Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

15 articles on this Page

THE EASTER QUARTER SESSIONS.

News
Cite
Share

THE EASTER QUARTER SESSIONS. THE CHAIRMAN ON THE RIGHTS OF CAPITAL AND LABOUR. The Easter Quarter Sessions for the County of Glamorgan were opened at the Guildhall, Swansea, on Tuesday morning, Mr J. C. Fowler presiding, supported by the deputy-chairman, Judge Gwilym Williams, and a small gathering of magistrates, including Lawrence Tulloch, Esq, Dr, J. G. Hall, Thomas Phillips, Esq, sen, E. F. Damel, Esq, Sir Admiral Algernon Lyons, &c. The following gentlemen comprised the grand jury :—Henry Bonnett (foreman), Thomas Bnllin, W, Campion, Thomas Elford, Edward Evans, Robert Evans, W. C. Farrant, W. Greeshaber, J. Hermann James, T. P. Jones, George Leaker, Andrew Martin, S. Pile, E. O. Hole, Thomas Powell, Evan Thomas, O. Tregarthen, and Richard Woolacott. THE CfflLKSK. Mr Fowler, in charging the grand jury, said:— Gentlemen,—I am glad to see so many gentlemen from this County Borough and neighbourhood assembled to perform the doty which appertains to a grand jury. That duty is an important one, for no person can be put on his trial without the aanction of a grand jury. Bat your function is quite distinct from that of a trial. It is limited to that of ascertaining from the evidence adduced for the prosecution whether 'there is just grounds for returning bills of indictment, or bills of accusation. against the persons charged, so as to empower the court and jury to try them. The calendar contains the names of 31 prisoners, but the charges are only 26. I regret to find that oat of these 26 charges, 16 are offences against the person, such as wounding, assaults, and offences against females, young and adult. The calendar for the recent Assizes showed a still higher proportion of crimes of violence, namely, 14 out of 21» You will find these offences usually spring from drunkenness, and just in pro- portion as ternper6Dce influences men's conduct, so will this class of offence disappear. In dealing with these cases, yoii will simply ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to show that the assault was Committed, or the wound wilfully and intentionally inflicted, and leave matters of excuse or justifica- tion to be deait with here. One bill of indictment is framed upon the Bankruptcy Act. It is charged that a bankrupt did not disclose to the trustee administrating his estate, all the property he possessed. The notes of his statement will be read to you, and proof given of JE40 worth of goods belonging to him, which were not included in his account. You will have no difficulty in returning a true bill. There is one very serious charge of attempting to commit a rape upon a deaf and dumb ttirl. This informity makes an interpreter necessary, but your patient attention will soon satisfy yoa that there is very strong evidence of a very serious offence. I feel sure you will return a true bill. Another sad case is that of Win. Flowers, charged with indecently assaulting a little girl of 11 years. This case you must consider carefully. The girl Keene is corroborated by another girl, aged 12. They say that the defendant did similar indecent acts to both, as they sat side by side on chairs in his house. There is no other evidenoe to confirm their story, but if they give their evidence clearly, without contradiction, and in a manner that gains your belief, you will, of course, return a true bill. But no aonbt >the case requires sifting carefully. Ane last case I will mention is that of Robert Jones, charged with unlawfully wounding William ewis. It appears that a man named Tomkins went o a public-house with a revolver in his pocket, not nowing that it was loaded. The defendant Jones did* u 8l^ and wished to see it. Tomkins take it out to show it, and was about to put it eack, when the defendant took bold of it with both ods. Another witness describes rather more of a scuffle for it. The revolver went off, and a bullet struck William Lewis, two yards away, in the leg. It is clear that defendant had no intention what- ever to shoot Lewis, or any one. Bat if he was unlawfully trying to take the pistol from Tomkins against bis will, and in so doing shot Lewis, you would act rightly in sending the case for trial. But if you find that it was only a joke or a friendly pull for the revolver, and no assault or trespass, then the sbot was an accident, and the wounded man has his civil remedy for the negligence of the defendant. Having made these few remarks, I think I ought to congratulate you before you retire, as representing the County, on the termination of a formidable dispute and struggle between employers and workmen. With regard to the progress and various incidents of the struggle, and the circum- stances which led to its termination, I will say nothing. I only desire to notice the great principle which was evolved so clearly at the close of the strike. It was established distinctly that every workman is absolutely free to dispose of his labour and skill to any employer, according to bis discretion and inclination, subject only to the contract be agrees to, and the law of the land. There is a right to have Unions, and the right to act in 80nd through Unions. But there is also a nght to keep out of Unions, and to sell work and skill singly aad personally, without the least interference of any other. We may well be thankful tnat on this principle a cessation of the struggle., and a renewal of profitable work has taken place. ■I*t as hope that the event will secure many years of peace, profit, and good living, both to employers and employed. If you now retire to the Grand Jary room, some bills will be sent Up, and we request you to bring down two as soon as you have come to a conclusion. COUNTY BUSINESS. While the grand jury were considering bills, the Court proceeded to consider the county busiuess- The Clerk (Mr. T. Mansel Franklen) read a letter from the Home Seoretary in answer to an applica- tion for an increase of salary of the Stipendiary of Pontypridd, and asking the Court, after considering the application, to present a fresh memorial. The Chairman said he had received a letter from Mr. Ignatius Williams, promising to transact the business on four instead of three days-Monday at Ystrad, Wednesday at Pontypridd, Thursday at Pontypridd and Ton, Friday at Ferndale and Ponty- pridd. Looking at the importance of the district, and the great amount of work which Mr. Williams had to do. he moved that a fresh memorial, similar to the last one, be sent to the Home Secretary, asking leave to increase Mr. Williams's salary to JE900 a year. Judge Gwilym Williams seconded, and remarked that the district was ever on the increase in import- ance and population. Respecting a difference of opinion as to the locality of one of the courts—as to whether Ferndale or Cymmer was preferable—he gave his opinion strongly in favour of the latter place, being the natural outlet of the Rhondda Fach aud of a large portion of the Rhondda Fawr. He suggested, therefore, that the Friday court be held at Cymmer.—This last suggestion was adopted, and the motion was unanimously carried. FIRST COURT.-TuESDAY. [Before J. C. Fowler (Chairman), and Walter Smythe, Esqrs.] NO TRUE BILL.—The jury returned no true bill A Against Mictiael Gallivan for maliciously wounding Annie Mahoney at Merthyr Tydfil. INDECBNT ASSAULT.—Henry McCloud, 32, indeconllv WM ,ci.larSed with unlawfully and at Ahppii assaulting Sarah Jane Elias, aged nine, irol^u?edre_lTKanna,ry last Mr 0 W. Williams molested hk 5. 9 story was that the prisoner Way home, behaving in a most ins the nris ner t°ward ber.—Evidence criminat- —Sentence was djf £ £ d verd,ctof THEFT OF MONEY.—JOHN TM. FNA\ U I pleaded guilty to stealingT? J?"" (G6>< hawk* v Murtrnrof t s d:1 and °ne purse, the Kc £ -Pris^ i» Ticted at Cardiff and elsewhere for various*offences —Superintendent Thorney gave pri80Der a bad character, and he was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. The Court the a adjourned for luncheon. I ATTEMPTED SUICIDE.—Samuel Williams (50), agent, a strange-looking man was charged with unlawfully cutting and ^Ul"lln^ hlm»elf with ir.tent thereby to kill and m«rder himself, at Ystradyfodwg. In reply to the charge prisoner said sffSJSrssri- *»»- the case on tbat that was done, an 0 Wednesday morning. MALICIOUS WOUNDING.-Ev«n Maliciously was charged with unlawfully ana inMarc £ wounding Susannah Evans, at Lion Judge last—Mr. Rhys Williams (son Gwilym Williams) prosecuted. From adduced it would appear that prisoner lodged witn the prosecutrix, but a disturbance aros, pon bim and her husband. She interfered, where p prisoner struck her on the head with a Da y inflicting a severe wound.—A verdict ot ^uuj *a* returned, with a recommendation to mercy account of the prisoner's youth. He wac sent to prison for three calendar months. THEFT OF A WATCH—Thomas WILLIAMS (64), labourer, was charged with stealing a silver lever watch, the property of Mary Ann Cadrogam, at Llonwonno.—Mr. Marchant Williams prosecuted. Prisoner was a man-servant on the prosecutrix's farm, and stole the watch trom a drawer in the bed- room.— Prisoner was found guilty, and was sentenced to seven years penal servitude. THEFT OF A BROOCH AT PONTYPRIDD.—Ana Preeee (26), married, was charged with stealing an amber brooch, worth 15; from Henry Adams, at Pontypridd. Mr- Lloyd Morgan prosecuted, and Mr. D. Lewis defended.—Prisoner was found not guilty, and discharged. THEFT IN CARDIGANSHIRE.—Thomas Morgan, a collier, was charged with stealing a watch, worth £5 5s., the property of David Oliver, at Ponrhydygroes, Cardiganshire. — Mr. Rhys Williams prosecuted.—The parties went from the Rhondda. to Cardiganshire together, and while prosecutor was drunk prisoner showed him where he could sleep in a stable. On waking he missed iia watch, and eventually it was found in ) prisoner's possession.—Prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to three months' hard labour. PLEADED GUILTY .—Arthur John Payne pleaded guilty to stealing £5 2s. and a purse and handker- chief from a room occupied by William hedward, at Llanwono. Previous convictions were proved, and prisoner was sentenced to nine months' hard labour. The court then adjourned. SECOND COURT.—TUESDAY. [Before Judge Gwilym Williams and W. Rosser, Esq.1 A FRAUDULENT SWANSEA BANKRUPT. Thomas Price, confectioner, was placed in the dock on the charge that being a bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act 1883 and 1S90, did not fully and truly discover to the Trustee administering his estate for his creditors, with intent to defraud, at Swansea.— Mr. Woodfall prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.— Defendant pleaded guilty to concealing part of his goods, but denied the intent to wilfully defraud. He was undefended.—In opening the case Mr. Woodfall read extracts from the short-hand notes taken at Price's bankruptcy examination, when ne admitted that he had not declared to t e Receiver all the goods in his possession, retaining some in a storehouse to the value of a^ ou 'rloo- Mr. Frank W- Davies, auctioneer, Wate I in preparing hi..tow™ a° Vo"f"rd-Meet, but «ttr»"d»Sd that the .took rs.lly belonged to merwards s asslgnment, which was produced!1 but afterwards withdrawn. Witness took an inventory of goods to the value of £28 5s. lid and these were the figures sst down as assets in the statement of affairs. These were afterwards verified on oath. That was on the Thursday. Two days afterwards, in consequence of information, he (Mr. Davies) went to Lloyd's yard and found a quantity of goods which had not been accounted for, and which he ascertained belonged to Price. The defendant rendered him every assistance in realising his estate with this exception. Defendant: My brother held the two shops under a deed of assignment, but preferred to rank as an ordinary creditor. Witness: That is not so. Mr. E. S. Jones, clerk in the official receiver's office, said he read over the printed questions to Price, and he answered them as set down in the form. Mr. Thomas Wright Hancock, head clerk in the official receiver's office, gave evidence in ie ference to the earlier stages of defendant's bankruptcy proceedings. Later on, in reply to questions, defendant denied being the tenant of the stores at Lloyd's yard. and stated that he had given the goods found there to Mr. Joseph Saunders, as a security for the loan of £10, with which to file his petition. In consequence of this, Mr. Saunders was interviewed, and he denied having had any transaction of the nature referred to with the defendant. Mr. Thomas, the official receiver, also gave evidence. He stated defendant had been per. fectly straightforward in his answers except in the matter of the concealment of a. part of his goods. Mr. David Lloyd, hay-merchant, said he owned Lloyd's yard, part of which was rented by the defendant, who used it as a stores. Defendant, in defence, pleaded ignoranc Bankruptcy Act, and said he never intended to deceive the Court.A onite His Honour, addressing the jury, 9a man shared in the expression of regret atis 8 who had hitherto borne a respectable character placed in a position such as the defendant was in. However much he (the Judge) and the jury sympa- thised with Price, they must not allow their sympathies to interfere with their judgment. They had sworn to give a verdict according to the evidence, and without fear or favour. Defendant was charged with a very serious offence, an offence, possibly, which might seem to them that the law should not punish too severely. This was a case where a man, failing to meet his liabilities, had resource to the Bankruptcy Court. He filed his petition, a receiving order was made, and having accepted the assistance of the law, it was his duty to carry out all the requirements. A man was not entitled to the assistance of the law except when he was honest toward the law. It helped a man who was unfortunate in business to retrieve his position if he was honest, but it punished the man who, having failed, sought the Bankruptcy Court, and then deliberately endeavoured by dishonest means to further confer losses upon his creditors. The defendant Price, after having filed his petition, had failed to make a clean breast of his position—and he was called upon by the law to do nothing less. He failed to make that clean breast, and suppressed facts which it was absolutely necessary should be made known. Defendant, in his defence, told them he had no opportunity of correcting any of his statements. One could hardly believe that that was so., seeing that after being examined in privacy, be was subjected to a searching examination in public before the Registrar and the Official Receiver. He had had plenty of opportunities to correct or retract any false statements he might have made inadver- tently or through being wrongly advised. For some reason or other he omitted to disclose goods belonging to him in Lloyd's yard. At one time he wanted to make that he was not the tenant of the stores, that he owned the goods, but that he had transferred them over to Mr. Saunders for £10 with which to file his petition. These statements he afterwards withdrew. There was no doubt that he made false answers. and that be endeavoured to mislead the Court officials. The jary retired at ten minutes to four to con. sider the verdict. After a short retirement, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty and a strong recommendation to mercy on account of his inexperience.—The prisoner again denied having 1 had any fraudulent intent.—Judge Williams, in passing sentence, characterised the offence as very serious, and as very difficult to bring home. Defend- ant would be sentenced to three months' imprison- ment without hard labour. INDECENT ASSAULT AT PONTABDAWB.—Benjamin Hughes, 32, labourer, was indicted for unlawfully and indecently assaulting Esther Cousins, in the parish of Llangyfelach, Mr. Denman Benson de- fended.—Prosecutrix said she was returning from work at a Pontardawe brick-yard, where prisoner was a canal boatman, when be accosted her and be- haved indecently towards her in the presence of two boys, at the same time behaving with violence.—Prisoner elected to go into the box, and in his evidence said prosecutrix asked him to kiss her, and he did so, afterwards behaving somewhat indecently.—Prisoner was found guilty.—The Chairman said they must protect girls who went about in lonely places, and he sentenced him to two months' hard labour. INDECENT ASSAULT.—William Freeman (23), labourer, was charged with indecently assaulting Rose Hicks, a married woman, at Llandaff. Mr. Rbys Williams prosecuted.—Prosecutrix said she was going home one night in March when pnsoner met her, and after making use of disgusting language threw her down. She got away from him, and gave information to the police. Prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to three months hard labour. DiscHARGED.-Francis Elsley (37), hawker, was found not guilty of attempting to steal from the person of Jane Clarke the sumof2s.5d.,a purse, and a silver brooch, the property of Edward Clarke. The Judge, in discharging him, called him a lucky man. and advised him to leave the neighbourhood. Mr. T. Williams prosecuted. FALSE PRETENCES AT MARDY.—Harry Collier (25), a labourer, was found guiity of obtaining from Issac John Phillips the sum of 3s, 4!d., the moneys of George Herbert Mundy, with intent to defraud, and was sentenced to a month's hard labour. Mr. M. Williams prosecuted. WOUNDING AT SWANSEA.—Elizabeth Thomas (27), a prostitute, pleaded guilty to cutting and wounding Margaret Rogers at Swansea. It appeared she was not the first to commence the quarrel. She had been convicted 38 times of various petty offences- Sentence—two months' hard labour. No PROSECUTOR.—Emma McGwyre (22\, prostitute, was charged with stealing a diamond ring, the property of George Archell.—Mr. David Lewis, for the prosecution, said the prosecutor, who a Chinaman, had gone to sea, and he could oner no evidence.—Prisoner was therefore dis- charged. The Court then adjourned till Wednesday morn- ing at ten o'clock. FIRST COURT—WEDNESDAY. [Before J. c. Fowler (Chairman), and Walter Smythe, Esqrs.j ^f1SE*Pavid Davies, on bail, was VonnvWall and indecently assaulting Sl/JT ifr'pl^Wf 14- at Cwmbacb, « T* Thnm a^c Williams prosecuted, and D- L'tKTs,det«nde<l. This was a remark- able case. tke defendaat pleadiog that he made the blunder of taking the little girl (who was in bed all the time) for his wife This defence was suc- cessfully fought out, and the jury aoquitted the prisoner. PICKING POCKETS AT COWBRIDGE. —Charles Henry Murrell, dealer, was indicted for stealing from the person of Ann Phillips the sum of £ l 5s. and with attempting to steal another purse, con- 4s. 6d., from the person of Elisabeth Williams at the same place. Mr Marchant Williams miiiaiu oner was described as an expert prosecuted. ekef —The chairman Bentenced travelling P barj labour for each offence, hioi to six evidently a nuisance to telling him that he wa« society in these par^s. Jobanna Fitzgerald MALICIOUS W for unlawfully and and Mary Gilroy were Murphy at Swansea.— maliciously wound.ng Jame8 M«rPayd D Mr. Rhys ^he R8Sault was the result of Benson defended.-The MBMU re3uited in a row at prisoners lodgi:ngs, w" tor, and Fitzgerald throwing a basin at prose Gilroy stabbing him.— Prisoners were found guilty, but sentence was deferred. Later on, Gilroy was sent to prison for two months, and Fitzgerald was fined £3. The court then adjourned for luncheon. ATTEMPTED SUICIDE. — Samuel Williams, agent, was charged with unlawfully cutting and wounding himself with intent thereby to kill and murder himself, at Ferndale, in February last.— Mr. Frank Griffiths prosecuted.—On Tuesday. prisoner admitted the offence, but pleaded that he did not know what he was about.—Dr. Davies. of Porth said he was called to examine the prisoner 'and found his throat cut. Ho could not sneak. 'A police constable watched the man in his room after the attempt upon his life, and he wrote on a slate that he had cut his throat with a razor. Prisoner's landlady, who was unable to be present, but whose depositions were read by the Clerk, stated that he had been strange in demeanour for about three months, and complained about pains in the head.—The jury, after a brief deliberation, found prisoner guilty of the offence, but that he committed it whilst labouring under a temporary attack of insanity—Prisoner was remitted back to prison, to be kept there during Her Majesty's pleasure. INDECENT ASSAULT.—Henry McCloud (32). labourer, was brought up to receive sentence on the charge of having indecently assaulted Sarah Jane Elias, aged 9. at Aberdare, of which he was found guilty on Tuesday. He was now sent to prison for six calendar months. BREAKING AND ENTERING. — David Davies, a young man from Aberdare, was charged with feloniously breaking and entering the shop of George Bevan, at Aberdare, and stealing therefrom tobacco, salmon, figs, sweets, a bat, oranges, apples, and Is. 6 )|.—Mr. Marchant Williams prosecuted, and Mr. C. W. Williams defended.—Two other prisoners, William Hughes and John Hughes, were charged conjointly with prisoner, but pleaded guilty.—Criminating evidence was given by four witnesses.—John Hughes, who was adjudged to be the ringleader, was sent to prison for six weeks. The other two were dealt with under the First Offenders Act, and were bound over in £5 to come up for sentence when called upon. WOUNDING. — Mar) Ann Davies, charwoman, pleaded guilty to wounding Ann Ottway, a woman of ill.fame, with a jar, whilst she was in bed at Swansea, and the Chairman sentenced her to foar months with hard labour. This closed the prisoner's list. AN APPEAL CASE. Mrs Whittaker, landlady of the Railway Terminus Hotel, Mumbles, sought to quash a con- viction of the Swansea (County) magistrates for allowing persons to remain on her premises longer than was necessary for reasonable refreshments on a Sunday. Mr David Lewis appeared to uphold the decision of the magistrates, and Mr W. D. Benson was for the appellant.. P.C. David stated the circumstances under wnicn Mrs Whittaker was fined. He watched her bouse on a Sunday night, and at seven o'clock he saw two men enter and remain there until 9. • «». he walked in andJou»Jtti« driS? '"Cdid^nTwheJ they -l.pt on .he previous night, but he knew them very well, and that they belonged to Swansea. Witness was subjected to a very severe cross-examination at the hands of Mr Benson, who afterwards briefly addressed the Chairman. He said there was no evidence to justify the magistrates in convicting the appellant. The constable was led away on a false principle, on a false taot, in summoning Mrs Whittaker. He appeared to be under the impression that a person, merely because he stayed longer in a house than he thought was necessary for reasonable refreshment, ceased to be a bona fide traveller. He (Mr Benson) submitted with confidence, that if a man ever possesses the character of a bona fide traveller, that was to say that he was one of a class of persons who the landlady was entitled on a Sunday to serve with refreshments, that character could not be taken away merely through remaining in the house for an hour or so. There might be very strong reasons for them stopping in the house, such as wet or cold weather, and surely, they could not be devested of their bona fides through that. The Chairman: If a man goes to a. place for the sole purpose of getting drink he was not a bona fide traveller. Mr. Benson said that that was S6. In this case the police-constable knew they were travellers when they entered the house, but because they remained there until 9.20 he thought their bona fides ceased to exist. The Chairman: Do you mean to contend that because a man pops into a place and gets drink without any obstacle he is a traveller? Mr. Benson That depends entirely upon what the reason is. It entirely depends. If a. man has gone four miles he is a traveller, and is entitled to reasonable refreshments. Witnesses were called, including Mrs. Whittaker and her daughter, who stated that they carefully ascertained that all persons supplied with drink by them had travelled over the prescribed distance. Mr. Lewis then argued that the circumstances tended to prove that the object of the two men in going to the Mumbles was solely to obtain drink, and the fact that they stayed at the inn the whole time and drank a large quantity of beer proved that. Mr. Benson, on the other side, quoted decisions as to what constituted a bona fide traveller. In none of the cases he had quoted, was it found necessary that the travellers should have business in the place to which they went. With respect to the time of the stay it had been clearly laid down that a stay of three hours in one house and a wa.lk to another public-house did not destroy the character of a bona. fide traveller, and the argu- ment that it did was described by the judge as an ingenious one by an over-clever person." Mr. Lewis replied, and The Chairman, in confirming the conviction, said the fact that the men were not bona fide was evi dent from their going to the Mumbles and immedl ately entering a public house and remaining there all the time. The landlady had not taken sufficient precautions to ascertain their character. There might have been some excuse for Mrs. Whittaker if she had merely supplied the men with one drink; but this was not the case, for the men were found in the inn an hour after the constable first saw them enter, and with fresh drinks before them. This concluded the business of the First Court. SECOND COURT.—WEDNESDAY. [Before Judge Gwilym Williams, and W. Rosser, Esq.] THE EXTRAORDINARY INDECENT ASSAULT CASE AT SWANSEA. CANON RICHAKDS GIVES EVIDENCE BUT REFUSES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. William Flowers, an elderly picture frame- maker, living in Carmarthen-road, was charged with unlawfully and indecently assaulting and beating Mary Ann Kane, a girl of the age of 11 years, at Swansea, on February 24th—Mr. Rhys Williams prosecuted, and Mr. David Lewis defended—The girl's story was that in company with a girl named Murphy, she went to the prisoner's workshop, when he indecently assaulted them both. He gave them a half-penny each not to say anything about it. The prosocutrix's statement was corroborated by her companion, Murphy. Canon Richards, senior priest of the Church of St. Joseph's, was the next witness called. He said that on the Wednesday after the date named, from information he received, he wont to Kane's house. She made a statement to him affecting the prisoner,^ in consequence of which he gave information to the police. By Mr. David Lewis: He went to Kane's house in consequence of a statement made to him by the girl Murphy. Mr. Lewis What day was it when you saw Murphy?-On Wednesday, the 26th, about middle-day. Did she make a statement to you ?—Yes. What was that statement—was it in answer to Questions of yours?—She came to me and ——— Was that the first statement made to you ?— The first statement of which I can give any ^Bu^^Canon Richards ? That is my anwhen was thefirst time Murphy made a state- V +« -rnn ?—I decline to answer your question. mT think von must, Canon Richards. You have nlaced yourself in the position of a witness.-I clX a privilege which precludes me from anWhatD!^ a <l^tion which I yvn7 T ear ffive you the information whichVjave before, that the girl came to me on WNow3dSnon dRichairds; yon know you must no? Answer my questional. regret very much, <J5T that T cannot accommodate you. Please don't think it is any accommodation for fleaseaonv u question you in the me that I am asuing. M • interests of justice and on of thepnaon.sr. What is the privilege you claimJ'-My answer is not out of consideration for you, but really, l must decline to answer your questIon. His Honour: Do yon want to pursue your What is the privilege which the Canon claims His Honour He has stated that he ^precluded by oath, by a sense of duty, from answering y except so far as he has already answered. Mr Lewis I must have an answer. Canon Richards: Well, sir, you can go on tut dooms-day and you will never get any answer other than that which I have already given. Your counsel ought to have advised you to that effect His Honour: We have this fact. Canon Richards has stated that on this Wednesday the girl made a statement to him. and you ask whether that was the first. He declines to give any information, and I do not think I can forcibly tna-ke him answer you. Mr Lewis Oh yes, you can, with due deffer- enee. What is the privilege Canon Richards claims?—He says he cannot answer through his sense of duty. What is that sense of duty ? Do you want a categorical answer from a person occupying the position of Canon Richards ?— Certainly, I want an answer. But I don't think it is necessary. I want to know what privilege he claims. A sense of duty" will not do for a witness to set up as a plea for not answering a question. His Honour (to Canon Richards): Have you any objection to answer this—Whether it was the first occasion that communication was made to you ? Canon Richards That is the very objection I have, your Honour, to give any information, because the object is obviously to ilicit something which- Mr Lewis: Now, now, Canon Richards. You must not say that. I wish t. put questions to you respectfully- His Honour: Pardon me, Mr. Lewis. You are very impulsive this morning, although you came late. Addressing Canon Richards, his Honour said he was anxious that the Canon should not be placed in any predicament. What the learned counsel wished to know was whether the Wednes- day was the first occasion on which he received any information about this matter. In giving that answer he would have the right to say nothing more than the mere reply. Was it on the Wednesday that he had the first conversation with the girls ? Canon Richards: That is the very question which I cannot answer. I decline to do so: Will you give your reasons for that ?—Because a sense of duty precludes me from speaking of anything except the information which I have given—because of my professional character and duties arising out of that professional character. His Honour (to Mr. Lewis): You have had your answer. Mr. Lewis: I have had the same before. He respectfully submitted that there was no privilege for a witness where a. statement had been made affecting the prisoner. Any ordinary individual would be compelled to answer the questions, and he claimed that Canon Richards ought to be similarly treated. He could unoerstand the Canon claiming a privilege, but what was it? His Honour The Canon has given it. He says he considers he is not justified in answering you in consequence of the office he holds. Mr. Lewis: But that will not do. He read an extract from a case in Russell v. Crimes, in which it was distinctly laid down that no one, except solicitors and attorneys, had the right to refrain from answering questions when they were in possession of information affecting the prisoner. His Honour asked Canon Richards what the conversation was at the time referred to ? Mr. Lewis eaid he was not going to be limited in his questions. Was it the first conversation ? That was what he wanted to know. Canon Richards I deeply regret I cannot oblige you. My conscientious objection is in that first question, and I regret I cannot oblige you. I am not speaking obstructively. I am speaking with great deliberation and great forethought, and therefore I do not think the learned counsel need press further on the point. 1 am quite prepared to take the cousequences that may come. Mr. Lewis said he stood there on his duty—also a sacred duty. He stood there on behalf of the prisoner, and he asked the Canon to answer his question. His Honour: I can imagine that you would have the right to ask me to enforce this point under certain circumstances but here, I think it would be competent for me to put this construc- tion upon the evidence of the reverend gentleman. He refuses to answer; that amounts to an admission that there was a conversation. Mr. Lewis That will suit me. I should not ask you to take extreme steps. Canon Richards I do not know whether that will be quite legitimate. His Honour That is the only inference I can draw from your unwillingness, and I must put that before the jury. Itfr. Lewis: I have no further Questions, Canon Richards then left the witness box. The jury having been addressed by the learned counsel, his Honour summed up. After a short deliberation the jury returned a verdict of "Not guilty, and prisoner was discharged- WOUNDING. — Stephano Braechi, an Italian '«ice-cream and chip potatoe man, was charged with unlawfully and maliciously wounding a young collier named James Jones, at Aberdare.— Mr. D. Lewis prosecuted, Mr. Benson defended.— Jones and others went into the shop, which was crowded, and a quarrel ensued, in which Jones was struck on the head. The evidence was contradictory; it was urged, on behalf of Bracchi, that he was quiet and inoffensive, and bore a good character; that the police had no fault to find with him, a.nd that it was, therefore not likely that he would have committed this assault. A man who served the potatoes, was alleged to have struck the first blow, and to have started the affray; and the witnesses for the defence sought to incriminate another Italian in lieu of Stephano. His Honour, in summing up, pointed out that the probabilities were rather in favour of the defence. The jury, a short consultation, returned a verdict of Not guilty," and prisoner was discharged. ALLEGED ASSAULT UPON A DEAF AND DUMB WOMAN.—Edmund John Strawbridge (21), bus driver, was indicted for assaulting Roda Mayoard. a deaf and dumb woman of 35. described aa a laundress and unmarried, and also with feloniously attempting to ravish and carnally know her at L'anwonno, on the 28th January last.-Priloner I pleaded not guilty.—Mr. Ivor Bowen appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Marchant Williams defended. -Proseoutrix gave her evidence through au in; terpreter, aud it was extremely difficult to elicit the facts, as the woman was ignorant ef the; ordinary deaf and dumb alphabet, aud could convey her meaning only through signs. On the day jn question, it appeared, she attended a mission for the deaf and dumb, held at the Pontypridd Townhall and set out with written directions for her home' near Ynisybwll, in a conveyance of which prisoner was the driver. The other occupants leaving on the way, prisoner sat by the prosecutrix, and 'was alleged to have indecently assaulted ber, and to have pulled her out of the bus..Theprosecutrix resisted and cried. She fought with her assailant and scratched his face. Shortly afterwards prisoner again stopped the bus, and renewed the attempt A man luckily came up, who knew a little of the deaf and dumb language, and understanding from the prosecutrix that she bad been assaulted he took her to the house of some people he knew' who had a deaf and dumb daughter, and there she stayed for the night.—Evidence was called showing prosecutrix's condition after the alleged assault from which it appeared that she must have been much illtreated by some one. — Mr. Marchant Williams, in defence, alluded at length to some important discrepancies in the evidence of prose- cutrix.—The jury, after a retirement of twenty minutes, found prisoner not guilty, and he was discharged. This concluded the criminal business.

«. HOW TO SECURE A SUPPLY…

Advertising

ICORR £ FF?ON5 £ NN.

THE VEGETARIAN SOCIETY.

,. IS THEATRE-GOING A SIN?

LORD BRAMWELL ON THE INTOLERANCE…

,. "RELIGIOUS" VERSUS "SECULAR"…

I SOUTH WALES INDUSTRIES.

[No title]

PROTESTANTISM AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM.

[No title]

I' FORGIVING" AND "RETAINING"…

-....--.... THE OLD HAT AND…

Advertising