Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

6 articles on this Page

RUTHIN. /"../""'........-'-'_//"--'-"_/""'"",/-"'--'-""'j--'''''''-./''''''-''-_-'''-'''--


RUTHIN. "j- POLICE COURT. MONDAY.—Before the Rev. Chancellor B. O. Jones (presiding), Capt. Cole, Messrs. G. Blezard, G. Fosberry Lyster, J. Watkin Lumley, the Mayor of Ruthin (Dr. J. M. Hughes), Col. Saxon Gregson Ellis, Dr. J. R Jenkins, W. G. Rigby, W. T. Rouw, E. O. V. Lloyd, and Col. R. Gregson Ellis. Mr. John Roberts acted as clerk. THE DEATH OF MR. LLEWELYN ADAMS. At the outset of the proceedings, the chairman rose and said-Before the formal business of the court commences to-day, I have a melancholy duty to perform, and that duty will be explained by two resolu- tions which I shall submit to my collegues, and which are as follows: That the Justices of the Petty Sessional Division of Ruthin express their deep regret at the loss they have sustained in the death of their clerk, Mr. Llewelyn Adams, who, acting in that capacity for 44 years, discharged the duties of his office with eminent ability, tact and discretion. That a copy of this and the preceding resolution be sent by the acting clerk, Mr John Roberts, to the family of the late Mr. Adams, with the assurance of the justices that they sincerely sympathise with them in their bereavement' I think these resolutions, I may say, although drawn out by myself, do clearly express the feelings of myself and colleagues, and any lengthened comment is quite unnecessary. I can only add that I feel the loss of Mr. Adams as a personal loss. I have known him intimately for over half a century in his private as well as his public life, and I am sure you will all agree with me in saying that his conduct of the business of this court has been exceedingly able. He had an extensive and accurate acquaintance with the statutes relating to criminal law, and he always exercised great tact and dis- cretion in his relations with the magis- trates. He only interposed when necessary, and as far as possible, left the business of the court to be conducted by us. In con. elusion, I can only say that his death is a loss to the public generally, and a personal loss to those of his friends who survive him. I now beg to move these two resolu- tions. Mr. G. Fosbery Lyster: I have great pleasure in seconding the resolutions moved by the chairman. Mr. E. O. V. Lloyd said he also desired to support the chairman's resolutions, and wisned to say publicly that he felt they had lost a very active and able officer in Mr. Adams, and one they all wished to pay a tri- buteof respect toat his death. Heserved the bench faithfully for a long period of years. The reason he did not attend the funeral, or sent his carriage, which he would have wished to do was, the desire of the family that it should be as private and as quiet as possible. Mr. William Lloyd said, that as town clerk of the borough, and now senior practioner in this town, he wished to en- dorse the remarks of the chairman, and also to join in the expression of condolence with the family at the loss they had sus- tained by the death of the late Mr. Adams. During the time he had had the opportunity of attending the court, he had always re- ceived from Mr. Adams the utmost civility, courtesy, and kindness, and the profession had lost in him a very able and brilliant lawyer. Mr. Edward Roberts said that as repre- senting his brethren practising in the court, he would like to supplement what the chair- man had already so ably and eloquently said, and, of course, to confirm and substan- tiate every word that bad been said, and to say on his own behalf taat for a period of over 20 years, during which he had had business connections with Mr. Adams, he had never had the slightest friction with him. As a lawyer, Mr. Adams was pre- eminently the father of his profession in this country. He was a good lawyer, and his opinion was always valued both by the court and by his clients. Mr. John Roberts said that having had the honour of serving under Mr. Adams for a large number of years, he begged to thank the bench for the kind resolution of sym- pathy which had been passed, and he would take care it was conveyed to the proper quarter. The resolution they were good enough to pass just a month ago, gave Mr. Adams great satisfaction and gratification, and he felt sure the resolution the bench had just passed would be very consoling to the family. The Bench now retired, and were to gether in the ante-room for a considerable time. It is understood that the question under discussion was the steps to be taken with the view of filling the vacancy caused by the death of Mr. Adams as clerk of the court. A POLICEMAN FINED FOR AN ASSAULT. A PECULIAR CASE. P.C. Evan Williams, stationed at LJanar mon, was summoned by Mr. Wm. Hughes, who lived as a lodger at the Cross Keys Inn, Llanarmon, for assaulting him on the 26th of December. Mr. Edward Roberts, Ruthin, appeared for the complainant, and Mr. A. O. Evans for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. The complainant on being called said he was a widower, having some children. He worked at Pant y dellt, Llanarmon, and he lived at the Cross Keys, Llanarmon, the wife of the proprietor Richard Davies, being his sister. The mine stopped for the Christmas holidays on the Friday, and he observed the Monday after Christmas day as holiday, going to LIanferres for the pur pose of seeking a house. He returned to the Cross Keys a little before six o'clock that night. Immediately after his arrival, Mr. Williams, the policeman, came into the house. He was then sitting on the bench in the porch near the door. P.C. W illiams told him to go to bed and that unless the complainant went to bed he would be obliged to take him out, as he was drunk. Witness said he would not go, as he was living in that house, and it was not yet bed time. Then the constable took hold of him by the collar and dragged him out into the yard in front. Witness went back, and the officer again dragged him out. At last he struck witness on the temple, but witness could not say with what, nor could he say whether he was struck more than once. He did not know whether the officer had a stick or not. Witness then became unconscious. When he recovered, he was sitting in the porch on the bench, and his sister was there, but the policeman had gone. He was put to bed, and next day the doctor saw him. He suffered from a wound on the eye, and a sprain to the arm from which he still suffered. By the Chairman: He was living and sleeping in the house at the time. It was the blow by the constable and net the fall which rendered him unconscious. When struck, he fell backwards. He did not bear the landlord tell the constable to turn him out. Cross examined by Mr. Evans: Witness I was at the Druid Inn and the Red Lion in Llanferres district in the afternoon of this I I day, and when he got home he was sober, but he had had some drink. He denied that he had any quarrel with the landlord, when he returned home, and the landlord did not ask the officer to remove witness from the premises. The policeman said witness was drunk, and witness said he did not care for the policeman as he could do him more harm. When Williams endeavoured to remove the witness, the latter tesisted, holding on to the door, to the settle, and to the porch. He only tried to get back to the house. Dr. William Davies Jones, practising at Ruthin, said he was called to see the pro- secutor at Llanarmon on Tuesday, the 27th ult., in the afternoon. He complained of great pain in his right shoulder, and pains all over his body, but the feature which wit- ness observed was an extensive contused wound over the left eye. The wound im- plicated the left eye entirely, so that wit- ness could not then determine whether the eye had been. ruptured or not. The parts were very much discoloured. The arm ap peared to have been severely sprained, which might have been caused by a fall. The wound might have been produced by a heavy fall on a blunt object, but the doctor was of opinion that it was more probably caused by a blow with a blunt instrument, or with a fist. The fact that the wound was not lacerated was more indicative of a blow than a fall. Jane Davies, wife of the landlord of the Cross Keys, stated that her brother was lodging at the place, and she had charge of his children. She had a whistle in the house, which was used when they wanted to call the children. Her husband had just been using the whistle when the policeman came in on Dec. 26th. The policeman told her brother he was drunk, and that he could take him up as a drunken man. Witness had given the complainant no drink that day. When the officer took hold of the complainant, the latter fell backwards right on his l ack, and witness thought he had a blow. This was outside the house, and the officer dragged the prosecutor to the porch, and asked for water to wash his face. Then the constable left complainant sitting in the porch. The landlord did not interfere at all, and so far as witness knew, did not re- quest the policeman to put her brother out. They only spoke in reference to the whistle. Her brother was not quarrelsome. In the coarse of cross-examination, the witness said she did not know whether the officer required the water to wash the complainant's face, or for the complainant to drink. Witness was excited and did not get the water. At that time, her brother's face was bleeding very much. The police- man had said her brother would have to go to bed, or that he would have to take him away. The prosecutor and her husband had words together sometimes, but she did not admit that they quarrelled. She did not hear her fiusband give the policeman orders to turn the complainant out, but it was possible that he did so. The Chairman said that the law contem- plated a man being turned out of a public house if he were a stranger, but in this case the complainant was living in the house. Noah Griffiths, residing at Cwm, Llanar- mon, and a farmer, stated that he was on the way to chapel on the evening in ques tion. When passing the Cross Keys, he saw William Hughes endeavouring to enter the house where he lodged. The next thing witness saw was William Hughes falling backwards, apparently in consequence of a blow and the constable was the only person near. yi Mr. Edward Roberts said he would not call any further evidence, but would reserve his other witnesses to give rebutting evi- dence, if necessary. P.C. Evan Williams, who was then called by Mr. Evans, said that on the Monday night in question, the sound of a whistle attracted his attention to the Cross Keys. It was then about six o'clock. He heard quarrelling in the house, and went towards the sound. On going into the house, he found the landlord (Richard Davies) 'and William Hughes quarrelling. Hugh Jones, Maesgwyn. and the landlady were in at the time. On seeing witness coming in at the door, Richard Davies said 'turn this man out;' pointing to William Hughes. Witness then went forward to the kitchen, and asked Hughes what is the matter with you man why don't you be quiet Richard Davies is master here, and you must be quiet and go to bed.' The reason why he said this to Hughes was, because he was drunk and disorderly, and would not leave the landlord alone. There could be no doubt but that the man was drunk. During a conversation he had with the landlord, the latter requested him to turn Hughes out. He then went round the table, and took hold of him by the collar. Hughes fell on the kitchen floor, and pulled witness down with him; He then lifted him up by the armpits, and half carried him out, but be again fell with his arm under him. Hughes resisted very much, and witness had some difficulty in getting him out. Witness then returned into the house to fetch his cape and stick, and again met Hughes in the passage coming back into the house. He took hold of him under the armpits and again haif carried him out, but Hughes fell on his head foremost. Mrs. Davies Was in the passage at the time, and saw what took place. There were stones rising up in some parts of the pavement o itside. Afer the fall, Hughes was bleeding from a spot above the eye, and also underneath it. In his (witness) opinion, the man fell in conse- quence of being drunk. Witness asked Mrs. Davies to bring him a piece of rag and water to see whether he bad hurt himself, but she refused. Be then told her if you don't take care of this man and put him in a safe place, I shall get Edward Davies's cart and take him to Ruthin.' They attended to him then, and begged of him not to take him. There was no more force used by wit- ness in taking him out than was neces- cl sary. Mr. Lumley Did you know that this man lodged in this public house 3 Witness Yes. Mr. Lumley Then you knew that he had no.-home to go to except in that public house for the time being Witness: I did. Mr. Lumiey: Did you intend when turn- ing him out of the house to bring him to the lockup, or did you intend to turn him into the street whatever befel him ? Witness: I tried to persuade him your worship— Mr. Lumley Answer my question. Witness: I was requested your wor- ships— Mr. Lumley Answer my question (laugh- ter). Witness. Will you please ask it again, sir" Mr. Lumley In turning him out, was it for the purpose of bringing him to the lock- up, or leave him on the roadway whatever might befel him ? Witness For the purpose of letting the landlord getting peace in his own house. Mr. Lumiey: Answer my question. We wiiJ come to that again. Witness: I was requested by the land- lord to turn him. ut for him to get peace. Mr, Lumley: But you knew that he lodged there ? Witness: Yes. On' being further questioned, the con- stable said he was not aware that he had no power to turn a lodger out of his house. He did all in his power to persuade the man to go to bed. He did not know he was so drunk, until he came to handle him. The Chairman: But you turned the man out of the house, and that is the peculiar part of the business. You had a right to turn a stranger out, but here you have turned out a man who was there living. Witness: Yes, but I was requested by the landlord to do so. The Chairman: But what was to become of him ? Witness: I did tell them that if they did not put him in a safe place, I would take him to Ruthin, and then they attended to him. To Mr. Edward Roberts: I had come to the conclusion that the man was drunk be- fore I touched him. The Chairman, after further argument, said they had here the extraordinary anomaly of a man being turned out of his own home. When the constable was asked what he intended to do with the man, he gave no satisfactory an- swer. It is a very extraordinary case-in fact, the funniest case I ever heard. Jesse Roberts, a young man called as a wit- ness by the defendant, stated that he met the complainant in the road on his way to the Cross Keys. Complainant was wobbling a little in his walk, and appeared to be drunk. Hugh Jones said he was at the Cross Keys on the occasion in question. He saw what oc- curred in the inn, but nothing that happened outside. He saw the officer and the landlord speaking together, but did not know what they said. Then the officer removed William Hughes who appeared to be under the linfluence of drink. Richard Davies, the landlord of the inn, who was called at the request of the bench, said he remembered William Hughes coming to the Cross Keys on Monday, the 26th. He had no- where else to go. Witness could not say he was drunk, bat he had had some drink. They had no quarrel-at any rate not anything of any consequence. They were not shouting. He had just whistled for the children to come in. At this point Mr. Evans put the following questions to the witness:- Did you tell the officer to take the man out ? Witness: I told him to send William Hughes to bed. For what reason? The policeman is the keeper of the peace. Was the peace broken ? It might have been. I wanted Hughes o go to bed. You were trying to get your brother-in-law to go to bed ? Yes. Was that because he was drunk or sober? He was between the two. You say your directions were to the police- man to send him to bed ? Yes. Did you tell the policeman to turn him out ? Nothing of the kind. Where else could he go 'P Cross-examined by Mr. Edward Roberts: Did you tell the policeman to use force to get the defendant to bed? No. Knowing that the policeman was the keeper of the peace, I thought it was his duty to send him to bed. But supposing that he was not willing to go? I cannot reply to that. Did you see the scuttle between your brother- in-law and the policeman ? X o. I never moved from the bench. Mr. Evans then addressed the court for the defence, remarking that the case was a most serious one for the defendant. He contended that in this particular case the assault had not been proved, and pointed out that the officer stood alone, his testimony being practi- cally set against the evidence of all the wit- nesses for the complainant. The bench convicted the defendant, fining him 20s. and costs, including 10s. for the advo- cate's fee. DRUNK ON LICENSED PREMISES. A BATCH OF DEFENDANTS. Robert Peters, 23 years of age, living at Grianrhydd, Llanarmon, was summoned by P.C. Evan Williams for being drunk in the Cross Keys Inn, Llanarmon, on Sunday, the 25th of December, during prohibited hours. Defendant admitted being in the house. The Bench Do you know that you had no right to be there ? Defendant: We were a little thirsty, sir (laughter). A fine of 2s. Gel. and 6s. 6d. was imposed. John Peters, brother of the last defendant, was also summoned for a similar offence, com- mitted on the same day, and the same occa- sion. Defendant said he was in the house, bub had heard it said by several eld people that the dis- tance from Grianrhydd to the Cross Keys was over three miles. P.C. Williams said he had paced the distance, and found that it measursd 4,510 yards, which was under three miles. Defendant was lined 2s. 6d. and 7s. 6d. costs. The following persons were also fined 2s. 6d. and 6s. 6d. each for being in the Cross Keys on the same occasion:—Abram Peters, John Jones, Rose and Crown, and Robert Jones, Rose and Crown. CHARGE AGAINST THE LICENSEE. Richard Davies, licensee of the Cross Keys Inn, Llanarmon, was then charged with selling intoxicating liquors to the above defendants during prohibited hours. P.C. Evan Williams said that at S p.m. on the 25th of December, he found the defendants in the previous case at the Cross Keys, and in reply to his questions, said they had come from Talon Road and South Sea, whereas they were from Grianrhydd. The defendant Davies said he had asked-the men where they came from, and was told from South Sea and Coedpoeth. Being satisfied that they were bona tide travellers, and not knowing them, he opened and served them. Having heard further evidence, the bench considered that defendant had served the men thinking that they were bona fide travellers. The police was perfectly justified in bringing the case to court, but under the circumstances, it would be dismissed. William Hughes, the prosecutor in [the first case heard, was charged by P.C. Williams with being drunk on licensed premises, to wit, the Cross Keys, Llanarmon, on the 26th of Decem- ber. Mr. A. O. Evans prosecuted on behalf of the police, and Mr. Edward Roberts defended. Defendant pleaded not guilty* Similar evidence was tendered as in the first case. The bench considered it was a doubtful case, and would, therefore, give the benefit to the defendant. The case was, therefore, dismissed. A CHARGE OF POACHING DISMISSED. IsaacVaughan was summoned by P.C. Edwin Bithell, on the charge of having unlawfully used a gun for the pursuit of game on Saturday, December 10th. Mr. Edward Roberts appeared for the pro- secutor. P.C. Bithell stated that, on the day in ques- tion, he saw the defendant in a field belonging to Mr. Thomas Jones, Castle Farm, with a gun in his hand. He was moving along the hedge, and then came towards the witness, who was concealed in the hedge. On his reaching the Jane called Lon Goch, leading from the Llanfair Road to Maesllan, the constable stopped de- fendant, and took the gun from him. It was contended by Mr. Edward Roberts that this constituted an oftence under the sec- tion under which the summons had been taken out. but the bench held that there had been no evidence of the use of the gun for the purpose of poaching, and dismissed the case, the gun being returned to the defendant.

[No title]