Compiled by Cameron McCullough
THE foundation stone of Frankston’s £18,000 High school was laid this afternoon in the presence of a large gathering, including Sir Alexander Peacock (Minister of Education), Hon. A. Downward (Minister of Lands), officers of the Education Department, the Shire president (Cr. W. Hutchinson), and. councillors of the Shire of Frankston and Hastings.
The ceremony of laying the stone was performed by Hon. A. Downward, after which an adjournment was made to the Masonic Hall, where the visitors were entertained by members of the High School Welfare League.
Dr. C. Maxwell, president of the High School Council, presided.
***
Back to Frankston movement suggested
At the annual meeting of the Frankston H. & A. Association held last Wednesday night, Messrs. C. Parnell and D. McFarlane, representing the Frankston Traders’ Association, put forward a suggestion that a “Back to Frankston” movement should be taken up.
Mr. Parnell said that the Traders had not gone fully into the matter, but were desirous of ascertaining whether the show committee would support the idea.
Mr. McFarlane said that a similar movement had been arranged in other towns and proved a great success.
Cr. Montague said he had been in a town where a similar celebration had been in progress and was surprised to see the tram loads of visitors arriving daily.
Mr. McFarlane produced a souvenir programme in connection with the “Back to Sale” movement held recently.
Mr. Gamble was not opposed to the idea, but would like fuller details.
Mr. Hanton, secretary, said that Cr. Pratt had spoken to him regarding the proposal, and had made it clear that there would be no responsibility on the show committee.
Mr. G. Keast thought the idea a good one.
Cr. Oates also supported, but thought they should have more definite information regarding the amount of work involved and the expense.
Mr. W. C. Young, said such celebrations were designed to raise money.
A “Back to Leongatha” movement was now being organised to raise money for their park.
If Frankston organised for January next to include the show day, the takings at the gate would be materially increased.
It was resolved on the motion of Cr. Montague, seconded by Mr. Jacobs, that two representatives from the show committee be appointed to discuss the project with the Traders’ Association.
The president (Cr. Wells) and Mr. M. Jacobs were appointed to attend the next Traders’ meeting.
The president, who expressed himself strongly in favor of the “Back to Frankston” movement thanked Messrs. Parnell and McFarlane for placing the matter clearly before the meeting.
***
Naval Depot win final
There were more shattered hopes after Saturday’s match at Frankston, when Somerville had to surrender to Naval Depot in the final.
Last year Somervillle met Mornington in the final, but were defeated. There is no need to say what happened to Mornington in the grand final. This year Somerville has shown good, and bad form, playing some really good games and occasionally some poor ones.
When they met Mornington in the semi-final recently they were full of dash and swept Mornington off their feet at the start, eventually winning well.
There was none of this sparkle about the team on Saturday on opening,for, they seemed slow to get going.
Naval Depot was just the reverse, and beating their men repeatedly the Navy soon had the score going.
It was a good performance to win the premiership in 1924-25-26 and all will join in congratulating the Depot on their fine achievement.
They had three captains this year, First T. Deayton, then C. Price, and finally L. Lock, the two former had to retire temporarily owing to injuries, and each has done his share, also the whole team, who have played the game like men and looked for the ball only.
Somerville team, having lost, might be said by some to have all played badly. They didn’t.
***
CHELSEA COURT
Wednesday, September 6. Before Cr. H. A. Hunter (chairman), Cr. J. A. Boyd and D. Bowman, J.’sP.
SAFETY FIRST.
In the case of J. M. Campbell v. Mrs. M. Graham in which rent for four weeks was claimed, some peculiar evidence was forthcoming.
Mr. Wadham appeared for defendant.
The plaintiff stated in evidence that he was owner of property at Aspendale that was let to defendant on lease and payable weekly in advance at 30/ per week, and a claim was made for four weeks from July 25.
Mr. Wadham objected to witness when he stated the place was let to undesirables at £2/10/- a week.
Witness, proceeding, said these tenants had left and took the keys,which he had been unable to recover.
Application had been made by his agent, Mr. Griffiths, to find defendant’s address, which owing to removal, he was unable to do. The consequence was he had to change the locks, of which keys were held that could be handed over if the defendant had come along.
Mr. Wadham interjecting: “Is it not true you have had time to consider your legal position? Do you still recognise the defendant as your tenant?
Witness: Well, I hardly know how I stand and have come along to the court to find out.
Mr. Wadham pressed his question, thinking the evidence was completed.
Witness: I have not yet finished my evidence.
Mr. Wadham: I apologise.
Witness then proceeded to state defendant had property to a certain value, but Mr. Wadham objected.
On cross-examination, witness said he put the locks on after he took out the summons on the same day. He put the locks on as much as anything to safeguard defendant’s property.
William Oswald Griffiths, estate agent, Aspendale, gave evidence of receiving rent from tenants of Mrs. Graham and forwarding out of it the rent to Mr. Campbell. He had made efforts to find Mrs. Graham, who spoke to him over the telephone, but he had told her to call on him, which she had not done.
Mr. Wadham said the rent would have been paid if his client could have had possession. It was all moonshine about the locks being placed on the premises to protect his client’s property. She had not heard of her tenants being turned out, and when she came down found the place barred and locked she had gone to Campbell’s place, but found him out.
M. Graham, married woman, Malvern road, Malvern, defendant, said she took possession on March 29 and later sub-let under arrangements.
She had recently removed from Northcote. She had no intimation of the place being empty till she received her summons.
She went to Aspendale on August 26, with a friend, Mrs. Wilson, and her children, but found a new lock on the gate, and on the window. She came down since, and an both occasions Mr. Campbell was not at home.
She notified Mr. Griffith of her removal.
Mrs. Mary Wilson gave corroborative evidence of accompanying Mrs. Graham to put in the weekend, and had to return.
They went to the agent’s, but he was not in.
An order was made for £6 with 6/- costs.
***
From the Pages of the Frankston and Somerville Standard, 10 September 1926
