Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

12 articles on this Page




THE ALLEGED FALSE PRE- TENCES AT BLAEXGARW. DEFENDANT COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. At the Bridgend Police-court on Saturday, Edward Shute again appeared in the adjourned case in which a charge of obtaining £ 5 17s. by false pretences was preferred against him, the same being the property of the International Colliery Company. Blaengarw. Mr. Spowart (Messrs. Morgan and Rhys. Pontypridd), appeared for the prosecution, and IUr. T. J. Hughes (Bridgend) defended.—The case had been adjourned for the production of the company's book?, and the attendance of the cashier. Evan Treharne, re-called, confirmed his previous evidence as given in the Star last week, and now produced his measuring-up book, showing how defendant's money was made up. He carried this book to the office. — Cross-examined by Mr. Hughes Who were there when you measured the coal.'—Witness William Shute and a man named R'ul"ell?-Was it defendant Shute ?-Yes, sir.—Then in the face of that do you still say that defendant number was not 494 ?--No. sir. it was not.—Then why did you call him William" Shute.' — No answer. — Mr. Hughes asked the Bench to observe in the book that the name was William Shute.—(To witness) Have you ever asked defendant to spell his name Isir: he gave it as Shute.—Is the other man named William Shoote .'—He is, sir.—Mr. Hughes That is the imaginary Shoot "—a blank «shot.—Cross- examination continued Shoot had left the col- liery, after having been working for about eight days altogether. He had not measured anything for him. He was supposed to enter every person's name and number in his book. This man was working near defendant. Every man's name and amount of work done were entered in his note- book consecutively. He was sure that defendant was not William Shoot." He had called him li William in mistake. Defendant wanted more ( allowance for the coal he said nothing about his number. George Russell, the other man, was No. 474. This man was on shares with defendant. Defendant had got to pass No. 484 to get to his heading. Defendant was entitled to an allowance of Is. 6d. The tools were on the company's pro- perty, and they claimed for the value of them un- less they were brought back to the proper place. Richard Edwards, a weigher, produced the out- put book of the colliery, and detailed the numbers given out to the different men. No. 484 sent the first tram out on the 14th October. He detailad the amount of coal debited to that number.— Cross-examined by Mr. Hughes He did not give defendant any number because he had never come to him for one therefore it was not down on his book. Could not say whether anyone else had given him a number. It was not usual for men to work without such a number. The name oppo- site 494 was" Wm. Shoot "—that was the only place in which Shoot" occurred in his book. This number was not given out by witness, but by Idris Evans. There was no coal down to the de- fendant's credit, and. so far as the book showed. the company owed the defendant nothing. There were 10 trams credited to 494. Idris Evans, another weigher, said he did not given defendant any number. George Russell was given 474 on the 27th October last. No. 494 was William Shoot.—Mr. Spowart Is this man (pointing to defendant) William Shoot, Mr. Hug-hes protested against the question being asked in such a leading manner. It was of the utmost importance, and in the whole course of his experience this was the most surprisingly cool manner of leading a witness he had ever met with. —Mr. Spowart said he had a right to get evidence of identification. — Mr. Hughes Possibly you have. but you have no right to identify for him. —Witness's cross-examination was then proceeded with by Mr. Hughes He (witness) did not know William Shoot, because he had never seen him but once. and that was in the machine room last October. He did not take notice of him. Witness, who repeatedly looked at the book before him. and showed great reluctance in answering, further said the man was tall and rather stout.—Mr. Hughes This man is tall and rather stout, is he not.'—Witness I am not sure whether he had a beard or not. He was not very dark. He thought he had seen defendant before, and he looked the same as he looked that day week. Could not remembor that defendant had a beard before.—Mr. Hughes pointed out that the man wore a beard the previous Saturday at the court. -Witness had never seen the man-"Shoot since. Witness was told to say that day that he gave a number to William Shoot, qu(I had not given one to defendant.—Mr. Hughes What was the conversa- tion He did not say anything.—Mr. Hughes: Did he not ask you what you were here to say?—(No answer).—The Chairman (to witness). Why don't you answer ?—Mr. C. P. Davies You are doing more harm to Mr. Salathiel by not answer- ing.—Witness He told me to come down to say that I did not give a number to Edward Shute, and that was the truth.-Witness was told to say that he had given 494 to William Shoot. He had not seen the book then. He was not asked what sort of a man William Shute was. and he was not sure of defendant until that day. The men were both alike, and he could not swear that this was not William Shoot. Evan Griffiths, cashier, confirmed his previous evidence, and added that he had been Di years at the colliery. It was part of witness's duty to examine the measuring-up book of the overman, in order to certify the amount as being correct. Also, be checked the dead-work book. He produced the pay-book, showing the amount paid over to defen- dant.—Cross-examined The amount opposite 494 had not been paid. It was stopped before pay day, because the man had left the work illegally. He did not know William Shoot. He had never known a man at the colliery receiving two numbers. Police-constable Hall gave evidence of arrest, and stated that defendant, in answer to the charge, said If they are fools enough to give me more than what is due to me, it is their fault." Evan Treharne, realled, said he had known Wm. Shcot. He was not like defendant. He was a man about 44 or 45 years of age, about five feet seven or eight in height, was not so dark as de- fendant, with a small beard.—Mr. Hughes Did not defendant have a small beard on Saturday last.—Witness No, but he might have wanted a shave. (Laughter.) Mr. Hughes then addressed the Bench for the defence. As had already been suggested from his cross-examination the defence was that ticket No. 494 was given to defendant, and no other person, and that the man "Shoot" was an imaginery being altogether. It was very odd to him that this large company, who had received an inkling of the defence for the past fortnight, oould not bring forward a single witness, except the over- man Treharne. who knew of the existence of the man" Shoot," and his description was so vague that it could not be relied on. Was it creditable that any man who had worked, and must have lived at such a place as Blaengarw, was not known by more persons than Treharne ? He pro- posed to put into the box a man, who had been subpoenaed, and was present by some fortunate accidt ut, as he could not be found during the week, who would state that the man Treharne. when measuring, gave defendant a ticket numbered 494, and he asked them to believe him. It was owing, chiefly, he ventured to assert, to the mistake of the officials that they endeavoured to bring defendant into trouble. He was prepared to accept the defendant's admission for the purposes of the case, as he pointed out what they had to decide was not whether the company had been foolish enough to give the wrong ticket and also the money to defendant, but the question was whether this sum had been obtained by a false pretence of an existing fact. If the company gave him an overplus they could find, their remedy at the County-court. The Chairman said they had made up their minds upon the point, as he had pointed out. George Russell was then examined. He bore out the statement of the advocate that the wrong ticket had been given the defendant. In cross-examination, he said he knew a man named Shoot." The prisoner was then committed to take his trial at the Quarter Sessions, bail being allowed in two sureties of -610 and defendant himself in £20.