Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

18 articles on this Page


[No title]





—r===——=========: MURDER BY…


[No title]



RHYL PETTY SESSIONS. MONDAY.—Before T. G. DixoD, Esq.; Rev. G. A. Butterton, D.D. W. Pryce Jones, Bsq. T. Murray Browne, Esq. and Dr. W. T. Girdlestone. } AN ADJOURNED CASE. John Williams, Wellington Road, was char- ged by Mrs Ann Hughes, Hollingwood Ter- race, with assaulting her on the 9th of April. -Mr Edward Roberts, prosecuted and Mr C. W. Bell defended. From the opening of Mr Roberts, it appeared that the complainant went to search for her i'!on-in-law, and found him in the company of defendant. She knowing the company in which her son-in-law was, beseeched him to leave the publio house where they were. The son-in-law promised to follow her, but defen- dant interposed and spat a mouthful of tobacco juice into complainant's face. That was the assault complained of. Mrs Hughes said that on the 9th of April, she followed Joseph Hughep, her son-in-law to the North Wales Hotel, and as she was afraid he would get into a row, as be always did when in company of defendant, asked him to go home, saying that the defendant was not very decent company for him to be in. De. fendant commenced to curse her, and she n going out he followed her and spat some fobs woo mice to her face. In cross-examination by Mr Boll, complai- nant said the affair took place between two and three o'clock Mr Edwards the landlord was present, but she did not notice who else there was in. She went to the police station and two officers were sent to the North Wales Hotel. It was not a fact that she and her husband were turned out of that house. William Roberts, Ffynongroew Road, said he was by the North Wales on the day of the election (9th of April). lie saw the parties to this action, and the defendant spat into Mrs Bnghes's face. By Mr Bell: He did not know what took place inside the house. Mrs Hughes did not try to strike defendant. 0 By the Chairman: Defendant was in the doorway, and complainant on the parapet, when the offence was oommitted. Mr Bell for the defence said he was instruc- ted to give the charge a complete denial-that ) bis client did not by word or deed interfere with Mrs Hughes, and as a matter of fact Mrs Hughes was the one turned out of the North Wales. Mr Edward Edwards (called for the defence) said that on the day in question Williams went intu the North Wales, and immediately after Mrs Hughes and her husband followed like savages. They were ordered out, and Mrs Hughes struck defendant. By Mr Roberts He heard Mrs Hughes asking her son-in-law to leave the house. De- fendant bad not been in the house pr eviously since before dinner. By Mr George: He could not swear that defendant did not spit into complainant's face, but he did not see it. Mr Edward Jones said that he was in the public house in question. Mrs Hughes came in and went up to defendant and held up hot- hand above his head, and during some words he heard defendant saying "I did not do it." Complainant went ont, and her husband, wh > had a broom handle in his hand, called defen- dant out to the street. Defendant refused to go, as, he said, he would be locked up if he did anything in the street. Hughes brandish- ed the broom handle about, as if be wanted to tight. Mrs Hughes went in a second time, and struck the defendant. All the company then went out, but he (witness) went to another room, and he could not say whether Williams spat in Mrs Hughes' face 01 not. In reply to Mr Roberts ha was sure that complainant's husband called defendant out, and not his son-in-law. The very words he used were "Jack Sarn come out Thomas Owen, car-driver, said he did not see Williams do anything, but Mrs linghes struck defendant. He did hear what the conversation between the parties was. By Mr Roberts: He could not swear whether WilJiams spat into complainant's eye or not. P.O. John deposed that he was fetched by complainant. When he went to the North Wales Tlotol he saw the defendant, as quiet as could be. Complainant and her hus- band were very excitable. Complainant told him that defendant spat in her face, but be could not see any mark. When faco to face with defendant; Mrs Hughes charged Wil- liams with assaulting her, but she did not say in what way. He (witness) refused to take defendant into custody, because he could not see any cause for it. A cross summons was taken out by Williams against Mra Hughes, and that was proceeded with before the justices decided upon the first case. WiPiams swore that Mrs Hughes sprang at him and struck him. He never did anything to her. By Mr Roberts He did not hear Mrs Hughes saying that he was not fit company for her son-in-law. Her son-in-law was in better company than himself (laughter). He refused to say whether he was with Hughes when he shot his arm. Mr Roberts might continue to ask the question for a month, he would not answer. it was decided to consider the evidence given in the previous case as given in this one, and Mr Roberts addressed the Bench for the defence. Both cases were dismissed, both parties to pay their own oosts. ANOTHER or THE SAME FIRM." Elizabeth Anne Hughes, daughter of the complainant in the above case, charged John Williams, the same defendant, with assaulting her on the 28th of March. Mr. Bell (for the defenoe) called attention to the fact that the alleged offence was com- mitted on the 28th of March, the summons was not served till the 23rd of April. Mr. Jones-Hughes said that the case was re- ported a fortnight before. Complainant gave evidence, and in ex- planation of the fact that the summons was not taken before, said that her convenience" would not allow her to take it out sooner. William Charles Hughes (brother to oom- plainant) was called in support, and said that defendant went into the house and asked if the father was in. In some further con- versation respecting something defendant had to sell, defendant said that it was all com- plainant's fault that her father did not buy the goods. He (defendant) afterwards swore and cursed at her, and struck her twice. There was no blood nor swelling on her face. Defendant was in the house for twenty minutes. Case dismissed without calling Mr. Bell for the defence, complainant to pay 3s, 6d. costs. DRUNK AND DISORDERLY-—NOT GUILTY. Martha Bithell, Foryd, was charged by P.O. Taafe with being drunk and disorderly in Wellington Road, on the 17th of April. The officer said that on the day in question he heard a row in Wellington Road. He went there and saw defendant knocking at the door of the Sun Iun, and was cursing and swearing and using very bad language. He persuaded her to go home, and then be found she was drunk.—In reply to defendant witness said he saw her at the door of the Sun, Mrs Hughes, of the Sun, corroborated the statement of the officer regarding the disorder. ly conduct, but could not say whether defend- ant was drunk, but she was very excited. Defendant's husband was in having some beer, and his wife followed immediately after. Defendant denied being drunk, but admitted she was very excited, and said it was caused by something her husband had done. Mrs Anne Hughes, Wellington Road, de- posed that defendant called in her house on the night of the alleged offence, and that she did not appear to be drunk. She could not swear one way or the other. Mrs Fanny Davies, said she was with Mrs Bithell at 10.30 on the Friday night in question. There was nothing the matter with her then. By Taafe: She met defendant at the Liverpool Arms. i The Chairman said there was no doubt defendant was exoited, and from what they knew there was some cause for it. As there was a doubt in the case she would be dismis- sed. JUST A DROr TOO MUCH. Hannah Mary Crosby, Bedford street, plead- ed guilty to a charge cf being årnuk and in- capable in Ffynongroew Road, on Sunday morning, the 12th of April. She obtained the drink at home-she had it in the house, bat it was very little she got.-Fined 5s. and costs. Fourteen days allowed to pay. SURETIES OF THE PEACE. -NO CASE. Philip Nixon, Wellington Road, sought to have Mr. James Fielding bound over to keep the peace. Mr Nixon, when the case was called, said he wished to have the matter adjourned as his solicitor (Mr Alun Lloyd) was unable to attend that day. The Chairman reminded the applicant that he prayed for protection against Mr Fielding, of whom he was in bodily fear, and sooner the better he was bound over. The applicant said he apprehended that if M-P. Fielding committed a breach of the peace during the fortnight it would be the worse for him. The Chairman And it might be th9 worse for you.—After some further conversation Mr Dixon said that the case must either be pro- ceeded with or withdrawn. Mr. Nixon said he would go on with the case. Complainant said that on the 20th of April he was at illi-s Clarke's, or Foryd, when de fendant went in and jailed George Watson by name saying he wanted him, and asked, Is that b Nixon ? Subsequently, as he was going home, defendant called to him and said if he did not clear out at once from tho Manchester Arms, he would be thrown out, for three men from Vale Road were engaged to do it, and be would have his neck broken. This being the threat complained of, it was intimated to the applicant that it was nc threat. If the wituess could not speak of other threats on the same day the case might as well stop. In reply to defendant complainant admitted receiving a notice to quit just before he swore the information. The purport of thit notice was that unless possession of the Man- chester Arms was given up, a forcible ejectment would be applied for. Complainant had a witness named GooJe. He did not te'l him that if he did not give evidence in suppoi t of the infot nation he (complainant) would make it hot for him. George Watson, West street, said that M,. Fielding asked if he could got three men, for he wanted to turn Nixon out of the Man- chester Arms, boer and all. Mr. Fielding said he would get a, warrant, and police assis- tance. He (Mr. Fielding) advised him (wit- ness) not to commence in any striking business, but if Nix )n's party struck first, then they could retaliate (laughter). H. L. Goode, 26, Bodfor street, was called and said he knew nothing of the matter. By the complainant; He had met him (Nixon) at Chester House. All he said was that he heard Mr. Fielding saying that he had been to Prestatyn, and asked if it was on his (Nixon's) business. He denied saying he heard Fielding threatening to break Nixon's neck. Mr. George hero said that he spent consider- able ti no with Mr Nixon, crying to make the case out. He distinctly understood the threat was made at the Mostyn Hotel, and not a word was said about the Foryd. The Chairman said that on the evidence before them, they could not grant the applica- tion prayed for.



Family Notices

[No title]

[No title]

I Correspondence.


R EYL •,', -