The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-08-21 00:00:00

HALESOWEN.

STEALING PEARS.—kt the Police Court on Tuesday,
before Messrs. F. D. L. Smith, J. Watson and H.
Howard, Charles Sequel, James Holloway, William
Hughes and George Bennett were charged with stealing
a quantity of pears on the 15th just the property of
Richard Moseley. Police-constable Smith said he was at
Lutley about half past 11 o'clock in the day in question.
He saw the 4 defendants in a field in the occupation of
Mr. Moseley. They were stealing the pears off the tree.
Sequel was the worst of the lot as he enticed the others.
Sequel was fined 20s. and costs; in default one month,
and the other defendants were fined 5s and costs, or 14
days.
CAUTION TO PARENTS.—Edward Jones was summoned
by Mr. W. H. Brewer, for neglecting to cause his child to
attend school. Defendants was fined Is and costs.—
Harries Jones was summoned for a similar offence and was
fined is and costs.
EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE AGAINST A TRADEsMEN.—
John Hall Trenchard, draper, Belbronghton, appeared in
answer to a summons charging him with stealing a bag
of nails, on the 31st ultimo, the property of John Foley.
Mr. Shakespeare, of Oldbury, appesred for the defence.
—The evidence in support of the prosecution was to the
effect that on the day in question the prosecutor sent a
bag of nails to the warehouse of Messrs. Bloomer and
Sons, in the cart of a man named Willetts, but when the
latter reached the warehouse he missed the nails. Shortly
afterwards Levi Byng, an ironfounder and brickmaster,
passed along the road, and saw the nails upon the
ground, and he alleged that the defendant drove up in his
gig, and although remonstrated with by the
witness picked up the nails, and took them away. Mr.
Shakespeare severely cross-examined this witness, but
was unable to shake his testimony.—Two other witnesses
were called to depose to the fact of having seen the de-
fendant driving in the same direction about the time the
nails were stolen; and Mr. Shakespeare then addressed
the Bench for the defence, animadverting strongly upon
the conduct of the witness Byng.. He said he should
show beyond a doubt, and by the meat respectable testi-
mony, that the defendant never left his home, at Bel-
bronghton, until twelve o'clock that day (the theft having
taken place about nine o'clock). He then called Henry
Charles Goodyear, schoolmaster, and Henry Pearman,
farm bailiff, who slated that they saw the defendant at
his home at Belbroughton, seven miles distant, at half.
past eight, nine, and ten o'clock. Mr. Shakespeare
stated that he had several other witnesses to speak to the
same facts; but the Bench intimated that it would be
unnecessary to call them, and the case would be dis-
missed, and Mr. Trenchard would leave the Court with-
out a stain upon his character.
CHARGE AGAINST A TRUSTEE —William Bailey was
summoned for having in his possession the sum of £8 9s.
2th belonging to the Brierley Hill district of the United
Free Gardeners Society. Mr. Shakespeare appeared on
behalf of the members of the Society. William Tro-
mans said he was one of the trustees of the society and
defendant was treasurer. The ttustees had called the
defendant several times to ask him to find bondsmen.
He promised to do so but had neglected it. He had been
summoned to attend the Court meeting but was always
absent. In consequence of defendant's conduct they
decided to pay the money into the box. He had
in hand £8 9s 2d. Defendant had not paid his contribu-
tions for the last 6 months and in consequence of that
they suspended from all the benefits of the society.
John Portman, secretary of the Society, David Goodon,
(trustee), and Arthur Hooper clerk to Mr. Stokes, Dud-
ley, gave evidence. Defendant said he had a set off
against £8 9s 2d. Mr. Shakespeare told defendant any-
thing he could produce vouchers for the Society would
allow. Defendant then admitted that he had £6 7s. 2d
in his possession belonging to the sooiety. Defendant
was ordered to pay the £6 7s. 2d. to the Society in one
week.

CHARGE AGAINST A LICENSED VICTUALLED.—Benjamin
Connop, landlord of the Lyttelton Arms Inn, Halesowen
was summoned for permitting drunkenness and disor-
derly conduct in his house on the 12th of July. Mr.
Shakespeare appeared to defend. Police-sergeant Chap-
man saidabout half-past 12 o'clock in the day in questi.in
he heard a great disturbance in defendants house. He
went in and found a number of persona fighting from one
ond of the place to the other. Defendant asked witness
to help him to part them. Witness told defendant that
he had better stop the tap and defendant said the tap
was stopped. About 3 o'clock he visited the house again
and found a man named JBlllO3 Hall in the house. tie
was drunk and was cursing and swearing. Defendant
went to the man and pushed him down into the corner.
Witness called the attention of Mrs. Connop to the man.
He called again at 4 o'clock and Hall was still there.
There had been a horse race that morning. There were
a great many people about defendants house. Mv.'Con-
nop sent for him. Could not say that the people got drunk
there. Mr. Connop assisted him in clearing the house.
Defendant told him that the man Hall had not had any
drink in the house.--Police-constable Drew said he
visited defendant's house at a quarter to two o'clock on
the afternoon on the 12th ult. There were a great many
people there and he saw the man Hall drunk and asleep
He also visited the house at 4 o'clock and again saw Hall
This time Hall had a glass of spirits in his hand. Mr.
Shakespeare, in defence said Mr. Connop had kept the
house for 20 years and was a most respectable tradesman.
There had been a horse race that', mot•ning and a great
many persons assembled at the Lyttelton Arms. Some
of them began fighting and Mr. Connop at once sent to
the Police Station for assistance. He stopped the tap
and did all he could to keep order. With regard to the
man Hall he was not supplied with anything to drink.
Defendant was then called and gave evidence corroborat
ing Mr. Shakespeare's statement. Mr. Watson said they
considered it a great point in defendant'slfavour that he
sent for the police, but they thought there was drunken-
ness and should fine defendant 108 and costa.