Monday. - Before Mr. S. D. STANLEY-DODGSON,  (chairman), Miss. A. M.
HARTLEY,
Messrs. J. WILLIAMSON, W. U. ARMSTRONG, and T.  HOUGHTON.


******


APPLICATIONS.


Mr. E. SATTERTHWAITE (Mr. E. H. WILSON) applied on  behalf of Mrs. Mary
Annie
WILSON for the protection order respecting the Globe  Inn, Branthwaite. He
stated that it was intended that he should apply for the  full transfer of
the
license, but insufficient notice had been  given.


The magistrates declined to grant the  application.


Mr. W. KNOWLES was granted the full transfer of the  Crown and Mitre Inn,
Cockermouth, and a similar transfer was granted to Humphrey  THOMPSON, Blue
Bell
Inn, Embleton.


******


FAIR-DAY DRINKS.


Henry BARTON, general dealer, The Goat, Cockermouth,  was charged with
having
been drunk and disorderly in Main Street, Cockermouth,  at 7-10 p.m. on
November 12th.


P. C. LAKE said the defendant was very drunk, shouting  and swearing and
wanting to “fight any man in Cockermouth.” He took off his coat  and refused
to
be quiet, and witness took him into  custody.


BARTON said he had had a “punch on the head” that  night his head was “
flooded with blood,” and his neck was “flooded with blood.”  He pleaded
guilty.


Defendant was ordered to pay a fine of 15s in fourteen  days, or undergo a
fortnight’s imprisonment in default.

**********

TROUBLESOME DOG.


Franklin BURFORD, bank clerk, 1, Fern Villas,  Cockermouth, was charged with
having failed to keep his dog under proper  control, at Cockermouth, on
November 17th. There was also a further charge of  having allowed the dog to
be on a
highway without a collar bearing the owner’s  name and address.


Mr. E. SATTERTHWAITE (Mr. E. H. WILSON) represented  defendant, who did not
appear, and pleaded guilty.


P. C. ELLIOTT stated that on the night of November 7th  he found a black
cocker spaniel dog roaming the streets. He recognized the dog  (which wore
no
collar) as belonging to the defendant, and returned it to him. He  had
spoken to
him on previous occasions regarding the  animal.


Mr. SATTERTHWAITE said Mr. BURFORD wished to express  his regret. The dog
had
been fastened up but had broken  loose.


Fines of 10s were


******


LIGHTLESS CYCLISTS.


David NEALY, coalminer, Scott HILL, Great Broughton,  was fined 15s for
having ridden a bicycle without a white light to the front, at  Brigham
Station, at
12-20 a.m. on November 6th.


P. C. REID said he saw the defendant riding the cycle  without a light and
called on him to stop. He rode away, and witness had to stop  a motor
cyclist
and get a lift to catch him. Asked why he failed to stop,  defendant made no
reply, and when cautioned and charged he said, “I’m sorry.”  There was no
lamp
on the bicycle.


******


Elizabeth CALLION, Broughton Cross, was charged with a  similar offence.


P. C. GREEN gave evidence and defendant said she was  unable to keep her
lamp
alight.


She was ordered to pay the costs (5s) and the case was  dismissed.


******


NO REAR LIGHT.


Cyril LEATHES, clerk, Trough Bridge, Embleton,  appeared on a charge of
having ridden a motor cycle without a red rear light, at  Cockermouth, at 7
p.m.,
on November 12th.


P. C. STANWIX said he was on duty near Goat Bridge,  and stopped the
defendant, who had no rear light.


Pleading guilty, defendant said his lamps were  electrically illuminated.
The
cable to the rear lamp had broken, and  consequently there was no rear
light.
It was certainly alight when he left  Whitehaven, and although he dismounted
his machine at Brigham he failed to  notice that it was out then.


Defendant fined 10s.

**********

Joseph BURNS, labourer, Cocker Lane, Cockermouth, was  charged with having
trespassed on land during the day time in pursuit of conies  at Strawberry
Howe,
on November 8th.


Mr. W. U. ARMSTRONG, the owner of the shooting rights  over the land retired
from the Bench during the hearing of the  case.


Abraham STARKIE, gamekeeper, Kirkgate, Cockermouth,  said he was going over
the ground at Strawberry Howe, when he saw the defendant  and two other men
with two dogs. He was making towards them when he saw BURNS  pick up one of
the
dogs ( a red lurcher) and point towards something on the  ground.
Immediately a
rabbit got up and the dogs chased it, the men following.  He went towards
them and they ran away, but he caught a dog which was afterwards  claimed by
BURNS, who said, “It’s a fair cop.” He, witness, found a net  (produced over
a
hole where he first saw the men.


Defendant pleased not guilty. He said he and two other  men went for a walk
to  the Ashtip, after rats. The dogs saw a weasel and  chased it and they
followed it to get the dogs back. They had just caught the  dogs when a
rabbit got
up, and the dogs chased it. Then STARKIE came up and they  ran away.


Defendant, who said he was an unhired farm servant,  was fined £1.

*******

SAD MAINTENANCE CASE.


Margaret HARMAN, married woman, Plumbland, summoned her husband,  Alfred
Edward HARMAN, labourer, High Street, Harefield, Middlesex, for  non-payment
of
maintenance arrears amounting to £4 since August,  1928.


Mr. W. C. SUMNER appeared for the complainant.


Mr. SUMNER said an order was made in July, 1928, and defendant had  never
paid his wife anything, in fact, she had received no money from him since
1924.


Mrs. HARMAN stated she obtained an order for the payment of 10s per  week on
July 2nd, 1928. Defendant had paid nothing under the  order.


Defendant stated that he had no intention of paying - he could not  pay. In
the witness box he stated he wished to have the order reduced on the  ground
that he could not afford to pay. It cost him his whole earning to keep
himself
and his two children. His wages were £2 per week and he had to pay a  woman
£1
per week, to look after his two children, and the remaining £1 to keep
himself. He was a general labourer, working short time. The children, both
girls,
were aged seven and four years respectively.


Mr. SUMNER submitted that in 1924 the husband desired to have the  custody
of
the children and that is how he came to have them to-day. The wife  was
quite
willing to take them, provided he would maintain them.


Mr. SUMNER: The woman who looks after your children is your  sister?


Yes.


And you live at home with your own people?


Yes.


Do you intend to support your wife?


Yes, if I possibly can.


In further cross examination defendant said he would keep his wife  if he
had
the means to do so. But he must consider his innocent children first.  His
father was living retired.


The Clerk: Will you make a home for your wife?


No. Four years she has never asked whether the children are dead or  alive.


Mr. SUMNER said he was willing to accept 7s 6d per week provided it  was
paid
regularly to him.


The Chairman: Will you agree to pay anything?


I cannot.


The Chairman said they were very sorry to do so, but they must  commit
defendant to gaol for one month.
******