Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

4 articles on this Page

IIUTHI ..r-\....,,--,r-''-''''''



POLICE COURT. Monday, before Chancellor Bulkeley Jones (in the chair), The Lord Lieutenant (Col. Corn- wallis West), The Mayor of Ruthin (Dr. J. M. Hughes), Mr. J. Watkin Lumley, and Mr. W. T. Rouw. THE REMITTANCE OF COURT FEES. Inspector Thomas (Denbigh), of the N.S.P.C.C. appeared to apply for the remit- tance of the court fees in a case in which he secured a conviction against a man named Ishmael Roberts for cruelty to his children, Roberts being now in prison. Replying to the justices, the Inspector said the society was maintained by voluntary con- tributions, and that it was now the custom in many courts throughout the country to remit the court fees in cases of this nature. Col. West said that the society was doing admirable work, and deserved all assistance and sympathy. The bench granted the application. THE NEW CLERK RETURNING THANKS. The Chairman said he had received a letter from Mr. Fanning, Amlwch, thanking him (the chairman) for his kindness, and requesting him to convey his thanks also to his brother justices for electing him as clerk of the Ruthin Justices. To be clerk to the Ruthin justices was indeed an honour, which was rendered greater by the circumstances under which he was appointed. It would be his endeavour to satisfy the bench. THE RECENT APPOINTMENT OF JUSTICES' CLERK. MR. LUMLEY AND THE LORD LIEUTENANT. The Acting clerk (Mr. John Roberts) having obtained the permission of the bench to make a personal explanation, referred to the corres- pondence which had been published in the 'Free Press'last week, by the Lord Lieuten- ant, with reference to the appointment of magistrates' clerk. In that letter the Lord Lieutenant stated that he doubted the opinion given by him (the acting clerk) as Deputy Clerk of the Peace, with reference to the mode of procedure for the election of clerk, ques- tioning the necessity and expediency of making the election publicly in Petty Sessions. In justice to himself, he thought it was only right for him to say that his opinion on that ques tion was never asked, and never given. The only opinion he was asked to give, -was as to the validity of the election by ballot. The Chairman I must remind you Mr. Ro- berts. It is true your opinion was not asked in court, but I had privately asked you whether the election should be in open court, or whether the justices might retire. You gave me your opinion then, that the election ought to take place in open court, because the Act of Parlia- ment says that the election shall take place in special sessions. You gave that as your opinion. The Acting Clerk No sir, you roust have misunderstood me. I had a conversation with you on Saturday preceding the election. You introduced the subject and reminded me that it was absolutely necessary for us to be cautions as to how the election was conducted, and I reminded you, that under the provisions of the Justices Clerks Act of 1877 that the election must take place in special sessions Then you sir, said, 'of course it must be in open court.' The Chairman It is rather a distinction than a difference. We don't differ very much. The Clerk The way the letter appears in the press has a tendency to reflect upon me. I did not express the opinion. Mr. Lumley I think it scarcely fair that the communication sent by the Lord Lieutenant, in the first instance should not appear in the press along with the answer given by Mr. Pember. We all know that Counsel will give an opinion upon questions or matter in the way in which it is asked. At present it is entirely a one-sided case. The public are asked to accept the opinion of a very eminent coun- sel, but it is all one sided, so far as the inter- ests of the public are concerned. It is an ex-parte statement, and I should like the Lord Lieutenant, if he be so good, to give to the public the same benefit as he has given them by pub'ishing the opinion of Mr Pember, by pub- lishing also the communication he sent to Mr. Pember. This matter arose from my asking a question in court here, as to whether it would be illegal if the appointment should be made in camera, but you, sir, as chairman of the court evidently were of the same opinion as myself, for you at once said, 'the doors will not be closed. It will be an open court.' There was no further opinion given by the clerk, and I scarcely think it fair towards the clerk that the Lord Lieutenant should say that the Deputy Clerk of the Peace should have said it was legal when he did not say so. I respectfully ask the Lord Lieutenant now, to give to the public the benefit of the communication he sent to Mr. Pember Lord Lieutenant I have nothing to say. This is not a place to discuss this matter at all. Mr. Lumley I don't wish you to discuss it any further. I am merely making a comment upon it. The Chairman: What has been done, has been rightly done. Mr. Lumley But there was no necessity of publishing the letter at all. Moreover, there is one word in the letter to which I take excep- tion. The Lord Lieutenant says that to ap- point a clerk publicly might lead to a mi8 chievous precedent.' I don't know what the mischievous precedent' can be. The Chairman said it appeared to him that the expression that the election must take place at a special session, which sessions were always held in open courts at Ruthin, implied to him that the election should take place in open court. Mr. Pember however, seemed to be of a different opinion, and their own Chair- man of Quarter Sessions agreed with him. Howevet the whole matter was now ended. This closed the incident. A PUBLICAN DRUNK ON HIS OWN LICENSED PREMISES. Goodman Humphreys, licensee of the Swan Inn, Well street, Ruthin, was summoned for being drunk at his own house on the 18th ult. Defendant for whom Mr. Edward Roberts, solicitor appeared, pleaded not guilty. This case was heard by Mr. Lumley alone, the other magistrates viz:—The Warden, Lord Lieutenant, The Mayor, and Mr. Rouw, retir- tog ixov& the bench on account of their being ng trustees to the Ruthin Charities to which the house in question belonged. P.P. William Jones, Llanfair, stated in evidence, that on Saturday evening the 18th of last month, he was on duty in Ruthin. About 10 30 p.m. he was down in Well street, and his attention was called towards the Swan, and he saw a crowd standing opposite the door, the same being mostly composed of women. He went into the Swan, and in the kitchen he found a man named Llewelyn Rowlands and his wife, with another man named Williams. Mrs. Llewelyn Rowlands was a sister to the landlord, and she was in the act of putting back her hair when he went in. There were a num- ber of empty glasses on the table, and the beer was running from the table on the kitchen floor. Llewelyn Rowlands had some cuts on his hand, which was bleeding. Rowlands made a state- ment to witness, and he saw the young woman who assisted in the bar, asking her to fetch the landlord. Humphreys then came from the kitchen on the other side of the bar. He was in his shirt sleeves, and was in the act of wip- ing his face with a toweL He was drunk and came to witness in the passage. Witness called his attention to the condition of the kitchen, and Humphreys said 'It has been a little family row, between me and my brother- in-law. It's all right now, thank you.' Witness asked him to come to the light in the kitchen, but he refused. Defendant could scarcely speak, and witness found he was drunk. Wit- ness got hold of his arm, with the intention of taking him to the light, but he refused, and pushed witness out into the street. At 11 o'clock, witness was again standing opposite the Swan. Customers were coming out of the house, and he saw the defendant, who was in a drunken state. He reported the case to Superintendent Jones, who ordered a prosecu- tion. Replying to Mr. Lumley, Sergeant Woollam said that a subpoena had been taken out against Llewelyn Rowlands, to come as a wit- ness, but the latter could not be found, and the same had not been therefore served. Cross-examined by Mr. Edward Roberts, witness said that defendant was staggering in the passage. This being all the evidence for the prosecu- tion, Mr. Edward Roberts addressed the court for the defence, saying that the defendant had been subjected to annoyances for a considerable time by his brother in-law and sister, who came to the house continually to borrow money and to make disturbances. Defendant was a respectable man, and when the police officer alleged that he was drunk, defendant was busy serving his customers. However, Llewelyn Rowlands and his wife became very offensive, and Humphreys took hold of one or both of them for the purpose of turning them out.. The women shouted and created a disturbance, and the defendant was undoubtedly greatly lagita- ted. The police constable was no doubt told that there was a row in the house, and formed the conclusion that somebody must be in drink. He found Humphreys on coming in, in an exited state, and from that concluded that he was under the influence of drink. The sug- gestion now was, that the date upon which the alleged offence took place and the date when the information was taken out indicated that the prosecution of this man was an afterthought. Humphreys had not been drinking on that day, and through the evening was in the house serving his customers. Should the bench con- vict the man, it would be a very serious matter indeed for him, and the probabitity was that he would be turned out of the house neck and crop; and besides that, a conviction would endanger the property itself, As a matter of fact, hundreds of pounds had been lost as the result of paltry cases of this kind. Mr. Lumley, interposing, said the court need scarcely go into that matter. Mr. Edward Roberts said he was merely pointing out that the evidence adduced for the prosecution should be supported to the hilt before his worship decided to convict. There was only one man, viz., the police constable himself, who said that Humphreys was drunk, but he would call several witnesses to prove that he was not drunk. Mr. Lumley recalled the police constable, and asked for his memorandum book, which he examined very carefully, handing the same also to Mr. Edward Roberts. Defendant was then put in the box, and on oath corroborated generally the statement made by his advocate. He said he had suffered considerable annoyance from Llewelyn Row- lands as to lending money, and had alterca- tions with him. It was very busy in the house on Saturday, and he himself practically did all the work of serving the customers. On that night his sister asked him for the loan of six. pence. Her husband and himself got into words, and had a bit of quarrel, which, how- ever, was only a family quarrel. It did not last for more tnan two minutes and nobody else interfered. He turned his sister out. He was very much excited and the police constable came in just at the time. He had a glass or two during the day. He drank about four in a day, and on Saturday drank no more than usual. There was no truth whatever in the suggestion that he was under the influence of drink. He served the customers, and then closed the door at 11 o'clock. Cross examined by the officer: Defendant said he did not bite the hands of Llewelyn Rowlands. He did not see the hand bleeding at all on Saturday, but saw it on Monday when he saw a scratch on it. The Officer: How do you account for that scratch ? Defendant: One of his fingers must have got between my teeth. How many beers had you that day? Two glasses of beer. Do you drink whiskey? Yes, occasionally. Did you do so that night? No. Not after 10 30 p.m ? Perhaps I got one in the excitement. Did you see me after that ? Yes, about II o'clock. And did I not say that if you could not look after yourself, you were not a fit and proper person to look after the house ? No. I don't think you did. Re-examined by Mr. Edward Roberts Def- endant said he never went near the officer, and never put his hand upon him at all. Mr. Lumley How many drinks do you take in a day ? Defendant four glasses of beer I generally take. You don't answer my question. How many drinks do you take in a day? I cannot recall it now, sir. Take last Saturday, how many drinks did y, have ? 1 "'ttake more than four or five. I am hot in IIA, habit of taking much drink. And ,,i swear this? Yes.I.V. Ann Jou. < was the next witness called. She said she wan 18 years of age, and was a servant at the Swan There was a quarrel between Humphreys an Llewelyn Rowlands on the night in question Humphreys was sober. She would not say but that he had taken a glass or two, but he was going about his work as usual, and served his customers until 11 o'clock. Cross-examined by the Officer: She said she did not serve her master with any liquor that night. Mr. Lumley Are you prepared to swear that Goodman Humphreys was sober that night ? Witness I don't say but that he had a glass or two. No, no, answer my question: Are you pre- pared to swear that Humphreys was sober that night? He was good- You answer my question. I don't want any explanation. Are you prepared to swear that Humphreys was sober that night? Witness here hesitated for some time, whereupon, Mr. Lumley said, why don't you answer the question. Was he sober or drunk? Witness He was not quite sober, sir, but he was not drunk. Harriet Williams, Railway Terrace, Harriet Jones,Llanrhydd at Jane Williams, Llanrhydd St., also gave evidence to the effect that they visited the house about 10 30 to 11 o'clock on the night of the quarrel, and swore that Humphreys was not drunk. Mr. Edward Roberts who had had an inter- view with the first witness Anne Jones, asked permission to recall her. Mr. Lumley: 1 don't think it's right tor you to call her after having interviewed her Mr. Edward Roberts; Very well, sir. Mr. Lumley: I can only come to one con- clusion. The police have no witnesses, but a witness that has bean called for the defence has admitted that the defendant was not sober. Therefore, lean come to no other conclusion, but that the defendant was drunk. He will be fined 5s. and costs.