Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

19 articles on this Page








COUNTY MAGISTRATES' COURT. MONDAY.—Before Major West (chairman), Mr. R. G. Johnson, Colonel Naylor Leyland, Mr. J. F. Jesse, and Mr. Brooke Cunliffe. IMAGINARY ENCOUNTER WITH BURGLARS SAD POSITION OF A BUTLER. Robert Roberts, 27, butler, recently employed at Berth, was charged with stealing JE7, the property of his master. Mr. Roberts appeared for the prisoner. Mrs. Mary Lloyd, of Berth Hall, Llanbedr, knew the prisoner Robert Roberts, as her son's servant, who lived at Berth. A few days before October 7th last, she had placed JE7 in a drawer in the drawing room. The money belonged to her son, Mr. E. O. V. Lloyd, who had left it with her to make a payment. On the 7th October she was awoke in the night by the cook, who told her, in the hearing of the prisoner, that the money from the drawing room was gone, but the plate was all safe. She got up, went into the passage, and found prisoner and all the maid servants there. Prisoner had a poker in his hand at the time. When she saw him he said nothing but went away, apparently to search all the rooms in the house. They all went down into the kitchen and he shewed the place where the money belonging to the cook (£11) was taken from. Prisoner said he would go and fetch the police. She heard no noise in the house. The next few days he went about his work as usual, but said he was in very great pain that burglars had been in the house, he had had a severe struggle with them, and that they had struck him with a chain and had seriously injured him. [Subsequently he had taken to his bed]. Cross-examined: Prisoner had been with us since March last, and since then his conduct had been good. He behaved very well, and I received two good characters with him. Sergeant Jones, Ruthin, apprehended Roberts on the 22nd inst. in bed in a bedroom, at Berth, and charged him with stealing JE7, the money of Mrs. Lloyd. He made no answer for an hour. After that he called me to his bedside. He appeared to me to be ill, in fact to be insane. He said Well, Jones, I did it, and me alone it must have been the devil that came over me, for I don't know what came over me to do it." r: On thejeharge being formally read over to him prisoner pleaded guilty. Mr. Roberts, addressing the Bench for prisoner said he trusted that in consideration of his previous good character and his youth, and also of his family con- nections, the Bench would deal as leniently as possible with prisoner. His mother was a widow, and was now, as the family had been for many years, tenants of the Berth estate. He ventured to express the hope that they would not send him for trial, but deal summarily and as leniently as possible. He handed in a letter from prisoner's previous employer giving him an excellent character. The Chairman, addressing prisoner, said he had abused the confidence placed in him by a very excellent lady (Mrs. Lloyd), and considering his position as a trusted servant, the Court thought his offence of a much more serious character than if he had been a person not placed in a position of trust. In addition to the theft he had gone through a series of subterfuges to hide his guilt, which had, however, been brought home to him, and indeed by his own confession. The Court had taken into consideration that his mistress had desired that he may be leniently dealt with and also his previous good character, therefore they should not send him to the assizes for trial, but deal with him summarily, by send- ing him to gaol for six months with hard labour. There was another charge against the prisoner of stealing on the same occasion from the kitchen at Berth the sum of £11. the property of the cook in the estab- lishment, but it was decided not to go into that case the money in both cases being recovered. The Court was densely crowded during the hearing the greatest interest being manifest in consequence of the peculiar circumstances of the robbery. PIG STRAYING. Mr. W. Eyton Lloyd, Graig, Llanfair, was summoned by P.C. Hughes (29), for allowing five pigs to stray on the highway on the loth inst. Fined 3s. and costs. SCHOOL CASE. James Lloyd and John Foulkes, of Llanferras, were summoned for not sending their children to school. Order made for attendance. STEALING BRANDY. William Williams, labourer, Mold, was brought up in custody charged with stealing a decanter full of brandy belonging to William Edwards, Loggerheads Inn, Llan- ferras. Prisoner and a man named David Williams were drinking in the house, and during the temporary absence of the landlord, they took up a decanter full of brandy and" bolted." On being followed, prisoner put down the decanter and brandy on the road, and again made off. Subsequently he was captured, but his com- panion got clear away. Prisoner WM sent to gaol for six week's hard labour. THE LIBEL ON MRS. CORNWALLIS WEST. At the Central Criminal Court, London, on Saturday, before Mr. Justice Hawkins, Adolhus Rosenberg, publisher of Town Talk, was placed at the bar, charged with having libelled Mrs. Cornwallis West, wife of Major West, Lord Lieutenant of Denbighshire, Mrs. Langtry, and Lord Loodesborough. William Wilfred Head and Henry Robert Mark also appeared to answer to a charge, as being the printers of the number of the paper in which the statements as to Mrs. West were in- serted. There was a very full attendance of the general public, including a number of ladies, who, long before the pro- ceedings commenced, t,Pronged the court in every avail- able part. Cout.-ary to general expectation, neither Mrs. Cornwallis West nor Mrs. Langtry were present, but their husbands occupied seats facing the learned counsel engaged in the case. Upon the assembling of the court, the defendants "ere placed at the bar. On being asked if they were guilty or not guilty, Rosenberg said—I am guilty of publishing the libel, but not guilty of knowing it to be false. Messrs. Head and Mark pleaded guilty to the printing of the alleged libels, but not guilty of knowing them to be false. The case of Mr. and Mrs. Langtry was first taken the defendant pleaded guilty to publishing the paper, and evidence was briefly called to show that the state- ments made therein were false. Mr. Willis addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant, and contended that his conduct had been reckless but not criminal. The jury found the defenant guilty of publishing what he knew to be false, and then in the case of Lord Londes- borough, counsel for the prosecution expressed content at the plea of guilty as regarded simple publication of the libel. After the usual mid-day adjournment, the case of Mrs. Cornwallis West was called on. Messrs. W. W. Head and H. R. Mark, the printers, who had previously left the court, again took their places on the dock along with Rosenberg. Head, having withdrawn his plea of not guilty, pleaded guilty to the publication of the libel. Mr. Watkin Williams (for the prosecution) said In this indictment there are three personal charges— Rosenberg, the proprietor and publisher of this paper, and the two printers and since the adjournment of the Court I have considered the position of the case, and what course it would be best to take, and it seems to my learned friends, who are with me in the case, and to myself, with regard to all the defendants, that as this is a prosecution by private prosecutors, it is no part of our duty to pursue anybody to vengeance or to indulge personal vindictiveness. As to the interest of the public and public justice, it appears to us that the defendant Rosenburg, in the first place, having pleaded guilty to the publication of a false and defamatory libel, and having been already convicted of the publication of a false and defamatory lihel, knowing it to be false and defamatory, the public interest will be satisfied if we are content with a verdict of guilty against him on this indictment, and not to offer any evidence on the more aggravated count of the indictment, charging the de- fendant with a knowledge that it is false. "With regard to the printers, their position is quite different. Of course it is most important they should know, as well as that publishers and writers should know, that they cannot print such things, and thus help in their dissemination with impunity. Still we all know there are degrees of criminality in this as in other matters; and in this case we are willing to believe that although the two defendants are legally and criminally responsible for what they they have done, they may have the excuse that, in a large establishment such as theirs, they have been guilty of no more than want of the extreme and thorough care which would have prevented them pub- lishing those things. With the sanction of the Court, the prosecution is desirous of allowing them to be let out in their own recognisances in a large sum—to be called upon for judgment if necessary, and on condition that they will do certain things which will prove their sincerity in the matter. I now desire to call the atten- tion of your lordship to the character of the libel upon Mr. and Mrs. West, which appeared in Town Talk. That libel is not—as my friend Mr. Willis called it—a "mere burlesque." It is a most serious and grave libel upon the prosecutor. Mr. West, I may say, is the lord lieutenant of the county of Denbigh and a magistrate, holding a high public position. He and his wife live, and have lived, with their children in the district for years, beloved and respected by their neighbours. Mr. West and his family have a mansion at 49, Eaton-place, London, and they live there in the season. We are all aware that of late years, since the photographic art has developed itself with such perfection, a large number of artists and photographers have—in the legitimate exercise of their trade—pushed it to an extent which is, perhaps, to be regretted. Almost all persons who occupy any position at all—who are conspicuous in society, in rank, in professional eminence in the Senate —are now inundated with applications by artists to have the distinguished honour of taking their portraits, and so on. When that started, probably nobody thought very much of it; but by degrees this became a nuisance. In the case of women, they began to discover to their annoyance that their portraits were beginning to be spread over the town. I propose to show your lordship with regard to this, that a misconception and a mistake has arisen as to the power of persons to stop the publica- tion of photographs. I can show you that any one who has his portrait taken has no power whatever to prevent the photographer from publishing the photograph. In this case Mr. West more than a year ago took steps to stop the publication of these photographs. He con- sulted me about it, and I told him then as I tell him now that he has no power to stop it. The learned counsel then proceeded to read the libel headed "Mrs. Cornwallis West at Home," which has been published. In commenting upon the article, he denounced many of the statements as mean and cowardly insinuations, others utterly false, and others again wicked lies. The whole thing was a pure fiction, and was only to be found in the imagination of the writer. The learned counsel then proceeded to refer to the state of the law to show that Mr. West had not the power to stop the publication of the photographs. He did take steps to stop the publication, but some of the photographers, being advised as to what the law was, declined to discontinue it. Mr. Justice Hawkins.—The only way to stop the publication in future is for the person photographed to purchase the negative itself. Mr. Besley, on behalf of the printers, asked that they might be permitted to say that they were simply trade pointers, and had not printed the paper for any other profit than from ordinary trade. They had offered the greatest atonement in their power, and that was to pay the whole of Mr. West's costs, whatever they might be, and protect him against any extra costs. Mr. Willis addressed the court on behalf of Rosen- burg, and tendered an ample retraction and apology. He trusted his lordship would bear in mind that the defendant had dependent upon him a wife and two children, and also his father. On Monday, Mr. Justice Hawkins sentenced the prisoner, to eighteen months' imprisonment, and bound bim over in his own recognisance of £1,000 to be of good behaviour in future, for libelling Mr and Mrs. Langtry. For the libels on Mr. and Mrs. Cornwallis West and Lord Londesborough sentence of six months' imprison- ment was passed, but the punishment in these cases was made concurrent with that in the first case. The learned Judge regretted that he could not impose hard labour. Messrs. Head and Mark, the printers of the paper, were allowed out on their own recognisances to come up for judgment when called upon. In delivering the sentence he thus commented upon Mr. West's case: "You do not charge in the libel to which you have pleaded guilty that they were guilty of actual immorality. You did not make that charge, for you thought probably that having had six consecutive weeks of the divorce of Mr. Langtry you must vary the food you offered; therefore, you thought tit to hold Mrs. Cornwallis West up to ridicule, and make her appear a wanton, foolish, and immodest woman, who thought proper to have her photographs taken and placed along with half naked persons in shop windows. And this statement you thought proper to accompany with a description of her inner life, with such detailed circum- stances that it would not be surprising if some persons were to say, "Can all this be untrue? Can any man have the impudence and the audacity to publish such libels as these ?" Let me tell you, and in telling yon, let me tell all those who may be interested to know it, that it is just as much a libel to hold a man up to ridicule as to make imputations against the moral character of the individual. No man has a right to hold another up to scorn, and if he does publish that which tends to bring another into ridicule he is amenable to the Criminal Law of the country. In reference to the case of the printers, Messrs. Head and Mark, who, on being called upon, surrendered to their recognisances and took their places in the dock, Mr. Justice Hawkins said: I have considered the matter which was mentioned to me on Saturday. Of course, I make no bargain with regard to these de- fendants, nor do I say anything as to that. I find that the libel upon Mr. and Mrs. Cornwallis West, to the printing of which the present defendants have pleaded guilty, is contained in the same number of Town, Talk as that in which the last libel upon Mr. and Mrs. Lanctry appeared. I cannot help feeling, there- fore, that the printers are just as much responsible for this latter libel upon Mr. and Mrs. Langtry—although they are not indicted for it—as they are for the libel upon Mr. and Mrs. West. It ought to be well known that the printer himself is responsible for the issue which emanates from his establishment; and seeing, as I do, that the same paper which contained the libel on Mrs. West, contained also the libel on Mrs. Langtry, I myself might have been prepared to take a course which I will not mention now. It has been suggested that I should liberate the present defendants upon their paying the costs of the prosecutions on the part of Mr. and Mrs. West. I am not disposed to say that I think that would be sufficient. I will say no more on that point; but in order that the defendants may have an opportunity of doing that which possibly may induce me to take a different view of the case than I might other- wise take in any sentence which I might think it right to pronounce, I shall postpone passing sentence upon them to-day upon their enteringupon their own recognisances to come up for judgment when called upon and I shall require a report to be made to me as to the costs of these prosecutions, which, unhappily, by law, I have not the power to order to be paid—otherwise I would have taken my own course about it—I say I shall re- quire a report to be made to me before the December sessions as to what has been done. On the following day, Mr. Justice Hawkins, addres- sing the prisoner, said an impression appeared to prevail that by the sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment that he had passed upon him he would be entitled to be treated as first-class misdemeanant, and would have the privileges of being visited by his friends, and of pro- viding his own maintenance. He had made no such order in the case, and he had only not sentenced him to. hard labour because he had no power to do so.