Hide Articles List

13 articles on this Page





I * .Holywell Petty Sessions


Holywell Petty Sessions Tuesday, January 5th, 1864. These sessions were hold before the Rev. Dr. Briscoe, Rev. E. Evans, R. Sankey, Esq., and G. P. Roskell, Esq. The chief business of the meeting was the hearing of assault cases, of which we subjoin the fol'owing. David Henry Jones v. Edward Edwards, both of Holywell.—Assault.—The defendant was fined 10s. with costs, which were paid. Richard Gratton v. Robert Davies.—This was an assault case in which lr Williams, solicitor, Flint, appeared for the defence. Richard Gratton (the complainant) having been sworn, stated that he was book-keeper for Messrs. Walker, Parker, & Co., at their works at Bagillt, that on the 18th of December last he was called by a little boy to quell a disturbance, (he being one of the parish constables), went out to the yard and there saw his brother Edward Gratton lying on the floor, and Robert Davies was holding him down; told him to loose his brother, when he cursed me, saying You old d- I'll do the same with you." Witness there- upon went to the house for his staff, and on his return was collared by Davies. He afterwards tried to pre- vent witness' entering his own house. In cross-examination by Mr. Williams nothing fresh was elicited. Mary Evans a witness for the plaintiff said she was going to the shop a fortnight to the previous Friday when, by the works, she heard a noise; went on a little distance when she saw a man coming towards her, he was holding Edward Gratton by the neckerchief. Stood there and saw them pass towards Mr. Richard Gratton's house went towards Mr. Richard Gratton's who threatened to send for the police. In cross-examination witness said that she did not see Davies do anything to Richard Gratton. Mr. Richard Gratton's servant said that she heard Edward Gratton call on her master who went out, the witness following; Davies was then holding Edward Gratton on the ground by the neckerchief, Mr. Rich. Gratton came in for his staff, and when he went out again he was collared by the defendant Robert Davies, who would not ailow him to get to his own house. Mr. Wil.iams here made a powei ful appeal on be- half of his client, contending that no assault whatever had been committed. There was no one more sorry than he was at being obliged to bring before a public court family affairs, however, the present case was such that he was iu justice to.his client bound to do so. Mr. Williams here made several remarks as to the general conduct of the plaintiff's brother, the cause of which had given rise to the present action. He stated that on the day in question the defendant ac- companied by his sister (Mrs. Edward Gratton) pro- ceeded towards the plaintiff's house, for the purpose of extricating certain rearing apparel locked up by Edw. Gratton at the shop, and which belonged to their children, he Edward Gratton having stated that the key of the shop was in the possession of his brother Richard, and it was for the purpose of bringing the parties face to face that the defendant took hold of Edw. Gratton by his collar. After some further re- marks bad been made by Mr. Williams, he called Mrs. Gratton who confirmed his statement, whereupon the magistrates stated their desire to hear the case of Edw. Gratton v. Robert Davies previous to giving their decision, which case was there and then proceeded with, the evidence being nearly the same as in the previous one. In cross-examination by Mr. Williams plaintiff admitted that Davies had applied to him for a boy's coat, and he was going for the same when he was assaulted. Again did Mr. Williams contend that no assault had been committed, and urging that should their worships think that the case was proved against his client, that a mere nominal fine only should be inflicted. After a little consultation the magistrates brought in a conviction, and fined the defendant for the first offence on Richard Gratton £ 2, with ZI 3s 2d costs and for the second offence on Edw. Gratton a fine of 5s. with 17s. 8d. costs, or in defaulf to be im- prisoned for six weeks. Mr. Williams here applied for, and obtained an order to protect the future earnings and property of Mrs. Jane Gratten, under sec. 21 of the Act to amend the law relating to Divorce and Matrimonial Causes. The application was founded upon grounds of desertion, refusal to maintain, See. Samuel Balls, supervisor, v. John Needham, Whit- ford.—The district supervisor, Mr. Balls, appeared to prefer a charge against the above-named John Needham for having illegally sold one half-pint of ale, he having no licence to do so. Mr. B. said that the defendant's licence had transpired since the 10th October last, and no fresh licence had been subsequently granted. Mr. Patten, exise-officer, stated that on the 27th November he visited the house of John Needham, and there pur- chased one half-pint of ale, for which he paid 1-id. It was from Mrs. Needham that he got the ale. Mr. Balls having intimated to the bench that the least fine that could be imposed was f,6, whereupon the magis- trates inflicted the same. Thomas Dowall v. Edward Bamford, gamekeeper.— This was an assault case.—Fined Is. 8¡; 13s. 6d. costs. Surveyors of Mertyn Uwchglan v. William Pierce. —This was a charge for having illegally encrouched upon a certain road leading from Golch to Gorsedd, belonging to the township of Mertyn Uwcbglan. —Fined 40s. and costs, or one month's imprisonment. George Foulkes v. Thomas Lee and William Jones. —This was an assault case, in which the complainant was a young man from Liverpool, who had come on a visit to see a friend on the 26th Deeember last. While accompanying his lady love home up the Holloway road, he was attacked by William Jones and Thomas Lee, pulled on the ground, and kicked in the most brutal manner about the head and body. The young woman corroborated his evidence, and laid a complaint th|t she also had been pulled on tlie ground and kicked abfflut by the ruffians. Several witnesses (friends to th» defendants) were called, but the bench determined to put a stop to the carryings on of a gang of country fellows, who come to town, get drunk, and while going home commit all manner of depredations along the road, he (the reverend chairman,) stated he knew the parties who composed the gang, and he hoped the pre- sent case would be a lesson to them. As for this case it was a most dn adful one, and the parties ought to be ashamed of themselves to go and commit an assault on a strange young man, but more especially on the young woman They were bound to protect young women, and they would do so too. In this case William Jones would be sent to Flint gaol for two months, and Lee to one month's imprisonment, which sentence the chairman hoped would be a sufficient Warning to them and to others in future.


Family Notices

Ticketing for Ores at THE…


To flie Editor of the Flintshire…

-0-To the Editor of the 11…

[No title]