The Preston Guardian
Saturday April 1 1848
Petty Sessions
Stealing Wearing Apparel George Bottomley and William Hindley, of Burnley, both young men out of work, and whose looks evidenced that they had been sadly short of the necessaries of life, were charged with stealing one new shirt, the property of Henry Ashworth, of Habergham Eaves. It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff's wife, that on Saturday, the 25th instant, about ten o'clock in the forenoon, she had placed the shirt in question on a hedge about twenty yards from her house, for the purpose of drying it; that shortly afterwards Hindley came to her house craving charity; and that about two o'clock in theafternoon she went to fetch the shirt, but found that it was gone, when information was immediately given to the police. Police Sergeant Parker deposed, that information having been given at the office of the robbery, the men were on the look out; that about nine o'clock the prisoners came to the station to ask for a night's lodgings, when, having some suspicions, he charged them with the robbery, and said that the shirt had been owned. Upon stripping Bottomley, he found that he had the shirt on, as he knew it by the description which had been given. Bottomley at first said he had obtained the shirt form his sister at Bury; but, subsequently, both he and Hindley confessed that the shirt had been stolen from the hedge named. Mr. Ashworth deposed to the identity of the shirt. The magistrates asked the prisoners what they had to say in their defence, after giving them the usual caution. Bottomley said that he certainly had taken the shirt, and being totally without one, he had put it on, but that Hindley was privy and accessory to the transaction. Indeed, Hindley had said that if Bottomley did not take it he certainly would, a he was almost without one; and, moreover, had only one sleeve on his coat. Hindley said, that when the shirt was stolen he was in another part of the field, and that he had no hand in taking the shirt; but he did not deny Bottomley's statement respecting the remarks he had made. Ultimately, the bench decided upon committing Bottomley for trial, but thought the evidence was not sufficiently clear against Hindley, and therefore discharged him. Mr. Superintendent McCabe then asked the bench whether Hindley would not be committed under the vagrant act, inasmuch as he, along with Bottomley, had asked for a night's lodgings, when he had found 11½d. in his pocket. The magistrates, however, discharged him.
Assault John Burrows, of Habergham Eaves, was charged by Ellen Acornley, the wife of William Acornley, of the same township, with abusing and violently assaulting her on the evening of Friday, the 24th instant. Mr. Hartley appeared for the defendant. A number of witnesses were examined, who gave the most contradictory evidence; but although the case occupied the court nearly an hour, it was of such a trumpery character that the magistrates very properly discharged the defendant, ordering each party to pay their own expenses. The quarrel originated in some trifling difference between the respective parties. The plaintiff appeared to have proved the "better man," and to have actually broken a broom stick upon the defendant's back, while he was fighting with her husband. Mr. Thursby thought there "were six in one case and half a dozen in the other."
_________________ Mel
Searching for lost relatives? Win the Lottery!
|