Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

20 articles on this Page

WELSH CONGREGATIONALISM.

THE VACANT PROFESSORSHIP AT…

A TRIPLET OF GIRLS.

A TRAMP ACROSS WALES.

[No title]

MINERS' PROVIDENT FUND. --♦—

[No title]

IBRIDGEND NOTES.-.--

ITHE WELSH DISESTABLISHMENT…

BLAENGARW NOTES.

IISENSATIONAL AFFAIlt AT MAESTEG.…

BRIDGEND PETry SESSIONS. ..

News
Cite
Share

BRIDGEND PETry SESSIONS. SATUEDAY.—Before Mr. R. R. Pritchard (chair- man), Mr. C. P. Davis, Mr. R. L. Knight, Mr. W. S. Powell, Mr. W. Llewellyn, and Mr. D R. David. IMPECUNIOUS DOG OWNER. — Robert Williams, Taibach, was fined £ 1 including costs for keeping a dog without a licence.—Defendant pleaded that he had not been able to pay for the licence owing to the illness of his wife. He said that he only got 18s. a week, and that when the oLicer called the same evening he sent his wife to pawn his watch at Aberavon to raise money for the dog licence which was then taken out. He produced the licences for 1890 and 1891. ASSAULT AT NEWCASTLE.—George Carr, New- castle, Bridgend, was summoned for assaulting- Morgan Strandling, also of Xewcastle.-Com- plainant stated that last Saturday, about 6.15 n m defendant came to his house, and called him out to fight. Defendant collared' him bv the throat and gave him three kicks.—Mary "Davies gave corroborative evidence, and added that defendant said it was not the first time he had wished to fight complainant, and that he had been there three Saturday nights looking for him.—Defen- dant denied the a.sault.-Surah Ann Stevens gave evidence on behalf of defendant, and stated that complainant first kicked defendant.—The magis trates fined defendant £ 2 including- costs BREACHES OF COLLIEHY RULES.—Christopher Sparks, collier, Tyiiewydd, was summoned for committing breaches of th3 rules of the Tvne- wydd Colliery. Mr. W. R. Randall prosecuted — Daniel Evans, fireman, Tvnewydd Colliery, said that on July 9th he noticed, about six o'clock in the morning, at Sparks' stall, that there was a danger signal stating that a shot had missed firing in the bottom. Defendant had left his work the previous evening, and the signal had been there all night. The colliers fired shots themselves. Defendant should have reported that the shot had missed- firing to witness or to a superior oHicer.— Defe.nd.vnt said that there was no superior officer to report to at the time he left the colliery.—John Bennett, overman, Tynewydd, said that on Friday, July 8th, he was on duty from a.m. until 5.10 p.m.. and during that time defendant made no report about a shot missing fire.-In answer to Mr. C. P. Davies, witness said there was no gas iu the colliery,, and naked lights were used.—Mr. Randall said that the second charge against defendant arose out of defendant un ramming a shot that had missed firing.-Daniel Evans, fireman, stated that about six o'clock in the morning of July 9th, he went into the face of defendant's stall, and. saw that the shot had missed firing. Witness later on met defendant and told him not to unram the hole, and not to approach to it nearer than six inches. Defendant said that he would do so.—John Bennett, overman, said he found that defendant had unrammed the hole. Defendant said that he had pricked it out with a wire and-a scraper. Witness pointed out to defen- dant the danger he and his brother ran in acting in such a manner.—The Chairman said it was a very serious offence, and defendant would be fined for the two offences £ 2 including costs. John Wareham, collier, Tynewydd, was also summoned far similar offences, at the same col- liery, on Thursday, July 7th, and July 6th.-Daniel Evans said that on July 7th he saw a hole in defendant's stall that had missed firing. No danger signal was-usp, and no report of the circumstance had been made to him. -John Bennett. over- mm. said that he was at the colliery until about five o'clock in the afternoon. On the day in question, but no report was made by defendant. A message was sent to defendant not to fire another shot near to that which had missed.—Daniel Evans said that on July 7 he gave that message to defendant. Later he discovered that defendant had fired the hole and cleared it.- Defendant said he had never had any copy of the rules given him. He had seen a copy of the rules posted at the pit, but had not read them. The Chairman said it was defendant's business, both for the sake of his own life and for the sake of the lives 6f his comrades, to pay attention to the rules, and it was very important that the rules should be carried out. Defendant did not appear to have been at any trouble to make himself thoroughly acquainted !with the rules or to have reported°the mis-fire. Tlie other defendant had put up the danger signal, but he had made no signal. Again he had bored out the hole contrary to the rules.' He would have to pay a fine of £ 3— £ 2 in the first case and, 4,1 in the second case.

NEW MASONIC HALL AT BRIDGEND.

ISOUTH WALES COAL TRADE. I.

THE SLIDING-SCALE ARRANGEMENT.

LAHOCH WAR IN AMERICA,

THE CARDIFF BUILDING STRIKE.

COMMUNICATION WITH LIGHTHOUSES.

[No title]

A LIBERAL UNIONIST ON WALES.