The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1888-05-12 00:00:00

ri tourbribge etuerber

SATURDAY, MAY 12, 18i8.

"A WARNING TO OTHERS."

followel
Mr. Blakiston (clerk of the peace for St affordsNire)
HITHERTO it has been generally accepted as senors. ad a petition from Amblecotr, against the
. tran fa .
an axiom that if a man breaks any British T e Ambleoote case being closed, the next point
law and subsequently submits himself to the was the propeal ol the Commis,doners to transfer
prescribed penalty, he is thereby purged of Kis gswinford from the Stourbridge Union. to remain
his offence; and that he -who afterwards in the county of Stafford, and form with Kiaver (to
speaks of one who has been under the law's be t ansferred from the
.Seisdon Union) a new
a on to bees led the Brier e 7 Hi 1 Union.
lash as a wrcng-doer, libels the person he is . Mr Kitson (clerk to the Seisaon Union) opposed
sholding up to condemnation, and does so at the transfer of Kinser, and said that Ker was n
his own peril Such itSt'ne well-understood agricultural
a m
anu
manufacturing n
parishact
rand p
ahrai
.( n
41h
and
niphad n o
ati t yof i d interests
fs
ot s
.acceptation of. the legtiraSpect of the matter; w
interests with a manufacturing pa•ish like King-
and such cannOt but be regarded as a just as
tvinford.
well as an expedient state of things. But
Colon 1 Dickins (vicescha rman of the Seisdon
Baron .tlnddleston hag now somewhat upset tin on) spoke to the same effect..
the theory stated, by ruling, in an action Mr. A Longo said so far as poor-law arra- geenents
;
w nt he thought there was no question Kinver
against the stationmaster at Brentford, that
staul i he in Cos next union.
a conviction having been obtained against a
A suggestion was thrown out that instead of
persoo,,snch person may be legally gibbeted KOwsr, llitnley should be added to the new Brierley
Aaascplortli " for the public benefit" by Hill rjoion
Ala,v.iog his name, address, and other portico- Mr Ketle (instructed ha . Mr. Collis) appeared
for the parish of Kinver and opposed the tarnsfer,
Jars, with date of the offence of which be has
memorial,
l tenyerwhich,ahs ni.n
e i said, wvaesr apiagris h
nel
fbeen found guilty and a recapitulation of the bhyanttieggeit a
le of the ra
penalty incurred, posted up for all who will ageinst the scheme of the Boundary Commissioners
to see. It does not matter if the man were, as rgarded Maven
.after ell, innocent; so long as he has been remarks as to the interest of different
. Relative to
parishes in union bFildinss, the Commissioner re •
,convicted: he may be,„,t-.-ept by placard in marked that provision would be made for dealing
with that
perpetual odium. This, at any rate, is
W..— ....at question -
.il.l-...-cm likle:,llesa,ou-e new reading of the law. The next proposal considered was that the trans..
His lordship ,took the ground that truth is fer Huriningtou. Pedmors, and Higley from the
no libel, if spoken for the good of the corn-
Bromsgrove to the new Stourbridge Union. As ra-
gdsd Hunnington, there didi not appear much
manity.. I.t may be that he is right in his
. uarie(glivagaiintsftrtohenx ttrhaeufsfer.h while
'hic..emaeesrtareo:ig approval
,decision as regards this case, but we trust iv
that he is wrong in his general interpretation Mr. S. Amphlett, who appeared for the liroros
of the matter at issue. Reports of the pro- grove Guardians to oppose the transfer of the three
, parimkies named, spoke at some length against
e2edings of courts of law and justice are
p2rmitted to be published, presumably for . the transfer of Haley aud Pethnore. fie con.
tended that the characteristics of the
t'le benefit of the public and for no other Bromsgrove Union and the distiict to be formed
purpose; and though the necessary con- into the tie, Stourbridge Union were entirely
densed accounts of trials given in the news different, and that the present Bromsgrove Union
&weld not be disturbed. The new union would b
pal— a occasisually originate an unfair
be
opinion regards
some of those concerned, ' panr benefited y the
prbepese proposed ransfer,
d t)ettost . but not th
taken.
as -
we should be sorry to see law and police Mr. Watson (Hagley) opposed Ike transfer
,ca.ses left out of purview of the public journals Mr. Lone, replying to a remark of his said
because thereby we feel sure much evil would llagl'Y would get from the Bromegrove Union the
value of their share in the workhouse there, and -
be wrought, and a broad way 'to corruption would go towards their other lie bility.
opened out. Posting up a man's name for sir. H. Young, for the StourbridgeCo:nmissioners,
an indefinite time on a railway station wall supported the transfer of the three parishes ;_ and
in bold letters as that of a detestable delin- evidence followed pro and con. It was stated that
quint, and ignoring anything which may many of the labouring class who worked in Pedrnore
and Hatg.l' y lived in
kStourbridge, and that their
have transpired to palliate his thus adyer-
they
~oyn
gi
tised wickedness, is a very different matter snuopti.oenr
the
time
hohessic
wheren
living.ohtatthpeliarce and
from chronic:ling once in the district journal Mr. Young saidLth.re 4 a no objection to the rans
tvr:rsi took place et the trial ; even if the corn- fer of Hagley and Pedmore to Stourbridge otber
pony concerned could plead in sincerity that than as touching the pocket.
Mo
Hickey, for the Stourbridge Commissioners.
what they did was done really for the public
concurred in th 4 transfer of Hagley, Pelmore, and
benefit, and that, consequently, they w.-2re woe.
amply justified, though the person made an An adjournment took place at this point, and, on
exatnple of might possibly he injured. But the Commissioner resuming, the other . prop( sale
were considered. Me. Joseph Rowlands appeared
in their c:nntuon practice of recordinc,
for the West Bromwich Guardians in support of
°franc sin this manner. the companies are tn,:atte tai a.ef-r of Stuethwick from King's Norton to
not at tli
abated by public spirit at all, but won.
simply -it.:l6pt:olg
.a plan which they consider .1 he Commissioner: You don't oars what becomes
will ri.sitlt in protection to themselves by de- of Oldbury and Warley.
wick t rring otlic:s from breaking the bye-laws or
hut Al !.. RI ;adlinds said he was instructed as to that
:wtouludithe llytohei thlousairsurth
fOldbury t the natural course of
o wfi and Oldbury
at :.einptin 2.: potty fraud, lest their names also thinrs
be elevated to undesirable eminence on a in the West BroinwtilechuUni weat
future murol black list. The evil wrought to the mi st convient place it would still be kspt in
the West Broniwick Union. It seemed to him
to op° who host unfortunately laid himself
difficult to deal with endbary anti Warley i.p4rt
4.1-w:1 to r,lirolelt, ostensibly done for the final Smeth wick
p :Idle htoieti,., is thus-, woo se:. e, as a matter of Mr Shakespeate (Oldbery) said Oldbue lot,
r'yw ihteh 1
f o•r at. •:,;:i ,I:s!14. i hee-tase the law—A,ceord- to rm•ain in Worcestershire, and to g
ing io 11-ieo..i ;Lir( ilestort —allows the mothod a lugs Norton Union wade the sehemeof the Cane-
to i,:` it i•.;.t.,:i
~..; st ok., (if 1,),5.4,....,55. The ni;mi, nel was to place it la the new Stuurbridgo
, U don.
a 0..: • i o• 1 i . i .;, o-• • • • r • •r 's • .
~ .
.. i0,,,,i5. for I,_ 1.: is once ad- the Commissioner'some
af er dis2u!eion. sail
•-•-• ••1 a.):1 ~I %.':, , ?ins a uny time made a 01 le was a good deal in the mind of Mr
false St tn. •,, ~,• -I !, , r .4 • , :, .:•,!.;p tion pre- ihaize.p -a,re and Mr. Rowlands as to a question of
ferred against him which has not been sob- bar er.
Mr. Shistespear: Not in mine.
stantiated, but who has condoned .is offence
mn Rowland.
to the full; or lived down the imputation ai Docket
nda saidleto he
ethba(c
°led
h lidairnygs
anti
idea of barter.
ri NortonaGuy wardistenrse)
hurled ot his fie, may be rained by any said%hat, assuming
busybody-who-cares to rake up and publish t m aken ite a est Baimwich and added to King's
his record, alwalti su.posing it can be plans- Norton Union, they sa re willing Smerlawick
ibly pleaded that the injurious meddlesom- should go to Wtot, 8r match
Beard)Al r.
il'hdoin.;s
t.i_lhairt,leadu of the
.01dbury Loc a
nesa is prompted by the Nubile interest, Ifatotnalul they
a man. breaks tho law the penalty inflicted shoitlii;rl'eferi to oeyintoasbe Zincesoltr
bby the la vi, h ist.t ntory puni ,h me, ut. Smart to King's Norionillothni; Th•y f -It if they went in
asiness people should not be allowed to question of Stnelheriek must arise. It wsuld enable
afterwards inerea-se that punishment by West BroinNsich to get Smethwick. (Laughter.)
making the former often Jet' serve a4ainst his 8. The
wttliAldinis-i°
ner: If you remain in Worcester-
rumr rather
r,thgulooton
•Kirrnog'eKNi Norton or or to
will as 3 "wa ai:ng to oth, •r-z." The days of tirtsoiruer,hridge
.t.8.;1.1
,;!1: ,/•• n..- .: f I t.• a ioai :!1 easrviuo• out of Ask....i 0 hy, gr. Thow6oa said beea.use he bell:rd.
~ ro a II I- i. l A, h y 01,1111 b,.., awe lightly rated. (Laughter.)
tk . Z et," .0 its terkilt.i7te issue
, .
the. possibility '['he C Tramissioner : Have you any other objection
wurii.a provitte for of its re-
to ghohinvtiorS? ourbridgeexcept that your sates would
vivid in our midst._ Tiny° is another way of Thomson;
be morNeo. 11 e added
looking -at this matter of railway company afterwards that it: would
oconvenientste . to
iaterestos oat.' thole of individuals, The eat have to go to Halesowen (where it ire ugge e!i ar
en,r“itii; e ,til'ederations, to whom we arc all new workhouse should be built) than the Kiii s
so muoit inlalited for convenient transport, Norton.
i whose e•ifrer.; we all more or less con- shalr. B. T. Saddler (Oldbury) also said that lie
and t
t ribute, are not immaculate. Their convic.
intoultdhperesfteorugrboinriy ientt)TKiin.t's Norion rather than
Union. . One consideration
ton and, that of thi;ir responsible agents fo • would be the lighter :Wens
breaches of legal reeml t. 1 - . 'i The Rev. A. L. Manby. (rector of Quinton) was
0 a t.ms— )reaches at
times very detrimental indeed to the weal of strongly in, favour of Warley forming part of the
new Stourbrilgo Union. He consioeied it would be
keges-- is not a thing unheard of. Why aconvenience that Oldbnry and Walley &Inuit be
o,ay not private persons, "for the public , ussreh
ei
;a.ei with the now anion instead of withiCing's
tgliefit," erect hoardings in cons
am' spots Ne
am'the stations of the companies, adver- 1 Mr. Shakespeare so d a meeting at Warley en
Monday night was in fav,ar of a transfer to King's
t ;:,ing in big letter, the findings of the courts
to railway shotqcoinings ? Of course N°:.t.t.lt: I. Young, feoeratihoef Stourbridge Guardians,
q.eli private persons would hot have the bui::osted the•
tran;',rring 01Pcilb;pry and teCommisi9ners_as to
.-tiliness reason that railway authorities have'
liWarley to the new no,tr-
brid,/. Union. Includitos a the proposed additions,
o spur them on to analatrous action, but a
ssibly competition and commercial jeal- h ,e.would be less added to that new union than
from it on the Staffordehire side
~:, , y might not be found unwilling to step 'wr it,
exi presentk2en o aSwtaowyneureidgeUt ntien had are eable value
1. •wn.l supply the dAciency. Surely, how- o total of the b proposedi27 t
oo . new
A s
. ti', we have now said sufficient to dis- auto i. with. Ambleco e,
;it a ad to get a new union workhouse, it .> as ini-
t. 4ablislk the contention that there is justice po, t .ht the.nnAden should be thrown upo,l :,3 large
lathe "warning to others" theory, whatever •
; kanoua;:aataszt;i:ei le. l'he idea of making ts., work-
litVY higl it* adsguistrators may • ash wet was on the mak :,.).4 that
_