Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

11 articles on this Page

HAVERFORDWEST RIFLE VOLUNTEERS.

LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.

-BOOSE PETTY SESSIONS.

HAVERFORDWEST PETTY SESSIONS.

News
Cite
Share

HAVERFORDWEST PETTY SESSIONS. These sessions were held at the Shire Hall on Thurs- day, before the Mayor, J. W. Phillips, Esq, and T. Rule Owen, Esq. THE POLICE AND THE MILITIA, Capt Edwardes, of the Royal Pembroke Artillery Militia, attended the Court to make an inquiry respecting the apprehension of a militiaman by the police. He said,—One of my men is now in gaol undergoing im- prisonment under sentence of the magistrates. He was placed in the guardroom under my command, and with- out my knowledge was removed under a warrant by the police. He was taken before the Mayor, and was sent to gaol for a month. He was, I believe, drunk; but he was in our custody, and it is my opinion—perhaps I am wrong—that his removal under these circumstances by the police was quite illegal. I wish to ask the opinion of the magistrates upon the question? ( The Clerk: With reference to the question of Captain Edwardes, my opinion is altogether the other way. I may tell you that the Militia while they;are embodied are liable to the provisions of the Mutiny Act by reason of a statute of George the Third. The Mutiny Act only exonerates the military and Militia from certain civil proceedings, such as neglect to maintain bastard chil- dren-- The Mayor: And deserting service. Clerk It gives power to the magistrates in cases of the nature of criminal proceedings as contradistinguished from civil proceedings. Now an assault is clearly a criminal proceeding Mayor: It is a misdemeanour. Clerk: So also is drunkenness a criminal proceeding; I and the Mutiny Act does not exoneiate a soldier from the consequences of that offence, much less a militiaman. The Mayor: I looked at the Mutiny Act that afternoon, and there it says that the men be taken out of her Majesty's service for felony or misdemeanour. In the present case. the man had committed an aggravated assault, and was delivered up to the police by the officer in command. Capt Edwardes: Under a warrant. The only ques- tion is whether the police had a right to take him, for he was not their prisoner in the first instance. He was my prisoner. Clerk You might have said that he was your prisoner then, and that you would hand him over aeain; but there is no doubt that English law gives preeminence to the civil over the military powers. In this country they are very jealous of the interference of the military with the civil laws, and there is no doubt whatever as to the powers of the civil authorities in this matter. Capt Edwardes: We are very desirous to give every assistance to the civil powers but I fancy that the man being drunk and in custody, he ought not to have been taken away. Clerk; I presume that if he was brought before the Mayor in a state of drunkenness, the Mayor would exer. cise his discretion, and would not convict a man in that nonditioB. I know the Mayor too well to suppose for a moment that he would convict a man when he was drunk. The Mayor: He was quite capable of knowing what he was saying and doing. If he had been so drunk as not to know what we were going to do, 1 should have remanded him. Clerk: It is the wish of the superintendent, so far as is possible, not to deprive the regiment of the services of the men. There are a good many in the regiment whom we could put our hands upon at once, because they are wanted, but rather than deprive her Majesty of their services, we prefer to wait, and took for them another I time. So that we are really patient and longsufiering. (Langhter.) Mayor It can hardly be considered that the man was taken out of their bands he was delivered over to the police by the commanding officer. Capt. Edwardes Under pressure of a warrant. Clerk: The supt. went up there, and the man was handed over by the Major at once. The transaction was one of mutual accord. The Mutiny Act is exceptional legislation, and there is no doubt whatever as to the power of the civil authorities. The Mayor The best proof that it is exceptional Ie. gislation, is that the Mutiny Act is re-enacted every year, but it expressly states that a man may be taken out of Her Majesty's service for felony or misde- meanour. Capt. Edwardes then withdrew. ASSAULT. Seth Owen, a small boy, was charged with assaulting Thomas Symmond, an old man, residing at Shut- street. The defendant admitted striking the complainant with an acorn over the hat, and expressed his sorrow for having done so. The complainant said that about half-past eight on Sunday evening he was returning home from Chapel, 4if Wa8 s'ruc^ over the brim of the hat with uome- thing thrown by the defendant. He inclined his head as the thing w^s thrown, and thus avoided being struck in the face. He did not wish to punish the defendant, and was willing to withdraw the charge upon his con senting to pay costs. He was subjected to a great deal of annoyance, on the part of the defendant and other br.ys, who knocked at his door at night, and shouted after him, and he took the present proceedings with a view to put a stop to it. The Bench consented to the withdrawal of the case and the defendant's friends paid the expenses. The Mayor severely reprimanded the defendant, and warned] him of the consequences of a repetition of such conduct. The defendant had an aged grandfather who was ill in bed, and be would probably see the enormity of his con- duct by considering what he himself would feel if per sons came in and annoyed his relative in a sick-bed. REMOVING NIGHT SOIL IN THE DAY TIMB. James Morgan and William Lloyd were charged with removing night soil in the day time. Both defendants admitted the offence, stating that it was committed in ignorance of the law. The Bench fined each defendant 6d and costs. ASSAULTING A MILITIAMAN. William Flynn, a tramp, was charged with assaulting William Page, a gunner in the Royal Pembroke Artil- lery Militia. Tbe defendant admitted striking at the complainant, but whether he struck him or not he could not tell. He had been at a wedding, got drunk, and did not know what he was doing. The complainant deposed that he was going np Pren- dergast Hill on the 9th of May, when the defendant came after him and struck him in the eye- He had not not spoken to the defendant, or given him any provoca- tion. The Bench fined the defendant 10s and costs, amount* ing altogether to 18s 8d, which were ordered to be paid in 14 days. ■

PEMBROKE.I

PEMBROKE-DOCK

M I 1.. FOR D.

Family Notices

Advertising

[No title]

THE ATTEMPT TO ASSASSINATE…