Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

19 articles on this Page

ORDINATIONS.

THE DEE ESTATES.

ACTION AGAINST A CHESTER LADY.

ISLE OF MAN MINING COMPANY.

Advertising

ALLEGED WOUNDING AT TARVIN…

THE SCHOOL BOARD QUESTION…

THE EXTRAORDINARY SHOOTING…

Advertising

CHESTER CYCLE CARNIVAL.

COUNTY POLICE COURT.

News
Cite
Share

COUNTY POLICE COURT. « SATURDAY.—Before Mr. H. D. Trelawny, Sir T. G. Frost, and Mr. J. Pover. ROAD LOCOMOTIVES FOR MILITARY WORK. IS A LICENCE REQUIRED ? Edward Box, Liverpool, was summoned on charges of using two locomotives on the highway without having licences for the same, and of obstructing the free passage of Hoole-road. Mr. E. S. Giles appeared for the prosecution, and defendant was represented by Mr. Beesley, of Liverpool.— Mr. Giles, in stating the case, said the loco- motives were each drawing four big guns on their carriages, and he understood defendant contended that he was under orders of the War Office to convey these guns, and was therefore exempt from a licence for the use of the locomotives. He urged this excuse to the Chief Constable, who saw him using the engines, but, when asked for his authority, he said he had his authority from the War Office, but not having it in his possession at the time, he would send it to Col. Hamersley by post. The authority, however, never arrived, and as far as the police knew there was no authority by which the War Office could over-ride the county bye laws, and the Chief Constable told defendant this. Mr. Box contracted'with the War Office to remove these big guns from place to place, and in doing so had to travel through several counties. With regard to the obstruc- tion, defendant deliberately stopped his engines at the entrance of Lightfoot-street, and also obstructed the entrance to Derby-place.—Col. Hamersley, Chief Constable, stated that he saw the traction engines in Hoole-road drawing big guns. In answer to witness, defendant said he had no licence for the engines, and did not require one, as he was acting under the War Office. Witness told him he did not think that military law could over-ride the civil law, and he should have a licence. Cross- examined: Witness had been a military man, and knew that under the old Highway Acts soldiers were exempt from paying turnpike toll; they had what was called a free road.' That would also apply to military transports.—The Chairman But Col. Hamersley would be acting as a Government officer, whereas this man was not.—Mr. Beasley: But he was employed by the military authorities to remove military stores. Colonel Hamersley If there had been a military escort I should have stopped them just the same, and asked for a licence.—Are you not aware that under the Act of 1861 there is an exemption from licences of locomotives drawing stores P I am not.—Mr. Beasley: Under the Local Government Act of 1878, in determining what fee should be paid by a locomotive, was it not contemplated that in some instances an engine might be used in several counties, and that that should be taken into consideration, that one licence should cover the whole?—Col. Hamersley: I know nothing of that.—Do you suggest that if a man uses a locomotive in five or six different counties, he is compelled to pay a E10 licence for each county ?-Col. Hamersley I don't suggest anything—I say he had no licence for the county of Chester.—Charles Hibbert, clerk in the service of the County Council, deposed to having issued no licence for defendant's engines for the present year.- Defendant, by permission of the Bench, then made a statement, saying he had had twenty years' experience in using his engines for military purposes, and up to the present had never been required to have a licence when using them for such purposes. For other pur- poses he took out annual licences for any county he passed through.—Mr. Beesley then addressed the Bench for the defence, and said his client firmly believed no licence was required for the engines on account of the work they were employed to do.—The Bench retired, and on returning the Chairman said Under the provisions of the 32nd section of the Highways Act, 1878, and the bye-laws framed in pursuance of that section, the defendant's locomotive, although drawing Government stores, was not exempt from the provisions under the bye-laws requiring it to be licensed. We consider that a fine of 20s. and costs will meet the first case, and we recommend that the summons should be withdrawn in respect of the licence of the second locomotive. In support of the charge of obstruction evidence was given by Col. Hamersley, Sergt. Warburton, and Edward Bentley.—A fine of 10s. and costs was imposed. GAME TRESPASS.—Thomas Williams and Thomas Ryder, strikers in the employment of Wood & Co., Saltney, were charged with being on land in the occupation of Mr. Probert, at Marlston cum Lache, on the 9th inst. Prisoners pleaded guilty.—Jos. Best, under- gamekeeper in the employment of the Duke of Westminster, in giving his evidence, stated that the two men came from some land, the property of Mr. Benjamin Jones, on to Mr. Probert's field, and he saw Ryder drive a hare towards Williams, who shot it. Witness took the hare from them, and asked for their names. Williams gave his name as Bill Jones, Saltney, and Ryder, who said he was Jones too, further stated, in answer to an inquiry, that he had been mushrooming. Williams pleaded that he was partly intoxicated when the offence took place.—The magistrates fined Williams 30a. and costs, or one calendar month, and Ryder 10s. and costs, or 14 days. Thomas Guest, living at Saltney, was summoned on a charge of trespassing on the same land in pursuit of game on the 7th September.—Mr. Pickering, occupier of the land, deposed to seeing de-. fendant hiding in a ditch in the field with a gun in his possession.—A fine of 10s. and costs, or an alternative of 14 days' imprisonment, was imposed. LICBNSING.-Mr. F. B. Mason applied on behalf of George Ryan, Tarvin-road, for temporary authority to sell at the Royal Oak, Hoole, in place of Thomas Lockley, the late tenant.- rhe Bench adjourned the case until the transfer day. A FAITHLESS HUSBAND.—Henry Royden, Hoole, was charged with leaving his wife and children chargeable to the Chester Union.—Mr. H. Anderson, relieving officer, said the wife and children were chargeable to the amount of 3a. a week, and they had been inmates for many months.—Prisoner was sent to prison for three months. A DISHONEST CLOCK REPAIRER.—Thomas Walmsley, a watch and clock repairer, Holt, was charged on remand in custody with com- mitting larceny by appropriating the watches of two of his customers.—Thomas Worrall, Caughall, and Annie Warburton, Broxton, the victims, deposed to giving their watches to prisoner to be repaired, and had seen neither prisoner or their watches since.—Prisoner pleaded guilty to the charges, and the Bench considered that under the circumstances the man could not be treated under the First Offenders' Act, although as far as they knew he was a first offender. He was sent to prison for a month.

CITY POLICE COURT.

THE RAILWAY TRAGEDY.

THE LATE MR. E. W. D. WALTHALL.…

NO MORE MEDICINE, PURGING…

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD INQUIRY…

NORTH WALES POOR LAW CONFERENCE.

PADESW00D BUCKLEY BRICK AND…

Advertising