Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

9 articles on this Page



[No title]



CARDIFF POLICE COURT.—MONDAY. [Before Henry Morgan and Whitlock Nicholl, Esqrs.] FURIOLS RIDING.John V'uclc, a post-boy, was charged by Superintendent Siockdale with having, on Saturday last, while in a state of complete intoxication, furiously ridden down St. Mary-street, having at the time a led-horse" with him, over which he could not have much control. The culprit having expressed great peni- tence for his crime, and promised never to offend simi- larly in future, was dismissed with a severe reprimand. He put a few shillings into the Infirmary box. Superintendent Stockdale complained that certain tradesmen of the town obstructed the passage of St. Mary-street, near the canal bl idge; upon which sum- monses were issued against the offending parties, who will have to attend on Thursday. Mr. Dai id Giegory, inspector of the market, charged Nfw-y Griffiths, Thomas Watts, aud Edward Mean/, butchers attending Cardiff market, with having in their possession a pair of scales which were so defective as to occasion a loss of ^Ib. to purchasers. Having been sworn, Mr. Gregory said —" On Saturday week, at about half-past seven o'clock in the evening, a man named George Baker came to me in the market, and said a butcher in the 4th, or Welsh avenue had sold him meat which he found to be light weight. I proceeded to the spot, and saw the defendant Griffiths use the scales which I now produce. He used them and had them in his possession, as did also the other defendants, Watts and Mcasy. After walking about for some time, I went on and took the scales into my possession, and now produce them. They are '^lb. light. They are now in the same state as they were when the defendants used them in the market. [The scales were then tried in the presence of the magistrates and defendants, and found to be at least ^ib. heavier on the side in which meat is placed for the purpose of being weighed than they were on the other side—thus effecting a fraud to that extenton purchasers.] I saw Griffiths sell meat by these scales to a person, but I did not tell that person that the scales were defective." Mr. Morgan: You are placed in the market as some sort of protection to the public against the frauds which persons may attempt to effect; and if you saw a person subjected to a fraud of this description, it was your duty instantly to apprise the party of it. How do you account for the omission! Gregory;—It was after the sale had been effected that I discovered the deficiency in the scales. In that avenue there are no scales or weights belonging to the market. The weights which were provided by the corporation have been stolen. Mr. Lewis, surgeon, said he was obliged on last Satur- day morning to go to Mr. Quelch's shop, in Church-street, to have meat purchased by him weighed, as there were no conveniences for weighing provided for butchers. As one of the public he wished to state that the corporation ought forthwith to provide scales and weights for the use of butchers, and have proper persons to superintend them. He had often bought meat of the defendants, Henry Griffiths and Watts, and he invariably hud been well and honestly served by them upon all occasions they took the meat purchased by him to the public scales to be weighed, at a sacrifice of considerable lime, as the scales were at a great distance from their stalls. Mr. Whitlock Nicholl thought it extremely probable that the defendants would hardly attempt to commit a fraud upon Mr. Le>vis, or persons of his description. They would, of course, be afraid to do so. Mr. Lewis said he did not wish to screen the defend- ants, but merely to say that public scales ought to be provided. The scales were then tried in various ways. As we before stated, when tried in the way in which Gregory swore positively and repeatedly the defendants had used them on the evening inquestion, and which statement was not contradicted, it was found that the side on which meat was placed was jib. at least heavier than the side on which the weight was placed. By shifting the chains aud wood the scales were found to be nearly correct. Pieces of lead were found nailed under the meat side, which Mr. Jenkins, ironmonger, said he had placed there when he sold the scales, in order to produce an even balance; but his intention had been frustrated by some one, as the heaviest set of chains was found to by attached to the heaviest piece of wood, thereby causing a difference of lib. in the weight. A man named George Baker was examined, and stated —" I bought a piece of meat of Measy on last Saturday week. He sold it to me for 41b. As f went along I put it iuto the market scales, and found it only weighed :3;ilb.. whereas by his scales it was 41b. bumping wei"ht. There was a deficiency of a jib.—that was all. I went back and told him of it. He could not deny it. He said he did not sell it to me for 4Ib., but I paid him for 41b. whether he did or not. When I saw it weighed in his scales I considered within myself that I had a jdb, over weight at least. lie offered to take it back again if I wouid let him, but I wouldn't." The several defendants strongly and in the warmest manner denied having lad any knowledge of the sc;iies> inaccuracy on the evening in question; aud then entered upon an explanation of the means adopted by them for the purpose of procuring "a just balance." After a protracted investigation the magistrates con- victed the defendants in the mitigated penalty of five shillings and costs (nine shillings each), and declared the scales forfeited. We took copious notes of the proceedings, but proba. bly the foregoing summary will be sufficient to show the nature of the case. The magistrates took an extremely merciful view of the defendants' conduct, as the act of parliament fully authorised them (the magistrates) to inflict a penalty of five pounds. However, in finally ad- dressing the defendants, Mr. Morgan said—" We hope it will go forth to the public that if any other case of a similar nature be brought before us, punishment will be awarded with a heavier hand. We must protect the public against such frauds. We must confess that blame is to be attached to the authorities for not having provided proper scales and weights for you, and that consideration has been thrown into the scale in your favour upon this occasion." The defendants paid the fine, and said that if they were to attempt to run with each quantity sold by them to the public scales, while they were away probably one-half of their goods would be stolen. Barbara Williams was committed to the House of Correction for fourteen days, there to be kept to hard labour, having conducted herself improperly in the public streets at half-past two on Saturday morning last. The offence was proved by P.C. George Davies. A child eight years old was brought up charged with having been the ringleader in the late outrage in a garden at Roath, by which the proprietor of the garden had up- wards of 400 cucumbers destroyed. In consequence of his tender years, the magistrates did not commit him to prison, but directed his father to give him a sound beat- ing with a rod. THURSDAY.—[Before the same Magistrates.] Mary Williams, the keeper of a house of ill-fame in Whitmore-Lane, was convicted in the penalty of twenty shillings and costs, for having committed a most violent and unprovoked assault upon one Martha Witiiama in default of payment to be imprisoned in Cardiff House of Correction for three weeks. Mr. Ainsley, landlord of the Cardiff Arms Hotel, was charged by Lieutenant-Colonel Halifax with having re- fused to billet four of the soldiers of the 75th Regiment. In support of the charge, Corporal George Cave was examined. He said :—" On the 2nd of September I took a billet to the Cardiff Arms, in this town, and gave it to a lady there, who took it to a person whom I believed was the landlord. I was in uniform. That person came to me, and said he refused the billet altogether. He acted as landlord whether he was the landlord or not. He said he had not had private soldiers billeted on him for a number of years—ouly officers and their servants. I then took the billet to the station-house, and had a fresh one for the Three Horse Shoes. There weie three men and myself included in the billet.—Mr. Ainsley admitted that the statement made by Cave was quite correct; but said he refused to receive the billet because he had had no notice of it, and his rooms were full at the time. If notice had bean given to him of it, he would willingly have received them. The soldiers came to town between the hours of 12 and 1. and it was not until 10 minutes to 5 that the corporal and his party applied to him for quarters. He made enquiries previous to that hour, and was infoimed that no persons were to be billeted on him.— I'he Magis- trates said it was not necessary that innkeepers should have any notice. They (the magistrates) were of opinion that the charge was fully made out, and therefore con- victed him (Air. Ainsley) in the sum of £4 and costs.— Mr. Ainsley intimated his intention of appealing against the decision of the Bench, upon which au. officer in the room said—" In that case we will prefer the other charges againstyou." o ASSAULT AT THE GRIFFIN INN.—Robert Lisle and James Lisle-two young men of the most respectable appearance and demeanour—were charged with having assaulted members of the establishment of the Griffin Inn, Saint Mary-street. First, Mr. Robert Lisle was charged with having assaulted Mr. Sait, the landlord then with having assaulted Frederick Lake, the ostler; and Mr. James Lisle was charged with having assaulted Mr. Sait's servant, Eliza Westlake. From the general respectability of the principal parties concerned, the case excited much interest, the magistrates' room being densely crowded. Mr. Philtpotts appeared on behalf of the complainants, and Mr. Matthews very ably represented the interests of the defendants. Frederick Lake examined On last Friday evening, between the hours of ten and eleven, Mrs. Sait was coming out from the bar into the passage, and was shut- ting the passage door, having the latch in her hand. Robert Lisle came in from the street, and asked if .Mr. Lisle (his father) was there. Mrs. Sait, still having her hand upon the door, said in reply-" He is not here." Robeit Lisle then shoved her away with his left arm, and pushed the bar door with his right shoulder, and went into the bar. I followed him, and asked him what he was at, and what he was going to do. He struck me then, but I cannot say where he struck me, although I have lumps here and here (pointing to his head and side). Master (Mr. Sait) was in the kitchen, heard the rumpus, and came in. Two or three others, whom I don't know, came in also, and I saw James Lia,le among them. Of course it was my duty to take my employer's part, and I did so. I saw Mrs. Sait struck by Robert Lisle. I saw master bleeding very freely, and likewise the servant girl, Betsey. Cross-examine Mrs. Sait did not leave Robert Lisle go into the bar; but, before she could leave him or deny him, he rushed in. He struck her in the passage. Mrs. Sait examined: I am the wife of Mr. James Sait, and keep the Griffin Inn, in this town. On Friday night, at about half-past ten, I was coming out of (he bar, having the handle of the door in my hand, when Robert Lisle came up into the house-passage, and asked me if Mr. Lisle (his father) was there. I replied twice- "No, he is not here." He then pushed mcawayfiom the door, and with his shoulder he burst open the bar- door, and ill he went. His pushing compelled me to leave go my hold of the handle. Frederick Lake, who was close to me at the time, asked him what he meant by it, when at the moment he (Robert Lisle) took his fist up, and struck him (Lake) on his head. This happened in the passage leading to the bar. Then Mr. Sait came from the kitchen. I saw Lake struck several times by Robert Lisle. Cross-examined: Lake struck in his own defence of course, after being struck more than once. I believe they fell. At the time this happened Mr. Lisle was not in the bar, and had not been there for some hours pre- viously. Mr. Phillpotts objected to Mrs. Sait being called on to answer any questions relative to the time when Mr. Lisle, senior, was at the Griffin. Mr. Matthews thought the objection very strange. He wanted to prove that the defendants were justified in going to the Griffin, and to show, from Mrs. Sait's an- swers, the object they h i in view. Cross-examinatm i of Mrs. Sait resumed: At the time I had my hand on the handle of the door, Robert Lisle did not ask me for permission to go into the bar. My house was open at the time. Mr. Matthews Why then did you refuse to let him go in to your bar < A. Because he di.1 not ask permission. Mr. Matthews Is it usual to ask a landlady's permis- sion to go and take a glass of wine or grog in the bar ? Why did you stand in the passage with the handle of the door in your hand when you saw him'1 There must have been something particular going on, to induce you to prevent him entering ( Mrs. Sait Oh no, nothing whatever. I was in the act of shutting the door. He did not wait to ask or receive permission to go in, but rudely pushed by me—put his shoulder to the door, and so went in—certainly not in a way which he or any one should come into a house of our respectability. Mrs. Sait to Mr. Nicholl: Occasionally parties go into the bar. It is my room, in which I serve out the liquor, and people have no business th«re without my permission. It is my parlour—the room in which I sit. This being the whole of the evidence against Robert Lisle for his alleged assault on Frederick Lake, Mr. Matthews briefly addressed the bench and then called Adam Edmonds, a youfh of respectable appear- ance, who said:—"On last Friday night, at about ten o'clock, I went with David Lisle to the Griffin Inn. I went into the bar and called for two glasses of beer. Mrs. Sait came to me—took hold of me, and turned me into the kitchen. I saw Mr. Lisle there and Mrs. Sait, but nu one else. I did not go into the kitchen, but im- mediately left the house. Cross-examined We shut shop at half-past eight, and in about an hour and a half after that I went to the Griffin. I heard the clock strike ten before I left Mr. Heme's house. Mr. Phillpotts was proceeding to cross-examiue the witness, when Mr. Matthews interposed and objected to the course pursued by him as being irregular. The Ma- gistrates decided in Mr. Mathews' favour. At this stage of the proceedings it was arranged that the evidence against the defendants should be heard at once, instead of separating the cases as was at first deter- mined upon. Mrs. Sait was then recalled, and resumed her narrative. She said:—My husband came in from the kitchen after Frederick Lake was struck. Eliza, the servant, also came. A crowd of persons, hearing the noise, I suppose, also came in from the street. James Lisle was the first who came in. Mr. Sait asked what the row was about. Robert Lisle made him no answer, but struck him in the face, across the nose and mouth, till the blood flew about. Two or three persons rushed in. James Lisle struck Sait at the same time as Robert Lisle—both were striking together. During this time Frederick Lake went up to his master, and assisted him in repelling the attack made upon him, and while doing so he was struck by Robert Lisle. About this tune James Lisle attempted to strike me, but Eliza Westlake, who was standing by me, re- ceived the blow aimed at lue. Her nose bled. He struck her again, saying, Take that, you d- b She. suffers to this moment from the effects of his violence. A horsewhip happened to be near me, and you may de- pend I made the best use of it I couid if I had not the presence of mind to use it, I should have suffered very severely. Mr. Matthews cross-examined Mrs. Sait very closely, but nothing affecting the charge of assault was elicited. A person, named I homas Lewis, was next examined He proved that he saw the defendants assault Mr. Sait and the servants, and corroborated, to a certain extent, the statements made by Mrs. Suit. He took Mr. James Lisle away from the bar, and asked him at the time » Whether he (Mr. James Lisle) wanted to kill Mr. Sait in his own house. Eliza Westlake (Mr. Sait's servant) proved that she received a blow intended by Mr. james Lisle for her mistress; and also that he (Mr. Lisle) afterwards struck her intentionally. The blows were violent ones, and caused her nose to bleed freely. James Sait examined I reside at the Griffin Inn, St. Mary-street. About a It-past ten on Friday night I was in my kitchen, and heard a noise in the bar. I conse- quently went to the bar, and found Robert Lisle there. The very moment s.uy him he struck me a very severe blow 011 my face. 1 /ie blood ran in consequence very much. I made an attempt to strike him, but before I could do so effectually, I received a second blow. I know nothing more distinctly of what took place, but I found more than one about nie. I received many severe blows, but do not know by whom. Robert Lisle said— D—n your eyes you thought to meet a boy, but you have met with a man. Cross-examined There is a back-way to my house by which a person may escape without any one in the front of the house knowing anything about it. Anne Lewis, another servant at the Griffin Inn, was examined, but her evidence was very immaterial, as she sa,v no blow struck on either side. She witnessed the effects of the blows. Her statement of what she witnes- sed differed slightly from the statement made by Mr. Sait. For thd defence Mr. David Lisle was called, but his evidence seemed to have no reference whatever to the charge under investigation. Eleanor Wheeler, a young woman who resides in the neighbourhood of the Griffin Inn, was attracted to that house qt about 11 o'clock on Friday night last. She saw Mrs. Sait knock Mr. Robert Lisle's hat off. She then described a series of struggles between the parties but although the tenor of her evidence was highly favourable to the defendants, it was not in any respect a contradic- tion of \yhat had been advanced against them, as she did not happen to be present at the commencement. Mrs. Winstone and Mrs. Williams -parties of unques- tioned respectability, residing near the Griffin Inn—also described several stnig.^ies which they had witnessed be- tween the complainants a.i f defendants, but still did not disprove what had been so positively sworn 011 behalf of the complaillantSt They heard James Lisle say re- peatedly to the females concerned in the scuffie-" Now be quiet. 1)0 not strike me, because I do not like to strike a woman." It also appeared from the statements made by these witnesses that the defendants had been severely assaufted, and that the inhabitants of the neigh- bourhood seethed to be fully aware of some object which the defendants had in view by going to the Griffin. After a most protracted investigation, the magistrates convicted Mr. Robert Lisle—for the assault upon Frede- rick Lake a fine of twenty shillings and costs was im- posed, and for the assault upon Mr. Sait a further fine of the same amount. Mr. James Lisle was convicted in the penalty of twenty shillings and costs, for the assault upon Eliza Westlake. The money was instantly paid, and the respective parties left the court. As we have metely given a summary of the evidence adduced in the defendants' favour, we may here be allowed to state that the respectable parties who came forward on their behalf evidently considered that they (the defendants) were more "sinned against than sinning" in the transaction. At the close of the proceedings Mr. Phillpotts m.ade one or two assertions respecting the conduct of "the police," which Mr. Superintendent Stockdale in the most spirited and, as we conceived, straightforward manner met by a distinct and unequivocal contradiction. The magistrates thought that no manner of discredit could be attached to the policeman, who it seems refused to take the defendants into custody on Friday evening. His (the policeman's) plea Was, that from the conflicting statements made to him, he actually did not know who was to be blamed, and theiefore did no more than pre- serve the peace.




Family Notices

General JiltguIUng.