The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-01-19 00:00:00

SATURDAY, JANUARY 19, 1884.

the above field. Mr. Buller (Messrs. Bailer and
Bickley, Birmingham) appeared for complainants
and Mr. Goodrick Clarke, Birmngham, de
ended.

Mr. Buller said defendant, with others, followed
the hounds, and in doing so jumped through the
hedge of a field at Hunt End, known as the .'Eiglit
Acres Field." He galloped across permanent
pasturage and did damage to the extent of 2s.
Considerable discussion took place between the
legal gentlemen on a point of law.
Mr. Clarke held that the section of Act under
which defendant was summoned stated that with
respect to hunting and so on it must be shown that
defendant had acted wilfully and maliciously. He
contended that in this instance it was not the
C.S3.

Mr. Buller admitted that defendant had a
common law right to follow the fox, but that it
must be carried out with du2 respect to the right
of property, and that defendant had no right to go
on complainants' laud after having been warned
not to do so,
Mr. Clarke did not dispute the trespass, but
if there was any damage it should be recovered in.
the County Court.
Mr. Millward remarked that the srction of the
Act said that the damage must be wilfully and
maliciously done.
Mr. Buller replied that his point was that de-
fendant having gone on to the land after be was
warned not to do so made his act both wilful and
malicious.

Mr. Miaward observed that it might have been
wilful, but not malicious.
Mr. Buller said nothing justified a field of fox-
hunters going on ground against the owner's wish.
The Chairman remarked that defendant had,a
right to hunt, but Mr. Buller said he did not think
so.

Mr. Heywood inquired whether defendant had
been served with a written notice not to go on
complainant's land, and Mr. Buller replied that a
verbal notice was sufficient.

Mr. Heywood inquired why defendant had rot
been asked for the sum of 2s claimed for damages.
Mr. Buller replied that his client desired to put
an end to further trespassing, and Mr. Heywood
expressed his opinion that it was resolved into a
vindictive matter.

Mr. Clarke said it was a question of law. He
was prepared to admit the trespass, but it was not
wilful. His client followed the hounds, and was
there by accident. Moreover, his clients had never
received any notice from complainants not to go on
their laid.

Mr. Buller said he should prove that defendant
had notice, and remarked that if the Bench de-
cided against his client he should ask for a case.
After some conversation, the Bench decided that
the case should go on, and Mr. Buller called Mr.
Solomon Welch, Hunt End, who stated that in the
course of conversation some years since he told the
defendant that if any persons trespassed on his land
ha should summon them.

In reply to Mr. Clarke, witness said he bad never
given any written notice to Mr. Townsend,because,
being so near a neighbour, he did not think it
necesslry.
Henry Harris, farmer, Hunt End, stated that the
field was laid down with permanent seeds of two or
three years' standing. On the day in question the
land was very wat. He saw defendantcome through
the hedge into the field. The hedge was thorn and
quiekset, Defendant smashed the hedge, broke
down the bank, and made a gap. It might cost
perhaps is to mend the gap, but it would take eight
or ten years to bring up the fence to the state it
was in previously. Defendant afterwards rode
across the seeds, and did damage to the amount of
6d. There was a gap iii the field fifty or sixty
yards distant, and it would have been his straightest
line to have gone through it, The hedge was on a
bank a couple of feet high, and was not a proper
place for a man to jump at. It was impossible to
jump it, and defendant went through it.
. .

ln reply to Mr. Millward, witnes-s said if defend-
ant had gone through the gate he would have
escaped the seeds.
In cross- examination witness said he would
swear that no one but defendant jumped through
the hedge in the same place, but lower down a good
many went through. It was not a fact that it was
dead fence where defendant went through,
W. Lane, labourer, in the employ of complain-
ants, stated that he saw defendant smash the fence
and bank in the Eight Acre Field. No other per-
sons went through the same place. The fence was
in good condition. Defeuchnt made a large gap,
and did damage to the extent he should think of
is. It was not a proper place for a man to jamp,
as the bank is some three feet high, with a hedge
on the top another three feet. He oho did damage
to the seeds.

In reply to Mr. Kynnersley, witness said there
were heifers in the field, but they would not do so
much damage to the ground, which was wet, as
the horses.

The wittuss Harris being recalled, In reply to
Mr. Millward, said he could not say that defendant
did not follow the line taken by the fox.
Mr. Heywood said he was there, and he saw
nothing of the gate referred to.
The witness, in reply to a further question, said
he could not say that defendant deliberately left the
line taken by the fox.
_ _ . -

Mr. Holyowske remarked that Mr. Townsend was
a "jealous" rider, and would rile straight to the
hounds.

Mr. Clarke having addressed the Bench for the
defence, called Mr. Martin Roe, licensed valuer,
Droitwich, who stated that he was out with the
hounds on the day in quebtion. He saw Mr.
Townsend go tnrough the top of the hedge, and was
followed by ten or a dozen others. The damage
done by Mr. Towneend would not amount to more
than 3d. The damage done by the whole would
not be more than Is 6d at the outside. With re-
spect to the pasture land, he examined the ground,
and owing to the dryne •8 there was no appreciable
damage to the turf.
In reply to Mr. Buller, witness said he could not
say that Mr. Townsend did any damage to the
fence. He would certainly swear he did not do 6d
woi th. There were twenty or thirty persons who
rode through the hedge, some ten or dozen of
whom went through the same place as defendant.
This concluded the evidence, and Mr. Buller
again intimated to the Bench that in the event of
their giving an adverse decision he should ask for
a case.

The Chairman said the Bench, after consideration,
had decided to dismiss both cases, with costs; and
with regard to Mr. Bailees application for a case,
they declined to grant it.
Mr. Bailer: Do I uudeistind that you refuse it
abaolutelv ?

The Chairman: Yee.

keeping a boy at %% ark who had not passed sufficient
num ber,of examinations. Mr. Hoare prosecut3dand
Mr. Wright defended. Mr. Hoare said that the
defendcnt pleaded guil'y and asked the Bench to
jUllet Ily a !i4lit line Fined ss, and costs.—Wm.
W Lulls wa-. :it :.tztoned for allowing a boy named
J ,bn W. s on to \VW k during his dinner hour Mr
Hoar .2 prosecuted and Mr. Hooper defended. Mr.
Paikes was again brought as the first witness 1,,r
prosecution and said he had cautioned this defend-
ant a great:inany times, but he took no notice. Mr.
Hooper then addressed the Bench and raised the
same pointlas before, He called John Weston who
said that Bradley paid him his wages and had
alsj given him a rise. The ease was dismissed,
OPEN DURING PROHIBITED HOURS —William
Darby was summoned for opening his house daring
prohibited hours. Mr. Waldron prosecuted, With-
drawn on payment of costs.
DRUNKENNESS.— Samuel Bradley was summoned
for being drunk and was fined ss. ni costs or tev
days.—Samuel Gill was charged with being drun;.
an i was fined ss. and coste or seven days.
STEALINGA TURKEY:— William Cole was charged
with stealing a turkey, the property of Thomas
Whitehouse, farmer, who said that he saw the
turkey safe at half-past eight o'clo3k in the morning
and when he returned at twelve o'clock the turkey
was brought to him, and he examined its head and
found it had got a wound on it. Alfred Braden
was called and he said that he saw the prisoner
coining from the prosecutor's farm with the turkey
under his coat. He threw the turkey down and
went to wards Oldbury. P. C. Winfield proved appre-
hending the prisoner, who denied having seen the
turkey. He afterwards admitted killing it but did
not take it away. The prisoner was sent to tak
his trial at the next Sessions.
SLEEPING IN A HovEL.—John Baker and Samuel
Griffin were charged with sleeping in a hovel in a
brickyard. The defendants said they had obtained
leave from the watchman. Case dismissed.
DRUNK AND REFUSING TO QUlT.—Thomas New-
port was charged with being drunk and refusing to
quit the licensed premises of Thomas Foley, who
said that the defendant came into his house and
wanted some beer. He refused to serve him and
the defendant would not leave the premises when
requested. Defendant, who pleaded guilty, was
fined 2s 6d and costs, or in default 7 days.
STEALING 1A PURSE AND MONEY.—Sarah Lund
was charged with stealing a purse and £1 7s. the
property of Catharine Wale on th 3 Bth inst. The
prosecutrix said that the defendant came to her
house for a character. She left her purse in the
sitting room. After the prisoner had gone she
missed it andgave information to the P.C. Winfield.
Pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 28 days im-
prisonment.