The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1862-05-06 00:00:00

plainant said he overheard the alder Gray threatening•
to strike • young woman named Jemima Fry, living
with him, and he came out. He asked him what it was
about. Defendant said he would serve him the same as
he threatened the young woman. Upon going to the
well, he (complainant) was stopped by defendant, but
be get by. The female said " Don't let him have it/'
(the water,) and tauk up a stone and threw at him, and
struck him, knocking his hat off, and the father kicked
the bucket and upset the water. Complainant then
got another beeket, and after he had obtained it, he saw
the younger Gray and Fry fighting, and he went up to
them, when the father bit him several times on the back
of the neck and also in the face.. He hid lived in the
house fourteen years, and lied been in the habit of
having water from the well daily.—Jemims Fry was
called in corroboration, and stated that she was fetching
a bucket of Water from Henri Gray's well, when be
'said if she came there he would- kick her out. Moore
came out and took her part. As Charles Moore was
going to get some water, Elizabeth took no some dirt
and threw at bin.. Ills hat did not fall off. Henry Gray
kicked a bucket of water over while in floore'll hand.
Henry Gray, in defeat*, said he never kicked the
bucket. Moore bad been denied the use of water for
years. lie believed his daughter threw a lump of muck
at Moore, but it was after lie had thrown water on her.
He went op and took held of Moore after he had Meech I
his daughter.—Sareli Hunt was called, and said she
saw Moore go for the watet, and as to his being asked
what business lie had there for water, be said, be had
• right, when Gray said "produce it." Moore said he
would knock Gray's trains out with the bucket.
Elizabeth Gray took bold of the bucket to prevent
Moore striking her father, when be threw some water
over her. Elie ibeth Gray then threw • lump of dirt at
him, when Moore struck her on the eye.--Susan Hunt,
mother of last witness, was also esaniined for the
defence.—The Magistrates Clerk said he had received
several letters from residents in Thornford, speaking in
favour of defendants.—The Magistrates believed that
Moore was the aggressor' and dihnossed the summons.
His own witness had contradicted his evidence. They
rewoconindunbeenndoedptehaecem
BICERRACKET.—TREBFABB.—thOIItI Toop, of Beer-
wtoh while lie keptpeaceably—Gray
eidhtohuesree.
hackett, WAS summonned for being in pursuit of conies
on 24th March. The case was proved by John
Wareham, keeper to the owner of the land, Mr. Digby.
Fined be. and costs Si,, in default 14 days' imprisonment.
The amount was paid by defendant's father.
MILLBURY OBROND.—RATHER A HARD CALll.—The
Surveyors of the parish of Melbury Osmond produced
their accounts, which had been objected to at the last
meeting. The adjournment had taken place in the
hope that some amicable arrangement would become to,
but tl.is Ii d not been effected.—Mr. Watts now
appeared for the Surveyors, and Mr. Fear on behalf of
Mr. John Stay. —Mr. Fear said, on behalf of Mr. SW,
he objected to one of the items in the account—that of
2905. 90. charged for the hire of the Surveyor's own
team. He called the attention of the Bench to the
46th section of the Act of Parliament, which expressly
stated that the Sur reyor irmld not employ his own
horses, or charge for any materials supplied by him,
unless he obtained previously the stmetion of two
justices of the peace, and the doing so without authority
subjected him to a penalty of 210. It was an illegal
item,and he (Mr. Fear) requested that it might be struck
one Unless the Act was scrupulously maintained they
would have Surveyor's employing their horses when
they had no other employment for them.—Mr. Watts
said Mr. Fear had not yet proved that the requisite
license had not been obtained.—Mr. Fear said that at
the last Bench day Mr. Squibb admitted in court that
such had not been obtained.—Mr. Watts: But to-day
we begin de novo.—The Clerk believed the onto of proof
was on Mr. Watte.—Mr. Watts then, on behalf of his
client, pleaded guilty to not having obtained the
requisite authority, which arose from the fact that
his client did not know such was required. Mr. Squibb
had served the office of surveyor for 20 or 30 years and
his accounts had been paned year after year. The very
accounts complained of had been passed by a unanimous
vote in vestry. From whom did the complaint come?
Why, from Mr. Stay, who bad resided in the parish
only two years, and had then left it. Mr. Stay was
present at the vestry when the offer was made by Mr.
Squibb to supply team labour at so much per day, and
he then said that rather than his (Mr. Mae's) horse/
should work for that price. he would let them kick their
shoes off in the stable. Mr. Stay fancied be had been
ill-used whilst in the parish, and 'might to resent by •
private pique against his client. He had in his hand a
testimonial from Lord Ileheater and others holding
property at Melbury Osmond, 'peeking in high terms of I
his client. —Mr. Fear objected to the introduction of ir-
revelant matter.—Mr. Watts said they bad pleaded
guilty, and what he had said and intended to say, was
only in mitigation. The custom pursued by Mr. Squibb
had been that adopted for twenty or thirty years, and '
had the parish been injured by the course he had taken?
Certainly not. Mr. Stay did not wish to benefit the
rates by these proceedings, as he offered, if his rates
had been paid, to withdraw from the case. Mr. Watts
then passed an eulogium upon Mr. Squibb's character.
and contended that he had infringed the Act innocently.
He called Mr. Squibb, who said he had been surveyor
of Melbury about thirty years, and his accounts had not
been objected to before. He did not kcow it was requi-
site to apply to the magistrates to use his own horses
when no other person would do it. The charge was a
fair one, mid had been sanctioned by his brother rate-
payers. It was difficult to get horses, and the parish
had not suffered in consequence of his using his own.
In fact he had lost £4 or 25 out of his own pocket. Mr.
Stay had offered to withdraw from the charge if his
rates were paid, but this he refused to do, preferring
the case coming before the magistrAtee.—Crose-ex.
endued: The days when he charged for hauling were
not ordinarily wet ones.—The Bench said they believed
all that had been said in Mr. Squibb's behalf, that he
had been a most useful man to the parish, and very
respectable. The work which lied been charged and ob.
jected to, lied been done at a low rate, 104 it had been
proved to them that the Act had been infringed, and
they thought that the ordering the item to be struck
out would meet the justice of the case. Proceedings,
they believed, had been taken in a vindictive spirit, and
hoped the parishioners would not allow Mr. Squibb to
be the loser. Mr. Fear applied for costs. —Mr.
Falwasser, (emphatically) : Certainly not.
EUPPOSED UNLAWFUL Possissicte.—'Thomas Adams,
of Sherborne, appeared on his bail in answer to • charge
implicating him in the receipt of a copper furnace. No
further evidence being offered, the prisoner was die-
charged.—Superintendent Lewis applied to the Bench
to allow him to retain it.—Mr. Fear, on behalf of
Adains,contended that the article could not be retained.
—The Bench agreed with Mr. Fear, and directed it to I
be given up.
CAUNDLE MARBE.—A.NOTHEIR DISPUTED SURVILYOR%
ACCOUNT.—A lady farmer in the parish, named Gine,
took the Fame objection, she said, "as Mr. Fear had"
dime in the last case." A bad feeling appeared to sub-
sist between her and the Surveyor. Ultimately all
matters between them were considered an" squared,"
and the aecounta were passed.
JUVENILI IMMORALITY.—Frederick Spiller, of Sher-
borne, boyish in look and innocent of heard or other
hursite appendage, WU summoned to show cause why
he should not contribute towards the support of a male
illegitimate child of Eliza Matthews, apparently not out
of her teera.—Mr. Fear appeared for the plaintiff; and
Mr. Chitty for defendant.—Plaintiff said she lived at
Coldharbour, at Sherborne. She knew the defendant
and first became acquainted with him about two years
ago, came next September. She was then 15 or 16
years of age, the met him first on the new walks. He
went as far as the Antelope with her on that occasion.
Some time after (about Chratmas, 1860), she went with
him to the working man's ball at the Townlinil. Her
mother came after her. They all left at 7 o'clock in
the morning, Spiller accompanying them. He after.
wards visitor, her at her father's house. He mune there
most every night in the week. He eaMe to keep com-
pany with her. She recollected Whit Monday in 1861,
and defendant was with her. He came about two in
the afternoon. She was looking out of the upstairs
sitting-room window when he came. He came up
where she was. It was the 20th May. He was a eel-
dant visitor nearly every night until October, whim he
discontinued coming for some time afterwards; when-
he resumed his visite. She was confined of I male
child on 7th March. and defendant was the father tif
Plaintiff then niade • statement as to the defhodan4
suggesting the adoption of a course which would Elie
endangered the life of herself and offspring if cartfr,
out, and rendered them liable to severe punishment...l
The oross-examination of Mr. Chitty did not shake her
evidence in chief.—The mother of pisintiff was calkel.,'
and in many points she contradicted the evidence of her
daughter.—Maria Wadman, a charwoman, was called
to prove that she had seen defendant paying such
attentions as are usually sliewn by lovers. She ad-
mitted in cross-examination having been unfortunate
enough to have had two children before marriage.—
Mr. Chittyliontended that the plaintiff had not mode
out her case. She had not beemoorroborated in some
essential particulars, as required, by the statute. He
should be able to prove that the plaintiff was of ins.
moral habits, and that both her and her mother bad
perjured themselves.—He called • witness named John
Hunt, whose evidence, after he was sworn. Mr. Fear
said was inadmissable by a recent decision of the Lord
Justices.—The Bench, with their Clark, retired to
consider the point, and upon their return said they
were of opinion that certain questions might be put by
Mr. Chitty, but not to the extent sought. The witness
then testified to the immorality of the plaintiff.—Mr.
Fear having replied, the Bench made an order upon de-
fendant, to pay he. 6d. per week, but awarded no
costs,