|
Herne
|
From the Maidstone Assizes
14 March 1676.
48. Writs, venire facias, (a judicial writ
directing the sheriff to summon a specified number of qualified persons
to serve as jurors.)
Thomas Knowler, victualler, of Herne, at Maidstone, 27 July 1675, and returned by
Sir John Cutler, sheriff.
|
|
From the Maidstone Assizes
14 March 1676.
49. Writ Capius. (In the common law legal
systems, capias ad respondendum (Latin: "that you may capture [him] in
order for him to reply") is or was a writ issued by a court to the
sheriff of a particular county to bring the defendant, having failed to
appear, to answer a civil action against him.)
For William Baker of Herne, victualler, at Maidstone, 27 July 1675,
and returned by Sir John Cutler, sheriff.
|
|
Kentish Gazette, 5 August 1851.
Petty Sessions. Home Division of St Augustine's.
Saturday, August 2nd.
(Before E. Fass, Esq., (chairman," William Delmar, Esq., G. M. Taswell,
Esq., T. M. McKay , Esq., William Hyder, Esq., and the Rev. J. Hilton.
Thomas Daniels, of Chislett, who has a licence to sell beer off the
premises, was fined £1 and 15s. 6d. costs for keeping his house open for
the sale of beer, after 10 o'clock on the 26th ult, on the complaint of
Superintendent Walker. It was a second offence, and the defendant made
the same excuse, namely, that he was treating a few customers to some
beer, on their paying their bills for pork and wood.
John Laker, of Herne, was fined 1s. and 14s. 6d. costs, for a similar
offence, though of a less aggravated nature.
After the transaction of some important business, the Court broke up. |
Census 1861
LONGLEY Joshua, Eddington/Loddington Malthouse, aged 54, Maltsman.
|
Kent Times, 3 May 1862.
St. Augustine’s Petty Sessions, Saturday. (Before William Delmar,
Esq., Capt. Slarke, G. Neame, Esq., and Wm. Plummer, Esq.)
John Mount, a man belonging to somewhat notorious family in the
parish of Herne, was charged with assaulting John Fagg, at Herne, on
the 10th instant.
The complainant and the defendant are brothers-in-law, and the
assault appeared to have been committed in consequence of the
complainant having on several occasions publicly charged the
defendant with having committed the abominable offence of indecently
assaulting his own daughter, a girl about twelve years of age. The
fact of the assault was not denied. On the day in question, as the
complainant was coming out of Mr. Curtiss’s public-house, he was set
upon by the defendant, who gave him a tremendous thrashing.
Mr. Delasaux said that charge was his defence, and his client was
there to court the fullest investigation.
It was a vile slander for which there was not the slightest
foundation. There was was probability of his client obtaining a
remedy in any other way except by a personal chastisement of the
complainant, who was not worth £5 and his client was in much the
same position. An action for slander could not be brought in the
county court, and the Bench knew as well as he did that an action
could not be brought in the superior courts for less than £60 or
£70. Mount had therefore, no alternative but avail himself of the
weapons which nature had given him; and inflict personal
chastisement on the author of the foul slander of which he had been
the subject.
The defendant’s daughter was examined and swore positively that
her father had never assaulted her in any way. The magistrates
retired to consult and on their return to Court, Mr. Delmar said
that their sentence was that the defendant be committed to prison
for a month with hard labour with the option of a time. They also
ordered him to pay the costs, with the alternative of additional
imprisonment in default.
|
|
