PETERSFIELD.
Agent—MR. G. DUPLOCK.
PETTY SESSIONS.
TUESDAY.—Present—J. Bonham Carter, Esq. (Chairman), Sir W. W. Knighton, Bart., Sir A. K. Macdonald, Bart., Major Briggs, J. Waddington, Esq., and Captain Sandeman.
THE CRUSADE AGAINST THE BAKERS.—The following bakers and dealers in bread were summoned to answer a charge of selling bread "otherwise than by weight" :—.Samuel Rooke, sen. (Rowlands Castle), Joseph Marshall (Rowlands Castle), James Titheridge (Privett), George Kille (Eastmeon), Alfred Fewtrell (Bramshott), William Scragg (Bramshott), James Louch (Bramshott), William Nash (Bramshott), John C'hristmas (Bramshott), Sarah Pestall (Bramshott), John Mells (Liss), William Bailey (Sheet), William White (Priorsdeane), William Mould (Petersfleld), William Seward (Petersfieid), Alfred Stacey (Petersfield), John Richardson (Petersfield), Geo. Harffey (Petersfield), and William Wills (Petersfield). The hearing of these cases excited great interest, and the court was crowded the whole time. All the nineteen defendants pleaded guilty with the exception of Mr. Richardson, who conducted his own defence by cross-examining the witnesses and addressing the bench, but did not call any witnesses. The whole of the other defendants consented to their cases being heard together, and pleaded guilty to the charge of not weighing the bread at the time of sale, but alleged that it was properly weighed previously, and they were not aware that the law required them to weigh it at the time of delivery.—Police-constables Abrahams, Hayter, and Chase, severally deposed to having visited the shops of the defendants in plain clothes, and purchased bread, which was not weighed to them at the time, and that the bread so purchased was found, on subsequently weighing it at the police-station, to be for the most part of full weight, and some of it over weight.—After hearing the whole of the cases, the magistrates deliberated for some time with closed doors, and on the re-admission of the public, the Chairman announced their decision to the following effect :-The defendants have all pleaded guilty with the exception of one. There is no imputation of fraudulent dealing, but the question is—whether they have complied with the requirements of the statute? There has been in no case any evidence produced of any weighing of the bread sold, or indeed any evidence whatever, and with regard to the point of weighing at the time of sale in the presence of the customer. The magistrates hold on the consideration of the statutes, and the decisions bearing on the case, that is necessary. The Metropolitan Act in terms requires the act of weighing in the presence of the customer, and the preamble of the Act of William IV., c. 37, recites, that the Metropolitan Act having proved beneficial, similar regulations should be enacted beyond those limits. That Act, however, is not in words equally precise, but although the reported decisions do not absolutely go to the point of the necessity of weighing in the presence of the customer, the view of the magistrates is that such is the proper fulfilment of the Act is supported by the dicta of Mr. Justice Cockburn and Mr. Justice Lush in the most recent decisions. The latter is reported to have said, inter alia, "'The object of the act is to secure the purchaser of bread a proper quantity for his money, and as bread will sometimes lose as much as two ounces and even more in twenty-four hours, it becomes the more necessary, in justice to the purchaser, that the weight should be duly ascertained at the time of the purchase." Mr. Justice Cockburn is reported to have said, without giving a direct decision on this point, "This salutary statute is not to be frittered away. The baker ought to weigh the loaf in the presence of the purchaser, and he cannot do effectual justice without weighing at the time of sale." The practice has not generally been in conformity with this view, and therefore in order to enforce the due weighing of the article hereafter the magistrates impose a nominal fine, and their clerk has liberally foregone a moiety of his fees, so that the penalty will amount in each case to seven shillings.
DRUNK AND DISORDERLY.—Edward Eades (who did not appear) was convicted on the evidence of P.C. Charles Trocke of being drunk and disorderly at the Station-hotel, at Liss, on Tuesday, the 17th ult., and was fined 10s., with 9s. costs or 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.—Alfred Colebrooke and William Robinson were convicted on the evidence of P.C. Charles Abrahams of cruelty to a mare, on Wednesday, Dec 25th.—Abrahams deposed that on the day in question he was passing Mr. Colebrook's premises on the Portsmouth road, near the causeway at Petersfield, when he heard sounds that seemed like heavy blows. He listened for a time, and as they continued he began to count them. He counted 19 blows, and then went towards the stable from which the sounds came, and on entering he found a pony in the stall. Colebrooke had a stick in his hand, and Robinson was holding the pony's head; the pony was trembling very much. He afterwards examined it and found three weals on its back, the skin cut off the pin-bone, a wound on the flank from which blood was flowing, and an old wound on the hock, which appeared to have been just re-opened by a blow, and from which matter was oozing.—Superintendent Bennett deposed to visiting the stable with the last witness, and finding the pony in the state he had described; and, added that on putting his hand on its back he felt several weals, and the pony cringed and seemed in great pain.—Defendants denied that they beat the pony, as deposed to by the witnesses, but the magistrates convicted them, and adjudged Colebrooke, as the owner of the pony and the employer of Robinson, to pay a fine of 1l. and 6s. 3d. costs; Robinson was fined 5s., with 6s. 3d. costs.