Welcome to The Briercliffe Society Forum

The forum is free to join and you do not need to be a member of the society. You will receive an email to activate your account before you will be able to log in. Please check spam filters and junk mail folders for this email.
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 4:28 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:42 pm 
Willfinder General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:51 pm
Posts: 3007
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada
Express and Advertiser, November 22, 1933
MANUFACTURER IN DOCK.
EX-MAYOR’S SON FACES RECEIVING AND THEFT CHARGES.
INCIDENTS AT MILLS IN BACUP AND BRIERFIELD.
A story of how observations kept by detectives on a warehouse in Brierfield, followed by a motor cycle chase after a motor lorry, which was stated to be travelling at a “very fast speed” resulted in a number of arrests being made, was related in the Reedley Police Court last Saturday, when Alwyn Sutcliffe (35), wadding manufacturer, of “Fordbank,” Queen’s Park-road, Burnley, stated to be a son of a former Mayor of Burnley, appeared on remand to face two charges of receiving.
The charges were receiving three full back beams of cotton yarn, valued at £37 11s. 6d., knowing them to have been stolen at Brierfield on October 30th, and also receiving 28 full back beams of cotton yarn, valued at £360 5s., knowing them to have been stolen at Brierfield between September 1st and October 29th.
Sutcliffe was represented by Mr. B. Ormerod, barrister, and Supt. Linaker prosecuted for the police. Mr. A.H. Roebuck held a watching brief on behalf of the Brierfield Mills, Ltd.
Supt. Linaker briefly outlined the case for the police, and remarked that observations were taken as a result of certain information being given to the officers.
John Wm. Dyson, of Mayfield, Reedley, director of the Brierfield Mills, Ltd. Said he had known prisoner by name only until October 30th, and at no time had his firm done business with him.
Witness said he had received a phone message from the Reedley Police Station, and when he went there he saw prisoner in the detective office, along with a number of police officers. It was intimated that Sutcliffe wished to see him privately, but witness said he did not know there was anything but what the officers could hear. The officers left the room, however, and witness alleged that Sutcliffe said to him, “Can you make some arrangement about this job? I have paid dearly for these.” Witness asked him who he was, and when he said “I am the son of Alderman Sutcliffe, the ex-Mayor of Burnley,” witness replied, “You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, bringing disgrace upon a man who has held such responsible positions.” Prisoner told him there were only nine beams, and that they were at Foster’s, Habergham Mill.
“He Approached Me.”
Mr. Dyson told prisoner that there was nothing he could do, as the matter was entirely in the hands of the police. He also asked him if Mr. Tunstill, his winding master, had approached him, or if he had approached Tunstill, and Sutcliffe replied, “He approached me.” Later witness went into the police station yard, and on a lorry he saw three full back beams of cotton yarn which he at once identified as being the property of his firm. The beams were worth about £12 10s. each. He had not sold the beams to anyone at all.
In reply to Mr. Ormerod, witness said the position of winding master in the mill was one of considerable responsibility, as he would have over a hundred employees under his control, and would have charge of all the beams which were bought. At times there were more than 200 or 300 beams kept in storage ready for being processed. Reject beams would not be sold by the winding master.
Wm. H. Dyson, son of the previous witness, and assistant manager at the mill, corroborated the evidence of his father.
Harry E. Dyson, of Grafton, Swaledale avenue, manager of the mill, said he had known Sutcliffe for about three years. Witness came to the police station and saw the beams on the lorry. They were good beams, and fit and suitable for weaving, and had not been sold.
Ben Waddington, of Fence, the secretary of the firm, said Sutcliffe had never done business with the firm. There was no entry in the books at the mills with regards to the three beams mentioned in the charge.
John Bradbury (20), of 22, Ashfield road, Burnley, a motor driver, said he saw Sutcliffe at his mill, which was known as Rishton Mill, about 11 a.m. on October 30th. Witness made arrangements to take him to Padiham to buy some stuff, and then to Brierfield just after lunch. After returning from Padiham, Sutcliffe waited in the yard of Bradbury’s employer until it was time to go to Brierfield, and then went on the lorry. He told witness to drive to Rishton Mill, where they would pick up Cooke, his employee. They afterwards drove on towards Brierfield, travelling along Barden-lane and the riverside. At Quaker Bridge Sutcliffe got out, and he gave Cooke an envelope, saying, “You go up and get the stuff on, and I will meet you shortly.” After this they drove on to the Brierfield Mills. At the warehouse witness drew in with his vehicle, and Cooke and Tunstill put three full backbeams on the lorry. These were the beams which were on the lorry when they were seen by the police.
In Broad Daylight.
After loading the beams, witness continued, he had to back out, and then drove back along the same route. When near to Quaker Bridge he saw Sutcliffe, who got into the cab of the vehicle.
In reply to a question by the Clerk (Mr. Pilgrim), witness said Cooke gave the envelope to Tunstill. The vehicle was stopped when the police came up, and they were all taken to Reedley Police Station.
Witness, replying to Mr. Ormerod, said he had thought everything was straightforward and above-board. It was broad daylight, the mill was running, and there was no attempt made to conceal the load. Witness said he had done carrying work for the prisoner for about twelve months, and on previous occasions Sutcliffe had accompanied him on the vehicle. It was, however, a common practice for him not to visit the mill to which they might be going.
Albert Cooke, of 31, Brunswick-street, Burnley, a labourer, employed by Sutcliffe at Rishton Mill, said he gave the envelope given to him by prisoner to Tunstill, who just put it into his pocket without opening it. Witness neither received a delivery note nor signed anything when he got the beams. In answer to a question, he told the Court that he had been employed by the prisoner for about three years, and had made arrangements for his employer and Tunstill to meet, but was not present when they met, which was at Rishton Mill. He had made these arrangements because about September they had got some beams which had come from Brierfield Mills. Sutcliffe sent him on to Brierfield to see if they were selling some beams. He went there, and on looking into the warehouse saw Edwards, who took him in to Tunstill, who told him that they had some beams to sell.
“A very Fast Speed.”
Replying to a question by Supt. Linaker, witness said these were his instructions that day, and it was the only time that he had been to a mill on such an errand.
Continuing, he said that when examining a beam at Rishton Mill he found on the flange the letters “B.M.,” and had an idea that this represented “Brierfield Mills.” It was about a fortnight after this that Sutcliffe sent him to the mill to ask if they had any beams for sale. He did not ask for any special kind of beams, but merely for beams. Prisoner had not told him to go to any special part of the mill. Before he went on this errand he had not previously known either Edwards or Tunstill, whom he learned was a winding master.
Witness described his employer as a broker and wadding manufacturer. He bought a lot of reject beams, and witness, who was an expert beamer, had to “ready” them. There was, he said, no difference so far as he knew in the manner in which prisoner dealt with the Brierfield Mills and other mills.
Det. Sergt. Bridge, of Nelson, said that he and Det. Inspector Fenton kept observation on the warehouse at Brierfield Mills, and were keeping watch about 1-30 p.m. Monday, October 30th, when they saw Cooke and Bradbury in a motor lorry which was driven to the mill. The lorry drove up empty, and was laden when it went away. It was eventually discovered that the load, which was not exposed to view, consisted of three full back-beams of cotton yearn. The mill had just recommenced work after lunch, and there were very few people about at the time. The lorry was driven away down Cliteroe-road at a very fast speed. In company with Det. Inspector Fenton, witness followed it in the police motor cycle combination, and on arriving at Quaker Bridge the lorry stopped and Sutcliffe got in. They then continued along the riverside, a single-track by-road, very seldom used. They ultimately arrived at an inn, where the vehicle stopped. Sutcliffe got out of the cab and was then told that they were police officers. He was asked where he had got the beams from, and to where he was taking them. He replied, “To my mill in Yorkshire-street; I have bought them from Mr. Dyson at Brierfield Mills.” The men were then taken to the Reedley Police Station.
“Not Guilty” Pleas.
On arriving there prisoner asked to see Mr. Dyson, and he arrived a short time afterwards. When prisoner was charged with receiving the three full back-beams of cotton yarn, he replied, “I won’t say anything just now.”
Witness said that Tunstill and Edwards had been charged with stealing the beams, and had been committed for trial. They had pleaded “Not guilty.” Tunstill had £15 in notes on him when he was arrested, and 9s 8d. in silver and copper money, and Edwards had £6 in notes and 6s 8d. in silver and copper money. Edwards’s notes were concealed in his left trouser-leg. Tunstill and Edwards were arrested at the mill about three hours after the others.
Det. Inspector Fenton, of Reedley, corroborated the evidence of Det-Sergt. Bridge, and this concluded the case for the prosecution.
When asked by the Clerk if he had anything to say in answer to the charge, Sutcliffe replied “No,” and pleaded “Not guilty.”
Mr. Ormerod said he would not make any submission at this stage, but the defence would be reserved.
Sutcliffe was then committed for trial at Preston Sessions on this charge.
The court then adjourned, and on resuming the second charge was dealt with.
Lengthy Hearing.
Sutcliffe pleaded “Not guilty” to this charge as well, and reserving his defence, was committed for trial at Preston Sessions.
The hearing of the cases lasted almost seven hours.
Sutcliffe was also at Bacup, last Monday, committed for trial at Preston Sessions on a charge of stealing cotton weft and cases, worth about £110, the property of Joshua Hoyle and Sons, Ltd. Ross Mill, Bacup.
Sutcliffe, through Mr. Roose, pleaded not guilty, and reserved his defence. Bail was renewed.
John Fielding Ellis, warehouse foreman, of 147a, Newchurch-road, Bacup, formerly employed at Ross Mill, said he first met Sutcliffe about four years ago, when he came to the mill with a regular traveller. Sutcliffe told him then that if he ever had anything to dispose of he would arrange to fetch it. He left his address.
In July, this year, Ellis added, he wrote to Sutcliffe asking him to meet him at Bacup, and at that meeting he told Sutcliffe he had some yarn like he had had before. Sutcliffe came to the mill with a lorry, driven by another man, and took away four or five cases of yarn from Ross Mill warehouse. The mill was closed that day, but he was working. Sutcliffe later gave him £11 for the yarn. No receipt was given.
Ellis told of a similar happening in October. Sutcliffe collected goods when the mill was closed for the day.
Replying to Mr. Roose, Ellis, denied that Sutcliffe gave him 5d. a 1/2 for the first consignment of yarn, or that he received a total sum of £25 from him. He denied that he told Sutcliffe that he had authority to sell the weft. “He knew all along I had no authority to sell the weft,” added Ellis.
“No Concealment.”
John Bradbury, motor driver, employed by Thomas Henry Cox, Burnley, gave evidence of collecting several cases from Ross Mill and taking them to Rishton Mill, Burnley, by arrangement with Sutcliffe. It was only because the lorry was not available that they did not go before evening. There was no concealment.
Joseph B. D. Jackson, of 17, Ash-street, Bacup, assistant secretary for Joshua Hoyle and Sons, said he did not know Sutcliffe and his firm had had no dealings with him. Sutcliffe had no authority to have taken the cases from Ross Mill. Ellis had no authority to dispose of the yarn.
Harold Hubert Binns, of 34, Clayton-street, Nelson, buying representative of Messrs. Arthur Binns and Son, said that at the end of July he bought three cases of yarn from Sutcliffe. In reply to Mr. Roose, he said that during the four years his firm had dealt with Sutcliffe there had been no complaints about any deal.
Detective Wilson said that when arrested Sutcliffe replied, “I have been charged with that before – at Reedley last Friday.”


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 12:57 pm 
Willfinder General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:51 pm
Posts: 3007
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada
Express and Advertiser, November 25, 1933. Pg. 16
PRISON FOR BURNLEY MANUFACTURER.
FOUND GUILTY OF RECEIVING COTTON BEAMS.
FATHER’S RECORD OF PUBLIC WORK.
At the Preston Intermediate Sessions, last Thursday, Alwyn Sutcliffe (35), of Queen’s Park-road, Burnley, a cotton wadding manufacturer, was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, with hard labour, for receiving cotton beams knowing them to have been stolen. Sutcliffe, who pleaded guilty to two further charges of receiving, swooned in the dock when sentenced was passed, and had to be assisted from the court by warders.
Albert Tunstill (36), former winding master at Brierfield Mills, of Hartington street, Brierfield, was bound over for twelve months, in the sum of £5, for stealing cotton beams.
The accused were Allan Tunstill (36), winding master, of Hartington-street, Brierfield, Robert John Edwards (28), labourer, of Brierfield; and Alwyn Sutcliffe, Ford Bank, Queen’s Park-road, Burnley.
Tunstill and Edwards were accused, each on four counts, of stealing from Brierfield Mills, Ltd., Brierfield, three full back-beams of cotton yarn on October 30th, October 17th, October 20th, and October 24th this year. There were alternative counts of receiving. The accusations against Sutcliffe were of receiving, between September 1st and October 29th, 28 beams of cotton yarn, and on October 30th of receiving a beam of cotton yarn.
Mr. T. B. Hinchcliffe prosecuted, Mr. Glyn Blackledge appeared for Edwards, Mr. W. Clothier, K.C. and Mr. B. Ormerod were for Sutcliffe, Mr. E. Rowson held a watching brief on behalf of the Brierfield Mills, and Tunstill was not represented.
During Wednesday’s hearing the jury, on the direction of the chairman (Mr. H. P. Glover), found Edwards “Not guilty,” and he was discharged.
Mr. Hinchcliffe, opening the case, said Tunstill and Edwards were employees of Brierfield Mills, Tunstill as winding master and Edwards as his labourer. Tunstill received a wage of £2. 5s. 8d. a week, and Edwards £1. 15s. 3d. Sutcliffe was in business on his own account as a cotton wadding manufacturer at Burnley.
Tunstill was in charge of the incoming and outgoing of beams. The alleged offences took place always between 12-30 and 1-30, when Tunstill and Edwards were left alone in the warehouse of the mill.
Mr. Blackledge interposed that there was no evidence in the depositions that Edwards did not go home to his dinner.
Mr. H. P. Glover (the deputy-chairman): I think you are right about that.
They would hear that between September 1st and October 30th Sutcliffe engaged motor lorry drivers to go the mill, and that his instructions, in one case, at any rate, were to go to the mill “to get the stuff.” He gave the lorry driver an envelope with instructions to hand it to Tunstill. Sutcliffe accompanied the lorry driver until within a few yards of the mill when he would get out and instruct the driver to proceed to the mill, get the beams, pick him up on his way back, and drive to Sutcliffe’s own mill. Either Tunstill or Edwards would help the driver to load the beams on the lorry.
Defending counsel objected that in the depositions there was no evidence that Edwards handled the beams.
Neither Tunstill nor Edwards had any authority to deal with the beams, the prosecution added. No records of transactions were in the company’s books. The beams were sold to dealers, for there was no question with regard to their integrity. When charged on October 30th, Tunstill said, “I have nothing to say,” and Edwards said, “am saying nowt just now.”
Later, when charged with stealing the remainder of the beams, Tunstill said, “That’s right,” and Edwards, “I have nothing to say.” Both searched and £15. 9s. 8d. was found on Tunstill and £6. 8s. 9d. on Edwards. The money on Edwards was found hidden up the leg of his trousers.
Sutcliffe was arrested while in one of the lorries, when he was returning from the mill with three beams on board. Police officers asked him where he was taking the beams, and he said, “To my mill in Yorkshire-street. I bought them from Mr. Dyson, of Brierfield Mills.”
Mr. Dyson, managing director of the mill, had never sold any of those beams to Mr. Sutcliffe. At the police station Mr. Dyson was sent for, and Sutcliffe said to him while they were alone, “Can you make some arrangement about this job? I have paid dearly for these.” Mr. Dyson said, “Who are you? What Sutcliffe are you?” and Sutcliffe replied, “I am Alderman Sutcliffe’s son, the ex-Mayor of Burnley.” Mr. Dyson told him that the matter was in the hands of the police.
When Sutcliffe was later cautioned and charged, he replied, “I never thought they were stolen.”
“Rather Thin” Evidence.
Mr. Hinchcliffe added: “I think it only right to tell you at this stage that as regards Edwards, the evidence of larceny against him is, if I may say so, rather thin. I must confess that there is very little evidence, practically no more than the question of the money being hidden up his trousers leg.”
When the case was resumed last Thursday, William Hamilton, motor driver, said he went with the last witness to the mill at Brierfield on two occasions in October. On both visits three beams were put on the lorry. Mr. Sutcliffe joined them on the way back, and the beams were taken to the Rishton Mill.
Cross-examined, he said there was nothing suspicious about the transactions, which were quite open.
William Fletcher, yarn agent, St. Annes-on-Sea, said he saw Sutcliffe on September 18th. He was told that Sutcliffe had six beams for sale which came from a firm that was giving up business. Witness did not buy the beams, but acted as his agent. Later he sold another twelve beams from Sutcliffe.
Replying to Mr. Clothier, witness said he had always found Sutcliffe straight and honest.
Walter Sidgreaves, yarn and cloth agent, of Manchester, gave evidence of buying beams through Fletcher. He had no dealing with Sutcliffe, whom he did not know.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clothier, he said inquiries about Sutcliffe showed his reputation to be very good.
Detective-Sergt. Bridge, Nelson, said that on October 30th he and Inspector Fenton kept observation on Brierfield Mills. About 1-30 p.m. they saw Cook and Bradbury drive up in a lorry to the warehouse. A few minutes later it left loaded with what appeared to be cotton beams, which were covered with a sheet. At Quaker Bridge the lorry stopped, and Sutcliffe got in.
Stopped by Police.
Nearing Burnley they stopped the lorry, and Sutcliffe was told they were police officers. He was cautioned, and asked where he was taking the beams, and from where he got them. He replied, to his mill in Yorkshire-street. He had bought them from Mr. Dyson at Brierfield Mills. Sutcliffe asked to see Mr. Dyson, and the two had an interview at the police station. An examination of Sutcliffe’s books revealed no note of the purchase of beams from Brierfield Mills, but there were entries of the sale to other mills of beams which had been identified by Mr. Dyson, senr. Witness arrested Tunstill on October 20th, and charged him with stealing three beams, valued at £37 11s. 6d., the property of Brierfield Mills. He replied, “I have nothing to say.”
On November 10th, he was charged with stealing from Brierfield Mills, some time between September 1st and October 29th, 28 beams of cotton yarn, valued at £350 5s. He replied “That’s right.”
Inspector Fenton (Reedley) gave corroborative evidence.
Tunstill, in the witness-box, stated that one day Sutcliffe’s manager, Cook, remarked to him and Edwards in the mill that they appeared to have a lot of beams there. Cook asked if they would care to see his boss, and Tunstill asked who he was. The reply was “Sutcliffe. Don’t you know him? His father used to be Mayor of Burnley.”
He asked what Sutcliffe wanted to see them about, and he was told it was “about a beam or two.” He was reminded that Edwards’s wife might soon be in bed, and had other domestic difficulties, “and with that I fell.” He went so see Sutcliffe, who said “Well, what about it?” Sutcliffe said he would give £14 to join at for three beams.
“The Trouble Started.”
That ended it, and the trouble started,” concluded witness. “He said, you will never get rich with having to work for it.”
In reply to Mr. Clothier, he denied that he had sold beams from the Brierfield Mills to
Anybody before Cook came to see him.
He said he drove up to Sutcliffe’s in his motor-car. He was in charge of 90 work-people, and his wages were £2. 5s. 6d. He was married, and had a child. Asked how he could afford to run a motor-car, he said his wife worked and earned £2 7s. on the average per week. The car cost £18; it had not been paid for yet.
He did not give any indication that he had authority to sell beams. He “fell for” Edwards, being sorry for him in his difficulties.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clothier, Tunstill admitted Sutcliffe told him he had had some Brierfield Mills beams from a man named Stanworth, and agreed that he had sent a sample beam to Sutcliffe. He (Tunstill) did not know what a “reject” was.
Mr. Hinchcliffe; Do I understand that you admit stealing these beams? – Yes, along with my partner.
Do you know how many? – No. When the inspector told me he had recovered 31 I nearly dropped, for I did not think there were so many.
Did you sell all that you stole from the mill? – That is a bit complicated. First of all Edwards said, “There is a chap who wants some beams,” and I said, “I’ll have nothing to do with him.” At night he came and gave me £4 10s., and said he had sold three beams. I asked him who to, and he said “To a big ginger chap.”
Mr. Hinchcliffe: Did Sutcliffe know perfectly well that you had no authority to deal in these matters?-Yes, or he would not have gone about it in the way he did.
Sutcliffe’s Evidence.
Sutcliffe was then called as a witness. He said he bought large quantities of yarn, chiefly “rejects.” He remembered Stanworth coming to him and selling him some beams. Cook found the mark “B.M.” on one of the beams, and suggested that the beams might have come from Brierfield Mills.
He (Sutcliffe) told Cook to go to see if Brierfield Mills were selling beams. On that day he (Sutcliffe) was in Manchester. After Cook had been to the mill, Edwards and Tunstill came to see him. He (Sutcliffe) said he had some beams from Stanworth, and Tunstill said they had some of the beams to sell. He never considered the possibility of the beams having been stolen. He usually left it to the carriers to collect the beams. On October 30th he had no idea he was being pursued by the police. He was astonished when he was told that the beams had been stolen.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hinchcliffe, Sutcliffe said he very seldom received receipts when dealing in “rejects.” There were six payments in his (Sutcliffe’s) book which, he said, were drawn to pay Tunstill.
The jury gave their verdicts after retirement, and added a strong recommendation to mercy in Tunstill’s case. It was stated both men had borne perfectly good characters. Sutcliffe was sentenced to six months’ hard labour, while Tunstill was bound over for 12 months.
Mr. T. E. Hinchcliffe told the Deputy Chairman (Mr. H. P. Glover) that, if the Bench could see their way to take a certain course about Tunstill, the question of him receiving his job back was under consideration.
Mr. W. Clothier, K.C., who had led the defence, said there was another indictment against Sutcliffe from Bacup, and asked if it would be necessary to go on with that.
Mr. Glover inquired the position from counsel in the case and Mr. Cunliffe, who had been briefed for the prosecution, said he had very definite instructions.
Mr. Clothier said that if the police insisted, he was prepared to plead guilty, and have them dealt with then, rather than have them hanging over Sutcliffe’s head.
Sutcliffe then pleaded not guilty to two charges of stealing two cases containing cotton weft, the property of Joshua Hoyle and Sons, Ltd., Bacup, and stealing four cases and a skip containing cotton weft from the same firm. He pleaded guilty to counts of receiving, and these pleas were accepted by Mr. Cunliffe.
Mr. Clothier, on behalf of Sutcliffe, said he was a married man with two very young children.
Previous Good Character.
Sentencing Sutcliffe, Mr. Glover said it was a sad thing to see a man of his position occupying that place. It had been said on his behalf that he had borne an excellent character, and it came out in evidence that his father was a man who had done public work in the county. They desired to take as lenient a view as they could of the offences, but could not consistently with their duty overlook the fact that if there were no receivers there would not be thefts.
On hearing the sentence, Sutcliffe swooned, and had to be carried below.
In regard to Tunstill, Mr, E. Rowson (representing Brierfield Mills, Ltd) said there were only 12 beams in the indictment, while the evidence showed 31 were stolen.
Tunstill said he was first charged with 31 at Reedley, and entered a formal plea of guilty in respect of the other 19 beams.
Called by the Deputy Chairman, Mr. John William Dyson (managing director, Brierfield Mills) said that up to Tunstill’s arrest he had no reason to believe he was other than an honest person, and, after any punishment he might get, he would try to do what he could for him and his wife. His place was already filled, but he would find him employment as soon as an opportunity occurred.
Tunstill’s wife said he had held posts of responsibility in connection with ambulance and football. Her ten married years had been the happiest of her life, but the last three weeks had been torture. Why he should have been such a fool she could not understand. If they gave him a chance she assured them he would not be there again.
Tunstill wept while his wife was giving evidence.
Binding him over, Mr. Glover said that for many years he had apparently led a very respectable life, with the confidence of his employers and the trust of his neighbours. They were inclined to take the view that he was tempted and fell, and to give him another chance, but he warned him of the consequences of further trouble.
There was no reason why he should not lead a respectable life and make good.
Tunstill: Thank you, sir, I also thank Mr. Dyson.
An application by Mr. Rowson for an order for the restitution of the 31, beams in the possession of the police was granted.

RATE ARREARS.
BENCH DID NOT WISH TO MAKE POSITION WORSE.
Alwyn Sutcliffe’s name was called in the Burnley Borough Police Court last Thursday in respect of rate arrears, and it was stated the he owed £27 7s. in respect of the current rate.
John Taylor, a rate collector, asked for an order to be made against Sutcliffe.
Mr. T. Mellor (the Magistrates Clerk): Sutcliffe does not appear. Perhaps you know something of the reason why.
Taylor said that part of the amount demanded was in respect of his house in Queen’s Park-road, and part was in respect of Rishton Mill, his business premises. This action had really been taken, he said, as a precautionary measure.
In answer to the Chairman (Mr. G. Hale), Taylor said that the rates of the house were £30 12s., and abut £? of the sum asked for was on account of the house. Sutcliffe had paid £10 by cheque that morning, but had not sent a letter making an offer.
The Chairman said the Bench knew the circumstances of Sutcliffe, and they did not wish to make his position any worse. They would make an order on condition that the rating authorities agreed that it should be suspended so long as he paid a proportioned share of the money each month, so that he would be clear by the end of next March. If he paid £7 per month he would thus be clear.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group