The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-05-08 00:00:00

mil nub pithict

THE ROYAL COMMISSIONS ON THZ FACTORY ACTS'
—With reference to these acts the Commissioners
have issued the following circular:—" The Royal
Commissioners for inquiring into the operation of
the Factory find Workshops Acts, with a view to
their consolidation and amendment, are desirous
of giving all persons concerned an opportunity of
stating any grievances under which they may con-
ceive thLanselves to labour by reason of the exit-
ing law, and of representing points upon which
the said laws may be susceptible of amendment.
The Commissioners regard the main principles
of legislation regulating the labour of women and
children employed in factories of textile manufac-
ture as settled by Parliament in the Act of 1874,
37 &38 Vi.ct. c. 44. The object of the Commission
is to ascertain and recommend the redress of the
inequalities and inconsistencies in the various
Factory Acts which have arisen, owing to the dif-
ferent times at which they have been passed, with
the view of suggesting means for equalizing and
harmonising their provisions. It is therefore de-
sired that any persons having practical acquaint-
ance with the subjects of inquiry, who may con-
ceive themselves to suffer disadvantages through
the opperation of the existing law, or who may
desire an extention of the provisions of the Fac-
tory Acts to other discriptions of labour where
women, young persons, and children are employed
or who may consider that alteration is necessary
In the present provisions for the education of the
young employed in labour, should acquaint Her
Majesty's Commissioners with their views; and,
if so disposed, should tender themselves for exami-
nation, or should select such individuals to give
evidence on their behalf as may be fairly repre-
sentative of the classes to which they belong.
The Commissioners will, in the first instance, con-
duct their proceedings. in London, and propose
subsequently to visit such of the principal seats of
Trade and Industry as may seem necessary for the
purposes of their inquiry.
CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTING.—At the Public Office,
yesterday, before Colonel Fletcher, Joseph Grove
was charged by Inspector Williams with causing
an obstruction in Market-street, by exposing an
entire horse, which caused an obstruction. Wit-
ness remonstrated with defendant several times,
and the latter ran a heavy horse up and down, and
the horse kic%ed out and nearly struck a man on
the back. Mr. W. Thompson crave corroborative
evidence. The—defence was that he (defendant)
had been in the habit of showing horses for the
last thirteen years, and said there was no obstruc-
tion. Colonel Fletcher remarked that he had made
himself liable to a penalty of 40s, but should fine
him 5s and costs, 12s.

DRUNKENNESS.—WiIIiam Pritchard was charged
with being drunk at the Lye, on the night of the
4th inst. Two police-officers proved the offence.
Colonel Fletcher remarked that drunkenness was
on the increase. They had 19 cases for hearing,
and 11 arose out of drinking. Fined 2s fid and
costs.

PITCH AND Toss.— John Dirobberley, Nimrod
Robins and Richard Farmer, were charged with
playing at pitch and toss, at Wollescote, on the
4th inst. Mr. Prescott defended. Police-constable
Heath proved the case. The defence was that
where the defendants were it was not a highway.
Fined is each, and costs.—James Samuel, of the
Lye, was charged with a similar offence on the Ist
inst. Police-constable Harrison proved the case,
and said that several of them were playing. He
ran after the defendant and caught him. Fined
is and costs.

WILFUL -DAMAGE. Joseph Darby (14) was
charged with wilfully damaging a fence belonging
to Charles Mudd, on the 2nd inst. John Minett
proved the offence, and said the damage done am-
ounted to is. The case was not pressed, and the
defendant agreed to pay the is damage and costs.
—Walter Lewis was ordered to pay 4s 6d costs for
damaging a quantity of mowing grass, on the 2nd,
the property of Charles Mudd.
ASSAULT CASE.—George William Prescott, soli-
tor, was charged with assaulting Edwin Stringer,
jun., on the 28th ult. Mr. Collis appeared for com-
plainant, and Mr. Prescott conductedhis own case.—
Mr. Collis said that in this case he was instructed by
Mr. Edwin Stringer, a well-known tradesman in this
town, to prefer a charge of assault against George
William Prescott, who was also wed-known to all
, of them; but he would not detain the Court by going
into the character of Mr. Prescott. The assault was
of a trival nature in itself, but as it was accompanied
by scurilous and abusive language he hoped they
would inflict the highest fine they possibly could.—
Mr. Prescott : I am not charged with using scurilious
lauffuage, I object to that being done.—Mr. Collis
went on to say that Mr. Prescott was one who should
have known better than to act in the manner he had.
He was in such a position in life that could not be
overlooked, and he brought that case before the Bench
in order to prevent him from from actin.' - in such a
manner again, Mr. Stringer had not spoken to Mr.
Prescott for years, until he met him on the above
.date and the latter ran against Mr. Stringer with
such force as to cause the latter to be pushed against
his own man. Mr. Stringer said "What, did you
do that ?" When Mr. Prescott replied, "I will do
it again, you d— scamp." Mr. Stringer said," lam
not a scamp." Prescott said "Yes, your are; you
and your father are the two d—dest scamps out of
Stafford Gaol; and you have robbed everybody." It
was evident from such language as that Mr. Prescot.
must had lost his senses; he must have been made
And it was only from this reason that he (Mr. Collis
could account for his strange conduct in that affair.—
Edwin Stringer said that on the 28th April he was
accompanied by his man walking down Love Lane,
about half-past five in the afternoon, when he met
Mr. Prescott coming from the direction of Stourbridge.
When the latter got up to him, he pushed against
him so that he pushed against his manin such away
as to knock the latter against the hedge. He had act
given defendant the slightest cause or provacation
for sucy conduct. He had not spoken to him for
years. Defendant was a man whom he always
avoided. He asked defendant why he did it, when
he said, "I will do it again, you d-r scamp." He
(complainant) said, "What do you say ?" Defend-
ant replied, "You ate a d—d scamp; you are the
d—dest scamp in Stourbridge, or out of Stafford
Gaol. You and your father are the two d--dest
scamps out of Stafford Gaol." He Seemed very ex-
cited. He had his umbrella under his arm.—By the
Bench: He pushed against me with his umbrella and
his body. There was room enough for both to pass.
Defendant went out of his road deliberately to do it.
—Cross-examined by Mr. Prescott: I did not see
where you were going when I met you. You did not
say," Nhat made you do that ?" and I did not say
the gutter was good enough for you. I did not re-
ceive a letter irons Bernard and King that morning.
I have received a letter from Bernard and King.—
Mr. Prescott: Have you been seeking possession of
the house occupied by Davis ?—The Bench objected
to this question, as they considered it irrelative, and
trenching upon complainant's private business.—Mr.
Prescott to the Bench: If you won't allow me to
cross-examine I had better sit down. If you won't
administer justice to me—The Bench informed him
that they intended to administer justice to him. They
only interposed because they did not think it right to
expose a man's private affairs uauecessarily.—John
Baker said he was in the employ of Mr. Stringer.
On the above date he accompanied complainant down
Love Lane, where they met Mr. Prescott. He was
coming .from Stourbridge, and they were going to
Stourbridge. Witness and Mr. Stringer were in
close conversation on bu, Mess matters. Witness was
against the hedge, and Mr. Stringer was on his left.
On coming to the narrow 'part of the lane he saw Mr.
Prescott in advance of them, and he seemed to he in
the middle of the road. He had an umbrella under
his left arm, and as he came up the umbrella came
against Stringer, and it pushed him against witness,
and knocked the latter against the bank. There
would be room for three or four persons to pass
them on their left. Mr. Stringer said, "What did
you do that for ?" and he said, " You d— scamp, I
will do it again." He also said Mr. Stringer was a
scamp and a rogue, and coupling his father's name
with it said neither he nor his father were worth a
shilling, and there were not two d—der rogues out of
Stafford Gaol. He was very excited. He was qnite
sic Mr. Stringer gave Mr. Prescott no provocation.
—Mr. Prescott thou addressed the Bench his de-
fence, and said the object of that summons was ph in
and simple. It was not to vindicate Mr. Stringer's
character, it was so that the five gentlemen they saw
there that day should blazon it in the newspapers
that Prescott had been charged with assault. They
would see a very different complexion put upon it.
lie had been aiding and assisting that gentleman to
get possession of Mr. Davis s house, which was a
serious object to him in the way of business. And
because he advised Davis not to give up possession
until he had received £3O, Mr. Stringer went to him
only the night before, and asked him to turn defend-
ant out of the house. On the day named he was
walking up Love Lane with his umbrella under his
arm, and having his eyes fix(d on the ground, was
not aware that Mr. Stringer or his man were coming,
when he felt himself snddenly twisted round, snd
seeing complainant said "What the d— did you do
that for ?" The road was narrow and rived where
the affair occurred. He was confident he had not as-
saulted complainant, mid would, therefore, ask the
Bench to dismiss the case.—Colonel Fletcher said
the assault in itself was of a trivial nature, and they
should have given defendant the benefit of the doubt
and dismiss it, if it had not been for the language
which accompanied it, and which was sworn to by
two persons. They should order him to pay a tine
of ss, and costs.
..rix.iioN Oainti.—Befure C:,lonel Fletcher, and
It. Fr,cr, Mr. Addison, mid° an application for a pro-
tection oruer fur Hannah Chance, against her husband
Peter Chance. Complainant said that she was married