Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

4 articles on this Page




PEMBROKESHIRE EPIPHANY QUARTER SESSIONS. WEDNESDAY. The Court assembled at ten o'clock for the trial of prisoners, of whom there were nine, charged with various offences. There were on the Bench, the Chairman, J. H. Scourfield, Esq., the Rev. T. Watts, Rev. J. Philipps, J. Bowen, Esq., the Rev. M. Williams, S. Harford, Esq., and the Rev. E. F. Woodman. The proclamation against vice and immorality having been read, The Chairman proceeded to charge the Grand Jury. He said:—Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—the calendar' upon the present occasion presents a rather more numer- ous list than usual, but at the same time there is nothing in the character of the offences to call for any particular observations from me. There are only two cases which are a little out of the common in the calendar: the first is Mary Thomas, who is indicted for abandoning a female child under the age of two years, whereby the life of the said child was endangered, at the parish of Letterston, on the 13th of April, 1863. This is under a particular sta- tute; it does not appear that she finally abandoned the child, but she actually came back and took it again. You must consider what her intention was, and whether she did seriously endanger the life of the child by what she did on that occasion. The other case is one of great peculiarity, and is that of Peter Warlow, who is admitted to bail. He was a servant in the employ of a gentleman in this county, and during his term of service he went away with his livery. He is indicted for steal- ing two coats, which was certainly the property of his master. In this case you must be satisfied that he had a felonious intention in so doing. It is rather a peculiar case, and I don't remember a case of that kind coming before me-the case of a servant being indicted for steal- ing clothes which were originally given to him, of course upon the condition that he remained in his master's service. With these exceptions there are no cases which I think require any observations from me, and with which you are not perfectly capable of dealing. In most cases, the same features are generally found when an article is lost, and then found in the possession of a per- son, and that person is not able to give a satisfactory account of the way in which he became possessed of that article which clearly was not his, the Grand Jury in nine cases out of ten, can never do wrong in finding a bill. There are so many cases in the calendar, that it is desirable that we should go to business as quickly as possible, more. particularly as the great commission opens to-day, and 1 will not detain yon any further. I shalt be obliged if you will select any bill which will occupy the least of your time, in order that the court might proceed with the business, and enable me to discharge the Petty Jury, which F am always most anxious to do, for their own sake as well as that of the county. A true bill having bean found, the court proceeded with the TRIAL OF PRISONERS. Rachel Scourfield, 46, charwoman, was indicted for feloniously receiving a quantity of meal, the property of George Protheroe, of the parish of Newton, on the 13th of April, 1863. The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. Mr De Rutzen prosecuted. Esther Evans: I am servant with Mr Protheroe of Newton. I remember the 13th of April last: I saw the prisoner's sister coming down from the bedroom on that day with a bag of meal: she took it to the cart house. She left it there. I saw the prisoner's sist6r give it to her, at the hayguard gate. The prisoner's sister told me in bed that night to look in the cart house if there was any meal shed. 1 believe the meal was the property of my master. William James: I am servant with Mr Protheroe. I recollect going home by Graig-y-Borion on Sunday after- noon, the 13th of April. I saw the prisoner: the last witness was with me. The prisoner gave me a bag, and told me to carry it to her sister. She told me to tell the last witness as little as I could help. The prisoner ga^e me a new cap. Mr De Rutzen said he was not able to adduce any more evidence r.8 regarded the meal. The prisoner's sister, who was the real thief, ought to have been subpoenaed: she had been convicted before the magistrates, and what he (the learned counsel) proposed to do was to put in a conviction, but he hardly thought that would carry the case further. The Chairman said that there was not sufficient evid- ence to warrant a conviction; and the Jury, under his Worship's direction, returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. Mary Thomas, 21, servant, was indicted for that she did unlawfully abandon a female child under the aae of two years, whereby the life of the said child was then and there endangered, at the parish of Letterston, on the 13th of April, 1863. The prisoner pleaded guilty, stating that she put the child on a cross road near a house, and that it was picked up in about an hour afterwards. The Chairman, in passing sentence, said: — Mary Thomas, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of unlaw- fully abandoning and exposing your child, being under the age of two years, whereby the life of such child might have been endangered or its health permanently injured. Such cases have, by a recent statute, been made very serious offences, and a person convicted of it is liable to be kept in penal servitude for three years, or to be im- prisoned for a term not exceeding two years with or without hard labour. In the present case, the facts which came out, although they bring you within the compass of the law. show that it is not an aggravated one. I do not think that it has been satisfactorily made out that you contemplated abandoning the child to en- counter any amount of danger, in consequence of a long exposure to the weather. I am inclined to think that you kept some watch over the child; it appears that you realty came back to it. Under these circumstances the Court wishes to take a very lenient view of your case, but at the same time we must warn people of the practice of exposing children. It is highly censurable; and although in your case, the child may have sustained no damage, sLill at the same time in another case, a different result may occur. On any change in the weather, or any par- ticular circumstances of the child's constitution, it may have been liable to contract serious disease or suffer death from exposure, and it is necessary that the Court should mark its sense of the impropriety of your conduct, at the same time taking into consideration all the miti- gating circumstances in the case. I observe from the calen- dar that you have been in gaot already two months- -from dar that you have been in gaol already two months--from April last,-and we therefore think that the justice of the case will be satisfied on the present occasion by your being imprisoned in the House of Correction for one calendar month. Peter Warlow, (admitted to bail 2nd of May, 1863), 23, servant, was charged with stealing two livery coats, one stable jacket, one waistcoat, two pairs of breeches, two pairs ot gaiters, one pair of trousers, and one pair of boots, the property of his master, William Venables, at the parish of Cosheston, on the 5th of April, 1863. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr Lascelles appeared for the prosecution. The pri- soner was defended by Mr W. S. Owen. William Venables: I know the prisoner. He came into my service about the middle of last October. I agreed to give him X20 a year and his clothes. That was all that was arranged. He continued in my service till April. I do not know what became of him after that. He took away his livery clothes I gave him no authority to take them away. I understood they were my property. I have seen the clothes to-day: they are the same: they have my livery buttons on them. Cross-examined: I was not at home in April: he was in my service six months. Ho slept in an outhouse. He had access to valuable property. I had a good character with the prisoner. I was not examined before the magis- trates. Re-examined: My wife is not here to-day in conse- quence of illness. Martha Phillips: I am in the service of Mr Venables. The prisoner left the prosecutor's service on a Sunday at 11 o'clock at night, about the 10th of April. I called the prisoner next morning, but he was not to be found. I went to the place where he slept: the door was shut. 1 looked into the room I saw no clothes there. Cross-examined: I was not examined before the magistrates. Henry Higginson I was in the Glamorganshire Con- stabulary in April last. I apprehended the prisoner at Bridgend: he gave the name of William Phillips. I asked him if it was not Peter Warlow, and he repeated that it was William Phillips. He said he had been in service with Col. Ford at Pembroke. I asked if he had any livery and top-boots with him: he was not dressed in livery at the time. I went to his lodgings, and found two carpet bags, and one basket. The bags were locked and the prisoner had the keys upon him. They were under his bed. I found the articles I now produce. The prisoner was employed at the Bear Inn, at Bridgend. I made a search there, and found one pair of top boots which I now produce, in the stable. I found an envelope addressed Peter Warlow, Venables, Esq., Cosheston, near Pembroke.' He said he was vety sorry: that he would go back, and that his master would not punish him if he gave the clothes back. I gave the clothes to Mr Superintendent Kelly of the Pembrokeshire Constabulary. Snp. Kelly deposed that the articles produced were received by him from the last witness. Henry Pratt (of the firm of Davies, Morgan, and Pratt, drapers, Pembroke): The clothes produced were made by our firm at Mr Venables' order, and were charged to him. The coat has Mr Venables' button on it. John Morris: The pair of boots were made by me for Mr Venables' servant: Mr Venables paid for them. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Owen addressed the Jury on behalf of the prisoner, contending that there was no evidence adduced to convict the prisoner, who believed that he was entitled to the clothes which had been given to him by his master. The Chairman summed up, and the Jury, after a brief deliberation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. Samuel Morgan, (admitted to bail 10th June, 1863) 20, labourer, was charged with stealing a silver watch, value X2 10s., the property of William Bowen, at the parish of Saint David's, on the 3rd June, 1863. The prisoner pleaded Guilty, expres3ing his sorrow for the offence. The Chairman sentenced the prisoner to three months imprisonment with bard labour. William Jones, 30, wire worker, pleac; ul guilty to a charge of stealing one shirt, value 6s. 3d., the property of John Griffiths, at the parish of Saint Florence, on the 8th May, 1863. The Chairman, in passing sentence, said:William Jones,—you have pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing a shirt. You do not give a very good account of yourself: however, I cannot speculate too much as to what you came here for or whatyour general occupation is. I must take the case as I find it. You have committed the crime of larceny, and must be punished for it. The sentence of the Court is that you be Imprisoned and kept to hard labour for two calendar months. Benjamin Morgan, (admitt 3d to bail 20th June, 1863) was charged with a quantity of flooring boards, and one grate, the property of David Davies, at the parish of Llanstadwell, on or about the 1st May, 1863, The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr Owen appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Lascelles for the defence. John Davies: I am a butcher living at Neyland. I own a house there. In the month of April I purchased some deal boards, 11 in number. The house was not occupied in April: I put the boards there. The front door was nailed up from the inside: the hack door was fastened by a bolt, which I sprung from the outside with my knife. I examined my house about the 5th or 6th of May twenty-four boards and joists were gone. I saw the prisoner a day or two afterwards: I asked if he had had my boards, and he said he had. I told him that would not suit me at all: and he said 1 Not go in a passion I'll give you some more instead.' I went to the house two or three days after that, and found that a grare, which had been fastened in the kitchen for two years, was missing. I asked Morgan if he bad taken the grate, and said he had takeu it, and put it in a building at Honeyborough. Cross-examined: I had a suspicion that the prisoner took the boards. I bad some boards of the prisoner. The prisoner had been building for me. The house, from which the boards were taken, was built by the prisoner for me. Previous to this affair, I was on good terms with the prisoner. I do not know where the grate is at the present time. I remember the celebration of the Prince of Wales's marriage: a counter may have been fixed at my house about that time: I can't tell what time it was put up.^ It was not put up about the time of the marriage of the Prince of Wales; but about the lstof April. Some of the prisoner's boards were used in the construction of the counter. The prisoner said he had boards that would answer the purpose; and I agreed to take them. He spared me 11 boards, and I paid for them about the 6th of April. J swear tiat there was no arrangement between myself and the prisoner, that I should have his boards was in his employ at the time: I told Rees to keep an account of the prisoner's boards. Robert Thomas went with the prisoner to take the grate: the house is in a thoroughfare at Neyland. The receipt produced is the one I received from the prisoner when 1 paid for the boards I bad from him. Re-examined I used the timber referred to in the bill in making the counter. Rees was to keep an account of the boards that I might know what I had to pay for. James Rees: I am a carpenter. I was in the employ of the prisoner at the beginning of May. I and the pri- j soner removed the boards from Mr Davies's house: he handed them to me. The prisoner said he had the grate: that he had put it up in a building at Honeyborough; and that he would give Mr Davies another in its place. Cross-examined: We removed the boards in the middle of the day. Robert Thomas: I live at Parryville, Neyland. In the month of April last, I slept at the prisoner's house. By his desire, I went with him to Mr Davies's house. He went into the house through the window, and put the grate out. He placed it in a chaff-house, and covered it with hay. Cross-examined lie asked me to go down with him to the cottages. I am not at present connected with him. I had differences with the prisoner's father. Prosecutor, recalled, said that there was no arrange- ment as to the prisoner giving him a new grate instead of the old one. This concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr Lascelles addressed the Jury in a powerful speech on behalf of the prisoner. The Chairman summed up, and the Jury, after a few minutes' consideration, found the prisoner Not Guilty. The Grand Jury returned no bill in the following cases:— Erasmus Davies, the younger, 36, charged with stealing fifty-two pounds weight of copper, the property of John Tombs, at the borough of Tenby, on the 9th of May 1863. Ann Madox, (admitted to bail the 16th of June, 1863), charged with stealing one brooch'aml one ring, the pro- perty of John Maule Sutton, at the parish of Narberth, within four months last past. Florence Sullivan, 24, mariner, charged with stealing two glass"s. one table cloth, and one fork, the property of John Millar, at the borough of Pembroke, on the 5th of May, 1863; and also, with stealing one Detticoat., three jackets, and one pinafore, the property of James Powell, at the barough of Pembroke, on the oth of May, 1863. The Court adjourned at three o'clock.