Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

11 articles on this Page

ABERGELE PETTY SESSIONS.\…

News
Cite
Share

ABERGELE PETTY SESSIONS. SATURDAY, April 7th.—Before Rev. W. Venables Williams (in the chair), Messrs J. Roberts. M.P-, J. Lewis (Colwyn Bay), J. L. Oldneld (Bettws), and J. Herbert Roberts. APPOINTMENT OF OVEBSEEBS. The overseers for the different parishes in the jurisdiction of the court were appointed. DAMAGING TELEGRAPH INSULATORS. Edward Roberts and WÛliIJm Davies, two hoys aged eleven and fourteen respectively, both of Mocbdre, were charged by Mr John Asher, with having on the 14th ult., unlawfully and wilfully damaged certain telegraph insulators, the property Her Majesty's Postmaster General. Both defendants admitted the oSence. Mr J. Asher said that the department was very reluctant to prosecute, but inasmuch as there was an average of from Iw to 200 words a minute trans- mitted along the wire in question, they were com- pelled to take proceedings, in order to prevent a re-occurrence of such conduct. The breaking of these insulators was a very costly one to the depart- ment, as it cost two shillings and sixpence to re- place each insulator. The Chairman said the case was a very proper one to be brought up. Mr Asher asked that only a nominal fine should be imposed. The department did not desire that the extreme penalty should be innicted. The defendant!?were ordered to pay the costs, which amount e?Kb Us. 9d. each. THB RE-OPENDtS OF THE OCaERIiL HOTEL, CGLWV, BAY. Mr 'William Daviea applied for an extension of hours for the Imperial Hotel, Colwyn Bay, on the occasion of a dinner to celeberate its re-opening, on Friday, the 13th inst. Supt. Vaughan said he considered it his duty to say that be had not received acy notice that a trans- fet of the license had been made to Mrs Lowe. Mr Davies: I think Mr Vaughan has made a mistake, for I am instructed that the transfer has been granted. Mr Wallis Davies, who appeared on behalf ot the trustees of Mr William Icke, said that a temporary authority to Mrs Lowe [had been granted which expired on that day. Mr Davies, in that case, applied that the tempor- ary authority should be extended until tEe next meeting, which would be held on the 3rd of May. Mr Wallis Davies, offered no objection, saying he would enter t proper appearance, as representing the tnMtees, when an application was made to transfer the license. Their Worships granted the application. Mr Davies then renewed his application for an extension of one hour on the night of Friday, the, 13th inst; but the chairman said the bench con- aidered that eleven o'clock was quite late enough, and refused to accede to the request. DBTJNH AND DISOBpERLY. Owen Davier, Abergele, was brought up on a warrant charged with being drunk at Abergele on the 18th February.—Fined 5s. and costs. A VIOLENT SADDLER. P. C. John Evans applied that Edward Evans, saddler, Abergele, shoulcfbe bounfd over to keep the peace. Tbe omcer said that on a certain date at a public place in Abergele the defendant challenged com- plainant to nght, and threatened to inflict bodily punishment on him. The defendant admitted having used threats to the oSicer, but asserted that he had received great provocation. He waa bound over in the sum of JE5 to keep the peace, for the term of six months. DONKEY 8TBAYING. Elis:ath Roberts was charged on the information of P.O. John Salisbury, with allowing three donkeys to stray on the public highway on the 10th of March. Mr Wallis Davies, for the defendant, cont-ended that the animals were not on a public highway; but the bench considered the case proved, and innic- ted a penalty of 6s. and costa. TBAN8FEB OF LICENSE. The license of the Crown Inn, Abergele, was transferred from Thomas Jones to Joseph Evans. I DRUNK ON LICENSED PREMISES.—HEAVY PENALTY. Robert j)ai;tM, Colwyn Bay, was charged by P.O. Edward Roberts, with being drunk on the premises of the Royal Oak Hotet, on the 24th ult. P.O. Edward Roberts said that on the day in question, he saw the defendant going up Station- road, and his attention to the defendant's condition was called by his father. Defendant was going in company with his wife in the direction of home. He was very drunk, and his wife laid hold of his arm. Witness followed him, and saw him go to the Royal Oak. After he had gone inside witness went in after him, and heard him ask Misa Jones for a glass of beer. Witness put his hand on defen- dant's shoulder, and advised him to go home he replied that he would after he had had his drink. He then took up a glass from the bar, and he (wit- ness) asked who had served him whilst he was in that condition. Miss Jones said she did not think he was in such a bad state. Witness said he would have to report the case. The defendant was then taken home by his wife, and cursed and swore all the way. He had been to witness several times eince, asking him to forgive him. Cross-examined by Mr Wallis Davies: The defendant had admitted to Sergeant Lewis that he was drunk, and also that Miss Jones had served him. Witness did not go to defendant before he went to the Royal Oak. He did not caution Miss Jones against serving the man. They knew they ought not to do so, well enough, but people at Col- wyn Bay are so twofaced they don't care what they do that's my experience of them. Sergt. Lewis deposed to serving the summons on defendant, who then admitted the oSence, and ex- pressed his regret. At this stage the bench said they would take the case of John Jones, the landlord of the Royal Oak, who was charged with supplying drink to the de- fendant Edwards. Mr Wallis Daviea defended both. JP.C. E. Roberts repeated the evidence he had given in the other case. Cross-examined by Mr Davies: Although he knew the defendant Edwards was drunk he did not caution the barmaid against serving him. Mr Wallis Davies, for the defence,- said that although there was very strong evidence against him, particularly the admission made by the de- fendant Edwards, that he was drunk on the day in question. He would call evidence to prove that he was not drunk. The admission made to the Sergeant he ascribed as being some sort of an ex- cuse to get out of the scrape in the best way he could. With regard to the oSence alleged to have been committed by John Jones, though their worships might come to the decision that the de- fendant was drunk, it did not follow that the defendant Jones had committed the offence com- plained of, unless it could be proved that there was knowledge that he was supplying drink to a drunken man. When the man went into the Royal Oak he was to all appearance not drunk, and his conduct even did not appear such as to varrant the barmaid not complying with his request to be served. He strongly commented on what he de- scribed the unfair conduct of the constables in not cautioning the barmaid against supplying the defendant. Evidence to prove that the defendant was not drunk was given by Miss Jones (daughter of the defendant Jones), Miss Maggie Haghes (assistant barmaid at the Royal Oak), Hannah Edwarda (de. fandant Edward's wife), and Humphrey Wynne. Their worships considered the case proved. There being a previous conviction against the defendant Edwards, he was fined 5s. and costs. There were also three previous convictions against John Jones., who was fined JE2 and costs. A. CHARGE OF PEBXITTEfQ DBUNKENESS. Jb?t .Ro?"?, Colwyn Bay, was charged by P.C? Edward Roberts with being drunk on licensed premises, to wit, the Station Hotel, Colwyn Ba.v, on the 24th ult. William Price, landlord of the Station Hotel, was charged with permitting drunk- eness on his premises. Mr Wallis Davies -said he appeared for the defendant Roberts, who admitted the o&encB of being drunk on licensed premises, but he would be called by the defendant Price, and would swear that on the day in question he went to the hotel, and found his way to a corner there, where he re- mained unotieed to anybody until discovered by the constable. The case against Mr Price was then gone into. =P.C. Edward Roberts said that tn the 24th of laat month, at about 10.30 p.m., he heard loud talking inside the drinking room of the Station Hotel. On entering the house he found the defend- ant Roberts sitting down faal asleep. He called the attention of the barman t,o him, and he said several times, He's not been served here." Wit- neaa replied, Here's a glass of beer before him, who does thi.F belong to?" The barman said he did not know. Witness tried to waken the defendant Roberts, but failed. Soon after Mr Price came from the adjoining room, and almost before he entered the room he shouted out, He's not been served here, you must Rnd out where he got the drink from," and he then began to call the men in the room to prove that the defendant had not been served there. Whilst witness waa trying to awaJon Roberta, a man named Thomaa moved aglaesof beer that was un the table before Roberts, and Ii placed it opposite himself. Witness stopped him, and put the glass back, and told him not to inter- fere." The man replied, "That is my drink." I Witness replied, "It is not yours, there is yours on I the mantle piece, out of which I saw you drinking." Oh, I beg your pardon," be said, I thought it was mine." The glass was then taken away by the barman. Witness went through the house and Mr Price followed him, and asked him what he was to do. Witness said that the only thing he could do was to get the man out of the house and send him home. Mr Price bad several times said that the man was not drunk. Witness then went back into the house in a few minutes, and by then the defendant had awakened up, and anybody could say that he was very dl c; By Supt. Vaughan: Roberts had been in the house to witness's knowledge for at least twenty minutes. Cross-examined by Mr Wallis Ds.vies: Witness did not see the beer served to the defendant. There were seven or eight people in the room at the time. Three men sat around the table by which Roberts was sitting. There were tvi o glasses of beer on the table and one on the mantle piece. Robert was sitting with his back to the window and the glass in front of him. The mantle piece was about two yards from where Roberts was sitting. Wit- ness bad seen Roberts since, who told him that he had been served on the night in question by either Mr Price or the barman, but was not sure which, and added that be did not remember anything from the time he entered to the time he left the house. Mr Wallis Davies said his defence was a very simple one. He admitted the man was on the pre- mises on the 24th ult., but he got there by some means or other unknown to anyone, and the room being full at the time he found his why to a corner, and feM asleep, and was undiscovered until the policeman came in. Immediately Mr Price dis- covered that the man was there, he had him turned out of the hou<o. Mr Davies then cited a letter which had been issued from the Home Office, stat- ing that if the justices were satisfied that a. man entering premises whilst drunk had not been served with any liquor on those premises they could dismiss the case. Roberts, the defendant, sai& he renumbered going to the Station Hotel on the 21st ult. He went ere and found his way to a table where he slept until discovered. He did not remember having any drink at the Station hotel. He had been sup- plied with drink elsewhere. He had heard the con- stable give his evidence, but he was perfectly clear that he did not tell him that he had had drink at the Station hotel.—Cross-examined by P.C.Roberts: He denied having told the constable that be must have been supplied with drink, as it was not likely that he would be allowed to remain at the hotel, without having any drink. Corroborative evidence was given by William Thomas (who stated that the omcer moved a glass from one part of the room and placed it on the table opposite the defendant Roberts),Humphrey Wynne, John Thomas, and John Jones. Mr Price stated that the first time he saw the de- fendant was when the oiEcer drew his attention to him. Witness was perfectly clear that he did not supply Roberts with any drink. It was quite pos- sible for a man, when they were busy on a Satur. day night to come into the house, and stay some- time unobserved by anyone. Witness had been a. license holder for upwards of eighteen years.during which time he had never been served with a sum- mons, or had there been any complaint against the manner in which he conducted his -house. After some further discussion the case was ad- journed to enable Mr Price to-call his barmaid and barman, DB'UNK AND DISORDERLY. jBM?A TFt?MM. Colwyu Bay, was charged by P.O. Edward Roberts with the above offence, and was fined 10s and costs. William Foulkes, Abergele, was fined the same amount for a similar offence on the information of P.O. John Evans. Peter WilliamoY, Abergele, was also charged with a similar offence. There were seventeen previous convictions against the defendant, and he was fined 10a and costs, or fourteen days imprisonment. ASSAULT Robsrt Davie$ was summoned by Joseph Evans with having assaulted him on the 2nd ult. Defen- dant pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to a. month's imprisonment. Upwards of 150 summonses, chiefly upon resi. dents in Colwyn Bay, had been issued for non- payment of rates, but most of the cases were settled out of court-

ST. ASAPH.

FLINT,

Advertising

I THE LATE MR MARCUS LOUIS.I

. WELSH JOTTINGS.

INTERESTING FACTS.

. TOWN CLERK'S RESIDENCE,

Advertising

[No title]

Advertising