PETERSFIELD.
PETTY SESSIONS.—Tuesday.—Present: Sir W. W. Knighton, Bart., J. Waddington, Esq., and Major Briggs.
— John Strugnell and John Gillman, both of Buriton, were charged with taking three pheasants’ eggs, on the 9th instant. Gillman pleaded not guilty; Strugnell pleaded guilty, and stated that he took the eggs unknown to Gillman. The latter was acquitted;Strugnell was fined 15s. and costs 9s. 6d.
— William Blackman and George Langrish were convicted of taking seven pheasants’ eggs on the 13th instant, in the parish of Idsworth, and were fined in the full penalty of 5s. each egg (35s.), with costs 11s. 6d.
— James Wynn was charged on the information of William Shepherd, with trespassing in search of game, in a wheat filed called the ‟17 Acres,” in the occupation of Mr. George Bentley, of Standbridge, on the 15th instant. William Shepherd deposed to seeing defendant, about six o’clock in the evening of the day in question, beating about in the wheat field; he was about 50 yards from the road; he had a dog with him; there was no path in the field; he saw him turn from a pheasant’s nest, and heard a bird flutter, but it did not rise; he believed it was a pheasant; saw defendant encouraging the dog. Defendant, who is but a lad, was allowed to be assisted by his father in cross-examining witness; and, in his defence, he stated that he had been to Hurst-mill; on returning by the road he heard a blackbird on the other side of the hedge, and got over to look for it; he was not aware that the dog had followed him into the field, there was a sort of track along by the side of the hedge which he thought at the time was a path, and he went a short way along it. As he was looking for the blackbird he saw a pheasant rise from a nest, and he immediately turned back and went out into the road on his way home. The dog he had with him was a spaniel puppy not six months old.—Defendant’s father corroborated this statement as to the age of the dog, and urged that the boy had never been charged with any offence before.—The magistrates told defendant that although they considered it a very suspicious case, still it was on that admitted of a doubt, and they gave him the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the charge.
— Mary Ann Kelsey v. Thomas Boobyer. This was an assault case from Sheet, and arose out of a quarrel between complainant and defendant’s daughter, each alleging that the other had applied a very objectionable epithet. Defendant taking up the quarrel on his daughter’s behalf had, as it appeared from the evidence, pulled complainant’s nose and threatened to wring it from her face, and had also struck her a blow with his fist and given her several slaps in the face with his open hand, in return for which she had pelted him with stones, which, according to Mrs. Boobyer’s evidence, came so thick and fast that they could not be counted, several of which took effect on Boobyer’s back, one struck the daughter on the chin, and another hit Mrs. Boobyer, and altogether, it was evidently what might be called in the vernacular a ‟shindy.”—Mrs. and Miss Boobyer in their evidence, denied that Mr. Boobyer struck Miss Kelly any blows, but all agreed as to the nose pulling, and defendant himself did not deny this part of the charge, and was adjudged to pay a fine of 2s. 6d. and 15s. 6d. costs, and on application, was allowed a week for payment.