The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-08-26 00:00:00

BRIERLEY HILL.

DRUNK AND ItloTous.—At the Police Court, on Mon-
day, before Messrs. F. Evers and L. Freer, John Abbott
and John Capewell were charged with being drunk and
riotous at Quarry Bank, on the 14th inst.—Police-con-
stable Godly proved the case and defendants were fined
is and costs each. _

CAUTION TO PUBLICANS.—Thomas Bloomer, landlord
of the Red Lion Inn, Maughn Street, Quarry Bank,
was charged with keeping his house open during pro-
hibited hours, on the 10th inst.—Police-constable Godly
said he was on duty in Maughn Street, Quarry Bank,
about one o'clock on the 10th just, and whilst near de-
fendant's house he saw two women come oht, one of the
women was intoxicated. He went to the house and
found the door wide open. On going into a room he
saw defendant, his wife, and another woman. There
was a jug on the table but it was empty. Witness asked
defendant how he accounted for the door being open
and he said the brewer had gone out and left the door
open, and that the woman was there to assist his wife
with the brewing.—Defendant said the brewer, a man
named Hampton, who was defendant's father-in-law
had gone out of the door and having forgotten some-
thing he turned back and left the door undone. The
woman that was in the house came there for the purpose
of assisting his wife with the brewing.—Hampton was
called and said there was only a woman in the house and
she assisted defendant's wife to brew. He left the door
open himself because he went back for something he
had forgotten. The Bench were of ()Onion that defend-
ant had committed the offence with which he was
charged and fined him lOs and costs; in default 14
days.
A LIVELY LOT.—Richard Hill and William Round
were charged with assaulting Mary Ann Hill, on the 7th
inst.—Mary Ann Hill was also charged with assaulting
Louisa Round on the same day.—Mr. Waldron appeared
for Mrs. Hill, and Mr. Addison for the Rounds and
Richard Hill.—Mary Ann Hill said the defendant Hill
was her husband. He had left her seven months and
had been living with the Rounds. On the above date
she went to Rounds house and asked her husband to
give her some money to buy food for the children, It
was about half-past two. Her husband said he should
not allow her anything. Round caught hold of witness
-n1 told her to go out and struck her on the mouth,
loosening two of her teeth. Witness's husband told
Rota 1 to lay it on to her and kill her. Round after-
wards put her out and kicked at her. Her husband
helped Round to put her out. Cross-examined: There
is another man named Chubby living with me. I did
not hear my husband gay if I would send Chubby away
he would come back to me.—Mr. Addison called several
witnesses for the defence, who all swore positively that
Round nor Hill did not strike Mrs. Hill and the Bench
dismissed both cases.
FACTORY ACTS PROSECUTIONS.—Joseph Penn, iron-
founder, Cradley Heath, was summoned by Mr. W. H.
Brewer, Sub-inspector of Factories, for allowing a boy
to he employed in his works after the hour of five
o'clock in the evening and before five o'clock in the
morning, on the 20th July.—Mr. Wyndham (from the
office of Messrs. Corser and Walker, Stourbridge),
appeared for the defence.—John Walker, a boy, said he
I.ved at the Five Ways, Cradley Heath, and he had
been working at Mr. Penn's forge for Harry Bowater
about six or seven months. Ho had worked between
the hour of five in the evening and five in the morning.
14 e should be 13 years of age in February next. Cross-
exa.nincd Mr Bowater pays me my wages and I have
nothing to do with Mr. Penn or Mr. Edwarrls.—Harry
Bowater said he lived at Brettell Lane and was a roller
at Hr. Penn's works at Cradley Forge. The lad Walker
was in his employ on the 20th July. Mr. Penn had
never cautioned him about employing lads at night.
Croes-examined: I employ who I like and I am paid by
the ton. My attention had not been called to the
abstract of the Factory Act which hangs on the office.
I may have received a caution from one of the firm
that if he infringed the regulations of the Act he would
have to pay himself.—By Mr. King, the magistrates
clerk: I have never received a caution from Mr. Penn
or any one else that I could not work the lads at night.
—Mr: Brewer said on the 24th July he visited Mr.
Penn's work and saw the boy Walker and Mr. Edwards.
Nitness asked Mr. Edwards how it was they were work-
ie g the lads nights and both Mr. Edwards and young
Mr. Penn pleaded ignorance.—Mr. Wyndham Con-
tended that the roller was the proper person to sum-
mons and called Samuel Edwards, who said he was a
p trtner with Mr. Penn, and the lads were not empl)yed
in any way by him, the lads were hired and paid by the
rollers and shinglers. He told Bowater that if he in-
-1,-inged upon the Factory Acts they should expect him to
ply any expense that was incurred. If he had been
aware that lads were working at nights they would not
have allowed it.—Mr. Wyndham here asked that the
c Ise should be adjourned to enable Mr. Brewer to take
out a summons against the proper person.—Mr. Brewer
said that all Mr. Wyndham had to do was to show that
doe diligence had been used.—The Bench retired for
a )me time and in returning into court. Mr.3Evers, said
ie the first place they did not think there would be any
cause to adjourn the case and in the second place they
lei not think that due diligence had been used to pre-
vent the boys working at night and as it was the first
o .se of that desciptlon that had been brought before
them they should merely inflict the minimum penalty
or £2 and costs.—There were two other cases against
Mr. Penn, but Mr. Brewer said he should be content if
tefendant paid costs and this course was accepted —The
two parents of the boys were also summoned for allow-
ing their children to be employed at night. Mr. Brewer
withdrew these summonses on payment of costs-7s in
each case.—One of the parents was further charged
with neglecting to cause his child to attend school, as
required.—Mr. Brewer said he charged the parent with
this as the boy was bound to attend school un ler the
Factory Act on the 21st, but though he went to work
on that day, he failed to attend school. This was a
•erious matter for the school, as it was the ex Imination
Jay, and defendant's boy was well advanced, and would
have done credit to the school.—Mr. Brewer also with-
drew this c ise, with the sanction of the Bench, on pay-
ment of costs, 7s.—The third parent was not summoned,
us he was, and had been for some time, crippled by
rheumatic fever.