The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1866-11-13 00:00:00

WA REHAM.

CotliviV Perri Sitenteren, Tueedity.-Befure 0.
W. Furor, Esq. (chairman), J. Haarlem, Emg, and
H. Rodgett, Noq.-Chaeles Brine and Emmanuel Brine,
Igeourers, were e4arged with poaching on land belong-
in qto Henry Franiptun, Esq., at Moreton. Hr.
Howard defended.-The getnekeeper Saunders on the
20th Oct. hood the report of a gun, and on going to
the common found ii e defencluts there with a double-
barrelled gun, and formal a dead rabbit which ems
wart.. The keeper took the gun. The Bench con-
rioted a fondants, and Mr. Howlers obserted that
Charles Brine was a very old customer at this Court,
•net he arm mrry to see that he wu bringing up his son
to the same Imam.s, which was a great pity. He had
been moet ably defended, but Lis advocate bad
egg, poor ground to work upon. Charles was fiend
£2 and ss. 111. oasts, and Columnar' 10e. and
fie. &I. costa. The money was paid. Mr. Howard
spplied to the Bench to order the keeper to
Kilns up the gun to oefenduta, but they declined to
do inn.- -John llialap, labourer, was autonienied for
womultieg and misting P.C. Jam. s in the execution of
his &My. -P.O Junes eaw tiefendent on the common,
near Vs infrith, about halfspest lee on Sunday morning.
Oggobse 12113. About II o'clock the same day he met
Bishop in the turnpike med. having something onnocalead
under hie slop. Suspecting he bad Men poaching, witness
aaked him genet be had got, to which be replied "What
odds theta, your Josses demanded to me what he
had cot, and they struggled together, in the course or
which Bishop kicked enamels mateal times, and struck
him on the helmet with a stook. After that WIIMISI
threatened to strike him, Mowing hien his btatr. when
defendant showed hint a partridge, which wituess
eventually gtook from him. Mr. Howard: At
the previous bearing of this um, did not I
put this ousation-"Had von any reason to suspect
bin, of coming from land r and you replied "No."
Witness: I can't remember what I said. He main-
tained this, and lie. Howard &alined to cult him pap
other question. -The constable's son, a lad of ten, wad
called to corroborate his statement. The Chairman add
hie note of P.C. James' answer to the question put by
Sir. Howard was, "lly only reason for suppeing him to
have been on land was his racielance -Mr. Howard I
mid that answer was given to a question pat by Um I
Chairman, alter he (Mr. Howaml) had finished his
craw-examination, and went on to say that his only
RIL•011 for apiwaring on the present oeseden wim that
answer of the constable, and he quoted the ems of
"Begin& v. Mabel, " in which it was ruled by
Baron Parke "that when a policeman exceed* his duty,
the question is this- wb-ther the def. ndant used more
violencen than was necessary to free himself from the
assault of the policeman." He maintained that in this
eau she constable bad no right to search the defendant,
and the proof that defendant did not use more violence
than was necessary consisted in the fact that he did uot
seemed in freeing himself from the policeman. He then
ma.h. some remarks as to the condoet it the coostable
in bringing additional eel 'ence to-day to what he had
at the previous hearing, and oundenmatory of that pro-
fessional feeling amongst policeman, which makes them
rabbit disappointment and momenta when a coovietion
does not follow every charge they make-After a brief
anmideratins, the Chairmen said the opinion of the
court wee that that the defendant was liable in Stigmas.
In the mew of Mabel it a simed that the policeman had
no anUority to lay hold of defendant, but in this the
Hooch were of opinion the onnetable was perfectly
justified In stopping the defendant for the purpose of
searching bim, having good cause to inspect hebad been
on land iu pursuit of game. If a policeman exeseded
hie duty he would be puni-hed, but where he had cause
to suspect a person he must be protested in eeerchmg
bine Tne evidence given at the previous court, though
not sufficient in the opinion of the Bench to ain•iet
defendant of trammeling in pursuit of game
on the lead, was amply suffloieut to give the constable
rad eases to think he had been there
The Bench would not treat this as a bed cue. though it
was ono for • conviction. But they always punished
sautes upon constables more than those of an ordinary
character, because they were esposed to snob attacks in
the perforumuce of a dety for the public good. He
would be firo-d lls. and 9.e. coats, or, in default, three
works' hard labour. At the request of Mr. Howard,
and on his expressing his belief that if time were given
defendut would not take edvantege of it to raMe the
money by poaching, • fortnight was allotted for him to
pay In.-- Alfred White was summoned oe the com-
plaint of Thomas Churehen Edmunds, of Stallion',
for stealing sum. leather straps, his property, on the
25th October. The property wan traced by P.C.
Florence to the prisoner, but the prosecutor not wish-
ing to press the cue, defendant was let off with •
caution. -Mr. Truenen defended --William Cattle
and James Vincent, of Carle Castle, and Charles
Manuel, of Church Knowle, were summoned on the
complaint of I°C. Forrest, for living drunk and refusing
to leave the Half way publiehouse. on the 31st October.
Oettle was filled 1155., Vincent, Is.; Manuel, who did
not appear, was lined 10s.