Newspaper in memoriam

Newspaper in memoriam

Includes in memory of Acting Flight Lieutenant Harold Leonard Fry previously reported missing now presumed killed.

One newspaper cutting

This content is available under a CC BY-NC 4.0 International license (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0). It has been published ‘as is’ and may contain inaccuracies or culturally inappropriate references that do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the University of Lincoln or the International Bomber Command Centre. For more information, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ and https://ibccdigitalarchive.lincoln.ac.uk/omeka/legal.

NFryHL200304-01

THE RECORDER, THURSDAY, JAN. 31st, 1946. 3

IN MEMORIAM. – contd.

EDWARDS, Samuel Patrick. – In loving memory of my darling hubby Sam, and Pamela’s dear daddy, who passed away on January 30th, 1945. Dearly beloved, sadly missed by his dear wife Bertha and little Pamela.
FRY. – In proud and loving memory of Acting Flight-Lieut. Harold Leonard Fry. R.A.F., V.R. (Navigator), aged 21, of 159. South Park-drive, Ilford. Previously reported missing on January 29th, 1944, from air operations over Berlin, now presumed to have passed on. Remembrance is the golden chain that binds us till we meet again. – From Mum, Dad, Douglas and Margaret. Also remembering the other six gallant crew members of the Lancaster bomber.
GEORGE. – In cherished memory of our dear Chub. Killed in Italy, January 30th, 1944.
Without farewell he fell asleep,
With only memories for us to keep.
For we who dearly loved him know,
How much we lost two years ago.
So sadly missed by your Mum, Dad, Rosa, Brian, Glad and Ron, Peg and Roy.
GEORGE. – In ever loving mem[missing words] dear nephew. Chub. [missing words] every day [missing words]

[new column]

DAIRY FARMER’S APPEAL
(Continued from Page 9)

charges laid against him, and now you are bringing evidence which he has not the slightest opportunity of refuting.”
Mr. Nicholls: The Council are the defendants [sic] to-day not Mr. Clark. The samples were taken to justify the action of the Council. Mr. Clark now has the opportunity to dispute them.
Chairman: I must rule against the admission of this evidence. If it had been thought necessary to bring it forward Mr. Clark should have been informed before hand.
Magistrates’ Clerk: Were the samples of milk divided into three parts and Mr. Clark given one?
Mr. Nicholls: They were taken for the information of the local authority. I am endeavouring to submit the evidence which the local authority had before them when they came to the decision in question.
Chairman: And which, when Mr. Clark was before the Council was not given to him. How could he show cause why his registration should not be cancelled, when he does not know what caused the Council to consider [missing word] it?
[missing words] Chief Health [missing words] said he went [missing words]