1936 poaching sentence

[Guest greengrass123]

Found an old newspaper while doing a refurb on a house in beverley (Hull daily mail )dated july 27th 1936 inside is an article entitled, Poaching act fines two men before court at bridlington (reads) A denial that they were contravening the poaching and prevention act, and that a dogwhich they had coursed a hare which ran on to the road, wasput forward by john robert noble, of kirkgate ,bridlington, and john walton, of sewerby road, bridlington, when they were summoned at the police court on saturday. They admitted having game in their possesion, but denied that they had on any land for the purpose of securing game. PC jack said on july 18 he stopped the men and said he suspected they had come from land where they had been unlawfully in search of game. In nobles pocket was a leveret. Walton said the whippet was his property. When told they would be reported, noble said he had only been in the corporation gardens. They had been mushrooming, but got none. Walton told the officer they had been mushrooming when a hare got up on the road and he could not stop the dog. Noble and Walton were each fined ten shillings, and allowed a week in which to pay. Bearing in mind the date and what 10 shillings was worth was this a fair sentence?

Edited May 24, 2008 by greengrass123

[sue 1]

if that was all you had to pay today ,great story these old papers amuse me especially how the stories are told