The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1866-10-13 00:00:00

BRIERLEY HILL.

ASSAULTING A BAILIFIL—At the Petty Sessions. on
Thursday bust, before Captain Fletcher, Das hi and Ellen
Skidmore, residing at Rock's Rill, Brierley Hill, wcre
charged by James Fawkes with assaulting him. Mr.
Barbary appeared for the prosecution. Complainant de-
posed: I went to the defendvnts' house to execute a war-
rant for Os 0.1. Defendants were there, sad also their
two daughters. I told him my business and stayed the
usual time. The daughters picked up two chains, and
dashed them down, and broke them. I tiled to prevent
them, when the defendant David seized me by the hair
of the head and struck me several times, cutting my lip
and marking my eye. While struggling to get from
David, Ida wife tried to push her finger in say eye, and
in doing an scratched my face, drawing blood. I went to
the police-station for assistance, and the police appre-
hended the male defendant.—John Parry. assistant-bai-
liff, stated that he went with the complainant to levy an
execution. Complainant said nothing should go out of
the house, when the deft Manta' daughters commenced to
break two chairs. David then struck the complainant
several times. He did not sea the wife do anything.—
Police-constable Hill proved that complainant came to
the station for assistance. Complainant's face was
scratched. The woman was very violent when he was in
the house.—The defence was that neither of them struck
the complainant. All they did was to tell him that the
goods did not belong to them, but to their son-in-law.—
The Magistrate remarked that it was a very aerious of-
fence to assault an officer while in the execution of his
duty. and fined each of the defendants il and costa; in
default one month's hard labour.—Elizabeth Wild and
, Mary Skidmore, daughters of the above defendants, were
' then charged by James Fawkes; with assaulting him on
the 6th inst. Mr. Burbury said his client did not wish to
press the ease, and would withdraw it upon defendants
i paying the costs —The Magistrate said it was very kind
1 of the officer. If the case had gone on he should have
felt it his duty to fine them heavily. Defendants paid
is earls the costs, and tlie case was withdrawn.

Ass tor.v CARES.—At the Petty Sessions, an Tuesday
last, before Messrs. Moore and Gem, Joseph Wilkes Wltfl
charged by Rosanna Srnitk with assaulting her on the
rd inst. Complainant said that she waepicking black-
berries when the defendant came up and kicked at her
can. She moved the can. and defendant kicked her on
the leg. Ile had frequently threatened her. Ann Smith
proved that the defendant only kicked the can. The
Bench dismissed the ease.

CRARGF. OF GAME:LING.—At the Petty FINMIMI.. on
Tuesday last, John Foster, a Tenth, was charged with
having a gaming table and permitting gambling at the
fair, on the Bth inst. The case was clearly proved by the
police, and defendant Rentenoed to 14 days' imprisonment
with hard labour.

NEGLECT OF Wonx.—At the Petty Sessions, on Tees-
day last, William Hatton, a youth. was charged by
Richard Tilley with neglecting hie work, he being a hired
servant. Mr. Hoinfray appeared for the complainant, and
stated that the defendant was hired to the complainant,

who agreed to give him as per week, with board end
lodging. He ran away, neglected his work, and pot the
complainant to a gomi deal of loss and inconvenience.
His master had bought him cloth, and treated him well.
He was obliged to have the defendant before the magis-
trates a short time ago, and the defendant agreed to re-
turn to his woik. He had not done so. If he would
agree to return to his work his master was willing to take
him, and did not wish to press the case. Mr. Hartill,
who appeared for the defendant, contended that his mas-
ter heal not treated defendant well. On the recommend-
ation of the Bench, defendant agreed to return to his
work and pay costs, liv lid.
Wmpui. Doss,Or.—On Tuesday last, at the Public
Office, George 'eaten was charged by Daniel Parsons
with unlawfully, knowingly, and maliciously, damaging a
quantity of vegetables on the dud lust, his property.—
Mr. Homfray defended.—Complainant said: On the
above date, defendant's two cows got over the fence into
my garden, and destroyed eight pickling cabbages which
,I were worth threepence each. On the 4th inst they des-
troyed a quantity of celery. I complained to the defend-
ant of the damage his cows bad done, and lie laughed at
me.—For the defence, Mr. Homfray submitted there was
DO case made out. The defendant was charged with
maliciously and wilfully damaging a quantity of vege-
tables. If the cows did no the complainant stated then
the defendant could not do it, and the summons waa
wrong. Complainant's remedy was to have pounded the
cows. If defendant had resisted there would have been ,
a summons for pound breach. It was not malice on the
part of the defendant, because the cows got into the
garden. If a cow had happened to kill a person, it
would be monstrous to charge the owner with murder.
He would submit that there was no case, and that the
Bench had no jurisdiction. The fence was bad and in-
-
suffieient to prevent cows from getting into the garden,
and complainant was bound to put up a wall fence--The
Bench remarked that they were of opinion that the fence
was a bail one, and dismissed the case.