Winford.

 

1871 Sep 9. Joseph Poole, landlord of the Crown Inn, Winford, applied by adjournment, as agreed upon, for the renewal of the license on that home. It will be remembered that at the last session the Superintendent of Police detailed to the magistrate information of a gross outrage alleged to have been perpetrated at the house in question upon a young woman names Annie Lodge, on a certain night in November last, when some half-dozen young farmers and others were present. On that occasion the magistrate called upon Poole to produce evidence to rebut this information at the adjourned session. Mr Clifton now appeared for the defence, and he addressed the bench at some length in favour of the magistrates granting the application.

Susan Gibbs, a servant at the Crown inn, deposed that Annie Lodge was at the house on the evening in question, and there were also present Farmers Henry Moss, Benjamin Pearce, William Pearce, Obed Weaver and W Smith, the then village schoolmaster and also the landlord and landlady. Witness went to bed at half-past ten o’clock. In the morning when she came down, Benjamin Pearce and Annie Lodge were in the kitchen at about six o’clock. The woman was lying on the settle and Pearce was sitting on the end of the settle. Weaver and Pearce were drunk on the previous night when witness went to bed. She recollected that somebody had been found in a bedroom with Lodge, but she could not say who it was.

William Smith, late schoolmaster at Winford, said that he was at the house from about seven till ten and he saw no impropriety on the part of the woman Annie Lodge. Superintendent Jones- “did you give her a shilling while she was there, or going outside?” Witness “ well I should be very sorry to tell a lie, I did.”

Alfred King of Bridge hill, farmer, also deposed that he was there about nine’o clock for about three quarters of an hour. He always supposed that house to have a very good character. John Reed, labourer of Ridgehill, said he was there from seven to about half past ten and he did not see any liberty taken with the young woman. Obed Weaver, of Winford, farmer, said he went into the house about four o’ clock and left between nine and ten o’ clock. In his opinion it was a respectable house.

The chairman said though not strictly proved, there was no doubt that something went on in the house. Lodge came to him the very day after the alleged occurrence and he held in his hand her written statement in which she charged one man with an assault, but not at the house.

The chairman after the Bench had deliberated for a short time said the magistrates unanimously refused to grant the renewal of the license.

 

1873 Apr 5. George W Tomkins of Winford, was summoned for non-payment of poor rates, and an order for payment with costs was issued.

 

1881 Jun 4 Charles Vowles of Winford was summoned for assaulting Mr William Argall, manager of the Winford Iron Ore Company. There was also a cross-summons against Mr Argall for assaulting Vowles. The assault case was in consequence of Vowles being discharged by Mr Argall from the company’s service. Mr Clifton appeared for the manager. The bench fined Vowles 15s and costs and bound him over to keep the peace.

Joseph Oldfield and William H Gillett of Bedminster-down were summoned for driving their carts on the highway containing greater weights than allowed by the by-laws and were each fined 10s including costs.

Albert Lambert of Hillgrove-street, Bedminster was summoned for cruelty to a donkey by working it with a sore shoulder was fined 7s including costs.

 

1896 Feb 15. John Williams, a farmer, of Winford, who did not appear, was summoned for assaulting Alfred Coldrick and striking him with a pick. Complainant said that he was a labourer in the employ of the defendant. Last Saturday week he was in his master’s barn, when defendant told him to move some hay and put oats in its place. Witness got a dung pick from the barton. When he returned to the barn his master told him not to use that one, but another which was near at hand. Witness asked him why he was not to use the dung pick, as he had been instructed on previous occasions to use it. Defendant then raised the pick he had in his hand and threatened to kill him. He pushed the pick against witness, and a prong of the implement penetrated witness’s coat and shirt sleeve and made a mark on his arm. The Bench considered the case proved, and imposed a fine of 40s and costs, or 14 days.