Hide Articles List

6 articles on this Page



ORHYL PETTY SESSIONS. 1 a MOHDAT.âBefore Messrs. T.:Ll. Murray Browne (in the chair), S. Perks, W. Wynne, LI. Lloyd, M.A., G. S. Hazlehurst, and Dr. Girdlestone. us TOWN -AT- THKATBICA1 LIOMSE--T= APPLICATION AGAIN ADJOTTBITSE). Mr Arthur Rowlands renewed the application made a month previously, for a theatrical license for ftka Town Hall. Their Worships having inspected the premises, the Chairman, on;their return to court, addressing Mr Rowlands, said that it occurred to them that as the large door at the bottom of the stairs opened inwards, that should their happen to be a rush, and the doors closed, the consequenoes would be serious. Mr Rowlands said he believed the doors were in- variably open on the occasion of theatrical perfor- mances, but there was no special instruction to that effect. Mr George: You know that of your own know- ledge ? Mr Rowlands: Tes. I generally make it a point on the occasion of theatrical performances to look in at the otoee. The Chairman thought it desirable that special instruction should be given that the doors should always be left open. Mr Rowlands saidibe would undertake that the Magistrates' wish should be complied with. Mr George: That will be one of the rules on j which the license will bet granted, and if you do not comply with it you will be liable to a penalty. Mr Rowlands said he would make it a point to look into the hall when theatrical performances were being held, and see that the doors were left open. The Chairman: What about the hydrant ? Mr Rowlands The work has been ordered to be carried out, but owing to the Water Company not having received the necessary pipes it has been so far delayed. Mr Hughes, the town surveyor, will .n1..in tn vnn +.Ha nrAA^n^flfflfp nf thA skrrantmmentm- i Mr Hughes explained the arrangements, which were that an inch and a half pipe should be attached to the main in Water street, to which it was pro- posed to attach a hose with a two-ways tap, which could be turned so as to apply the hose to jthe fire, and also to fill the buckets proposed to be placed at different points of the room. Mr Rowlands reminded the Bench that there was a fire engine on the premises, which could be put in working order in about ten minutes. Mr Hazlehurst expressed his opinion that an inch and a half branch was not powerful enough to carry the water. The Town Surveyor said that eareful considera- tion had been given to the matter, and believed that an inch and a half pipe would be quite ample for the purpose. Mr Hazlehurst also thought that if both taps were running at the same time the water could not be carried more than six feet. The Surveyor said it was not proposed to work the two taps at the same time. After a long discussion the Chairman said that there was a doubt in the minds of the magistrates as to whether there should be a large pipe, or have two services. Mr Hazlehurst suggested that two pipes should be inserted in the main, viz., an inch and a half pipe and also a three-inch pipe; the three-inch pipe for the hose, and the other for the buckets, both j>ipes to be brought six feet above the floor of the The Surveyor said] that might bs done, but it would be very costly. Mr George: Then you do not consider that life is at stake ? The Surveyor said he considered the proposal to provide an inch and a half pipe sufficient for the purpose. The Chairman asked Mr Rowlands if he was pre- pared to undertake that Mr Haalehurst's proposal should be canned out. Mr Rowlands said he could not do so, but would lay the matter before the Commissioners, and ap- plied for an adjournment. The Chairman said that the magistrates would not be satisfied unless Mr Hnalehurst's proposal was carried out, and therefore thought the best course would be to adjourn the application until the next court, which would be held on the 9th April. TEMPORABT AUTHORITY. Temporary authority was granted to Mr Thomas Eaves Varnon to sell intoxicants at the Wynnstay Arms hotel. ALLKOED CBUBLTT TO A HOBSB. âMPOBTAJfT CASB. Robert Matthews, carter, in the employ of Mr John Jones, Albert street, Rhyl, was charged by Mr Frederick Clarke. Inspector to the R.S.P.C.A., with having on the 6th inst., worked alhorse whilst in an unfit state, aad his employer was charged with having caused the horse to be worked.âThe Prose- cutor applied that both cases should be tried toge- ther, but Mr Edward Roberts, who defended, ob- jected, as he was going to call one defendant in sup- port of the other. The Bench having decided to take the cases sepa- rately, that of Matthews was taken first. Inspector McLaren, sworn, deposed that on the 5th inst., at 1-30 p.m., he saw defendant going up Wellington road, and turning up Queen street,with a bay horse drawing a load of bricks. The horse was very lame in the fore legs. He had known the horse for years, but had never known it to be so lame before, and it was as much as it could do to get along. He believed that the horse was suffering pain, and that it was cruel to work it, and it was not in a proper state to draw a load of bricks. Cross-examined: Witness did not know much about horses. He did not examine the horse's foot, Wit would swear it was very lame. He did not know what a contraction of the hoof was. He did not know whether the operation of shoeing might cause lameness. He had seen the horse worked subse- quently (on the 23rd inst.) It walked better than on the day the information was laid. He met Mr Roberts, the veterinary surgeon, on the Friday, but did not tell him that in his (witness's) opinion that the horse was as bad that day as it was on the pre- vious occasion he had seen it. Re-examined by Mr Clarke: It was palpable to any casual observer that the horse on the day in question was suffering pain, and that it was cruel to work it. Inspector Clarke said that from information re- ceived he aocompanied P.O. Arthur Jones to Mr John Jones's, Albert street. They examined the horse, and it was suffering [great pain, and was totally unfit for work the day the information was laid, as it was suffering from disease brought on entirely by neglect. It was gross cruelty to work it. He spoke to defendant Matthews in the presence of his employer and in answer to a question put by him (witness) defendant said he had never known the horse go eo lame before, and when he discovered that it was so, that he only took it to fetch a ton of ooals afterwards. This was said in the presence of his master. Cross-examined: Witness had been an inspector four or five years; previous to then he had been in- spector of cab horses uuder Sir Richard Mayne. He had been inspector of horses iince 1867, and before then was a member of Metropolitan police force. He had had practical knowledge of horse disease for a number of years, and he could say what constitut- ed cruelty. When he saw the horse again on the 20th Mr Jones made the remark that it would have to be killed. P.C. A. Jones gave corroborative evidence. Mr Ed. Roberta, for the defenoe, said he would call the owner of the horse. Mr Jones was one of the largest and principal cartowners in the town. and had a number of valuable horses, and therefore knew how they should be treated. Mr Roberts asked their worships to consider whetherlMr John Jones would wilfully sanction any ill-treatment of hid horses. Mr Jones would tell them that after his attention had been directed by his servant to the horse being lame he at once caused the animal to be examined; he also sent for the veterinary surgeon, who wculd tell their worships the cause of the Jame- ness, and that it was at his instance that the horse was worked on the Friday, as the only way it could recover was by putting it to work. From the day the informatiun was laid up to the 20th of March, the horse had been kept in the stable, and the ve- terinary burgeon would tell them that on the 20th the horde was in a fit state to be worked, and yet the inspector told them that the horse in his opinion Was worse that day than it was on the 6th. The question therefore was whether they would believe a qualified veterinary surgeon, or convict the de- fendant upon the evidence of an ex-policeman. Mr John Jones then deposed that on the 5th of of March the defendant directed his attention to the eondition of the horse, and j after attending a little to his shoe he did not do anything further as the horse was apparently better. He did not work it between that date and the 23rd of March, on which day the veterinary surgeon came to see the horse, and it was upon his instructions that the horse was taken out on the Friday so that the surgeon might properly examine it. Cross-examined:âWitness, had seen the horse lame several times before, but not so lame as it was on this particular occation. Witness admitted that he said he would never put him to similar work again. Mr Roberts, veterinary surgeon, deposed to examining the horse on Friday, the 23rd iost. He described the disease from which the animal was suffering. The horse had evidently been a good one, and did not consider it cruel to work him. He adviaed that the horse should ba worked on Friday, the 23rd mat. He had heard the inspector give his evidence, but he still maintained that even suppos- ing it was in a similar state on the 5th and 6th inst, as the date on which he saw it, it was in a fit state to be worked. Cross-examined It was right and proper in his opinion to work an animal that had a thrush. The 9 contraction of the hoof might be caused by shoeing, and bad management. The animallwas not in pain on the 23rd of March, and was in his opinion fit to draw a cart load of bricks. The Chairman said that the magistrates were of opinion that the crise was a proper one for investi- gation, but upon the evidence adduced they did not feel justified in convicting, but they would not make any order as to costs. The other summons was withdrawn. THB THEFT OF TIJfBBB 1PROM THE NEW BRIDC- ANOTHER COKVICTION. Wtn. Hughe*, 66, Vale Road, was summoned for that he ou or about the 1st inst., in this parish and county, feloniously did steal certain timber, valned at about 10s., the property of Mr Finnigan, con- tractor for the new Railway Bridge Mr Fitzgerald, cashier in the employ of Mr Fin- nigan, said he knew the defendant, who was a carter. Witness's employer had lost a considerable quantity of timber from the premises of the new bridge, and from information received, he drew the attention of Inspector McLaren to it. Last Mon- day he was directed to attend at the Police station, where he identified the strutting timber now in L-ourt as the property of Mr Finnigan, which he valued at about 10s. They were not marked, but be identified them by the holes in them. He had had a conversation on the 21st inst. with the defen- dant, who admitted having taken the timber from the ground, and remarked that if he prosecuted all the people that took the timber he would have to prosecute half the men on the job, or something to that effect, John Wright said he was late foreman to Mr Finnigan, and be knew the defendant Hughes. On the 17th inst., P.C. Taafe came to him and asked him to identify some timber supposed to have been stolen. He went, and found some of the timber now produced in the ashpit of the defendant's house, and also one piece of timber in the house. On the following Tuesday P.C. Taafe came to him to ask him to go and identify some more of the timber, which he had found in the false roof of a pigsty, belonging to Wm. Hughes. The defendant was aft3rwards asked by P.C. Taafe if he knew anything about the timber he replied that he owned it had come from the bridge. The timber was afterwards taken on a barrow, and P.C. Taafe asked defendant if he had any more timber belonging to the new bridge, and he replied in the negative. P.C. Taafe gave evidence of having in company with Inspector McLaren, discovered the timber in the ashpit of defendant's house, and inside the house, and further corroborated the evidence of J. Wright. The defendant was then formally charged, and in reply said, I am guilty. I am very sorry that I took them/ I took them for firewood. They were pieces that had been thrown aside, and in a manner) of saying they were only waste." Mr Fitzgerald said that the larger pieces of tim- ber were cut for special purposes, as props under arches, and were not thrown away, and no one had any authority to take them away, Mr Finnigan did not wish that the defendant should be severely dealt with, he only wanted this to be a warning to others that no one had a right to touch the timber on the premises. The Chairman said that the prosecution had asked for indulgence for the prisoner. The magistrates had carefully considered the case, and were wiiling to extend to the defendant as much indulgence as they possibly could, but they must say that this was a deliber ate case of stealing. Only very re- cently they had a case before them when a man was alro charged for stea ing wood from the bridge, and who was sentenced on the whole of the charges to six months' imprisonment. That was a more ser- ious case than that of the present defendant, owing to there being a previous conviction against him, and when there was a second conviction the case was much more serious, because the person then tried his strength against the law, and it was neces- sary that the prisoner should be shown that the law was stronger than he. Up to now the defendant had borne a good character, and the severest sen. tence that could be passed upon him, was for him to lose that character. The decision of the court was that he should be sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment, and be (the Chairman), hoped that defendant would be permitted to return to his situation. It was quite time that people should understandáthat steal- ing wood was an offence, and an offence which should be stopped.