Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

5 articles on this Page






PUBLIC-HOUSE CASE AT LLANDRILLO. MAGISTERIAL PROCEEDINGS AT COLWYN BAY. At the Colwyn Bay Police Court, on Saturday, nearly the whole of the day was occupied in the hearing of the adjourned cases in which four men named Edward Williams, Robert Jones, William Price, and Hugh Jones, all of Penxhynside, Llandrilio- V yn-Rhos, were charged by the local police with being drunk en licensed premises, the Ship Hotel, Llandrillo-yn-Rhos on Thursday night, March 5th. Mrs Jones, the landlady of the hotel, was also summoned on a charge of selling drink to drunken persons. The cases had: been twice adjourned, and the in- terest therein was increased in consequence of the circumstances .which attended the previous hearings. The magistrates on the bench were the Rev W. V enables Williams (chairman), A. O. Walker, Esq., John Lewis, Esq., J. Porter, Esq., Thomas Parry, Esq., Dr Montague Venables Williams, and Joseph Jones, Esq. Mr Cart-wright, of Chester, again appeared to prosecute, whilst Mr Samuel Moss, bar- rister, instructed by Mr Alun luoyd, now appeared for the defence. A large number THE EVIDENCE. Acting-Sergeant R. H. Jones then entered the witness-box. Examined by Mr Cart- wright, he said): I have been 13 years in the constabulary, and have been acting- sergeant foT three years. I have been at- tached to the Colwyn Bay district for four and a half years. I recollect Thursday, the 5th March. I was on duty near the Ship Hotel. It would be about 8.50, and I was on my way to a conference point at Mochdre in company with P.C. Pugh, who has been in the service about eight years. We turned into the Ship Hotel. When I got into the lobby I could hear singing. I went into the kitchen, and immediately I opened the door, the singing stopped. I found the four de- fendants, and another man—William Roberts —in the kitchen. They were drunk and there was a glass of ale before each of them. I looked at each of the men carefully, and called the landlady's attention to their drunken state. I said, "These five men are drunk," and also told her that some of them had been refused at the Imperial and Central Hotel, Colwyn Bay, about 6.30. In addressing those words to the landlady, I pointed to Robert Jones, Edward Williams, and William Roberts. The landlady remarked, "I know they are drunk, Mr Jone-s, but I have ordered them to go out after they finished drinking their beer, and singing that song." I then took their names, taking that of Wil- liam Roberts first, Edward Williams next, Robert Jones next, William Price next, and Hugh Jones last. Williams was standing on his feet. Robert Jones and William Price also got up, and William Roberts was lean- ing over the settle. They all gave me their names with the exception of Price, who de- clined for some time. He did give me his name, but not what his profession was. Edward Williams tried to drink out of his glass the second time, but failed, and put it back on the table. He said "I have paid for this glass, why can't I drink it ?" Robert Jones drank his beer, and walked out stag- gering. Edward Williams followed, and Price got up and made for the back of the premises. He too was staggering. The other defendants-Hugh Jones and Wit- liam Roberts—remained in the same posi- tion as they were when I first saw them. I advised the landlady to get them out. There were four persons playing at bagatelle. There was also in the kitchen another man named Roberts, but ho was sober. His wife was also there, and she was employed at the hotel. Earlier in the evening, I saw William Robert^, Edward Williams, and Robert Jones in the town. They were com- ing from the direction of the railway station. Thev went to the Imperial Hotel, and were jostling one against the other. I met one of the waiters by the door, and told him to tell the barman not to serve them. I told him that because the men were staggering about the streets and were drunk. 11 They were not served at the Imperial Hotel to my knowledge. They came out almost im- mediately afterwards, and walked up the street still staggering. I went up to them near the Post-office. WiJSiams was pull- ing at the coat of William Roberts. I told them they must conduct themselves better in going up the town. They then went up to the Central Hotel. I ran in by an- other entrance, and told the barmaid that three drunken men were coming and that she was not to serve them. They came cut whilst I was standing up the corner, and went, up the Conwav-road. The barman afterwards tcM me they had not been served I reported the case in the usual way, and summonses were issued. SEVERE CROSS-EXAMINATION. Mr Moss: Which of the men in your nninion was the worse for drink ?—Edward Williamg. Who was the next in the degree of drunk- enness?—Robert J on es. And who came third ?—Price. You have told us that you turned into the Ship Hotel. What for?—I was visiting on my way to the conference point. How long is it since you have visited the Ship Hotel before?—It is some time. Was it four months since you had been there before?—It may have been.. I believe that before that your visits to the Ship had been more frequent l-Yes. Were you ever refused drink there -No, l never. I never ask for some. Then how was it that your visits durmg the last four months had been 11111-1 had paid frequent visits before. I had heard a complaint against it. i 9 T That was prior to this four months i I oould not give you the exact date. What made you keep away for so long?- We can visit there when we like. Another officer might have been there in tie mean- tlJYou visited the hotel on this particular occasion on your way to the conference point, did you not?-Yes. What made you go past it that night, We went one way and came back the ether. I think that some time ago a circular was issuc:d bv the chief-constable requesting publicans'not to serve police officers whilst on duty. Have you ever been refused drink at the Ship?—No, never And was it because of that your visits be- came less frequent?—No. Come now. Do you swear that i—xes, x do swear positively. Did you serve the order I have referred to personally upon the publican, ?—No. How is it that you are so sure about the order of these names. You have stated in evidence that you went up to the Ship Inn, and that the singing which you heard in be lobby stopped as soon as you opened the door. You have also stated that you complained to the landlady, and that she said, "The men are drunk, but I have ordered them to go out after they have drank their beer, and finished the song." Did you say that at the last h,earing?-Yes, I did. Then, you took the names ?—1 did. What makes you so sure. Did you place the names in a. pocket book or something Yes, I did. Let me look at it.-It is my own private rNever mind that. Let me see it. (The witness then handed his pocket-book over to Mr Moss). Was this note made at the time?—xes. What was your idea in turning over so many pa^es ?—IT. was the first I opened. What is the meaning of a leaf being torn out?—It was smugged on the night in 19 question. It was wet. At the last hearing you said it was not wet.-N o. I did not say so. I said it was a wet night, and that the leaf was soiled by the rain. „ „ m When did you tear the leaf out/—I wo days before the adjourned hearing.. And vou kept the book without tearing out the leaf for seven days ?—I did. Will you explain to the court why you kept the soiled leaf for seven days, and tore it out two days before the adjourned hear- in cr? It was because I did not require it. The Chairman: At the last hearing you swore positively that, you tore out the leaf that night. I have got before me a trans- cript of vour evidence. Witness What I said was that I tore out the leaf two davs before the last court, in consequence of it having been soiled by the rain. The Chairman (reading) You said, It was not, wet." 11) Mr Moss (reading) You said, "I pulled it out in the road, just to see if I had snm papers in it. I did not tear it out wilfully." Now, which of your two statements is cor- red 1-1 took the leaf out wilfully two days before the last court. My statement was that it was a wet night, and that I brought out my book to look for some letters, and that, it £ r»t. wet. Why did you leave it for seven days with- out taking it out?—I had no particular reason for doing so. Mr CirtwT'Vl'.t (mt^O'-sing); I do tic* know what all this has to do -with. case. of drunkenness Mr Moss It 11 a great deal to do with it. I will explain it before I have finirdW if my friend will have a little patience. (To witness) You sav you were about 200 yards from tho hotel when you took out your book ? --Ye:s-. Wa.q Pugh with you ?-Yes. It was dark and ,ramin 1-Yeg. You have entered in this book, "March 5th. Visited Ship Hotel, and found four persons there drunk." When did you write this ?—Then and there. What had you on the leaf which you tore nnt ?—The names of witnesses. Were they all called 1-Yes. Bv whom ?-Bv me. Was David Roberts called by you?—No. • Was Mrs Roberts ?—No. THE AUSTRALIAN CRICKETERS Can play with anybody the National Game, and enjoy with everybody the National Tea-Delicious Mazawattee. Were their names in the book ?—Yes. Then why did you say you called them?— They were not my witnesses. You said this very minute that they were. -X 0, I did not i'.8.y so. (Reading) John Jones, David Hughes, William Hughes, David Roberts, Mrs Roberts, and Mrs Jones. "Were those ail called ?-T11ù first three were my witnesses, also Edward Morgan. I did not place the name of Mrs Jones in my book, as I did not think it was necessary. You have said to-day that Hugh Jones and William Roberts remained behind the others at the hotel ?—Yes, they did Then three of them went off the premises I and two remained ?—That is so. At the last hearing you stated that two of them went oft" the premises, and now you say that three of them went?—Yes, I do. We are having a different version in near- ly every instance. Now do you say that Pugh was with you all the time ?—Yes. I think it was Edward Williams who ask- ed if he could drink his beer, as he had paid for it What did you say in reply ?—I said nothing but called the attention of the landlady to him, telling her to get him out. Did vou not say, "You have paid for the beer, please yourself?'—No. When did you first find out that these men were drunk ?—I saw them in town. Which are they ?—Edward Williams, Ro- bert Jones, and William Roberts. How could you tell that the other two de- fendants were drunk ?—I saw Price stagger- ing across the kitchen. And what about the other man 7-1 could tell by his demeanour, and he could hardly speak. You said at the last hearing that all but four remained seated ?—They all stood up except Robert Jones. Which is correct 1 Mr Ckrfcwright (again interposing) I really do not see what we '-i-ave to do with notes of evidence. Witnesses may give diff- erent answers on two occasions. It all de- pends on the way a question is put. It has nothing on earth to do with this case. The Chairman: Surely Mr Moss is en- titled to go into the question of credibility. Mr Cartwright: First of all it must be shown that the notes from wlllch you have been quoting are oorrect. That has not yet been proved. A mere narrative is one thing, and question and answer is another. Mr Moss They are Mr Alun Lloyd's notes. Mr Cartwright: Mr Alun Lloyd was en- gaged in the case, and therefore it ia very unlikely that he was able to take an accurate note. If the notes were taken in shorthand, they could no doubt be relied upon. Mr Thomas Parry I wish to ask the cleric whether he supplied the chairman with notes of evidence. The Chairman Yes, he did sir, and I consider I was perfectly justified in asking him for them. Mr Cartwright: It seems to me quite ciear that the other justices should know about the They have no notes. The Chairman You must address that remark to the derk. I wrote to Mr George to the effect that I had: myself taken very full notes—I am very particular—but that on some points I was deficient, and I asked him whether lie would kindly furnish me with a transcript of the evidence, and he did so. Mr Cartwright: That at once puts an end to Mr Alun Lloyd's. The Chairman How so ? Mr Cartwright: Because it snows the un- reliability of his notes. If your notes were unreliable, how much more so are those of Mr Alun Lloyd ? Mr John Lewis: Did the derk supply the chairman with questions and answers ? The Clerk The notes are not verbatim. Mr Moss There is no olerk in the king- dom who takes verbatim notes of evidence. The notes you have been reading, sir, tally very much with the ones I have. Mr Walker: In the case of an indictable offence, notes would be perfectly useless, I unless they had been read over to witnesses and signed by them. Therefore, I do not think the notes in this case can be taken as evidence. Mr Cartwright: At the ^Liverpool Assizes some time ago rt Wa. 'l1nA""r'ood that depositions, not orlly must) be carefully en^ro-^ed, but must also be read over to, and signed by the witnesses. Mr Moss: My friend knows perfectly well that that order refers to criminal cases. Mr Cartwriirht: This is a criminal case. Mr Moss No, it is not. Mr Cartwright: I submit that all cases in which imprisonment follows the non-pay- ment of fine are criminal. Mr Moss: I submit that I am justified in putting questions to the witness lrased, on my notes. (To witness): I ask yon now, sergeant, whether you did not state at the last hearing that all but- four remained seat- ed in the kitchen ?—They were seated when I first entered the hou. Did they all get up?—All besides Hugh Jones. Who asked you if he could drink his beer, having paid for it?—Edward Williams. What did you say in reply 1-1 said no- thing, but sailed the landlady's attention to his condition. Was Edward Morgan there?—He was. Would he be in a position to see and hear what took place?—Yes. Then if he says in evidence that you said in reply, "You can please yourself," will he be making a mistake ?—Yes, if he will say so. Whoever says that will be making a mis- take ?—Yes. When you first saw these men, what drew your attention to them ?—Their rowdy con- duct. When you say rowdv c-induct, you mean that they were drunk ?—Yes. When you went to the Imperial Hotel, who did you see 1-The waiter. Is he going to be called as a witness?— Ho is not in the country. Was he in the country at the time of the last hearing?—No, he had gone away two davs previously. Don't you know that at the last hearing Mr Alun Lloyd saw this man ? Mr Cartwright Mr Alun Lloyd was not here. Witness: I am now speaking of the waiter and boots. Did you see the barman at all ?—Yes. Did you tell him not to serve the men ?— No. I did not. V on a message to that effect?—Yes. Who did vou see at the Central Hotel ?— Tho barmaid. Is she to be called to-day?—Yes. Why was lle not called at the laab hear- in? ?—She was present in court. But whv was she not called ?—That is for my superintendent to say. I suppose you did not think it was im- oorbmt t-iat these three men should be identified by witnesses who saw them at Colwyn Bav drunk ?—Yes. it was of course important that they should beidoentified. Would you know the waiter if you saw him ?—Yes. I believe these men were not insolent or rude to you at the Ship, were they?—Price was. He was tJlP man who refused to give you his fiame?—Yes. ö When von first entered the V-M. did you wit. until ü song was over?—It was over I went in. If Morgan stites in evidence that thn was nr+ over when you went in. and vou Y*iit<v} until it was finished, he a mistake?—It oypr at anv rate. Put answer m-r question ?—Yes. Vprv w n. There -no difficulty tsehed Did vou tell tho fjP had — think afternoon ? No, I printed to three of them you tnnt the men were nft asked to stand up ?—I v do. v l I Were they asked to. or were they not?- Not by me at any rate. I Were they asked by anybody else 1-Xot to my knowledge. Then if P.C. Pugh the men were asked to stand np, he will be making a mis- take —Yes. How many persons were there altogether in the kit-jhen ?-There were six. If Pugh says there were only five he will be making a mistake ?—Yes. WITNESS RE-EXAMINED. •Br Mr Cartwright: Have you any oh- jeet to serve beyond your public duty in prosecuting these men ?—None whatever. { What is the meaning of the question my friend has put to you in reference to you being served with drink ?—I suppose it is in consequence of the order issued. A difference has been suggested between your evidence and that of Pugh. Have you arranged what Pugh is to swear ?—No, not one single word. It has been suggested that Pugh and your- etlf has been squaring it together. Mr Moss (interposing) I never said so. Mr Cartwright: No two men ever des- cribed the same thing in the same language. That fact is admitted. (To witness) Now, about this bock. What is it?-It is my or- dinary pocket-book. You are not speaking of what is contained in the book, but of what you saw; with your own eyes ?—That is so. And therefore the book is perfectly sub- ordinate t.o these charges ?—It is. It was proved in evidence at the last hear- ing that all these men were at the Ship Hat,el ?-Ye, every one of them. And this book of yours is of no import ance ? -No. Do you ap-am say, after you cross-examina- tion by Mr Moss, that the' men were drunk ? —I do. CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. P.C. Pugh (who was Sso Severely cross- examined); also, William Hughes, painter; E. J. Morgan, Llandrillo; P.C. "WiTiam Jones,'A. Warburton, barman at the Imperial Hetel; F. Bullock, Colwyn Bay; Samuel Leathley, Colwyn Bay; and Fanny Mitton. barmaid at the Central Hotel, also gave evi- d-enc?. THE DEFENCE. Mr Moss, in opening the case for the de- fence. sail: It muse be present to the minds of each and every one of your worships that very much depends in this case on the inter- pretation which you may put on the word "drunkenness" When rs a man drunk, and when is he sober? One man may describe another by saying that he was sober, whilst a second woutd say he was drunk: a third man would perhaps say that he was fresh, and a fourth, that he was under the influence of drink. It must be clea.r in your minds that the Act of Parliament wais not directed against' a vague thing like that. Sensible men will agree. that an Act of Parliament, in referring to drink and drunkenness, must refer to them in such a manner as would leave no doubt upon the minds of magistrates that the men were drunk, or otherwise. Have you such a case before you to-day ? Is thera any one of your worships who is confident that these four men on that particular day were actually drunk within the meaning and in the sense of those legislators who were re- sponsible for the framing of the Act? You are practically confined to the evidence of two police-officers. I do not know that your worships can safely rely upon the evidence of a. man like Police-sergeaUt Jones. I say to- day that his, ide-nee has been of the greatest .gr possible contradictory character from its very beginning to ita very end. In no single par- I ticular doe3 he agree will any one witness I who followed him. What does he do? Hs takes some names, and writes them down in lis notebook. I have always been led to suppose, especially In a case where the police arc concerned, that notes should be made by the officer at the time, and that his note- book is regarded by him as almost sacred. This point goes a long way at assizes and quarter sessions. In this case, the police- officer simply has the name of the persons against whom summonses have been issued. and, mind you, the charge against one cf those men was not proved. And this man was sailing in the same boat as the others, except -that he was worse. The notebook contaikis the names of other persons, and one leaf, Oil which, -werA -urrittp.n omp nampc. was even torn out. When, why, and for what object? I submit to your 'Worships that there must be something behind the scenes, or else that leaf would not' have been torn out First of a/, we were told that it was torn out 200 yards from the hotel, and on the same night as the occurrence. Tc- d'jT, we have been told that it was torn out seven days afterwards. Why does not the police-officer bring particular witnesses here which woiii(I enable yourworslrps to get at the true facts of the ease? He forgets what his duty is. He is supposed by law to be impartial, and hold the balance fairly, and I submit to your worships that even that fact alone, at the assize courts, would be sufficient to justify a judge in sweeping away the evidence. You also expect men who have been taking proceedings of this kind to be fairly well agreed. He t-otd you that he did not wait until the song was finished, and when I asked whether, if another witness said fhfferenfy, he would be wrong, he re- plied, "Yes." It appeared from his state- ments that every other witness for the prose- cution must be wrong, and this police-ser- geant right. Police-constable Pugh says there were five men in the kitchen, at the Ship, whilst Sergeant Jones says there were six, or vice versa. Anyhow, whatever Pugh says Sergeant Jones contradicts. The ser- geant has told us there was no question put with regard to the drinks, whilst, on the other hand, Edward Morgan distinctly stated that in reply to Edward Williams the sergeant said he could please himself whether he drank t I the beer or not. Having drawn your nor- I slips' attention to theae facts, I ask you whether you are going to trust to the mem- ory of this pofioe-sergeant. It may destroy the future of these young men. if they axe, convicted, nd. I must ask you not to convict them on the evidence which has beep brought before vou. The whole story cf the pocket- book is*a mystery which I do not. attempt to explain. New, we have to see how far the evidence goes in support of that of the police- sergeant. The evidence given by the constable (Pugh) does not go in support of it at ail'. In fact°»'t contradicts it from beginning to end. The evidence of Pofice-constabe James and his wife is confined to Robert Jones only. I shall call a witness who will tell you that he saw James on the day following that upon which he cut his hand—-and I might here state that the road is in such a condition as would justify anyone in flding. As a matter of fact, Mr Alun Lloyd fell on the same road whilst collecting evidence—and that he told him that Robert JcTic-is was not drunk. James told Robert Jones himself, on the following day, that he was not drunk on the night in question. Besides, if he was drunk, would not an officer of James's experience consider it his duty to report him to his chief-offioer ? When we come to the barman, there ir, no evidence of identification on their part, and the same may be said as to the boys who gafe evidence. I must now ask your worships not to give any credence to the uncorrobo- rated testimony of the po!ice-serg>eant. I shall call witnesses who will tell you that they saw these men at the time, and imm-c- diately after this incident, and that th-ey were not drunk. I am not going to attempt to prove that they were sober, as it is the duty of the prosecution to move to your en- tire satisfaction that they were drunk within the meaning of the Act under which they ara charged. Hugh Jones, one of the defendants, was then called, and said he drove with rwo other defendants to Rhuddlan on the day n ques- tion. They called at Abergele on their way home, and had a small bottle of beer. They did not call at either the Imperial or Cen- tral Hotels, but drove direct to the Ship Hotel, L £ an drill o, where he remained in the company of Win. Roberts. Robert Jones, W in. Price, and Edward Williams. None of them were drunk. The police^&erge&nt came in and told them he had seen five of them: in Colwyn Bay about five o'clock, which was untrue. Cross-examined, witness said they only had two glasses of beer on the day in question, one at the polughing match, and one at Aber- gele. There was plenty of liquor flowing about at the ploughing match. They were perfectly sober. Wm. Price, another of the defendants, gave similar evidence, it being a direct de- nial that they had been to Colwyn Bay, or were drunk on the night in question. Cross-examined, he -aid he was not a tee- totaller, and had been fined in that court fo-t being drunk and disorderly. David Davies. a labourer, living at Petn- rhynside, gave evidence to th-eeffecttnat, he saw Wm. Price at the Cross Keys. Penrhyn- side, about half-past nine on the night in question, and he was then perfectly sober. He also saw Robert Jones soon after ten o'clock, and he also was sober. He had a conversation afterwards with Poiice-oonstahSo James, and that officer told him that Robert Jones was sober on the night in question. Mr Cartwright: On you oath, will you swear that James did not say he had not seen him Jruail-, e- pt on the night in question. Witness: I said I had not seen Robert Jones drunk, and James said, "I have iterer seen him. David Roberts said he was at the Ship Hotel on the night in question, and saw the defendants there. They were all sober, and there was no noise with the exception of a little singing. Mr Cartwright Will you swear on your oath that the men were sober 1-1 will. Mrs Ann Roberts, wife of the previous witness, gave similar evidence. Mr Moss was proceeding to call John- Ev- ans, labourer, Penrhynside, when The Chairman asked whether he had snj more material evidence to offer. Mr Moss replied that- he had a number cf other witnesses "who ssw the defendants at the particular time in question, and imme- diatefsr Tds- W- -,1. •would ffiy that they were sober. I. A CONVICTION. The Chairman having remarked that ho and his fellow-magistrates did not deem it advisable to hear more evidence, the bench retired, and after an absence of 20 minutes, returned into oourt. The Chairman said: A majority of the bench have decided to convict Edward Wil- liams, Robert Jones. and William Price. of being drunk on licensed premises. From that conviction I and another justice dissent, as there is not, in our opinion, sufficient evi- dence to justify a conviction. The case against Hugh Jones is dismissed. Edward Williams, Robert Jones, and Wm. Price, are fined 2s 6d each. Mr Cartwright applied for advocate's fee, allowances to witnesses. The Chairman said the magistrates had de- cided to allow witnesses 2s 6d ea;h, but to decline to allow advocate's fee. The fine and costs amounted to M 15e 6d in each case. THE CASE AGAINST THE LANDLADY. The case against Mrs Ann Jones was then proceeded with, before A. O. Walker, Esq., and Thomas Parry, Esq.. the other magis- trates having retired.—After a lengthy hear- ing, a fine of JB1 and costs was inflicted.