MERTHYR POLICE COURT.|1872-02-16|The Merthyr Telegraph and General Advertiser for the Iron Districts of South Wales - Welsh Newspapers Online
Hide Articles List

10 articles on this Page








Family Notices



MERTHYR POLICE COURT. SATURDAY.—[Before T. J. Evans, and R. II. Rhys, Esqs.) NEGLECTING TO VACCINATE.—A man named Daniel Lloyd, who was represented by his wife, was summoned for ne- glecting to vaccinate his child. From a statement by the public prosecutor, Mr Bevan, it appeared that the law had been complied with since the issue of the summons. Under these circumstances the defendant was only fined Is and costs. EXTRAVAGANT TIPPLERS.—John Welsh and Jas. Sullivan, for drunkenness, were each fined 10s and costs. Evan Rees and Edward Samuel, for the same offence in Aber- dare, were fined 10s and costs. Patrick Ferly, Frances Barry, and Mary Mahone were, for similar offences, each fined 53 and costs. AN ILLEGAL VISIT.—William Bennett, for being in the White Lion Inn, Troedyrhiw, on Dec. 24th, during illegal hours, was fined 10s and costs. MONDAY.—(Before J. C. Foider, E8q.) ASSAULTS.—Thomas Hogan was fined 5s. and costs for an assault on Thomas Salt. —William Thomas was also fined Is. and 3s. (iel. costs for an assault on a boy named Hees Meyrick, at Pontstorehouse. The boy was a most im- pudent lad, and deserved a much more severe thrashing than was administered to him. SEVERE ASSAULT.—John James was charged with having committed a most savage and unprovoked assault on an old man named John Smith, a blacksmith, at Gellivaelog. Complainant's head was covered with bandages, and it was said that his jaw bad been fractured, besides other injuries being inflicted. The assault had been committed on Sun- day night about 11 o'clock, on the new road leading to Dowlais from Penydarren, and the old man swore most positively that it was done by defendant. Defendant on the other hand denied all knowledge of the affair, and produced several witnesses who testified that they saw him in the Horse and Groom, and afterwards at his lodgings, where be was preparing to go to bed, just before the time when the assault took place. A witness wli3 proved that the old man was drunk on that night. —Adjourned for a week. THE CHARGE OF SELLING BEER WITHOUT A LICENCE. — William Lloyd, a ganger on the Taff Bargoed Railway was to-day convicted of this offence, and fined 20s. and costs. Mr Dixon gave evidence showing that the contractor gave orders to publicans for beer to the men, but in this case de- fendant had his half-barrels of beer from a brewery, which the contractor knew nothing of. CHARGE OF DEFRAUDING THE DOWLAIS IRON COMPANY. —George Lewis appeared to a summons, charging him, in conjunction with Vaughan Lewis (for whom a warrant had been obtained, but who, it is said, has gone abroad) for that he, the said George Lewis, had falsely pretended that he had done labouring work for the Dowlais Iron Co to wit one turn on the 18th January, and one turn and three quarters on the 19th January, and had unlawfully attempted to obtain for such pretended work the sum of 5s Gd, with intent thereby to defraud. He was also charged with having, in conjunction with Vaughan Lewis, unlaw- fully and fraudulently conspired and agreed together to obtain from the Dowlais Iron Co. the sum of 5s Gd, and to cheat and defraud thein of the same.—Mr Frank James appeared to prosecute, and Mr Simons was for the defence of George Lewis.—Thomas Jones, cashier, examined: Vaughan Lewis was a time-keeper at the Steel-works, and George Lewis a ladle-man at the same works, paid by the ton. If pressed for day-men George Lewis would be liable to be called out. Every man gets a wages card the first week of his employment, by which card he is identified in the office, and whoever presents that card gets the money until the pay, the card being nipped at each payment. The cards differ in colour to represent, the various departments, and if a man worked in two or more departments, he would have a different coloured card for each department. On the 26th January I discovered a labour card made out for George Lewis, which I stopped in consoquence of informa- tion I had received that he had done no labour work as represented. I sent for George Lewis and asked him, Did vou do any labour work last week ?" He said "No." I asked him, "Are you quite sure of that?" and he answered, "Quite sure." I observed in Vaughan Lewis's time-book, which is supposed to be a transcript from his pocket time-book, an entry that George Lewis had worked a turn on the 18th January as a labourer, and a turn and three quarters on the 19th, but these entries do not appear on his pocket time-book. George Lewis's name appears in the Cash Advance Book as entitled to 5s for the work on the 18th and 19th.—Cross-examined by Mr Simons Have been told that os was kept back from George Lewis the previous week, being the amount of a fine inflicted upon him. The fine was entered against him by Mr Purnell, manager of the steel works. I asked George Lewis to explain the matter, and he said it was to cover the fine inflicted upon him. He said that he had complained to Vaughan Lewis and Mr Purnell that his fine had been stopped from his advance, and not kept until the pay, and that Vaughan had then entered the labour time in order to cover that fine, and that no harm was intended. —Re-examined The time-keeper would have no authority whatever to put down time work unless the men were pre- sent at the work. He has no discretionary power in the matter, nor can any fines be remitted without the written sanction of MrMenelaus.—Thomas Henry Jones examined: I am a clerk at the Dowlais office. I make out the pay- cards from the cash advance book. Defendant applied to me for George Lewis's card for labour work. I looked through the cards in my hand, and said I had no card for George Lewis. I asked who George Lewis was, and be replied that he was George Lewis. He seemed disappointed. — The witness was interrogated respecting a conversation which Mr Simons persisted had taken place between witness and George Lewis and Vaughan Lewis respecting the fine, but the witness appeared to have so indistinct a recollection of the circumstances that no definite information could be elicited.—Charles Augustus Purnell, manager of the steel works, examined Defendant bad not done labour on the 18th and 19th January. He was working ton work. I did not sanction, nor could I authorize, the entry of any work on account of a fine.—Cross-exauiiued George Lewis came to me, but didn't say that it was an arrangement to cover the fine. —Thomas Jones re-called I did not ask George Leviis to send Vaughan Lewis to me. I saw Vaughan Lewis, but he did not lead me to understand that it was an arrangement he had made to cover the fine. He said that he had done what he did of his own accord. I said he had no right to do anything of the sort. He then said tha.t he thought the fine should not have been put in, and that he intended to cover it quietly. He said nothing to show that defendant was not ..ware of the fraud, but he admitted the fraud on the part of himsclf.- Thomas Henry Jones re-ex- amined I won't swear that Vaughan Lewis did not say that if I hadn't a card for George Lewis he would have to write a note to get the 5s for him. I can't swear either one way or the other whether Vaughan Lewis came to me or not in reference to the card.—This was the whole of the evidence, after which Mr Simons observed that were he to appear for Vaughan Lewis, he would contend that no fraud had been committed by him, but he only represented the present defendant, and with reference to him no legal wrong whatever had been proved against him, though there might be some complaint of irregularity. The only object of Vaughan Lewis appeared to be to defer the payment of the fine until the end of the pay, and surely there was no fraud in that intention.—Mr Fowler said that the evidence clearly showed that defendant was cognizant of an unlawful trick to neutralize the effect of a fine, and he could not see how the case could be disposed of unless by a jury.—Mr Simons ventured to remind his worship that the system adopted by the Dowlais Co. was a direct inducement to these irregular practices, for by that system men were kept without a settlement for three months, and they were often pushed to the greatest straits owing to their inability to obtain their wages until such periods had elapsed. At present there were about two pounds due to the present defendant which he was unable to obtain.—Mr Fowler said that the arrangements of the Company with respect to their pays were not within bis province to en- quire into, or make any observations upon.—The case was here adjourned for a week to see whether Vaughan Lewis might in the meantime be apprehended. One or two cases of assaults of no importance were dis- posed of. WEDNESDAY.—(Before J. C. Foioler, Esq.) NEGLECTING HIS WIFE.—William Abraham was charged with leaving his wife and child chargeable to the Merthyr Union.—Mr Meredith, the master, stated that the defen- dant was able to work.—Police-sergeant Dance received defendant into custody at Pontypridd, and in answer to the charge he said he was willing to maintain his wife.- Defendant said he would maintain her if she would only live with him.—He was sent to prison for fourteen days with hard labour. FEMALE DISORDERLIES.—Margaret Arthur and Mary Aubrey, two persons of ill-fame, were charged -with being disorderly in High-street, on Monday evening.—Arthur, who has been thrice convicted, was sent to prison for three months with hard labour, and Aubrey for a month. BEWARE OF JOHM WELSH.—A prostitute, named Mary Ann Watts, was summoned for being the occupier of a brothel, and knowingly harbouring a convicted thief, named John Welsh.—Police-sergeant Olding said he visited the house on the 24th inst, and saw the defendant there.—In- spector Thomas proved two convictions against Welsh of stealing money from the person.—The defendant was fined 50s and costs, or 2l days. STEALING BREAD AND MEAT.—George Jones, a dissolute fellow, was charged with stealing a quantity of bread and meat, value 6d, the property of Mr Frederick Williams, landlord of the Clarence Inn, High-street.—Ann Williams, wife of prosecutor, stated that on Tuesday evening the pri- soner came to their house and asked for sixpennyworth of bread and meat, which was given to him. After he had eaten it, he was asked for payment thereof, when he replied, I have no money send for a' policeman and lock me up." A policeman was thereupon sent for.—Police- constable Davies arrested him at the Clarence Inn.—He was remanded till Saturday, for inquiries to be made respecting his antecedents. SISTERS' QUARRELS.—Sarah Curry was summoned by Mary Huggins for unlawfully damaging various articles in her house, at Penydarren, to the extent of 9s 7Ad.—She was ordered to pay the damage, 2s 6d fine, and costs.