Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

15 articles on this Page




[No title]




[No title]


[No title]



PENARTH POLICE COURT. MONDAY.—Before Col. Guthrie (in the chair), and Mr. T. R. Thompson. APPLICATIONS.—Walter John appeared for a summons compelling Mr. Loveridge. a barman at the Barry Dock Hotel, to appear and give evidence in a case of assault against Walter John, pre- ferred by George Searle. the assault having taken place on the 9th July the case having to be tried at Barry Dock on the following Thursday.— Granted. IMPORTANT PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE MER- CHANTS SHIPPING ACT, 1880.—Charles Vollyme. a boarding-house runner, was charged under the Merchants Shipping Act of 1880. a clause of which prevents boarding house runners and others from going on board vessels un- til the seamen had been discharged, unless they had the consent of the masters of the vessels, and it also provides that if anyone should so offend and go onboard without the consent of the master of the vessel he rendered himself liable to a penalty not to exceed £ 20.—Mr. Vachell (of the firm of Ingledew, Ince, and Vachell, Cardiff) prosecuted on behalf of the Board of Trade. The steamship Pallyon arrived at Barry Dock. and the defendant, who was a boarding-house runner for Mr. Goule, of Regent-street, Barry Dock, went on board the Pallyon without the master's consent.A lot of carrying away sailors, kc., had been dOlJeat Barry Dock, and the authorities were determined to put a stop to it.—Mr. W. Wood, inspector of the Board of Trade, stationed at Barry Dock, said that on the 28th of July he went on board the steamship Pallyon. He boarded her at 10.4-5, for the purpose of transmitting to their homes any of the sailors who wished to take advantage of the Act of 18S0. • The seamen had not left the vessel. He saw the defendant, who was a runner for Goule's Boarding-house, Regent-street. He had seen the defendant in company of Mr. Goule, and later in the day he saw them again. He took Vollyme into the presence of the master of the vessel when he found him on board, and asked him if he had given permission for the prisoner to be on board. He replied, "X 0, certainly not."—Cross-examined by prisoner He took him into the presence of the master.—Defen- dant said the inspector had not taken him before the master of the vessel.—Fined £1 and costs, or 14 days.—Charles Severt was charged with a similar offence on the 25th July. Severt was a boarding-house runner :for Mr. Graffunder. 151, Bute-road, Cardiff.—Mr. William J. Diamond, first-class constable of the Board of Trade, said that on the day in question he was on board the barque Caradoc, and saw Severt in company with several other runners on the vessel as soon as she got through the locks. He took him to the master of the vessel who, in answer as to whether he had given permission to the defendant to come on board, replied that he had given no one permission to come on board.—Prisoner was not present in court, and it was decided to fine him £2 and costs. or 14 days.—Hans Petersen, also a runner for Mr. Graffunder, was charged with the same offence. For the defence Petersen said he was not a runner, and only went on board to give the mate a letter. —Thomas Alfred Harwood, ferryman in the employ of the Barry Dock Company, said that on the 25th July he ferried Petersen across the dock, and the defendant then told him he had nine»men he was going to fetch from the vessel.—The Bench inflicted a fine of jEl, including costs, or 14 days. CRUELTY TO A DONKEY.—Andrew Mackay, 14 years, was charged with ill-treating a donkey on the Beech-road, Penarth, on the 1st inst.—Police- constable Henry Eden proved the case, and said that on the day in question, at about ten past three, he saw defendant driving a donkey on the Beech-road up over the hill. There was a young man of 17 on the donkey's back. He saw defendant strike the donkey seven or eight times, and when he asked him why he did so he laughed and said, for fun."—The mother of the prisoner said her son didn't strike the donkey to hurt it.—The magistrates said they were deter- mined to put a stop to these cases of cruelty to animals, and if defendant came before them again he would be sent to prison. On this occasion he would be fined 2s. 6d. including costs. DRUNK AND DISORDERLY.—Henry Shepherd was charged with being drunk and dis- orderly at Penarth on the 27th of July.—Police- constable H. Eden proved the case, and defendant was fined 10s. including costs, as he had been there three times before—Edwin Henry was charged with a similar offence.—Police-constable Sansom proved the case, and a warrant was issued for de- fendant's arrest.—Charles Whittington. Penarth. was charged with a similar offence, and several previous convictions being proved, he was fined 10s. including costs, or seven days' imprisonment with hard labour. OBSTRUCTING THE HIGHWAYS. — Abraham Michaelson was charged with obstructing the highway in the parish of Llandough.—Police- constable Robert Barry proved the case, and said he saw the defendant's donkey trap wandering about the road. After staying ten minutes he took charge of the trap, and just after defendant came up and claimed the trap.—For the de- fence the defendant said he only left the donkey five minutes.—The magistrates decided to inflict the costs of the summons on defendant. THE RESULT OF GOSSIP.—Thomas Jones, of Plassy-street, Penarth, was charged by his wife, Elizabeth Jones, with assaulting her on the 30th of July. Prosecutrix said that on the day in ques- tion, at 2.30, she left the house and went, in com- pany with a friend, Miss Jennings, on to the beach at Penarth. They left the beach at 7.;W, and she went home at 9.30 o'clock. She tried the street door, and found her husband had locked it against t her. She went to the back door, and found he had put the latch down there, too and she then went round to the pantry window, and found it tied with a. piece of string. She smashed a pane of glass, and was just about to enter through the window, when she saw her husband standing before her inside the pantry. He said, You where have you been to 1" She replied that she had been with respectable people, and asked him if he was going to let her in. He said "No," and came out and gave her a smack in the face, knocking her down, and when she was down he kicked her. She went for a policeman. She hadn't a penny" to bless herself with," and her husband's daughter procured her lodgings at Mr. Jennings. She went to the houee next day, and smashed in a window. She had been married to her husband for eleven years, and had never had occasion to summon him to the police court before. She was not drunk on the night in question, but had called on a friend, Mrs. Phillips, and they had shared a pint of beer between three. —Sarah Ann Jennings, 77, Plassey-street. said Mrs. Jones had been with her to Cardiff on the after- noon in question.—Defendant said that the sum- mons was entered for the 30th July instead of the 1st August. This the magistrates amended. De- fendant said he and his wife had been married 11 years, and this was the first time they had been to the police court. He had given his wife strict in- junctions not to have anything whatever to do with the people she had been with, as they were a lot of scandalmongers, and he believed the present summons was at their instigation. He most em- phatically denied assaulting his wife, and said that if he had treated her as she had said he had done there would have been marks on her. There were none, as the police-constable could prove. He never kept his wife without money, and she had come to the house and smashed the windows, for the repair of which he had had to pay.—Sergeant Sansom gave evidence, and the Bench dismissed the case. NEIGHBOURS' BROILS.—Catherine O'Donovan, 36, Arcot-street, was charged by Margaret Briscoe, of 51, Arcot-street, with assault.—Complainant said that at 8 o'clock on the evening of the 4th of August she was going shopping through Chapel- street. Defendant overtook her, and called out to her and asked her what she meant by saying some- thing about her, and at same time striking her on the mouth and also giving her two slaps on the face. Her teeth ached even now. The blow stunned her, and she was unable to make any de- fence.—Defendant was fined 2s. 6d., including costs. ASSAULTS AT BARRY DOCK.—Eliza Griffiths, of Thompson-street, Barry Dock, was charged by Mrs. Sarah Thompson, of Travis-street, with assaulting her on the 2nd August. There was a cross- summons against Mrs. Thompson for assaulting Eliza Griffiths at the same time and place.—Mr. Jackson appeared for Mrs. Griffiths.—Mrs. Thomp- son said that on the day in question she was pro- ceeding to the station to meet a friend, and she was in company with several others. When near the corner of Travis-street she met the defendant, who had been to the station. Defendant stopped and called her bad names. Complainant asked her what she ment by calling her names, and Mrs. Griffiths struck her on the body with her fist. Complainant pushed the defendant who was so drunk that she fell down. The complainant ran towards a policeman who was twenty yards away, and the defendant ran home to her house near and fetched a bottle with which to strike complainant. She did not know the defendant, and had never alleged that she had got her (complainant) out of her house.—Adelaide Powell said that on the night in question she was walking outside her house at ten minutes to eleven nursing her bady. She heard Mrs. Griffiths call Mrs. Thompson a b—— Mrs. Thompson went up to her, and de- fendant pushed her. Mrs. Griffiths had turned her out of doors with two little babies. She had never been before the magistrates at Cardiff, but Mrs. Griffiths had. Mrs. Griffiths was drunk.—Police- constable John Phillips and Fanny Fore- man corroborated, and this concluded Mrs. Thompson' case.—Mrs. Eliza Griffiths, de- fendant in the last case. then charged Mrs. Thompson with assaulting her. She said that in company with Mrs. James she had come from Cardiff on Tuesday night about 10.30. They came as far as the Barry Dock Hotel, and met Mrs. Thompson by the Buffalo Club. Mrs. Thompson and her friends came up to her, and said What lies have you been telling about me and struck her. She had a blow on her eye. and defendant tore her hat off and pulled the ribbon out. She and defendant had been neighbours, and defendant said she had had her turned out of her house. She was not drunk nor under the influence of drink. She didn't strike defendant, but said As you say I got you out of your last house I will get you out of your present one."—Mrs. Elizabeth James, of Thompson-street, corroborated Mrs. Griffiths' statement. — Mrs. Thompson denied she had been turned out of her house. and said she could get her landlord to prove that she had not been turned out.—Robert Roberts corroborated, and the Bench dismissed both cases. ASSAULT.—John Williams was charged by Wm. John Rees with assaulting him on the 30th of July. Mr. Rees said he was at his (complainant's) sister's public-house, and was quarrelling with another man. Mr. Rees kept him from the public- house to prevent any further row, and defendant then struck him on the nose with a walking-stick, z, and also on his arur-A warrant was issued for de- fendant's arrest. OBTAINING GOOTH BY FALSE PRETENCES.— John Murphy and Henry Healy, two seafaring men, were charged by Mr. Walter Gardiner, of 6, Thompson-street, Barry Dock, with obtaining money from him by false pretences. Mr. Gardiner said that on Saturday b,¡t, at two o'clock, the two de- fendants came into his shop and produced an advance note for £ 3, Murphy had the note, and asked him to cash it for him. He wanted groceries to the amount of -12 2s. 4d. to take on board the Claudius, their ship, which was lying lunder No. 9 itip. He gave the name of W. Parker, to whom the note was made out. Complainant advanced 10s. on the note, and the defendants then left his shop. Murphy said he had signed on that morning as donkeyman, and Healy vouched for the accuracy of this, and said he was a fireman on the same ship. He went to the master of the Claudius to see if the men's state- ment was correct, and found it was not so. At a quarter to four the defendants came into his shop again, and asked for another 5s. He said he would not give it to them unless they went before the captain of the Claudius with him. They refused to do so, and he sent for a policeman standing near, who arrested them.—Police-constable S. Davies proved the arrest, and the magistrates decided to adjourn the case to the Barry Dock Police Court for the attendance of the captain of the Claudius, Mr. Rumble, to have his evidence taken on the matter. THE THEPT OF WOOD AT BARRY DOCK.— Peter Burlie and Annie Morgan were brought up on remand charged with theft of wood on the 25th July.—This case was adjourned from the Barry Dock Police Court for the attendance of Mr. Macguire, the owner of the wood, who now ap- peared, and gave evidence as to the identity of the wood. He asked the magistrates to deal as lightly as possible with the defendants.—For the de- fence, Burlie said the girl Morgan asked him to take a load of wood into the house for her, and he did so thinking it belonged to her. Morgan said this was true, and pleaded guilty to the theft on her own part.-The Bench dismissed the case against Burlie, and fined Annie Morgan 10s. and costs, or five days' imprisonment. A CURIOuS BOAT-DEALIXG TRANSACTION.— Frank Catchpole and James Lovegrove, for whom Mr. Morris appeared, were charged with stealing a boat, the property of Charles Isgar, of 1, Ferry- lane, Dock-road, Penarth.—The defendants denied the theft and said the boat was theirs.-Charles Isgar said he was a labourer living at 1, Ferry- lane, Dock-road, Penarth. On July 25 he bought a boat off George Lovegrove. The boat was called Grace Darling." He had a receipt for £ for the purchase of the boat. It was taken from the beach the same afternoon, and the same evening James Lovegrove came to his house. He asked plaintiff if he had bought the boat from his brother. He said "Yes, for £ 3. Hesaid the boat belonged tohim and Catchpole. He said he had nothing to do with that he had bought the boat and paid for it. They said they had nothing to do with that either. On the next morning he went down and he found the boat gone. and ho found it a week ago up the harbour by the tips, turned upside down on the grass. He saw the defendants the same day, and told them he either wanted the money or the boat. They said they should not give the money or the boat, which was their own. George Love- ridge had told him that the boat was his own.- George Lovegrove, labourer on the dredger, 27, Maughan-street, said he sold the boat to the last witness on the 25th day of last month. He and the two prisoners bought it jointly on the 7th of April, 1891, and they gave 35s. for it. They used it as a pleasure-boat, and when he left the Taff Vale Company his brother and Catchpole told him to take the boat and use it, as it would be of use to him.-The magistrates thought that George Loveridge should have made some arrangement with the other two and shared the money between them, and dismissed the case.



[No title]