Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

8 articles on this Page

--RHYL. ■



PETTY SESSIONS. I USING A FALSE CHARACTER. FRIDAY.—Before Messrs. S. Perks (in the chair). R M. Hugh Jones, Job Foulkes, R. C. Enyon, and J. H. Ellis. A GROCER'S ASSISTANT USING A FALSE CHARACTER, THE PENALTY FOR DOING A GOOD TURN FOR A FRIEND. John Davies, of the Provision Stores, Aberdovey, was charged with giving a false character to John Richards. Opperhill Street, Aberdovey, and Richards, a grocer's assistant, was charged with unlawfully offering his services to the Star Supply Stores, and Mr. Winterbotham, superinten- dent of the firm, with that false character, on the 17th of November. Mr. F. J. Gamlin appeared for the prose cution, and the two defendants were repre- sented by Mr. Edward Roberts (Messrs. Lloyd ard Roberts). Ruthin. Both defendants pleaded guilty, Mr. Gamlin explained that the Star Supply Company carried on business in several towns in England and Wales, and Mr. Winterbotham was their superinten- dent in North and South Wales, and the West of England. The defendant Richards, who was a grocer's assistant, wrote to the Star Supply, offering his services, and sug- gesting that a branch be opened at either Towya Merioneth or Aberdovey, and that being well known in both places, he should become their manager. That application was in due course forwarded from the head office in London to Mr. Winterbotham in Rhyl. Mr Winterbotham, thereupon, sent a form to Richards to be filled 1L.I showing his age, &c, and the names of the last three firms he had bean engaged with, and in what capacity. The form was returned duly filled, and in it, it was stated that Richards had been employed from May 1899 to November, 1900, with Mr. Vincent Davies, Provision Stores, Aberdovey, as counter hand, and that his reason for leaving was to seek a better place. That statement was not true, for Mr Winter- botham afterwards found that Richards bad not been in the service of Mr. Vincent Davies at all. On receipt of the form filled in by Richards, Mr. Winterbotham sent a form to Mr. Vincent Davies, with a request thatit befilled up showing how long Richards had been in his employ, and his capacity and general character. That form was re- turned,land corroborated the statement made by Richards on his form. But Mr. Vincent Davies had not seen that document at all' Mr. Winterbotham on a visit to Aberdovey, | saw Mr. Vincent Davies, who denied all knjwledge of the form, and said that he had I not signed it, and that Richards had never I been in his employ at all. Mr. Winter- botham found that the defendant John Davies, Vincent Davies' son, had filled the form and forged his father's name to it. John Davies, when asked why he had done that, said that he filled the form to do his old friend a good turn. That was the offence charged against the defendants, and it was a case in which adequate punishment should be inflicted. He (Mr. Gamlin) did not ask that the full penalty be imposed, but he urged upon their worships to inflict such a penalty as they considered adequate, and that would act as a warning. Mr. Edward Roberts for the defence, said that he had only been instructed that morn- ing, and after he had been made acquainted with the facts of the case, he was con- strained to advise his clients to plead guilty. He did not complain of Mr.Winter- botham's action in the matter, but he bad a word or two to say to their worships, as from the nature of the charge and the use of the word forgery, they might be led to regard the offence as a more serious one than it was. The defendants had been guilty of grave indiscretion. The defendant Davies was the son of Mr. Vincent Davies, who was a most respectable man. Richards was also very respectably connected, and had been employed for some years as a grocer's assistant. But about two years ago, he had to leave that business on account of his health. For about two years he had been employed as a clerk to a timber mer- chant, but that did not suit him very well, and he thought he would try to get back to the business be understood. For that pur- pose, he got hi. old friend John Davies to give him a character. Davies, it was true, had signed his father's name to the charac ter, but there was nothing very serious in that, seeing that he was instructed by his father to sign all letters. But he bad told an untruth, and that was the chief offence, but no one had suffered by it. If Richards had been engaged on that character, and had misconducted himself, there would have been something in it. As a matter of fact, after all these things bad come to Mr. Winterbotham's knowledge, he engaged Richards to go to Pwllheli. In the case of Davies, he would ask them to deal leniently and bind him over to come for judgment if called upon. Replying to the Chairman, Mr. Edward Roberts said that personally he knew nothing of the defendants, but from the letter he received from the Aberdovey soli- citor, who instructed him, and other letters he had, be said they were respectable men. The Chairman said he would like to see the letters, and Mr. Roberts said he scarcely thought they would be evidence, but he was quite prepared to hand them in. The Chairman said he was aware the letters would not be evidence, and he only intended to read them for what they were worth. The Clerk suggested that it would be better not to read the letters. It would create a precedence. Mr. Gamlin said he objected to the crea- tion of precedence, and the letters were not read, Mr. Vincent Davies was then put in the box, and said that John Davies, his son, practically managed his business for him, and signed all letters He bad never had cause to complain of his conduct, and he ) never heard a complaint against him before. Richards he had known for years, and so far as he knew, he bore a good character. He had never heard a word against him. Richards had never teen in his employ, but he had been in a shop at Towyn, and he believed that for the last two years he had been employed with a timber merchant in Machynlleth. The Chairman said that the justices con- sidered the case a very seriout one, and that both defendants were equally guilty. They would be fined £2 10s., and X.2 10s. costs each, in default, 21 days hard labour. The money was paid. DRUNK I IN CHARGE' AND OTHERWISE. Arthur Price, carriage driver, Vaughan Street, was fined 5s. and 7s. 6d. costs for being drunk ia charge of a horse and car- riage in High Street, on the 8th of Decem- ber, as proved by Inspector Pearson. For being drunk in Wellington Road, on the 8th of December, John Symond, 38, Ernest Street, Rhyl, was fined 2s. 6d. and 7s. costs. For a similar offence attended with dis orderly conduct in Queen Street, on the 18th of December, John Evans, saddler, ] Aquarium Street, was fined 5s. and 6,3. 6d. ] costs. < William Pohers labourer, Mill Bi k j Road, was fined 2s. and 6s. 6d. eost" for bei g drunk in Vale Road on Christmas t Day. i £ MENTOR AND PUPIL IN POAC q ING. f i Daniel Jones, quarryman, and William ( Williams, wheelwright's apprentice, both of i Brynfe!in, Dysert'i, were charged by PC ) Cheney, with trespassing in pursuit o? «, conies on land situate at Graig Fawr, Dyserth, on the 3rd of November. Both pleaded guilty. ■dr. Gamlin for the prosecution, said that he had not seen tbe de:endants before, but now seeing that Williams was but a youth) and probably acting under the influence ot Jones, he would consent to the case being withdrawn against him on the payment of costs. Williams agreed to do this, and the case was withdrawn on the payment of 5s. 6d. Daniel Jones an old offender, was fined XI, and 19s. 6(1. SCHOOL CASES. Thomas Jones, Brickfield Terrace, was fined 3s., and 2a. costs for neglecting to send a child to school. Thomas Davies, Sussex Lane, J. Hughes Millbank, and Robert Davies, 1, Sisson Street, were each fioed Is., and 2s, costs for similar offences. CAN A MAN BE VERY DRUNK AND WISH A POLICEMAN A HAPPY NEW YEAR. Evan Evans, 9 Morfa Bach, was charged bv P.C J. K Hughes, with being dru-ak nd disorderly on Saturday night, Decem- ber 22nd. Hughes stated that whilst on duty in Morta Bach, he saw the defendant fighting in the street, with his brother, both being drunk and using bad language. P.C Tromans assisted him to separate the brothers, and they each took one to his home. Defendant said he had had some drink, but was not disorderly. He could not be so drunk, when he wished the policemen a happy new year, and they replied 'The same to you, both of you' (laughter). Evans is a man with a history, however, and he was now fined 5s. snd 8s. costs. ASSAULTING A POLICEMAN WITH A PAIR OF TONGS. John Evans, Victoria Road, brother of the defendant in the above case, pleaded guilty to being drunk and disorderly at the same time and place, and was fined 5s., and 6s. costs. There was another charge against him of assaulting P.C. Hughes in the execution of his duty. This he denied. For the prosecution it was stated that after the defendant had been taken home, after the first disturbance, he came out to the street and created a second disturbance, causing a large crowd to collect. When re- quested to go in, he aimed a blow at the officer's head with a pair of tongs, but Hughes by ducking his head avoided the blow which fell on his shoulder. The im- plement was forced from him, and defen- dant was locked up. For the defence, it was stated that Evans was sitting on the wall in front of his bouse with the tongs in his hands, when Hughes and Tromans came past. Hughes made a grab at the tongs, and a struggle followed, j but no blow was struck. I The case was considered proved and de- fendant was fined 10s., and iO. 6d. costs.