The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-12-07 00:00:00

OLD HILL.

CHARGE or DRUNKENNESS.—At the Police Court held
on Wednesday, before Messrs. F. L. Smith, and H.
Howard, Thomas Blunt was charged with being drunk on
the highway at Cradley, on the 26th ult. Police-constable
Gaskin proved the case. Defendant admitted that he had
a little drop. Fined 2s 6d and costs ;in default 14 days.
—William Cox was charged with being drunk at Tevidale,
on the night of the 30th ult. Police-constable Given
proved the case. Fined 2s. 6d. and costs ; in default 14
days.
APPLICATION FOR BEER LICENSE.—Mr. Stokes applied
on behalf of Thomas Homer, for a license to sell beer off
the premises. Mr. Stokes said the applicant had applied
for a license on a former occasion, but the Bench did
not considered the annual value, proved to their satis-
faction. The usual notices were proved, and Mr. White-
house proved the annual value. Mr. Hayes opposed, the
application was granted.
CAUTION 'TO CoLueas.—Thomas Hill a collier, was
charged with having in his possession in a pit, a-pound-
and-a-half of powder, contrary to the rules. Gas
having been found in the pit, within the last three months.
Mr. Stokes defended. John Davis, manager to the Oak.
ham colliery, said the defendant was a miner, and worked
at the colliery. The rules are posted up at the colliery.
On the above date he went to measure up the defendaat's
work in his stall, he saw a powder can in the stall, at
once picked it up, asked defendant whose can it was, de-
fendant said it was his;own. The can contained a-pound
and-a-half of loose powder. Thomas Davis, the doggy,
gave corroborative evidence and said that he went into the
defendants stall in consequence of having heard he was
going to blow a hole, remonstrated with him, when de-
fendant said he should blow the hole, and that it did not
matter who was in the pit.—Samuel Winn, and Richard
Westwood, miners, were then charged with firing shots in
the pit, contrary to the mining regulation, proved by the
officials at the pit, whose evidence was to the effect that
gas had been discovered in the pit three months previ-
ously: that the defendants, with others, had been
repeated;y cautioned not to fire shots without the
instructions of the overseer. It was admitted, however,
that notwithstanding the frequent warnings given as to
their conduct, the men were iu the habit of firing shots
in the absence of competent persons.--With reference t
the charge against Hill, Mr. Stokes submitted that there
was:no evidence to show that gis existed in the pit within
three months of the alleged offence. There was no of-
fenoe in taking powder into a pit.—The Clerk: Taking
it down and using it is a very different thing. Powder
was not to be taken into a mine in a loose state at all ;
it should be taken in cartridges. Mr. Smith said it was
clear that powder should not be taken down tt e pit under
any circumstances. The Bench had, however, come to
the conclusion that the case fell throngh, as their was no
evidence to show that gas was found in the pit within
the time specified. The case against Hill was accordingly
dismissed. Mr. Stokes then addressed the Bench on be.
half of the other defendants, contending that the men
fired the shots under the direction of competent persons.
He could show that for three years the men had been
allowed to fire their own shots in the pit, and it was not
until recently that the irregularity was discovered, and
the men, were made the scapegoat, and were summoned
for that which they had been allowed to do regularly for
the past three years at least. The men were being un-
justly and harshly treated in being made to suffer for
those men who formerly had charge of the pit —Wit-
nesees were called to prove that the men had been in the
habit of firing their own shots for the last five years,
without interference from the pit officials.—Mr. Smith
characterised it as a dangerous system. He also re.
marked that the men mast have been acquainted with
the rules of the pit, and knew, consequently that they
were endangering their own lives and the lives of their
fellow-workmen.lt WR9 a gross contravention of rules.
—The defendants were then fined 20s. and costs.
WOMENS QUARRELS.—MatiIda Plimmer was charged
with assaulting Hannah Round on the 16th ult. Mr.
Hayes appeared to prosecute, and Mr. Addison defended.
From the evidence of complainant it appears they are
neighbours. Complainant on the day in question, was
talking to a neighbour, when the defendant came running
down, accused her of saying something about her struck
her, blacked her eye, pulled her to the ground by the
hair of her head, and while down, jumped upon her.
Several witnesses were called who corroborated. Fined
2s 6d and costs.
Mr. Hayes, made an application on behalf of Andrew
Harris, to sell ale off the premises. The usual notice
was proved to have been served, and character of the
applicant produced. Mr. Addison opposed. The appli-
cation was granted.