AN OLD OFFENDER. George Saunders was charged with stealing a truss of straw the property of Mr Benjamin Hill of Preston. The prisoner elected to be tried by the Bench and being an old offender, was committed for three months. (March 1866)
WOOD STEALING. William Mayes (aged 43, a labourer of Preston) was brought up in custody charged with stealing a bundle of wood the property of Mr Hill of Preston. It appeared the offence was committed in July last and the prisoner absconded and had only lately been heard of. Committed for one month. (December 1864)
Samuel Fairey (aged 41, labourer of Back Lane, Preston in 1851) of Preston was brought up on remand charged with stealing 14s 6d from the person of Daniel Wilston (probably aged 48, a wheelwright, living at the Wilderness in 1851) on Sunday morning the 24th ult. It appeared from the evidence that Wilston had been drinking and had laid down and fell asleep by the roadside at Preston. On awaking at three o’clock in the morning he found that Fairey was putting a waistcoat in his pocket which he (the prosecutor) had bought and which was in his possession when he laid down and also discovered that his money had been taken. Wm Winch said that on Sunday morning he had met Fairey with the waistcoat, he said it belonged to Wilston, that he had picked it up in the road and was going to take it to him and told witness not to say he had seen him as Wilston might have lost something else. (Case dismissed. June 1857)
George Farey of Ippollitts, labourer, for stealing various articles value 1s 2d from Henry Braddin (sic) of Preston, victualler (whipped)
PAYING THE FIDDLER AT PRESTON FAIR. Edward Draper, 27, gypsy, belonging to Stevenage, was charged with embezzling the sum of 9s 10d the monies of John Jeeves (aged 41, a married coachman of Preston) at Preston on the 30th of October. There was a second count in the indictment charging the prisoner with receiving the money.
The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr Green appeared for the prosecution, the prisoner was not defended.
John Jeeves said that he lived at Preston, a small village near Hitchin, and worked
for Mr Wake there. On 30th of October last, Preston fair day, he went in the evening
to the Red Lion public-
to dance. The prisoner was there fiddling and he asked the witness for 2d, the usual
charge when he went into the room. Not having 2d, he handed the prisoner a half-
Prisoner: “I did. I said I would give him 10s rather than being locked-
Thomas French (aged 22, a labourer living at Preston) said he was present at the
Red Lion on the night in question and saw Jeeves give the prisoner a half-
Lord Cowper, in summing up the case to the jury said the evidence was very short and simple and needed no comment from him.
After a brief deliberation, the jury found the prisoner guilty of receiving. The prisoner pleaded guilty to two previous convictions for felony, one at Hitchin in February 1870 and one at Bedford in January 1865.
Sentence: “You must be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for six months.” (January 1873)
ROBBERY. At the Hitchin Petty Sessions on Tuesday, George Turner, an old man described
as a tailor on tramp, was charged with stealing a pair of spectacles of the value
of 3s 6d, the property of Frederick Robinson, (aged 42 of Preston Green) tailor of
Preston. It appeared that the prisoner got some work from the prosecutor on October
2nd, but left in the evening without saying he was going away and took the spectacles
with him. On being arrested at Hatfield, they were found in his possession. His defence
was that being used to wearing spectacles he put those in his pocket absent-
STEALING MONEY George Hawkins labourer of Preston, was brought up in custody charged
with stealing a half-
Charles Watson stated that he lived in Hitchin and worked for Mr Marriott of Preston
and on the 14th of September went to the Chequers to settle. He received as his share
a half-
Defendant said he found the money.
Police-
Defendant still adhered to his story that he found the half-
In answer to the Bench, defendant said he wished the magistrates to settle the case and after some time defendant pleaded guilty and was sent to gaol for one month, with hard labour. (September 1876)
TURNIP STEALING William Pedder, labourer of Hitchin (aged 35), was charged with stealing
nine turnips the property of Mr Samuel Kirkby (aged 68, farmer at Castle Farm, Preston)
of Preston, near Hitchin. Police-
ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES BY HARVEST-
William Cherry, 53 labourer (on bail) was indicted for obtaining two gallons of beer and one pint of brandy on false pretences from Robert Gosney at Preston on 29 August.
Gosney stated that he keeps the Red Lion Inn at Preston and on the morning of the 29 August prisoner went to his house and asked for a gallon of beer and half a pint of brandy value 3s 4d, saying he was working for Mr Piggott (of Temple Farm, Preston), a farmer whose beer had gone bad and he had therefore sent him for it. In the afternoon the prisoner again went to the house and asked for the same quantity of beer and brandy saying it was Mr Piggott and he would make it all right. On the faith of these statements, witness let him have the liquor.
Piggott, farmer of Preston, stated that he did not know the prisoner and consequently had never given him the authority to get the liquor in his name.
Prisoner said Herbert Reynolds fetched the beer and brandy in the morning and he (prisoner) fetched it in the afternoon and said it was to be charged to the same person as in the morning, but Mr Piggott’s name was never mentioned and he did not even know of his existence.
He called Frederick Armstrong (of Preston Hill Farm) for whom he and the other men worked but his evidence did not bear materially on the case, further that he supplied the men with two gallons of beer from his house about eight o’clock on the morning in question.
The Chairman in summing up said the case was not such a simple one as it appeared at first sight owing to the very scanty evidence which had been produced on the part of the prosecution. The essence of the charge was that the prisoner had asked for the liquor on the ground that he had been sent my Mr Piggott and unless that was established the charge would break down altogether. The law did not allow them to examine the prisoner but the prosecutor asserted one thing and the prisoner asserted another and there was little or no evidence to enable the jury to decide between the two. The point was, which did they believe, and that was a point which was entirely for the jury to decide.
After deliberating for some time two individual members of the jury gave their opinion that the evidence was insufficient to convict the prisoner upon and one of them seemed desirous of arguing the point. The Clerk of the Peace told them he could not take the verdict of individuals but it must be the unanimous verdict of the entire jury.
The Foreman immediately afterwards said the jury were all of opinion that the charge was not sufficiently proved. The Chairman (to the prisoner): You are discharged. You have escaped in consequence of the manner in which the case for the prosecution has been prepared.
(Immediately afterwards, a similar charge was levied at labourer Oswald Reynolds, brother of Herbert mentioned above) Gosney was asked why he supplied the men with brandy and he replied that he had been told that one of the men had diarrhoea and could not drink beer.
The prisoner said he never fetched the liquor at all, but it was fetched by his brother Herbert who asked the landlord to trust them with it as they could not drink their employer’s (Mr Armstrong’s) beer. The brandy was fetched for Cherry who had diarrhoea and did not drink any beer at all. He also said that Mr Armstrong was in the field when his brother came back with the liquor and, pointing to the brandy, said, “Why didn’t you have pale instead?”.
Mr Armstrong was called and stated that he was in the field about nine o’clock on 30 August and saw Herbert Reynolds come back with a gallon of beer, three bottles of ginger beer and some brandy. It was true Cherry had diarrhoea and he had asked the witness for some mixture for it.
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty and the prisoner was discharged. (A third similar case against Herbert Reynolds was dismissed) (Oct 1883)
George Fairey (son of John and Jane b 1821c) was indicted for stealing at Preston on the 4 February, a rabbit pudding and a pudding cloth, the property of Henry Bradden of the Chequers, at Ippollitts.
Rebecca Bradden, wife of the prosecutor – On the 4 February the prisoner came into the taproom and had a pint of beer. I had a rabbit pudding cooking on the fire. I went out of the room and heard a rattling, but took no notice of it. After Fairey came out, I went back when I found the pudding gone out of the pot. A man, John Day (a plait dealer of Preston b 1806c), afterwards came in and I went after Fairey. I found him in the field, asleep, and by his side the pudding cloth and some bones. John Day corroborated this evidence.
The prisoner in his defence said he knew nothing about the pudding until they awoke him, when he saw the cloth and bones by his side. Another man went into the house with him and left before him; he (the prisoner) stopped to finish drinking the beer.
Verdict: Guilty – to be whipped and discharged. (Feb 1843)
STEALING TURNIPS Mary Ward and Elizabeth Thredder, two girls, one of them about 12 and the other about 16 or 17 years of age were charged with this offence. The turnips were growing in a field in the occupation of Mr John Cook of Hill End, Hitchin and the offences were clearly proved against both defendants by John Wilshere, a man in the employment of Mr Cook. Mary Ward, the eldest of the two girls, was committed to the House of Correction at Hertford, with hard labour for one month and the other, Thredder, to the House of Correction, Hitchin for one week. (Feb 1841)
STEALING FERRETS. Francis Sharpe, James Prudden and William Dollimore were charged
with stealing ferrets, the property of Daniel Winch (of Preston m Catharine b1816c)
on Sunday 24 December. The ferrets were traced into the possession of the prisoner
by police-
FELONY. George Pearse, a notorious young thief (aged 17) (who has only left the County
prison about one month) was charged with stealing a smock frock (value 1s), the property
of a labourer in the employ of Mr Wright of Preston. The prisoner who is constantly
pilfering when out of gaol was seen to watch his opportunity and then to run off
with the article while the owner was working close by. The prisoner had nothing to
say in his defence and was committed to trial but admitted to bail. (May 1845) Trial:
the complainant, William Lines, was at work in a field and hung his smock upon two
sticks. He had occasion to go to another field to mend some gaps and on his return
about half an hour afterwards, he saw the prisoner take the smock from the spot where
he had placed it and run off with it. He hallooed him and pursued him for about a
mile but could not overtake him. The testimony of the prosecutor having been corroborated
by a fellow labourer who was at work with him in the same field, the smock which
had been taken off the prisoner’s back by the police was produced and identified
by the prosecutor from marks he described to the court. The Jury returned a verdict
of guilty but recommended the prisoner to mercy. The Deputy Chairman remarked that
the recommendation of the Jury was a very kind one, but if they had known as much
of the prisoner’s character as the Court did, probably they would not have made it.
The prisoner had already been in gaol three times for different offences and the
Court could not entertain any hope that a further term of imprisonment would lead
to his reformation. The sentence he was about to pronounce might appear severe, but
it was a merciful one as he would be sent to a prison for juvenile offenders where
he would learn a trade and thus would have a chance of becoming a good member of
society. The sentence of the Court therefore was that the prisoner be transported
for seven years accompanied with a recommendation to the Secretary of State for his
admission into Millbank Penitentiary. (May 1845). (This sentence was later commuted
to imprisonment for one year with hard labour at Hertford Gaol. It was hoped that
this mitigation would have a good effect on the boy so that no-
John and Henry Jeeves (aged 55 and 20, father and son), D Winch (b 1813) and W Andrews (b 1835c) (of Preston) vs. Mumford (William b 1811 Ag Lab of Preston Green). Claim 6s 7d each for work done.
It appears that the defendant was in the service of Mrs Darton as her woodman and
that he employed the plaintiffs to do certain cutting and pealing on her estate.
The money was paid to the defendant for him to divide equally among the plaintiffs
but it was alleged by them that he had failed in doing so and that there was the
6s 7d claimed yet due to them. Mrs Darton expressed her belief that the disagreement
arose from the fact that the defendant had paid himself twice and that in order to
do so, he had kept a portion of that which he ought to have paid to the plaintiffs;
but as the case was not sufficiently clear, they were non-
STEALING POTATOES. Three boys, John Deacon, and George and Thomas Palmer were charged with stealing potatoes, the property of Mr W Lucas from a field in his occupation. Deacon was fined 5s and the others 3s 6d each.(Sept 1848)
Articles reproduced by kind permission of the Hertfordshire Mercury.
