Limbury sugar fraud

THE LUTON REPORTER, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1917. 

"A Piece of Impudence."

____

LIMBURY MAN AND A NEIGHBOUR'S FRUIT TREES.

____

The first prosecutions ordered by the Luton Rural District Council under the Sugar Domestic Preserving Order came before Mr. Geo. Oakley (chairman), Mr. J. Irving Wright (vice-chairman), Col. Carruthers, Messrs. W. T. Lye, J. N. Godfrey, G. Sinkwell, and the Mayor of Dunstable at Luton Division Sessions on Monday, and the magistrates considered it a very bad case.

Wm. Elvey, box-maker, Blundell-road, Limbury, was summoned for having made a false statement on an application for sugar for preserving fruit, and also for having acquired sugar for purposes other than the preserving of fruit grown by the preserver, and he admitted having had the sugar but pleaded that the false statement was unintentional.

Defendant put in an application through the Luton Co-operative Society for 28 lbs. of sugar for soft fruit, and 28 lbs. for stone fruit, and was supplied with 21 lbs. for soft fruit and the full quantity of 28 lbs. for stone fruit, and Mr. Harold Pickering, the executive officer for the district, stated that when he called at defendant's house he found neither soft or stone fruit in the garden.

When he saw defendant at his workshop he was informed that he had bought some fruit trees and bushes from Mr. Judd, Gardenia-avenue, some months since. Mr. Pickering had explained to him the location of Mr. Judd's garden, and on going there discovered a fair amount of fruit, but when later on he called upon Mrs. Judd he was told a very different story from that given by defendant. Defendant suggested that it was his son's home at which Mr. Pickering called, and said if he had called at his house he would have seen half-a-dozen trees bearing fruit.

The Clerk pointed out that he had the opportunity of telling Mr. Pickering this when be called at his workshop, but instead of that he said be had bought some fruit trees from another garden.

Defendant maintained that he also said he had several apple and currant trees, but Mr. Pickering said there were only two apple trees mentioned.

Samuel Judd, Gardenia-avenue, said defendant had bought fruit from him for years, and three or four weeks ago he also bought some fruit trees, but there was no fruit on them; they were young trees that were not to be replanted until October.

Mrs. Judd stated that just before Mr. Pickering called on her a boy who said be came from Elvey's called at her backway and asked her quietly over the fence to say that Mr. Elvey had an interest in their garden. As she came in from the back, Mr. Pickering was at the front door, and she told Mr. Pickering exactly what had occurred, because she regarded it as "a piece of impudence" to send and ask them to do such a thing, when the garden was theirs, and theirs alone.

During the nine years they had been there Mr. Elvey had always bought fruit from them when they had had fruit to sell, and this season he had bought some young trees and paid something on account for them, but that did not give him a share in the garden.

Defendant said he had grown fruit in the parish of Limbury for the past twelve years, and was growing fruit there today, but not to the same extent as two years ago.

Owing to the war his business as a builder had completely stopped, and he was obliged to sell 120 fruit trees, together with two or three little properties that adjoined, otherwise he would have had about 80 trees in his back garden instead of six.

Last year not having enough currants and plums to make all the jam they wanted for home use he bought fruit off his neighbour, whose garden was well stocked, and he had done the same thing this year. The Chairman said the Bench considered it a very bad case indeed, and fined defendant £3 in each case. 

More detail emerges the day after

LUTON NEWS AND BEDFORDSHIRE CHRONICLE, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1917. 

LIMBURY SUGAR PROSECUTION 

____

Smart Fine. 

____

At the Luton Divisional Petty Sessions on Monday, before Mr. G. Oakley (chairman), Col. Messrs. J. I. Wright, W. T. Lye, J. N. Godfrey. G. Sinkwell, and the Mayor of Dunstable (Mr. E. Franklin). Wm. Elvey, boxmaker, Blundell-road, Limbury, was charged with making a false statement on an application for sugar for preserving fruit, and further with acquiring sugar for purposes other than preserving fruit at Limbury, between July 26th and August 21st. 

"Not intentionally," was defendant's plea in the first case (not guilty), and not guilty in the second instance. 

Mr. Harold Pickering, Inspector for the Luton Rural District under the Order, said he called on defendant on  August 31st, having ascertained that defendant had obtained sugar from the Luton Co-operative Society. Defendant had applied for 28 lbs, for soft and 28 Ibs. for stone fruit. Witness found that defendant had neither soft nor stone fruit in his garden. Witness saw defendant at his work and questioned him, and defendant said he had bought the trees from Mr. Judd, Gardenia-avenue, some months before. Witness found the garden and the orchard, and saw there was a fair amount fruit. He saw Mrs. Judd, and in consequence of what she had said he placed the facts before the Rural District Council, and was instructed to prosecute. 

The Clerk (Mr. A. F. Barnard): Was what Mrs. Judd told you confirmatory or otherwise? 

—lt was otherwise. 

Defendant: Did you to go to my house or my son's house?

— Witness: Your house. 

Defendant: You did not. You called at my son's house. Had you called at my house you would have seen fruit trees with standing fruit. 

The Clerk: You had an opportunity to tell him that when he called on you. 

Defendant: I did tell him. I told him I had several trees and some current bushes. 

Witness: He told me had two apple trees. 

Wm. Frost, of the Co-operative Society, identified the form produced, and said that defendant received 21 lbs. for the soft fruit and had the 28lbs. for stone fruit. 

Samuel Judd said he sold defendant some fruit trees three or four weeks ago. Defendant had had the fruit for years. There was no fruit on the trees that defendant bought recently. Witness sold three dozen young currant trees, but they had never borne fruit, and were bought be transplanted. 

Mrs. Judd said Elvey's boy came to her house and asked her over the fence quietly to say that Mr. Elvey had an interest in the garden. She went in for the book and saw Mr. Pickering at the front door. She was much upset at anybody asking such a thing, as the garden was theirs and theirs alone. Mr. Elvey had bought fruit from them ever since they had trees, and this year they had bought some young trees. 

Defendant said he had grown fruit in Limbury for the past 12 years, and was growing fruit to-day, but not to the same extent as two years ago. Owing to the war he had been compelled to stop business as a builder and obliged to sell 125 trees together with two or three little properties they adjoined and formed part of, otherwise he would have had about 80 trees at the back door instead of the six he had spoken of. Last year, not having enough fruit to make all the jam they wanted for home use, what was more natural than buy from a neighbour whose garden was well stocked? He had done the same thing this year, and had also bought an additional 86 trees to be transplanted at the right season. He had no interest whatever in Mr. Judd's garden beyond that.

The Chairman said that the Bench considered it was a very bad case indeed. Defendant had made a declaration and got sugar, and had no fruit. He would be fined £3 in each case.