Hide Articles List

4 articles on this Page


Special Sessions.


Special Sessions. CONWAY, SATURDAY, JANUARY IITH.-Before Henry Kneeshaw, Esq. (Chairman); Albert Wood, Esq.; and Councillor Dr R. Arthur-Prichard. ALLEGED FALSE PRETENCES. A respectable-looking man named Charles Stewart, described as a bicycle-dealer, and living at 232 Grantham Road, Dalston, London, was brought up on remand on a charge of receiving under false pretences, from Frank Ellis Wood- head, of Oakfield, near Conway, the sum of £ ,6 igs.-P.S. Rees said that Mr Woodhead saw an advertisement in The Morning Leader, offering a bicycle for sale. After some correspondence with the defendant, Mr Woodhead sent a Postal Order to the defendant, who sent him the bicycle on approval. On the bicycle being returned as unsatisfactory, Mr Woodhead applied for the return ot his money, when he received a letter (in the handwriting of the prisoner, but purporting to be from the prisoner's brother) saying that the prisoner had gone to America, refusing to take delivery of the bicycle, and ridiculing the idea of upsetting the bargain and returning the money.— Mr David A. Romain (Stoke Newington, London) asked that the police-officer, as he was not a pro- perly qualified advocate, should not be allowed to re-examine the witnesses. He was not unlikely to ask questions ina manner not in accordance with the rules of evidence. He (Mr Romain) wished to say that the police had been most kind and courteous. —The Bench said that they would keep a careful look-out that the police-officer did not transgress in the matter Mr Romain was afraid-of.—Freder- ick William Coucher, advertisement-clerk of The Morning Leader, produced (and gave evidence as to receiving on November 5th) the manuscript of the advertisement which appeared in the paper of the following day. On December 3rd the adver- tisement was re-inserted, with an alteration of price. The prisoner had done business at the witness's office for the last two seasons, to the witness's knowledge, and he believed previously. The witness produced, as received bv post (in the ordinary course of business) from the prisoner the cutting of the advertisement to be altered. Cross-examined, the witness said that there were six advertisement-clerks at his office. He could not say whether he received the advertise- ment personally, or whether he had seen it prior to receiving the subpoena. He searched for the advertisement "copy among the files of "copy"; and—so far as he kiiew,-that was the first time he had seen it.—Frank Ellis Woodhead said that he resided at Oakfields, near Llandudno Junction. He saw the advertisement produced in The Morn- ing Leader of December 3rd, and on that date (or on the day following) he wrote to the address given, and in reply he received the letter pro- duced, dated December 6th, 1895 and signed C. Stewart." On December 7th, the witness sent a letter to the defendant, and enclosed a Post Office Order for £ 6 19s. The witness then received the letter produced, dated December 9th, and signed "C. Stewart." On December 11th, the machine arrived, and the witness called for it at the Junction Station, and mounted it to ride it home. On arriving at Oakfields, he sent a boy with the machine to the Junction, to return it to the defendant by the next train. He wrote a letter to the defendant, and in reply received the letter produced, dated December 12th. and signed "J. Stewart." He then communicated with the police. The witness was induced to send for the machine by the advertisement, and particularly by the statement that the bicycle was a Whitworth, and he knew the Whitworths to be good machines. He did not know whether the bicycle he received was a Whitworth. Cross- examined, the witness said that he had been a bicyclist for thirteen years. He had bought three machines, and he had sold one. He had bought one machine through an advertisement. About December 3rd the witness was consulting The Morning Leader and other newspapers, to see the bicycle advertisements. He did not know whether there was such a machine as the Whitworth Model," and he thought that that meant that it was one of the Whitworth's Com- pany's make. There was no stop in the adver- tisement between any of the words in the des- scription "Whitworth Model Pneumatic." The witness had not noticed that there were many advertisements in which the word "genuine" was used. —Hare Mr Romain explained that the word genuine was used to indicate that a machine was made by the maker whose name was used.—In further cross-examination, Mr Woodhead said that on December 5th, he wrote a letter to the prisoner, asking him to let him have the bicycle on approval, or he would buy the bicycle outright if the prisoner would return the money should the bicycle prove unsatisfactory on a week's trial. The witness did not think it neces- sary to make inquiries about the bicycle, when he was allowed the machine on a week's approval.— Mr Roinain here got the police to produce the machine, and to read the name of the makers Kingsland Manufacturing Company, London, England." In further cross-examination, Mr Woodhead said that he objected to the machine because it did not appear to be sound. The crank was not firm, and the right pedal more than O ice went round without the wheel going round. The witness's trial of the machine was along a mile of roadway, and there was about forty yards of hill. The witness wrote to the defendant that the machine was altogether unsatisfactory. If any machine had exhibited the defects that machine did, he would have returned it.—Albert Morgan, a clerk in the employ of Mr Forest, 184a Cambridge Road, London, said that on December 20th he went to the prisoner, and procured from him the document produced, undertaking not to manufacture on his (the prisoner's) premises. He saw the prisoner write the document. Cross- examined, the witness said that Mr Forest was the landlord of the defendant's premises (a house a id shop), which were let at L48 a year and taxes. The rent was paid three months in ad- vance. The reference the witness got with the prisoner was a good one. The letting was a temporary one, the prisoner offered the rent in advance, and the landlord accepted it. -John McBlain, foreman in the employ of the Rudge- Whitworth Co., Holborn Viaduct, London, said that he had been fourteen years with the Rudge people. He saw, at Dalton station, on January 6th, the machine produced, and it did not corres- pond with the impression that would generally be given by the desdription Whitworth Model Pneumatic "in the advertisement now shown to him. There was no such machine as the Whit- worth Model Pneumatic." The machine produced, would cost about £5 to manufacture, and the selling-price would be about L7 when new. The lamp was not suitable for that machine, but for a high bicycle. The machine was made up of a cheap sort of tyre, cheap sort of fittings, etc. The Whitworth people made a special point of their bearings, the high finish of the machine, and the detachable chain wheel, none of which the machine produced had.—Cross-examined, the witness said that he did not think that the Whit- worth Company would be satisfied with so small a profit as the difference between £ T) and £7. Whitworth had not a patent of their machine's general outline. Their machine was practically the Humber frame. Every small maker would try to copy Whitworth or Humber. The witness's firm called their machines by the name Whit- worth coupled with a distinguishing number. The machine produced had the outline of the Whitworth, excepting in details.-P.S. William Rees (i i) stationed at Llandudno, said that on the 6th inst. he received the prisoner from the London police, at Hackney Police-Station. In reply to the warrant, the prisoner said, If he was a straitforward man, he would have summoned me and not have issued a warrant." The prisoner was then in custody. The witness then said It is alleged that you sent a letter in another hand- writing, saying that you had gone to America. Mr Romain here objected to evidence being given of what the prisoner said in answer, and cited as grounds for his objection the rulings in The Queen v. Male and in The Queen v Gaviii.-The magi- strates reserved the point, and Sergeant Rees said that the prisoner said that he had written the letter, but that his solicitor had said that it would be all right.—In answer to the Bench, Sergeant Rees said that the prisoner made his statement voluntarily.—For the defence, Mr Romain submit- ted that it was a purely merchantile case, in which the parties should be left to take their own remedy.—The Bench intimated that there was in their opinion a case to be answered.—Mr Romain addressing the Bench, said that his client was a picture-dealer and cycle-dealer. As to the ma- chine's description as a Whitworth Model," that did not imply that it was a kv hitnvortli, but that it was an imitation of the Whitworth machines. As to the further statement in the advertisement, "worth thirty-five pounds," mere puffery or undue praise was not an offence.- The Bench intimated that there were other points in the case which were of more importance to their mind.—Mr Romain said that, if he demolished the false pre- tences, the case would collapse. He compared the alleged false pretences with those in The Queen v. Bryan, in which the Court for Crown Cases Reserved decided that the conviction must be quashed. The alleged false pretences in Bryan's case, were infinitely stronger than in the present case. The defects in the machine mayor may not have been caused in transit. Whatever passed subsequently, was immaterial to the ques- tion of falsa pretence. The machine was re- turned to the defendant, who did not accept delivery he might have kept both machine and money, had he intended to swindle. But he refused to take in the machine because it was in bad order. It was a matter for the County Court, and not for criminal proceedings.—The Bench, after retirement, said that it was a suspi- cious case, but said there was a doubt, and they would ive the prisoner the benefit of the doubt. -Mr Romain said that his client would return the money.—The Bench said that they could make no order.—The prisoner was then released, and Mr Romain paid over to Mr Woodhead- the £6 i gs.

Inquest at the Denbigh Infirmary.

Conway and Llandudno County…