply from the
Local Government Board, to a letter he sent to the.o on
the 6th of January, in answer boa letter received from
them by him on the 3rd of the same month.
Mr. OAKI.ZY seconded the proposition, which was
carried six voting for it, and the other three Guardians
abstaining from voting
In the course of a discussion it was mentioned that the
letter referred to at the last meeting had been rooml to
be in the poesession of the Chairman, and the Clerk
undertook to insert it in the margin of the minute-book.