The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-11-16 00:00:00

OLD HILL.

CLIARGE OF PERMITTIVG DRUNIiENNEB3.-At the Police !
(Joint, on Wednesday, before Messrs. NV. Hassan() and B. I
Hingley, Henry Mittington, landlord of the Two Fur-
naces, Powke Lane, Old Hill. Police-constable Farne
sail that he visited the defendant's [liaise about a
quarter-past seven o'clock on the night of the 4th inst
He found a man in the house drunk and he wa3 fast
asleep with his head on the counter. He called the
attention of the defendant to the man asleep who woke
him up. He was sa drunk that he could not stand.
The man was got out of the house and he returned
again shortly and the man was drunk. He had got an
empty glass before him and the landlord denied knowing
the man although he was a frequent visitor at the house.
Mr. W. S. Hayes ,for the defence, said the man was not
drunk and all he had to drink WWI a bottle of ginger beer
The defendant was called and said that all the man had
inithe house was a bottle of ginger beer and when the
police came in he was about putting him out of the
house. James Raybould was called and swore that the
man was sober and he only had a bottle of ginger beer
to drink in the house when he was turned out, He took
him home but he could not say the reason he took him
home for the man was sober. The Bench said they
should not convict in this case, and they had no doubt
that he was drunk but it was proved to their satisfaction
that nothing intoxicating was served by the landlord to
the man named Devlin and they should dismiss the
summons, but said it was a very proper case to bring
.before them.

CHARGE OF BEING DRUNK ON LICENSED PREMISES.—
John Doran was charged with being drunk, on licensed
premises, on the 4th inst. The case was proved by
Police-constable Farnell and defendant was fined 2s 6d
and costs; in default seven days' impria3nment.
Asseuvr CASE.-Eli Hill was charged with assaulting
Eliza Baker, on the 8:h inst. From the evidence of
complainant it appeared that she lived in a house belong-
ing to the defendant. He came to demand the rent and
defendant afterwards caught her by the hair of her head
pulled her to the ground and struck her: Defendant
pleaded guilty.—David Baker, husband to the above
complainant, was charged with assaulting Eli Baker. on
the 6th inst. Defendant pleaded guilty and said the
complainant firbt struck him and they had several rounds
He was fetched from his work in consequence of Hill
assaulting his wife.—Eli Hill was then charged by Sup-
erintendent ,Woo:laston, with being drunk on the night
of the 6th inst. Police-constable Sylvestre proved that
he was sent for. He found the defendant drunk and
creating a distunance in the road. Defendant used very
abusive language and he threatened to lock him up if he
did not go home. Mr. Hayes, for the defence, admitted
that the defendant was the worse for drink as he nad
been assaulted by Baker and he went home and drunk a
quantity of brandy. For the assault upon Mrs. Baker
defendant was fined lOs and costa ; in default fourteen
days' imprisonment; for being drunk defendant was
fined fie and costs ; in default seven days' imprisonment.
Daniel Baker was fined 23 61 and costs; in default seven
days' imprisonment for assaulting Hill. The Bench
said no doubt he had received a good deal of provocation
but he had no right to take the law into his own
hands.

AssAULTING TUE Poracs.—Samnel Smart was charged
with assaulting Police-constable Farm;lL on the Bth
inst. Complaihaut said that he was sent for through the
defendant's violence, lie found the defendant had
turned his wife, child, and mother out of the house.
He reasoned with him when defendant picked up a fire
shovel and struck him on the side of the head. He
knocked off his helmet and shut the door keeping him
outside the house for more than ten minutes. A young
girl fetched his helmet. Defendant was committed to
Stafford for one month's hard labour,
ASSAULT Casa.—Joseph Hill was charged with assault
lug John Davies, on the night of the 9th inst. Corn
plainant said that shortly after ten o'clock he was talk
tug to his sister and a young man when without any pro
vocation defendant came up to him where he stood and
struck him a violent blow on the aide of the head inflict:
jug a wound. Be had just come from his club and he
believed there had been a row just before. Several wit-
nesses were called to corroborate as to the assault but
they said there had been a previous row and fight with
the defendant and his family. The defence was tha the
had some words with his mother-in-law, one word begot
another and they had a fight. A. man named Weid on
and Priest struck him several times with a poker. Some
persons began to atone him and he began to throw stones
back again, one caught complainant on the head. He
denied striking with a poker. Defendant was fined 53
and costs ; in default fourteen days.
VAGRANCY.—SamueI Jones was charged -eith sleeping
in an outhouse, having no visible means of keeping him-
self- Police-constable Stiles proved the case, Superin•
tendent Woollaston said that the defendant had told
several untruths. The charge was dismissed on defend-
ant promising to leave the neighbourhood at once.—A
similar charge was preferred against William and he also
was discharged.
ASSAULT CASE.—John Nock was charged with assault-
ing Thomas Kendrick, on the 26th nit. Mr. W. S
Hayes appeared to prosecute, and Mr. Addison defended
From the evidence of complainant it appears that abon
eleven o'clock at night he was prepared to go to bed
when a Mrs. Bray fetched him ogo to Samuel Baker's
house and when he got there he saw the defendant with
others. As soon as he got into the house the defendant
said " I have given your wife enough now I will give it
yell." With that defendant struck him several times,
knocked him down, and while down kicked him violently.
He was so much injured that be had to have a surgeon
to attend him and he was so ill that the assurance com-
pany had paid him fourteen days for partial disablement.
Jane Kendrick, wife of prosecutor, said that she went to
Baker's house to ask the daughter to come home.
Baker's daughter slept at their house. Defendant was
there and assaulted her and she sent for-her husband
when the defendant assaulted him by knocking him down
and kicking him. Several other witnesses were called
to prove the case. The defence was that there was a
raffle for a watch, Defendant had some tickets to dis-
pose of. He hat sold some tickets but he had not re-
ceived the money. When complainant's wife went for
the money she began to blackguard her and she then
went for her husband. The complainant and him both
fought and the injuries that complainant got were
brought upon himself by his own conduct. Several wit-
nesses were called, who said that complainant's wife was
drunk. She came into Baker's house and called the de•
fendant a thief and other names because he had not paid
6s for selling some tickets for ths raffling of a watch that
complainant was sent for, rolled up his sleeves to fight
and they both fought. Defendant was fined 5s and
costs ; in default seven days.
INTERESTING TO FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.—David
Tromans, harness maker, was summoned by the
treasurer of the Foresters' Pride Lodge (No. 5,305)
of Foresters (Mr. John Thomas Dixon), on account
of unlawfully witholding £3O 15s 11d., money be-
longing to the above society. Mr. Addison, Brierley
Hill, prosecuted, and Mr. Hayes defended.—lt ap-
peared from the evidence that the defendant, with
another man, named Edward Foster ,was empowered
by a resolution of the lodge :to visit the various
lodges in the district in order to solicit help and
collect subscriptions in aid of a fund for the assist-
ance of a member of the "Foresters' Pride." named
Bennett, who had met with an accident causing the
loss of one arm. The defendant had collected .212

Os lid., and he now refused to give it ap unless the
society paid him the sum of £9 as compensation for
his trouble.—Mr. Dixon, the complainant, read the
minutes of the society containing the resolution
empowering the defendant to collect the money,
and also another resolution passed in the presence
of defendant by which it was decided to give de-
fendant and Foster £5 for their tronble. The de-
fendant had supplied a set of harness, valued at £5.
and had also purchased a cart for Bennett, for
which he had paid £B. The treasurer had also re-
ceived £3 15s, and £5 were allowed as commission.
The society had given the defendant credit for all
those amounts, and they required the defendant to
pay over the balance, reckoning .25 only as compen-
tion. The defendant still had £.20 15s, which he
refused io pay over on the ground that £5 was not
sufficient remuneration for his services.—Mr, Hayes
submitted that it was a question for the County
Court.—Mr. Brisson° thought the defendant should
pay over the whole of the amount collected, and
then take any proceedings neccessary in the County
Court to recover the commission.—The Bench ulti-
mately decided that the defendant was bound to pay
over the whole of the money, and made an &der for
him to pay the balance of of £2O 15s 11d. It was
understood that the case would be carried to the
County Court for settlement.