Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

6 articles on this Page



PEMBROKESHIRE QUARTER SESSIONS. WEDNESDAY. The Court assembled to-day at 10 o'clock. The magistrates present were the Chairman, J. H. Scour- field, Esq, M.P., James Bowen, Esq, Capt. Child, John Harvey, Esq, and J. L. G. P. Lewis, Esq. The proclamation against vice and immorality having been read, The Chairman charged the Grand Jury. He said "-Gentlemen of the Grand Jury.-On the present occasion the calendar, numerically, looks rather large: but taking the character of the offences there is nothing in it to cau^e any dissatisfaction with the general state of the county. Halt the prisoners do not belong to this county: there are only five who do, and the general character of the offences is not of a h-e-avy nature. I have just made a calculation by which, taking the money value, as set down in the calendar, of all the robberies, save and except one which is not estimated—that is the case of stealing bacon-upon which no value is put-it appears that the total value of all the robberies com- mitted by the 11 prisoners amount to £5 3s lOd, being at the rate (including probably the bacon taken) of about lis or 12s a case. But of course that does not alter the nature of the crime, but it is satisfactory to see that the cases generally are not of a heavy nature, and that only one half the number are attached to natives of this county. I don't think there is any- thing in the cases that will really give you any difficulty; but there is one to which I ought perhaps to make some Utile reference, and that is the case of finding some property. The prisoner is charged, not with robbing another of anything on his person, but of finding a thing on the road, and taking it up and appropriating it to his own use. Therefore it is just necessary to point out what the law is as recog- nised by the Judges in this matter. The general rule is this:—if the nuder knows who is the owner of the lost property, or if there is any mark on it—and that is an important point in this case—or there are any circum- stances under which it is found by which the owner could be easily ascertained, then the taking of it, with the intent at the time of appropriating it to his own use, would he larceny. The first point is whether the person who took the watch had any reason to know who the owner was, and secondly, whether there was any mark upon the watch to enable him to find out who was the owner of it, and restore it to its right owner. If you think the circumstances were such is would have enabled the person to restore the thing to its right owner, then undoubtedly it will be your duty to find a bill. The other cases, as I have already remarked, are of the most ordinary character: some of them appear to have been committed under circumstances of brawling, quarrelling, and drunken- ness, and most of them do not require any direction from me. I have only to repeat the remark which I constantly make in this Court, because it conduces to the convenience of everybody in Court, and that is I shall be obliged if you could ascertain, or if it could be ascertained for you. what bill you can find most quickly, so as to allow the Court to go immediately to work, and dispose of the cases as fast as possible, for by that means we are enabled to discharge the persons who serve on the petty jury. to whom it is of the utmost importance, particularly at this season of the year, that they should not be long detained from their business. A true bill having been found, the Court proceeded with the trial of prisoners. STEALING A WATCH AND CHAIN. Thomas James, 35, hawker, a native of Carmar- thenshire, was charged with stealing a silver watch and one chain, together of the value of £1, the pro- perty of and from the person of Walter Moon., at Pembroke Dock, in the borough of Pembroke, on the 30th of April, 1868. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr 0. Powell appeared for the prosecution. Walter Moon: I am a travelling hawker: I gene- rally stay at the Bell and Lion, Pembroke Dock. On the 30th of April I was at the Bombay Hotel, fiom lialf-past three till half-past seven. I was in the bar. I had a row with some marines: I accused them of stealing some goods. The prisoner was present he said You say the marines robbed you/ I said Yes,' and he got up and knocked me down. I fell on the floor of the passage. About five minutes afterwards 1 missed my watch before I fell it was fastened by a chain to the button hole of my waistcoat with a bar. The bar was broken off the chain. I saw the watch the same evening with P.C. Stephens the prisoner was at that time in custody. The watch produced is the one; it belongs to my master, Mr George Henry. It is worth a guinea. Cross-examined by Prisoner: I was drinking with some marines, but I was not daunk. I did not say before the magistrates that I was drunk: I said I was 'conscientious.' (Laughter.) Jesse Chapel: I am the landlord of the Bombay Hotel. On the 30th of April the prisoner and the last witness were at my house. I saw a disturbance. T saw Moon on the ground and the prisoner on top of him. I tried to take the prisoner away, but I was not strong enough. A corporal picked up a bar, and asked if it was mine. I said no: it was offered to Moon, but he did not take it. It was kept for the police. Cross-examined by the Prisoner: Moon did not miss his watch until after you left. P.C. Thomas Stephens: I am stationed at Pater. On the 30th of April I took the prisoner into custody. On the road to the station I noticed the prisoner's hand in the left breast pocket of his coat. He pulled his hand out, and I made a catch at it. He said I Here's the watch a marine put it into my pocket.' I produce the watch. 1 had the bar from Mr Chapel. Cross-examined by Prisoner: I asked you at the Prince of Wales if you knew anything of the watch. I searched you there but could not find anything. By the Bench I went away after searching the prisoner for about three quarters of an hour. This was the case for the prosecution. The prisoner said he did not strike the prose- cutor. He fell down as he put his hand out. A marine gave him the watch after he was searched by the policeman, and he gave it to the policeman. He was glad to restore it because he was a traveller himself. The Chairman summed up the evidence. The jury retired, and, after a brief absence, returned into Court with a verdict of guilty. The Chairman, in passing sentence, said Thomas James,—You have been very properly convicted of stealing a silver watch. There is nothing in the circumstances connected with the robbery to justify the Court in viewing your case with any particular leniency. There seems to be a great deal of delibe- ration about the matter, and the Court could not satisfy its sense of justice by inflicting upon you a sentence of less than six months' imprisonment with hard labour in the House of Correction. John Nagle, 27, soldier, (a native of Ireland) was charged with stealing a watch, value £ l 5s, the property of William L'Estrange Walsh, at Pembroke- dock, in the borough of Pembroke, on the 14th of May, 1868. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr O. Powell prosecuted. W. L'Estrange Walsh: I am a lieutenant os board her Majesty's ship Revenge. On the 14th of May I lost a silver watch. On the afternoon of that day I was ordered away in charge of a funeral party. I landed at Hobbs' Point, and went towards the Cemetery. After passing the Barrack Gate I missed my watch. I believe it slipped from my waistband. The watch produced is mine. At the time I lost it it had an inscription. It is erased it was inside the case. The inscription was R. Walsh, 10th Hussars, transferred by especial favour to his brother William, East Indies, 1846.' It was not engraved: it was written by a pin or point of a knife. I next saw the watch on the 3rd of Jane. John Davies: I am a boatman at Hobbs' Point. On the 14th of May last I went as far as the Barrack Gate with Lieut Walsh and the funeral party. I saw the prisoner pick up a watch about ten minutes afterwards. I was alongside the prisoner. I asked the prisoner what sort of a watch it was, and he said it was a child's penny toy. lie left me, taking with him the watch. Cross-examined: I did not see you steal the watch. Thomas Lloyd: I am a boatman at Hobbs' Point. I followed the funeral party a part of the way. I saw Lieut Walsh there. I saw the pri- soner picking up a watch about forty or fifty yards from Hobbs' Point Gate. I heard the prisoner say it was a penny toy. I saw him go away with it. Charles Winter: I am a sergeant in the first 9th regiment. The prisoner was confined on the charge of having the watch. He was taken before Colonel Chichester: be said he picked up no watch, but an old tobacco box. He was taken before Col. Moore, when he made the same statement. He denied having the watch twice. William Butler I am colour-sergeant in the 46th foot. On the 2nd of June the prisoner was in my custody on another charge. In the guardroom be was searched, and I found the watch produced in his pocket. He snatched it from my hand again, and said he would not give it until I sent him to the rear. I had to call upon men to trike it from him. I handed it to the sergeant of police. I was with the prisoner when he was taken before Col. Moore he said he bought the watch of some civilians on the Pembroke road. Robert Irving I am a sergeant of police stationed at Pater. I received the watch produced from Sergt Butler on the 3rd of June. This was the c,-tse for the prosecution. The prisoner said he picked up the watch, but he did not steal it. The Chairman summed up the evidence. The jury found the prisoner guilty. The Chairman, in delivering judgment, said— John Nagle—You also have been convicted of steal- ing a watch of nearly the same value as that in the other case. The Court are of opinion that the cir- cumstances show a very considerable difference. There is no evidence to prove that you had any in- tention of stealing the watch from the officer the jury have found most properly that when you found the watch you committed, to say the least of it, a gross act of dishonesty, because you must have known that you not only had no business to keep the watch, but you also had the means, in consequence of that inscription you saw upon the watch, of giving it back immediately to the owner. However, as I said before, there is very considerable difference between the two cases, because in your case you yielded to sudden temptation, and the other was a deliberate action. The Court are inclined to take a lenient view of your case, and the sentence is that you be confined and kept to hard labour in the House of Correction for one calendar month. STEALING A VERMIN TRAP. George Griffiths was charged with stealing a vermin trap of the value of 3s 6'1, the property of Thomas Early, at Begelly, on the 3rd of May, 1868. [Capt Child left the Bench when this case was called on.] The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr Powell prosecuted Mr Lascslles defended. Thomas Early I am a gamekeeper in the em- ploy of Capt Child, of Begelly House. I had some vermin traps in a field in the occupation of Captain Child. 1 laid down in the field on the 3rd of May to watch the traps. I saw the prisoner looking about amongst the furze. I saw him take up a trap I had set there. He was going off with the trap. I went after him. I hailed him. I took the trap out of his left hand. I asked him his name he would not give it. He pave me the name of John Davies first. I was taking him up to Begelly: when I was dragging him along he told me if I would let him go he would give his name. He gave h's name and I let him go. He asked me to forgive him, and he would not touch any of the traps again. I produce the trap. Cross-examined It was about a quarter past ten. I had seen the prisoner before but I did not know his name. I am quite certain he refused to give his name. I dragged him along by the coliar. I thought I had a right to take him into custody. I was ex- amined before the magistrates. I said nothing then about the name of Davies I was not asked about it. I did not say on a previous occasion that he refused to give me any name. He took the trap about five or six yards when I hailed him. I never measured the distance. The plug was not attached to the trap when I took the prisoner: he threw it down by the hole from which he took it. In consequence of a conversation I had with Capt Child J took further steps in the matter. After I got his name he said he meant to give the trap back. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Lascelles addressed the jury in an able speech in behalf of the prisoner, and called, Mr Joseph Cadman, a grand juror, who deposed that he had known the prisoner for some years, and that he knew nothing bad of him He always at- tended to his work. The Chairman having summed up the evidence, The jury retired, and after a short consultation found a verdict of not guilty. ROBBERY FRoM THE PERSON. John Daniel, 66, labourer, and David Daniel, 18, collier, (the former a native of Carmarthenshire and the latter a native of Pembrokeshire,) wpre charged with stealing the sum of 88 6J, the property and from the person of James Hogan, and Uzmastm, on the 24th of May, 1868 The prisoners pleaded n t guilty. Mr Powell, instructed ;)y Mr J. C, James, prosecuted. Jame. Hogan: I am a hawker, and live at Aber- ystwyth. I go about the country, and belong to the Pembrokeshire Militia. I wa present a' t'~e late t.ain- ing. DavtdD i, in the sum- >e^i tneni, but not the same coropanv, On the 21iii of May, I met David Daniel. I wen to hid house, and paid for some beer there. David Daniel wanted a fMlf-crown I said I would not give it, and ne struck 'me. After he struck me, John Daniel held me by the throat, and David Daniel put his hand into my packet and took my money. They then threw me into the s'reet, and kicked me. My sister was pre-ent, and Rebecca Daniel. Mary Hogan I am the half-sister of the last witness. On the night in question I was with mv brother at the prisoner's house. We met David Daniel near the Sta- tion. He told my brother to come with him, and he would get him beer. At :he prisoner's house, my bro- ther gave a shilling for beer. David wanted a balf- crown my brother would not give it. John Diniel seized him by the throat, and David Daniel put his hand into my brother's paefest; he took out his band, and put it into his own pocket. What he tj' k out I could not tell. David DftaieA and John Daniel abused him most shamefully, and kicked him. He told Sarah Morris to tell the same story as he did. David Daniel cross-examined the witness at length, but elicited nothing in his own favour. A. Sergt Gillespie: I apprehended John Daniel at Bethany on the Narberth road, and the other prisoner in I the bouse. John Daniel said he never saw the Hogacs that night. In cross-examination by John Daniel, the witness said he found him by the side of tho road opposite his house. This was the case for the prosecution. Sarah Morris, called by the prisoners, deposed The Hogans were in the house an hour and half before David Daniel came in. The woman asked him for half a crown she gave it back in the kitchen. There was no kicking. Hogan challenged David Daniel to fight; and David said if he would come outside he would fight him. I suppose they fought. The Chairman summed up the evidence. j The Jury found a verdict of guilty against David Daniel; but, acquitted John Daniel. The Chairman, in passing sentence, said: David Daniel,— You have been conv;cted, and VI ry properly, of a very aggravated offence—that of robbery from the person committed with violence in your own house, under circumstances which indicate that you are a per- son that cannot be leniently dealt with with safety to the community. The sentence of the Court is that you be confined and kept to hard labour in the House of Correction for twelve calendar months. STEALING TABLE CLOTHS, &C. William Leivis, 40, labourer, (a native of Pembroke, fchire.) was charged with ste-rding two table cloths, and one check apron, together of the value of 6s, the property of John Sinnett, at Burton, on the 8th of April. Mr Powell, instructed by Mr J. C. James, prosecuted the prisoner was not defended. Mary Sinnett: I am the wife of John Sinnett, and reside at Pembroke Ferry. I put. two table cloths and one cheek apron in the garden to dry on the 8th of April. At half past four, I was called out: they were then gone. They were worth 6s or 7s. By Prisoner I did not see you about the garden. Eliza Roblin I am the wife of John Roblin. and live at Pembroke Ferry, next door to the last witness. On the 8th of April I was out in the garden. Mr Sin- nett has part of it. 1 saw the prisoner take two table cloths and a check apron off the hedge. He put them into the field behind his back. He caught hold of a pillow slip, and he let it go. He caught up the table cloths and apron and ran away. I knew the prisoner ) before. John Sinnett: I live with my father at Pembroke Ferry. In the afternoon of the 8th of April, I saw the prisoner going up from my father's house. John Evans: I am a waterman, and live at the Gale. The prisoner asked me to put him across the water. He had a white bundle* he was going from Neyland to Pater. He said he had been to Haverfordwest. This was the case for the prosecution. The Chairman summed up the evidence. The Jury found the prisoner guilty. The prisoner was then charged with having bfen previously convicted of felony in 1860, to which charge he pleaded guilty. The Chairman: William Lewis,—You have been very justly convicted of stealing the property of Mr Sinnett. What materially aggravates your case is that there is a previous conviction proved against you, indi- cating that you are a habitual marauder and defrauder of persons' property. In this case, one thing is clear, whether the prisoner is amended by confinement, at ail events the public is protected during the time the prisoner is in jail from any fresh depredations, and I must think of their interests as well as other ciruum- etinces. The sentence of the Court is that you be confined in the House oF Correction and kept to hard labour for twelve calendar months. STEALING BACON. Joseph Barrett, 19, collier, (a native of Pembrokeshire) was charged with breaking and entering the dwelling house of Margaret Griffiths, and stealing a quantity of bacon, the property of the said Margaret Griffiths, at Reynolton, on the 30th of April, 1868. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr Powell prosecuted" Mr Luscelles (instructed by Mr Price) arpeared for the defence. Margaret Griffiths I am a widow, and live at Rey- nolton. I left my house on the evening of the 30th of April: the door of the house was on the latch it was not keyed. I returned at 9 o'clock. I saw some salt on the floor, and I locked up to the rack, and found a piece of baeon —about 13tbs weighs—was gone. I told some of my neighbours, and we searched, and found some marks of salt on the bottom of the cross roads. The prisoner lives from 20 to 30 yards from me. I saw the piece of bacon with t.he policeman the next morning. I know it by the mark where I cut it last. Cross-exsrained I did not so far from horne-I went to it prayer meeting in my store loft. My own six children were at the meeting: I and my daughter were the last leaving the house. Wo went both together. It is possible my daughter left the door IIjar; but I don't think it was. I hare known the prisoner for a long time. When coming back from the meeting, my little boy first went into the house. Benjamin Morgan: I am a farmer and reside at the parish of Begelly. I and P C. Kees were in the prisoner's father's house. We searched the. garden on the following morniug: I saw fresh tracks, and dug up a piece of bacon. I trave it to the policeman. Cross-examined The prisoner was not prasent when I found it. PC Rees: I am stationed at JcSreston. I went to the prisoner's father's house. Morgan dug up the bacon whfeb I now produce. 1 took the prisoner into custody, I cautioned him. He said he had been blamed for many things, but. the one who put It there shouid stand to it Cross-examined It Was not the prisoner's hoti*e: there was no objection made to our starching the house. Re examined: The prisoner lived in the same house with his father. P.-Sergt. Irving: I am stationed at Narberth. The prisoner was in my custody at Narberth on the 2nd of May. He said he sbould tell all the truth. I cautioned him. He taid he went to borrow some tea-for his supper, and he took the bacon off the rack, and carried it across the road into his father's garden. They wrapped it in an old cloth, and put in the earden. He told his father that the bacon was in the garden after the police searched the house, and wanted him to take it back to Mrs Griffiths's house. Mr Nash, of Reynolton, was present when the prisoner made the statement. Mr Nash was the landlord of the prisoner's fa her's house, and he came there to hai; them out. In about 10 minuks afterwards I went back to him and repeated the statement, and asked him 'f it was correct. He said it was. Mr Nash was present on hoth occasions. William Nash I am a farmer residing at Reynolton. I have heard the evidence of Sergt. Irving his evidence is correct. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Lascelles addresaed the jury on the prisoner's behalf. The Chairman summed up the evidence. The jury found the prisoner guilty of larceny. The Chairman, in sentencing the prisoner, said Joseph Barrett.—You have been very properly convicted of steal- ing this bacon. Looking at the calendar, I find that you have been in prison since the 2nd of May, so that you have been already confined two monrbs. I think on this occasion the justice of the case will be satisfied, taking a lenient view of the matter, by your being confined for unoiber month in the House of Correction with hard labour, STEALING MONEY, &C. William Leefar, 27, soldier, (a native of Ireland) was charged with stealing one soap disb, 6 postage stamps, and the sum of 7s. 4d.. the property of Elizabeth Mathia", at Llanstadwell on the 31st of May, 1868. The prisoner pleaded guilty. The Chairman, in passing sentence, said: Yon have pleaded guilty to a charge of felony. I think it right to tell you, what applies to all prisoners, that the fact of on. conviction will subject you to a severe punishment indeed if you are ever found guilty of another offence-it will make just the difference between imprisonment and pentil servitude. On the present occasion, we perceive you have been in prison nearly a montb, and of coarse take that into account. The sentence of the Court is that you be confined in the House of Correction and kept to hard labour for three calendar months. NO BILLS. The Grand Jury returned "nobill" in the cue of Joseph Andreios, charged with stealing a pipe of the of fid., the properly of Joseph Tucker, at Pembroke Dock, in the borough of Pembroke, on the 17th Jn°e> 1868; against Rebecca Daniel, charged with stealing two shawls and one hat, together of the of 9?., the property of Mary Hogan, at Uzma^ton, the 24th of May, 1868; and against William lhrre charged with breaking and entering the of Margaret Griffiths, and stealing a quantity of the property of the said Margaret Griffiths, at Reynold") on the 30th of April, 1868. This concluded the business of the sessions, and tu Court adjourned at four o'clocit