The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-05-20 00:00:00

TFJ 14: STOT TB P anx3-F OBSERVER.

reached their minimum. By the leading firms
marked bars and strip are quoted ; hoops,
.0. 10s. to £10.; plates, £lO. to £11.; and sheets
£ll. Unmarked iron may be had at £7. 10s.
for bars, and some even lower transactions are
reported. Although the production of pig-iron
in this district has now been reduced to some-
thing less than 6,000 tons weekly, stocks are
still heavy. The leading qualities of native all-
mine pig, however, are very firm, at £4. ss, to
£4. 10s. for hot blast. Cold-blast is £5. 10s.
Cinder pig is quoted £2. 15s. to £3. 55., accord-
ing to quality, but for large orders
.22. 12s. 6d. is accepted. The importation of
cheap pig-iron from some of the northern dis-
tricts continues on a rather large scale. Coal is
in abundant supply and easy.

transfer of St. Thomas's Schools to the Board,
that the Managers had verbally informedhim they
did not propose to attend the meeting, as they had
nothing further to lay before the Board, but they
were about issuing a circular to the ratepayers.
Of this he had a copy, and it was to the ffect
that the Managers of St. Thomas's Schools were
desirous of transferring their schools to the
School Board, but they were unable to do so
until a debt of about 1-300 affecting the schools
was paid off. At present the schools were
in a better state of efficiency than for many
years, but as the income was not equal to the re-
quired expenditure, each year had been adding to
the deficiency. The Education Department would
not sanction the School Board paying any more
than a nominal rent, and the Managers submitted
to the ratepayers that they would be necessitated
to close the schools at Midsummer unless some
means were devised by which the debt might be
paid off and the 6choole trantrtrred to the School
Board. Should the schools be closed, the rate-
payers would be obliged to provide new schools,
at a cost of several thousand pounds, and the
Managers trusted that the ratepayers and the
public would see it to be for their interests to
provide some way for the extinction of the debt,
and thus enable the Managers to transfer the
schools to the School Board from Midsummer
next.

The Clerk stated that Mr. Sinalinan Smith, the
architect had given notice to the contractor, Mr.
C. Horton, to proceed with the new schools in Hill
Street without further delay, and he afterwards
received a letter from Mr. Horton's solicitors
stating that Mr. Horton had been stopped twice
by the Clerk of the Works, And that the concrete
which he was supplying (and which had been ob-
jected to) was of the best quality. They could
support their client's position by skilled and com-
petent witnesses, and he was prepared to proceed
actively with his contract but for being im-
properly stopped.
Mr. Smith, in reply, wrote statinc, that the Clerk
of the Works acted as directed by the specifica-
tion and contract; that certain materials were
specified to be used in the concrete; and that no
one would interfere with Mr. Horton in the proper
discharge of his duty, but he should be glad to
see the works progress satisfactorily, anct without
further delay.
The Board discussed the position in which they
stood with regard to Mr. Horton; and in reply to
a question,
Mr. Smith said Mr. Horton had not proceeded
with proper despatch with the works. The con-
tract was signed six months ago, and yet very little
was done. After he sent Mr. Horton formal notice
to proceed with the works nothing was done till
the expiration of the 14 days.
Mr. Stringer suggested, whether they should not
adjourn for a few days, and see what possibility
there was of the contractor proceeding vigorously
with the works.
This did not fall in with the views of the other
members, and it was revolved to recommend the
architect to give the contractor notice to suspend
the execution of the works, and to procure tenders
by suitable persons to complete the contract.
There was no other business.

was near the Bulls' :Head Inn, Rowley. Defendant
called to him and on going to him he knocked witness
down with a brick and he was bleeding likes pig. When
he came to himself again he saw a man named Jones
standing by him. Jones went with him to Lyeett's
house. Defendant's wife came to the door and said she
had come to take Lycett's part. She had a poker in her
hand and she struck witness on the bead and shoulders
nith it. He dii not strike her back and as he was going
home four men set about him.—Saasuel Taylor and his
wife said they saw Lycett on the ground with Beasley on
tbe top of him. Beasley set his dog on Lycett and it
tore his hair off.--Beasley was then charged with
assaulting Mrs. Lycett.—Complainant said after the row
with her husband, Beasely came to her house. When
she opened the door he struck her in the eye and
knocked her down. She got up and asked him what he
had done it for and he said he had given her husband is
b---- good hiding and then knocked her down again and
kicked her on the legs, injuring her severely.—The
charge against Lycett was dismissed and in the chwige
against Beaeley for the assault on Mrs. Lycett, defendant
was sentenced to one month's hard labour, without the
option of a fine.

LARmiNY.—William Lees was charged with stealing a
bucket and 2 hoes, the property of Joseph Hackett, on
or about the 11th of May. Mr. W. Hayes jun., appeared
to prosecute and Mr. Addison defendeu.—Prosecutor
said he was a colliery manager. Prisoner was in his
employ until the middle of last December and since then I
he had been engaged at various times. The bucket 1
produced was his property and in January he gave it to I
the prisoner to take to Bennett's, at Blackheath, for re- 1
pairs. He did not see it again until he found it in a
ei,tern on his own premises. He had missed several
other things. In consequence of information he re- I
ceived he sent his wife to prisoner on Thursday night
and gave prisoner into custody on Friday. Prisoner •
was charged with stealiag one bucket and two hoes. '
Prisoner told witness the bucket was on the premises and
he told witness's wife it was at Bennett's. Witness
asked him why he told his wife that tale, and he said he
never told her the truth in his life; he always told her
lies. The cistern was about 9 feet from prisoner's wall
and he could easily throw the bucket from the well into
the cistern. Witness saw the cistern on the Sunday
previous and the bucket was not there then.—Emma
Hackett, wife of prosecutor, said she went to prisoner's
house on the 11th inst. She asked prisoner for the
bucket and 2 hoes that belonged to her husband. He said
he had taken the bucket to Bennett's to be mended, and
that the hoes belonged to himself.—Amelia Parry said
she lived next door to prisoner and had seen a bucket
similar to the one produced in prisoner's possession.
The bucket she saw on prisoner's premises had Lime in
it and the bucket produced had lime marks on it.—
Police-constable Human, stationed at Rowley, said he
apprehended prisoner on the 12th just, and charged him
with stealing one bucket and two hoes, the property of
Joseph Hackett. Prisoner said witness would dud the
bucket on prosecutor's premises in the cistern. He also
said he had taken the bucket to be mended and that the
hoes were his own property, but he added that before
tuere ehou:d be any bother about the hoes he would
have two more made at his own cost. —ln answer to the
clerk whether he would be tried ey the sitting magis-
trutes or be tried at the Stafford Sessions, prisoner said
lie would go to the Sessions to be tried and pleaded not
guilty.—Atter a short consultation with his client, Mr.
Addison said he would have the ease tried there —Mr.
Hingley : We will not let you. He has said himself he
at 1 go to Stafford to be tried and he will have to go
re was a further charge against prisoner for stealing
4s, toe property of Joseph Haokett.—Prisoner was re-
manded for a week, bail being accepted.
FLIENDLT SoCiLTr CAsx.—John Smith was charged
by William Saddler, one of the trustees of Court Robin
Flood's Cave Ancient Order of Foresters, held at the
British Oak, Old Hill, for refusing to deliver up a con-
tribution book belonging to the society. Mr. W. Hayes,
jun., appeared for complainant.—Edward Lewis said he
was Eeeietary to the society, and produced the rules and
regulations. The secretary was elected annually and
witness was appointed in July last. Defendant was for-
merly secretary to the society and had given up all the
boolis except the one contribution book without which
they could not get their return made out.—William
Saddler said he was one of the trustees of the society.
Witness had demanded the book from defendant and he
would not give it up. He said he should sot give it up
without he was obliged. He said he had some money
coming to him for work done.—Defendant said he would
give up the book if they would examine and sign it.—
Ordered to give up the book.
IMPORTANT FACToRY ACTS PROsECUTIONS.—Messrs.
George and Thomas Wood, of the Brades Brickworks,
Twiddle, were charged with employing a number of
girls under the age of sixteen in their brickyard. Mr.
Blenkinsopp, inspector of factories, withdrew one of the
cases, the girl referred to in it being above sixteen; and
in the other cases defendants pleaded guilty. Having
mentioned the sections of the Asts under which the
proceedings were taken, and which forbid, after January
1, 1872, the employment of any female uncle: sixteen
years of age in the manufacture of bricks. Mr. Bleukin-
sopp said of course the laws on the subject were well
known now, notwithstanding this, several young girls
had been employed at defendants' works for sours time.
He made arrangements to visit the place on May 6, and,
in company with Mr. Brewer and some officers, they
went to this brickyard. He saw several girls run away
as they approached, and when he got on the ground he
requested young Mr. Wood to produce them. Some
were brought, and they found nixe girls and a boy bidden
in a hovel, end shortly afterwards another girt was pro-
duced who had been hidden in what was called the odd
stuff (clay). She must have been there an hour and a
hall, and ~as vet y ill. He nand inform the Bench that
he visited the yard when the Act came into force, and
left a copy of the rules, and he visited it again in 1874.
kJ e then found a girl under age at work, but Messrs.
Wood promised it should not occur again, and he let
there off. Last year he found a girl named Mulray at
work, but again did not take proceedings, and she was
ose of the girls found in the yard on May 6. The ages
0: the g rls foutd in the yarn were : Eliza Johnson, 14,
smma Morris, 15, Charlotte Franks, 12, Elizabeth Mul-
ray 13, Mary Carroll, 15, Elizabeth Harvel,l4, Mary
Lockley, 12, Catherine Hamilton, 12, Mary Wiggetts,
114, Sarah Evans, 12, Catherine Mereer, 14, Ann
Connolly 15. He had obtained the ages from the
registrar of births at West Bromwich. Several of the
girls had been caught at work at other brickyards at
Oldbury, and they knew what the law was. The Corn.
, 111 eisumers who went into the question of the employ-
' meut of females in la. ickyarde thought it would be a
hardship t, stop all female labour, but by fixing the limit
of age at 16 it was hoped the practice would gradually
die out.—Sly. Freer said the case was very different
where a man acted in ignorance, and where he placed
' the law at defiatice.—Mi. Blenkinsopp said ke did not
like to press for heavy penalties, but this was a case
where ten organised deception had been carried on.—Mr.
U. Wood said he did not understand the remark about
rgauieation or deception.—Mr. Blenkinsopp said he
meant that where the law was well known, and persons
were employed in violation of it, it seemed as if it were
plauued.—Mr. Wood: The charge of organisation or
deception on our part or that of the girls is very wrong.
—Mr. Bleukinsopp said he should like to call Mr.
Brewer, that, the Bench might have his statement.—Mr.
Se oud said while they admitted their neglect in not
, keeping these girls from working, they must say the
were not emloyed by •them direct.—Mr. Hini;ley :
But ou are responsible.—Mr. Wood admitted the re-
suoneibility, but said tl. e thing had been neglected by
his brother. They asked the indulnence of trie Bench
t ,41 once, and pi om•sed it should not occur again.—!r.
Bienkiusopp : But it has occurred several times befere,
and this Mr. Wood is tee manager of the works. He
, must see the girls at %so k, he cannot help it.—Mr. Sub-
inspector Brewer was then exameed, and said he visited ,
I the works with Mr. Bleuk:nsopp and a police officer last
year, and as they came round a coal mound they saw
these girls or some others running away. That man
(poiating to ns of the defendants). deliberately shut him
out, cud he ought to have been summoned for obstruc-
tem They found the girls this time fastened ins hovel,
with a plank against the door to keep them in.—Mr.
Wood: Who put them in ?-51r. Grower: I don't know,
but your brother knew they were fiere.—Mr. Wood
complained of Mr. Brewer being " a more eliensive man
Luau he had ever met with hi his We," and spoke of the
offensive vt,.y in which Le persecuted people.—Mr.
Bienkinsopp earn that was going too far.—Mr. Brewer
said they had to take five constubles to suiround the
works.—Mr. Wood : Why did you require all this assist-
ance ?—Mr. Brewer : Because you put obstructions in
our way before. It was well known defendants had
been carrying on this game for some time; thy had
been watched.—Mr. Wood told Mr. Brewer to remember
he was on his oath.—Mr. Brewer also gave evidence as
tJ the girl hid in the odd stuff, and who was got out in
a fainting state.—Mr. Wood, in reply to a question, said
hs had nothing more to say beyond what he had said.—
Major Smith said the Bench were determined to put a
stop to tit )se praaticss if they could. Where it was a
o • of ibnorsace they did not wish to be bard; but
wuere it was a case of wiifulness—.—Mr. Wood: May
I say it is not exactly wilful /—Major Smith sal I it was
a defiance of the law, and they were determined to nee
I heavily iu these cases. They should fine defendant £1
and costs in each ease. The registrar's charge for the
osrtificales of age (Is 64 each) was allowed, arid the
tetel penalties and costs amounted to £23 2s.—Cases
s, io it called en against the parents of tke girl. for
them to be employed under 16 years of age in
the ana..ufacture of bricks.—William Johnston, who hail
been tined before, was/finsd be and costs. Tbowas
Morris was fined 2a fid and costs; Henry Franks, 56 *Lie
c.ieie ; and John Muirsy, 6s and costs. Mulray was lie
fat asr of the girl found lidden in the odd stuff; and in
res. end nearly all the other cases, Mr. Bleakinsopp seta
I parents had i, e r caatioaed beCore. John Harvey
ea, tined Is and coots ; William Carroll, 2s 6d and
C 'ate; Henry Mercer, 5s and costs; John Wiggetts, is
and costs; Margaret Loat'sy, is and costs. John
14VSLIS- was similarly charled, and his wife made the
aefeuce that the girl referred to in the summons only
went to the brickyard to take her sister's breakfast, and
stopped a little to help her. Mr. Blenkinsopp said that
was the way the evil often arose. A girl would go to the
brickyard and work a little, and if she was not caught
I she would work longer the next day, and so on till she
came to be employed .full time. The mother asserted
the girl went to school 'regularly, and she handed to the
Bench a note from the alleged seho&-nistrese to this
effect. It was an exeorable specimen of the schoolmis-
tress's attainments, and Mr. Freer remarked it was either
a forgery, or a note disgraceful to the schoolmistress
who wrote it. The Bench fined the defendant 5s and
costs. The following is a correct copy of the letter
May 16 1876