Superintendent Thomas Fey

31.07.1862 – 18.08.1875

Research by Andrew Reid

Thomas FEY joined the Force on the 22nd February, 1845, as Constable 49. He was a 23 year old single man, a butcher from Burley, Hampshire. On 13th March, 1845, he was posted to work from Kingsclere, as Constable 3rd Class, on 28th July, 1846, he was promoted to Constable 2nd Class.

He remained at Kingsclere until April 1847, when he was posted to Fareham.

On 26th July, 1847, he was promoted to Constable 1st Class. On 16th July, 1849, he was promoted to the rank of Sergeant. In 1849 he was posted to work at Droxford.

On April 26th, 1850 he was posted again this time to Petersfield, three days later he was promoted to 3rd Class Superintendent in charge of the Petersfield Division, gaining promotion in situe to 2nd Class Superintendent in April 1859.

On 31st July, 1862, Mr. Fey was posted back to take charge of the Kingsclere Division, gaining promotion to 1st Class Superintendent on August 16th 1867. He remained at Kingsclere for thirteen years. He was then posted as officer in charge of the Andover Division on August 18th , 1875. Eight months later, on 12th April, 1876; he was posted to the Force Headquarters at Winchester.

On 13th January, 1881, he retired from the Force having completed thirty-six years service, almost half at Kingsclere. His character and ability being recorded as ‘Exemplary’, he was superannuated on a sum off £101. 7.9. per year.

On Tuesday June 7th 1864, the Government Inspector visited the division coming from Basingstoke at 11.15 by carriage and leaving at 12.15 to go to inspect Andover, most inspections of the Division were held at Whitchurch Police Station as the Railway Station was nearer and transport was more available.

Bread was frequently checked, it would be purchased by Policemen in plain clothes, usually from another area, as the bakers would not know who he was. The item would then be taken to the officer appointed as an Inspector under the Weights and Measures Act and weighed. If any item was found to be underweight or incorrect, court action usually followed, as demonstrated in the court reports from the Newbury Weekly News of July and August 1867, we read of the following cases;

George Maslin, appeared to summons charged by Supt. Fey with having on 22nd July, sold bread otherwise than by weight. P.C. Rogers said that on the
22nd inst., he purchased a loaf of bread of Mrs. Maslin at the shop. He took it to Mr. Supt. Fey who weighed it in his presence, and which was short of the standard weight. Mr. Fey corroborated the constable’s statement.

Mr. King from the office of Mr. Cave, Newbury, addressed the Bench on defendant’s behalf and argued that defendant was not liable as his wife had
sold the bread, but the Bench considered otherwise, and fined him in the normal penalty of 6d. with 8/6 costs, which was paid. Thomas Watts was also charged with on the 22nd July, inst., at East Woodhay, sold a loaf of bread to P.C. Gamble, he not being provided with weights and scales, according to statute. P.C. Gamble stated that he bought the loaf of the defendant on the 23rd, July, and took it to Supt. Fey, who weighed it and found it short. Supt. Fey corroborated this statement. There was a second charge against this defendant but it was entered into. The Bench imposed a fine of 6d with 8/6 costs. The money was paid. Thomas Tanner was charged with a similar offence and P.C. Roger proved he bought a loaf of bread at Mr. Tanner’s shop on the 22nd July, which was found to be short of the standard weight, and was fined 6d with 8/6 costs. The money was paid.

John Swait, baker at Tan house, Kingsclere, was also charged on the information of Mr. Fey, with having sold a loaf of bread otherwise than by weight P.C. Kearl stated that he went to defendant’s shop on the 23rd July, and asked for a loaf of bread.

He was supplied by the same defendant, but it was not by weight. When he was leaving the shop the defendant ascertained that he was a policeman, and
asked him if he should weigh the bread. The P.C. replied “No thank you”. Mr. Fey stated that the loaf was short, and he was fined 6d with 8/6 costs, which
was paid.

Thomas Crimble, of Overton, baker, appeared to a summons charging him with selling bread otherwise than by weight. P.C. 71 stated that he went to defendants shop and asked for a 41b. loaf and defendant served him but did not weigh it.

He brought the loaf to his Superintendent. Mr. Fey, said that the loaf in question was three ounces over weight when brought to him: he summoned the defendant for not complying with the statute in neglecting to weigh his bread on delivery. The Bench decided to dismiss the case but told the defendant that he must in future weigh his bread in delivery. Mrs. Charlotte Corpe was charged on the information of Mr. Supt. Fey, with selling bread without weighing it at the time of sale. P.C. 71 stated that he went to defendants shop and asked for a quart loaf which was, supplied him, but without being weighed.

He took it to his Superintendent, who weighed it and found it short weight.

Defendant said she did not bake the bread herself but was supplied by another baker, and could not therefore be responsible for the weight. The Bench, however, told her different, and fined her in the penalty of 1s. 6d., with 8s. 6d.
cost. The money was paid. George Wayt was also charged with selling bread otherwise than by weight.

This case having been proved, the Bench asked the defendant what he had to say to the charge. He replied that he did not sell the loaf to the constable, and no policeman had been to the shop for bread The loaf in question was a crusty one and would be considered as fancy bread.

The Chairmen told him that that was a fancy of his own, and he must weigh his bread on delivery, whether crusty or not. Fined 11s. 6d., and 8s. 6d. cost. The money was paid. Supt. Fey informed the Bench that although several bakers had lately been fined for selling bread without weighing it, they did not adhere to the caution given them, and still continued the practice. The magistrates told the superintendent to summon them again, and they might get the full penalty inflicted next time.

Other items, usually concerning measures, would be sent to the Public Analyst, again if found incorrect court action would follow.
In August 1866, all members of the Force were issued with leather leggings for protection against the weather, although they were only to be worn between November 1st and March 3lst, and were to last no longer than three years.

(H1/l HRO)
General Order dated March 21st, 1867, reports that Constables are to wear boots with laces and black eyelets.