Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

16 articles on this Page









GRAVE CHARGE AGAINST A NEWTOWN YOUTH. On Tuesday, at the Newtown Police Court, before Messrs W. H. Burton Swift (presiding) and W. P. Phillips, John Stephens, a Newtown youth, was charged with having committed an offence under the Criminal Law Amendment Act against Sybil Emily Church, of the Bun- galow, Llandinam, a girl above the age of thirteen and under the age of sixteen. Sybil Emily Church said she was the daughter of Arthur George Church, of the Bungalow, Llandinam. She was sixteen years of age in June last. In October, 1907, she went into service with Mrs; E. H. Morgan, of Broad-street, Newtown, and re- mained there until May 9th, 1910. She be- gan to keep company with the defendant in August, 1909, and continued to do so until 20th June, 1910. She left Mr Morgan's ser- vice on May 9th, 1910. On the Wednesday preceding, the defendant committed the al- leged offence. She met the defendant that evening in Broad-street about seven o'clock, and was with him until nine. She strug- gled with him before he committed the offence. When she left Mr Morgan's she went home, and after staying there for a week, went to Welshpool, .wher she re- mained in service for nearly three months. On the second Sunday after she went to Welshpool (May 29th) she came to New- town by the mail train in the morning. She saw defendant in Park-street in the af- ternoon, and arranged to meet him at half- past six. At that hour she met him in Short Bridge-street, and went with him up the street and to the railway station. She was with him until 7-45. He repeated the offence on that date. She struggled, but she did not shout. In January last the de- fendant asked her how old she was, and she told him 15. He then asked her when she would be 16, and she told him she would be 16 on June 12th. On October 15th her mother took her to see Dr Davies at Llan- idloes. She did not know what was the matter with her then. She had not told her mother what had taken place between defendant and her. Cross-examined by Mr Richard George (who defended): She told no one what had taken place between defendant and her. She went for a walk with defendant on the 20th May because she was fond of him.! She loved him then and she loved him still. If she had her way she would not be there that day. She now thought it was wrong to go with him the second time. The place where the offence took place was over- looked. Her time for going back to Mr. Morgan's was nine o'clock, but her mistress was not very particular as to her being punctual. After the offence she did not run home by herself, but walked home with him. The offence must have been com- mitted on the Bryn Bank. They were in full view of persons on the bank or on the path. There were very few people there. The time must have been about 7-30. It was not usual for a servant to get a day off after being in a situation for a fortnight. On the 29th May her sister was going home, and she got the day off. She went to Newtown to see Mrs Morgan. Soon after getting to Newtown she went to see Maud Bumford. Before this she went to see Mrs Davies in Crown-street. She stayed with Maud Bumford, and then went to Mr Morgan's. After dinner she again went to see Maud Bumford, and after she went to tea. She was certain she met defendant after tea. She was with Maud IgiAmford at the Primitive Methodist Chapel in the after- noon. She was not with her at the Baptist Chapel that evening. She made no com- plaint to her mistress, though she ought to have told if she had been a good girl. She wrote two letters from Welshpool. She wrote the first letter before May 39th, and the second one after that date, but she could not remember their contents. She first told P.C. Hamer about defendant. She expected that her mother sent for him. Defendant was the father of her child. She did not know of her condition until she saw Dr Davies. She knew lots of boys, and liked a good many. She was not in the habit of going with a number of boys. She had been up Cefnaire-lane with M— R-. She had been with many boys. If she had not had a child, she would not have told anyone what took place between defendant and her. Re-examined by Supt. Williams Defend- ant was the only one who had misconducted himself with her. By the Bench Wednesday was the night she was allowed to go out, from seven to nine. She also had Sunday afternoons and evenings free. She was in the habit of meeting defendant on Wednesday evenings. Ellen Matilda Church, wife of Arthur George Church, and mother of the last wit- ness, said plaintiff was born on the 12th day of June, 1904, at Hockham, Norfolk. She went to service in October, 1907, to Mr E. H. Morgan. She left that service in the first or second week in May, 1910. She thought it was the 9th May. She came home, and then went to Welshpool on the 16th May to Mr Rogers. She was there nearly three months. She did not know why she left there. She made no complaint to her when she came home. She noticed after her being in the house a few days that she was not right. 'She thought she was anaemic. She took her to Dr Davies on October 15th, and he examined her. Until then she did not know what was the matter with her. Cross-examined by Mr George Her daughter complained to her when at Welsh- pool that someone had tried to act indecently towards her. She thought her daughter might not have known what was the matter with her. She had five daughters. Cross-examined' by Supt. Williams She took the girl to Dr Davies because she did not know what was the matter with her. Dr Walter Ernest Llewelyn Davies gave corroborative medical evidence. P.C. Evan Thomas said that on the morn- ing of the previous day he received a war- rant for the arrest of the defendant. He arrested him at three in the afternoon. He read the warrant to him and cautioned him. He said, Yes, but I am not the only one." Witness said, Did not you know she was under age ? He replied, Yes, but she told me she was 17." As coming down to the police station he made this voluntary statement, I have been with her a bit. Why did not they let me know something about her? I have not heard nothing till now. It will break my mother's heart." Cross-examined by Mr George: He went to the stores, where defendant worked, and asked him if he were John Stephens, and on his replying yes, lie tapped him on the shoulder and said, You are under arrest." He read the charge and he cautioned him. He did not say to him, "I suppose you have been with the girl," nor did he say to him, Do you admit the charge." John Stephens pleaded not guilty. He did not desire to give evidence nor to call witnesses. Defendant was committed to the assizes, bail being allowed and immediately forth- coming.