News - Miscellaneous

Amos Mayes aged 11 years of Preston and Alfred Fairey aged 9 years were charged with ill-treating a lamb, the property of Mr Hill. The young urchins rode and beat the lamb with a stick, from the effects of which, it died. The boy Mayes was, with the consent of his parents, sentenced to be well whipped, the boy Fairey was reprimanded and discharged. (August 1856)

INTERPLEADER CASE. Carling vs John Buckingham (aged 56, baker of Preston in 1851. A new baker was at Preston in 1861 and N was baking at Stevenage). Mr Codd appeared for the execution creditor and Mr Griffiths for the claimant. It appeared from the evidence that in May last year, Mr Carling claimed judgement in this Court against Buckingham who is a baker residing in Preston, for the sum of £50 but did not act upon this judgement until December last when he obtained an execution against his goods. The bailiff seized his household furniture which was sold at auction and realized about £22 but a mare and cart belonging to the defendant, valued at £12 was sent to his (the defendant’s) father’s residence at Stevenage and his father used the mare and cart and had his son’s name erased and his own written on the cart. The bailiff, however, shortly afterwards meeting the father with the mare and cart, made a seizure - from whence arose this action. After hearing the case, the jury retired and after a lapse of a quarter of an hour returned in the Court and gave a verdict for the execution creditor. (January 1858)

UNNATURAL OFFENCE AT KINGS WALDEN. X 51, described as a furniture broker of Biggleswade, Beds and Y 21, labourer of Preston (Married and a brewers labourer in 1881), both bailed on committal, were charged under four counts with attempting to cause an unnatural offence at King’s Walden, on the 9th of April last. Both men are described in the calendar as being of imperfect education.

Y pleaded guilty and X not guilty.

Mr Clark was for the prosecution and Mr Willis with whom was Mr Patterson, for the defence.

A police-constable named Farr was the principal witness for the prosecution, but his statement was not confirmed by the prisoner, Y, who was admitted as evidence against the other prisoner. Some important facts in favour of the prisoners were elicited from this witness by Mr Willis in his cross-examination.

Three witnesses were called to speak to the character of X and they bore testimony to his having hitherto possessed an unspotted reputation.

Mr Willis delivered an eloquent and forcible address on behalf of X

Lord Cowper in summing up, said the case before the jury was one of grave importance and required their most serious consideration in arriving at a verdict. His lordship drew the attention of the jury to the evidence called in support of the prisoner’s character and observed that evidence of character in cases of this nature was more important than in any other. The description of guilty by the prisoner, Y, of the whole transaction was not consistent with the plea of guilty which he had put forward.

After a brief consultation, the jury found the prisoner, X, not guilty.

Mr Clark said he did feel some doubt in his mind whether the prisoner Y really understood what he was doing and the nature of the charge to which he had pleaded guilty. He asked that the prisoner be brought forward and asked in language shorn of technicalities whether he really did understand the charge to which he had pleaded guilty.

Mr Willis said it had come to his knowledge in two instances of persons having pleaded guilty to charges and of afterwards making statements which were not consistent with the plea. In both cases, the plea of not guilty was taken.

The prisoner was placed in the witness box and in reply to Lord Cowper said he did not understand what was meant when the charge was read over to him and to which he had pleaded guilty.

Mr Clark said then on behalf of the prosecution he did not propose to enter any evidence against the prisoner.

Lord Cowper then asked the jury for their verdict as affecting the prisoner and they at once returned a verdict of not guilty. (July 1871)

REFUSING TO ADMIT THE POLICE. Alfred Chalkley, landlord of the Red Lion, Preston, was charged with refusing to admit the police on the 15th April. Police-constable Day said he was in Preston about a quarter to three in the morning of the 15th and when against the Red Lion, he heard voices inside and the rattle of dominoes. He knocked at the door and heard some scuffling. Someone in a low whisper said it was the police. He called to be admitted, but no action was taken. Police-constable Edwards said he served a summons on the defendant, who remarked that one of the two men was a lodger and he didn’t care a ---------- as he could get off by paying. Defendant said he had only had the house six months and did not know he was bound to let the police in. He called Wm Rudd living at Hitchin Hill who swore that he had been on his round traveling with a friend and they stopped all night at the Red Lion. He admitted they played dominoes but they did not know it was a policeman at the door. Defendant was fined £2 and 15s 6d costs. (April 1875)

Charles Fairey, labourer of Preston, was charged by Mr Watkins, supervisor of Inland Revenue with carrying a gun without licence. Defendant did not appear but after evidence had been given of the fact he was fined ? (September 1878)

James Jenkins, (aged 21) labourer of Preston was charged by Police Constable Farr with being found on the highway on the night of the 9th August armed with a gun and having powder and shot in his possession. Fined 10s. (August 1870)

ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES Arthur French, labourer of Hitchin, was charged with obtaining food and drink of the value of 2s by false pretences.

Mrs Ann Olney, the wife of the landlord of the Red Lion Inn, Preston said that on the 19 September, the prisoner came to her house and asked for some food and beer. He said, “You know me very well” and added that he wanted the food and beer because he was at work in a bean field for Mr Marriott, a farmer living nearby. She gave him a gallon of beer and some bread and cheese (2lbs bread and 8oz of cheese) believing he was at work for Mr Marriott. On asking when he would pay for what he got, he said she would be paid when Mr Marriott settled with him. He then left the house and she did not see him again until this morning.

By the prisoner: He did not tell her that he fully expected to be engaged to do work for Mr Marriott.

Mr Stephen Marriott, farmer at Preston (Castle Farm b 1823), said the prisoner had not been in his service on 19 September. The prisoner said he had taken two different jobs from Mr Marriott, but he had refused to let him begin. He was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions. (Oct 1879)

At the trial, the prisoner urged there was nothing more than a misunderstanding between him and Mrs Olney.

The jury found the prisoner guilty. Being asked if he was convicted of felony at Hitchin in 1863, he said it was so long time ago he could not remember. Evidence to prove the previous conviction was given by Henry Hollindale, formerly a warder at Hertford Gaol and by Inspector Young of Hitchin. It appeared that French was convicted of stealing £3 13s 6d and was sent to prison for three weeks and at the end of the period to a reformatory for two years. The jury found that the previous conviction had been satisfactorily proved.

The Deputy Chairman in sentencing the prisoner to three month’s imprisonment with hard labour said he thought it a pity that the former conviction should have been mentioned as

It occurred a long time ago and the prisoner had been in the army since then and had conducted himself well while there. (Dec 1879)

Articles reproduced by kind permission of the Hertfordshire Mercury.