The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-07-05 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.

Re BOWEN. —At the County Court, on Thursday
last, before R. Kettle, Esq., Judge, Mr. Motteram
(instructedthec oCourt
tb
for
r aM
eurrsord.e Bernard
to fi ernarle
and
idKe King), applied
t.
Charles Powis, of No. 60, Gracechurch-street, Lon-
don, the trustee of this estate, to pay Messrs. Davis,
Squires, Durbin, Shields, and Edge, the amount
owing to them for salaries and wages. An affidavit
of Mr. S. Bowen, the debtor, and Mr. Waterman
(Messrs. Bernard and King's managing clerk) was
I read by Mr, Motteram, showing that the trustee had
I received, without taking into account anything for
book debts, the sum of £829 Is 3d; and that after
payment of the auctioneers and solicitors' expenses,
and payment of rent, taxes, &c., there remained in
the trustees hands a sum of 1.361 4e 4d. Mr. Ebs-
worth, who appeared for the trustee, stated that his
client had not sufficient funds; also, that the proofs
of debt had only been in the hand; of the trustee
since the 30th of Jung") and he called Mr. WIIIT,
clerk to Mr. C. Powis, who swore that the proofs
were left by a clerk of Messrs. Gregory and Co.
(Messrs. Bernard and King's agents), on the 28th
I nit, at the same time the notice of application was
served. Mr. Motteram proved that the proofs of
'Durbin, Squires, Cutler, and Shields ware sent by
post to the trustee on the 20th nit, and had been filed
at the Court for months past, and us to the proofs of
Davis and Edge, the learned counsel stated that as
they were handed to the chairman at the statutory
meeting of creditors, it was the duty of the trustee
to obtain them from the Registrar, as he was the
only party who could take them off the file of pro-
ceediogs. The learned counsel, after producing to
wituess Wurr a letter-book, containing copy of the
letter written to Mr. C. Powis, with the proofs of
Durbin, Squires, Cutler, and Shields, and, cantiouing
him, asked the witness if he would withdraw what
he had sworn about the proofs having been left by
Messrs. Gregory and Co.'s clerk, with the notice;
but witness reiterated his previous statement, and
said he would swear the proofs were left by Messrs.
Gregory and Co.'s clerk at the same time the notice
was left. The Judge said the trustee who applied to
for the wages HO far back as March last, and that the
correspondence chewed he was shuffling. He should
order the trustee to set aside sufficient fluids to pay
the wages, and to pay the costs of the application, in
case he ordered them to be paid; but he should ad-
journ the question of costs until the 14th August,
wheu he would have the question as to the proofs
being sent to the trustee on the 20th June, or left on
the 28th June cleared up, and he intimated to Mr.
Ebsworth that if he was satisfied on the 14th Auguft
that the proofs were sent to the trustee on the 20th
Jane, a, -alleged, he might order the costs to be paid
by the trustee out of his own pocket.
Bowen v. Powis. hay CASE. This was an
action brought to recover the sum of £37 16s, for
money advanced for the defendant.—Mr. Mot-
teram (instructed by Messrs. Bernard and King),
was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Young (instructed
by Mr. Ebsworth) for the defendant.
Samuel Bowen deposed: I am manager for
Messrs. Harper, and was formerly proprietor of
The Plutts Glass Works. In November last I filed
my petition. I had a mils by Messrs. Oates, Per-
runs, and Woiffidridge. Defendant, at that sale,
purehasod 29 finished and four unfinished pots,
besides several other things; and he paid £175
lOs for them, and purchased £295 fis worth—the
whole of the goods. After the sale, defendant
asked plaintiff to take charge of the pots, and all
his purchaser. Plaintiff agreed to do so, and the
defendant gave him for his trouble four unfinished
pots. They were worth XS in that state. He
had to keep up fires in three places night and day.
There were 20 pots in one room, 6 iu another, and
3 in.pnother. A portion of the 20 pots were fin-
ished, and the others were in diffierent stages of
drying. The six were also drying with the three
in the pot arch. He asked witness to take care of
the pots. It was necessary to keep up fires night
and day for a certain time, or the pots would have
been useless, also to keep up a certain heat. The
!pots were large and had two tons eight cwt. of
clay. Defendant would get a net sum of £325,
and sold them for £345. Witness employed two
men named Davis and Squires as watchmen, Davis
for 13 weeks at 18s per week, and Squires 12 weeks
at 103 per week. He also bought coal, candles,
and paid £l9 12s. Defendant's brother gave him
£5 on account. On the 12th December, he met
defendant, who told him he would send £5 for
fires incurred and mens' wages' Defendant did
not give use four pots.
Cross-examined: Defendant is my brother-in-
law. I have liquidated three times. The first
time there was 25s in the pound, but through the
lawyers getting so much the dividend was some-
thing like 3s. Was carrying on business at that
time at Westbromwich. I afterwards went to
Nailsea, and failed again. The debts were about
£30,000. There was 20e in the pound. The divi-
dends were Is lid and 4id. This was in 1869.
The last failure was in November, and the liabili-
ties were between £B,OOO and £9OOO. Nothing has
yet been paid from the last failure. Cannot say
how much it will realise. Have not made any
claim to any one else. My four unfinished pots
were with the twenty.
Benjamin Wooldridge, auctioneer, proved that
he sold plaintiffs goods, and that defendant bought
goods to the amount of £295 6s.
Henry Waterman, clerk to Messrs, Bernard and
King, said he heard the defendant give plaintiff
orders to get some men to look after the pots and
goods he had brought.
James Davis said that plaintiff engaged him to
look after the fires, pots, and other goods, and
paid him 18s per week for 13 weeks. Also sup-
plied with oil, lamps, and candles.
George Squires proved that defendant engaged
him to look after the pots and goods, but Mr.
Bowen paid him the money, 10s per week.
Mr. Young, addressed the Court for the defence,
and called the defendant who said that on the
28th of November last, he attended a sale under
' plaintiff's liquidation and bought a number of
pots, four of which were unfinished; and these
latter he gave to the defendant on the condition
that he would look after the goods bought, and
take charge of them. Defendant said he would do
it, as it would be a good thing for his family and
he could turn them to good account. Nothing was
said about engaging men, or any agreement made
Ito pay him for the coal or oil. He brought the
goods under the advice of plaintiff and knew that
Messrs. Hartley and Kyle had sued for rent. Mr.
I Brown, solicitor to Messrs. Hartley and Kyle, said
they should be obligedto take to the works unless he
could set them. Witness had 10 per cent, on the
I goods bought, which would be about £29.
Henry Wurr, cashier to Mr. Charles Powis, trustee
of this liquidation and wrote out the receipt now pro-
duced. He was present with the plaintiff and defen-
dant when tiley had a conversation about some
money the defendant had lent him, when plaintiff
said that defendant would make a clear profit of £5O.
Heard defendant say he would give plaintifffour pots
to look after the goods..

Mr. Motteram, replied in a feeling speech, and said
that the defendant had done all he could to injure
the plaintiff's character, and asked the jury to give
him a verdict. Him Honour sumed up, and the jury
gave a verdict for the full amount claimed.

THE LATE CHARGE OF EMBEZZLEMENT.—At
the Worcestershire SeQsioas, on Tuesday, before
Mr. R. H. Harrington, assistant-chairman,
Christopher Brunt (26), labourer, was indicted
for embezzling s-veral sums of money, amount-
ing together to ..e3 lOs 6d, the moneys of his
master. George datnes Eveson, of Stourbridge.
Mr. J If prosecuted. In November last the
pr s ~14 or, who is a coil merchant, engaged the
prisoner to solicit orders and receive money.
Several sums of money which the prisoner Was
proved to have received he failed to account for
to prosecutor's cashier, as he ought to have
done—He was found guilty, and was sentenced
to eight months' imprisonment.
DRUNK AND NIOTOUS.—At the Petty Sessions,
yesterday, before Major Fletcher, and B. Little-
wood, Esq., John Edge, Charles Edge, and Win.
Simms, were charged %y Superintendent Freeman
with being drunk and riotous in Church-street, on
the night on the 30th ult. P.O Tomlin, proved
the offence, and Charles Edge was fined is and
costs, and the other two defendants who did not
appear, were fined 2s 6d each and costs. .
PERMITTING A NUISANCE—John Green was
summoned by Henry Will!ams, Inspector, for
allowing a nuisance to exist on his premises in
Hagley-street. Complainant proved that the
nuisance existed, and that defendant had promised
to remove it, but he had not done so and that he
had since left the premises. The Bench considered
they had n power to make an order as the defen-
dant had left, and if he went on the premises he

, a treapasser. Mr. . clerk, said
that complainant could si mmo-ns the present
tenant, and the Bench dismissed the ease against
Green.

would be

King,

•-••••-•-•••••
SUPPORT OF A FATHER.—Richard Knowles,
Andrew Knowles, Emmanuel Knowles, Beni
Knowles, and Thomas Knowles, were summoned
by Mr. J. Barrett, relieving-officer, for refusing to
support their father, Thomas Knowles. Mr.
Barratt proved that the father became chargeable
to the Union at a cost of 2s 6d per week, and that
the defendants could offord to pay 6d per week
each. The Bench ordered each of the defendants
to pay each and costs.
DRUNKENNESS.—WiIIiam Wells was charged with being
drank in High-street, on the 4th inst, and was tined Is
and costa.
MAATEIRE AND SERVANT.' Acv.—Thomas Frost, in the
employ of the Talbot Hotel Company Limited, was sum-
moned by Joshua Bridges, manager, for neglecting his
work on Saturday last. Mc. Prescott defended. From
the evidence of complainant it appeared that a Mr.
Baker called at the hotel for a cab to be supplied on the
Saturday, to go to Brierley Hill. The defendant was
engaged as the postbu, but refused to take him unless
he gave him Is ior himself. In defence, it was urged
that it was after 1.1 o'clock and an unreasenable hour,
and the case was dismissed.
CHARGE OF POACHING.—Thomas Davis and Richard
Mobberley, were charged with being in pursuit of game, :
on the 17th tilt, at Bagley Park. P.O Summers proved
the ease, and said that defendants had a dog with them
beating. Fined is 64 and costs.
CHARGE OF Asset/yr.—Charles Blakewell, of Bel-
brougliton, vms charged by George Lacy, with assaulting !
her. on the 24th alt The assault was not proved to the
satisfaction of the Bench, and defendant denied the ,
cliargeoind the ease was dismissed.

A LENIRNT Wm.—William Southall was charged
by Sarah Ms wife, with assaulting her on the 30th tilt.
Complainant said she did not wish to press the case, as
defendant bud promised never to assault her again, and
that it was whim e he was drunk, and she (witness) was
rather fast with her tongue. Defendant was bound over
in £lOO, his own recoguizances, to keep the peace for
12 months'.

rin, AllffUTA%i
SATIIIRDAY, Jl' r
fo•

.; .; app,nre

,„,. Goodf4low .tated that on the
day in gaestion be visited the defendant's house at 9.30
p.m. In a room upstairs he new a cue containing •
quantity of obscene photographs, which were being
examined by a number of young girls and boys.
Cross-examined : Refre-hmenta are served id Ili.
room. I believe. I never saw any one served there. The
refreshment rooms open into it. The room where I
bebliueivebdef the
ore deili.:
aharg
found the box is • kind of museum. and is about 10 fed
square, and there is a barrel-organ in one corner. A
gagsairandt he believed
piano was being played in the adjoining room when I
eww
wltshn
remark,
efuaegr legalnkhe defence, t
0, underM
tYh oe
made my visit.
parthis Worship.o f the case,lf
he
ee
shoulddesir desired dt
kW.
amti
re:
cot view of the sue to what he (Mr. Young) did, be
hoped the magistrate would be disposed to takes lenient
course, if he should feel constrained to convict. The
defendant had been for years • builder, and had carried
on the business of a licensed victualler; and he bad
occupied a respectable position in Brierley Hill. He
had always conducted himself in a decent, straight-
forward manner, and was at the present time a member
of the Local Board. He (Mr. Young) was in • position
to show by highly respectable witnesses that defendant's
character was above reproach, and that he had always
been looked upon as a very respectable tradesman. He
admitted that the prints in question were not of that
class which should be found in any man's house; but,
unfortunately, there was in the precast day a taste for
that kind of thing ; and no doubt those photographs
suggested indecent thoughts. Defendant might bare
been imbued with a notion, which was pretty general,
that the exhibition of such prints was not illegal. Ile
did not believe the defendant displayed them with any
prurient feelings, but rather, as he (Mr. Young) had pre-
vionitly remarked, under a mistaken notion that it was
a mistaken notion that it was not illegal. He would now
refer to the legal aspect of the case. No doubt the
Legishiture, in passing the Acts which dealt with the
charge, aimed at putting down the exposure of indecent
prints us public places or thoroughfares.
The Stipendiary: I think • public-house is a public
place within the meaning of the Act.
Mr. Young : The Act of George says, " In roads,
streets, and highways,- and my contention is that it was
never intended that it should relerto a " public-house,'
or even to a place of public resort.
The Stipendiary : tinder the Act you have referred
to there were many doubts as to its meaning, and then
to put it in a more definite shape, the Act Ist and Ilud
Yds: , chap. 38, was passed.
Mr. Young acquiesced, but was alai of opinion that
the public inn was not included in roads, streets, and
highways."
The -Stipendiary : Suppose you take a shop, and at
the kick you expose indecent photographs ?
Mr. Young : I should contend there was no exposure.
My contention is that a public-house is not a public
place, but one of public resort, and according to the
Act of Varliament my client cannot be punished for this
alleg, 1 offence.
. .
"" "'

'lh, Stipendiary, in reply, observed that it was but
natural that antler the Act of George doubts should arise
as to the meaning of the Legislature. The Act of
Vieficia recited that doubts had arisen, and then said
that • very person who shall wilfully expose, or cause to
(.sioised, in a window or in any part of the premise.
or other building, situate in any atreet, road, or highway,
si.a be guilty of an infringemeut of the Act' :He could
come to no other conclusion than that the photograph
bad been exposed us the room in defendant's house,
and could it be said that it warn not within the meaning
of the Act? To his mind it excluded all argument.
Mr Young : As this is a novel point. I hope you will
grant me a case.
The Stipendiary : If I think it necessary.
Mr. Ward (Magistrates' Clerk): You can appeal at
Qua rter Sessions.
Mr. Young: But what good is the going to Quarter
Sefli,-.118 on points of law.
Mr Edwin Cook, Chairman of the Brierley Hill Leal
Boir.:, and Mr. W. W. Bright were then called as to
defendant's character, and they each gave him so excel.
lent o le for general unrightness and decency—the latter
rem thing that he was surprised to hear defendant hod
exposcd indecent prints.
The Stipendiary (to Mr. Young) : Can you tell nr: how
delen•lant possessed himself of the photographs?
Alt,. a consultation with his client, Mr. Young
eepaed that a man from }Wadsworth, who was iu the
habt of visiting the Foantnin lan, exchanged them for
some others exhibited in the room. The prints taken
away were in no way indecent. The learned counsel then
snug. cited that perhaps the ends of justice would be
sery d by the defendant giving a donation to the tamest
Hospital. Dudley.
10, Siiisendiary : I have to deal with a very bad
offence. the exposure of these prints tends direedy to
affect young women who visit the house. It was quite
true that the police found in the same box prints that
were not of a bad nature. It is just possible that the
defen lant, being engaged in another business, might
not be aware of the real nature of the contents of the
box 'rile defendant had received an excellent character,
and that fact must be borne in mind by me. 11l convict
the law leaves me no option but to send him to gaol for
three months as a "rogue and a vagabond." Lookirg
at sb the circumstances, and "particularly the man's
good character. I think the suggestion of the learned
counsel would meet the case. The defendant can pay
down at once £5O, to be handed over to the Guest
Hosuitui, which supplies a great boon in this neighbour.
hood I don't order him to do it.
Mr. Young : My client will do so.
The case thus terminated.

Avartviwo • Wostaw.—George James, • Ma, was
charged with assaulting Elizabeth Batharn. at Cottage.
stre,t. Brierley Hill, on the 25th ult. Complainant
stated that on the above date she met the defendant aa
she was returning home. He said Le would not let her
pais and picked up a stone. She attempted to go past,
when be struck and kicked her. Defendant said the
wont do struck him first. P.O Hollins said he saw com-
plainsot and defendant together. Defendant had •
black eve, and complainant was bleeding from the arm.
Richard Batham, husband of complainant said be saw
the defendant trying to bite complainant's legend witmas
tried to atop him or else" he would have bitten the calf
of her leg off." Mr. Spooner: It must have been • very
small one. Defendant was remanded for • week fir
f either enquiries.
TE•RING • Coar.—Tho^. Pemberton was charged by
Robert Reynolds, with tearing his coat, doing damage
to the amount of 7s, on the 14th init. Complainant
said he was a labourer under the Earl of Dudley.. On
the above date about lialf•past five, he went into the
New Inns to have some ale, when defendant struck him
on the head three times. Witness said it was past •
joke when defendant laid hold of his coat and tore it.
Complainant produced the coat which had the appear-
ance of having 'been worn for a considerable period.
Mr. Spooner informed complainant that he ought to
have gone to Mr. Kettle, the County Court Judge, to
have obtained full damage for such a valuable Coat as
that. He ordered defendant to pay Is damage asel
costs.