The Welsh Coast Pioneer and Review for North Cambria

The Defendant: Banking Account. (BY OUR OWN REPORTERS.)' AFTER considerable delay, consequ-snt upon the absence of Air David Jones in America, and his subsequent removal to this country, the serious charges made. against him and his partner, Mr z, W. 1'. Roberts-, boch of whom practised at Llan- rwst as solicitors, under the style of Messrs David Jones and Roberts, were fuily investigated before the Llanrwst magistrates, i[h,is we,er. The proceedings commenced on "Wednesday, the magistrates present being Dr. T. E. Jones (in the chair), Messrs Isgned Jones, Jelf Pettit, H. J. W. Watling, and W. B. Halhed. The many sensational elements in the case, and the position held, both professionally and socially, by the defendants, contrived to inveslt the case with interest of a most unusual char- acter. The court-house, commodious enough on ordinary occasions, was too small to accom- modate the number of people who demandedJ admittance. Half an hour before the magis- trates took their seats, that pant of the court allotted to the public was piacked with eager spectators. Limited Space. Special 'accommodation was provided for the reporters, who were present in overwhelming numbers. Interest in the cas-e was ndt limited to the confines of the Valel of Conway. The case had aroused! the utmost interest throughoult North Wales, where the ramifications of the de- fendants' firm had, spread, and the circumstances surrounding iÍt has been the-topic of conversation for several weeks. The limited accommodation round the solici- tors' table -was filled with witnesses and the lawyersengagedt in the case. The prosecuting solicitor Iwaslr J. T. Roberts (the newly-appointed, clerk of the peace for Car- narvonshire), and thei defendants. Jones and Roberts, were represented 'by Mr J. E. Hum- phr,eys (Llamwst) and 'Mr R. O. Davies (Fes- tiniog) respectively. Briefly, thei charges were these David Jones, the senior partner, waschargecl with misappro- priating- trust monies to the amount of £ 9,877 15s md, the- property of Mrs Mary Hughes, and W. P. Roberts was charged with aiding and abetting his- partner.. Shortly before the court opened., Mr Roberts entered, accompanied! by his solicitor, Mr Davies, and almost .-simultaneously the chief actor in' the scene, Mr David' Jones, emerged! through; a narrow1 door, giving access to the cells where the defendant had been incarcerated sticce the previous Thursday-, bail having been refused*. So far from presenting a careworn and anxiotw appearance, the defendant wore a confi- dent air. TogethA with hits- partner, he was accommodated with a seat in the box. His manner was alert, and he took voluminous notes of the evidence. Roberts also took notes as the proceed1!nigs- went on. The Objection to Mr t'ettit. Upon the magistrates taking (their seats, Mr J eH Pettit said some remarks were made con- cerning.himself at the last hearing, which, wouldt have to be withdrawn, -or he could noli act. Mr Humphrey's said he' withdrew -the remarks made by his client on; that occasion:, and! on. his behalf he wished to express regret for having made use of them. His: client had been travelling all night, 'and was obviously in a condition, of health which madia him say things he would not have given, expression to under or dinar}r circumstances. Mr Jelf Pettit s-aid he would not have relfenoo j to. the makter but for the pUlblicity given to it I in the news-papers. He was glad Cllr Humphreys had cleared fhe maHer up. The case- then proceeded. ;Mr J. T.. ROBERTS then addressed, the court. He said he. appeared to prosecute the two de- fendants-—'the one, David Jones, for misappro- priat)ing truis", funds amounting to a total of £ 9,877 15:s 1 id, and the other, William) Pierce Roberts, for aiding and abetting in that misap- propriation. Both were, as th-eit worships were well -aware, solicitors, practising at Llanrwst. David Jones wag admitted in 1886, and RübertSJ in 1891. Jones conducted (the practice: on his own account down, to the year 1892, when, Roberts and himself entered into an agreement of partnership. In due course, he. would pro- duce the. dieed, of partnership. The- decreased 0 "w r testator, Hughes, of Tynygwern, Penmaehno, lived for a considerable number of years in Cailiiifo'rnli'a, where fie amassed a conaiderabla amount of montey. Eventually, he came to live at Tyngwern. Before his death hie made a will, Which had' been, duly proved by David Jones. The trustees, under the will were Mr David Jones (lOne of the, defendants) and Mr Thomas i Williams, a relieving officer living at Pentre. Thomas Williams was praatically an) illiterate person, and' practically knew nothirig of the trust money. To. put the contents of the will shortly before their worships, all he need say was that, after leaving his widow a J'egacy of 63,000 absolutely, the deceased gave anolthe;r legacy to his sister, payable witlhii.n six months of his' death, and another legacy of a gold watch. With 'these- ex- ceptions the test ait oa: left the whole of his pro- perty to his widow, iMary Hughes. Certain discretionary powers were given the trustees with re-ar-d to the realisation of pa'rt of the estate in the way of investment, 'but this, should have belen done .after obtaining the- consent of Mary Hughes and other persons entitled to residue. This consent, however, did not ap- pear to have been obtained, in reference to nearly all the transactions which eventually took place. An Interrogation. Mr T. E. HUMPHREYS: Do you know taat? Mr J. T. ROBERTS It would -appear to be so from the documents T' Mr HUMPHREYS You have to prove that, and the documents don't do that. It dOles not say so in writing. Mr ROBERTS Oh; quite so, but we gather that. Proceeding, Mr ROBERTS stated that under ordinary circumstances a solicitor 'acti'n'g in su-ch a capacity was provided for in the way of re- muneration: for his labours but Mr Jones did! not appear to have been, satisfied1 with that, he (the advocate} having found oult that the defendant had procured ia deled of covenant, to be entered y into by the persons entitled to (the residue of the property, whereby he aAd his oo-trustee were to be paid at the irate of 6io per annum fior their services as, trustees, the (whole, re-muffiteration not to exceed £200. M.r David Jones, as a matter OIf ifiadt, was to be paid for his professional work, -and in his -capacity as trustee as well. Mr HUMPHREYS said he -did not -wan,t to place any difficulties in his friend's way. but he did not like such imputations to be caslc need- lessly. He (the speaker) contended that by agreement with the -beneficiaries a soliicilto-r act- ing in the capacity of a trustee oou-ld impose professional cnarges in the way his client nadt done in that case, and he was prepared (to prove the legal point on the morrow, .f it were per- sisted in. ylr ROBERTS Mr Humphreys will have amplle opportunity to say what he Ickes later Mr HUMPHREYS: This is my only oppor- tunity, as you k,n!ow. Mr ROBERTS .went on to say that the glros's value of the testator's estate was 618,342, while the net value was sworn at £1,265. Sinc.e then, however, there had been. accretions, which had enhanced the value of certain bank shares, and also a profit had been made upon the favourable reald«a!don. o.f certain property in toe town oif Llainrwst, was occupied by Mr WiLliams, of Regent House. With regard to this latter it appeared: there had' he,en, a fire, in consequence, of which an insurantce company had paid' £5°0, and the. property, which had) been valued by Mr David Jones at Zi,ooo, after- wards realised Ci,oSS. The: propenty could uiua be now valued ,at nearly ^2,000, on account of those accretions. The trustees appeared to have started their duties in the way they should have done. They kept a trust account, and a trust banking ac- count, and although that system w)as carried; 011 for a, few years.—apparently—it Was not very long before inroads were commenced into the trust e.state fund's. Although, undoubtedly, wrong- ful transactions commenced as fal1- back as 1895, no. suspicion seemed to ihiave been at'talch'ed to Mr David, Jones and) his co-trustee unitil 1900. In. August of that year Mr Cadwaladr Davies, of 'Mena'i Bridge, and three other persons enti- tled to shares in the residue of the estate, came over, and saw Mr Dla vid Jones for ,the purpose bof checking investments, represented to niave been made in connection, with the trust estate. Those four gentlemen were beneficiaries—Mr Cadwaladr Davies, Mr John Davies, alr Wil- liams, and another. Alleged Bogus Securities. A box which was supposed to have contained the necessary securities, was- brought _m the bank. The most intelligent -of t'hie four people was given, a schedule, while the lea.st inite'liLigenit of all stood with David Jones at the box, wnile the defendant produced certain bundles of docu- ments for inspection. Meanwhile, Mr Cadwaladr Davies, the mosit (intelligent of the beneficiaries, was -called upon to, check the documents as en- tered in, the schedule,. That, he (the- advocate) w o ul di prove to' their worships, was, to some ex- tent, it all even'.ts, a bogus proceeding. A great many of the! bundles produced from fme> box were,1 fictitious bundles," which did not represent any estate -at ail; others represented trust securities, but very much, reduced in. value to what was rep-resented by 'Mr David Jones. Eventually, the dtetfend'an* admitted the benefici- aries l,i ad,, been deceived. He bad bad a number of bogus bundles introduced into the box, .and those were produced one. after the other by him for the purpose of deceiving the four men. As he (the speaker) had aI-ready observed:, it was, however, not unttil- 1900 that" any suspici-oni was attached to Jones, -and his co-tru-stee—at least, as far as he couldJ understand:. At any ra'te, no steps were. taken unthl then. The income payable -to Mrs Mary Hughes- appeared to have been. forthcoming more or less regularly until the beginning of Last year, when, none was paid. For one piar'ticu'-lar month a consider able sum of moniey was. due. Some, correspondence- took, place (between Mr Cadwaladr Davies -and Mir David Jones, in, the course of which the latter promised to square up matfters by paying the balance then due. At length, however, Mr Thornton' Jones, of Bangor, acting a-s solicitor for Mr Cadwaladr Davies, wrote iilllformjng the. defendant stating he intended visiting Llanrwst for the purpose of investigating the securities, and requesting that Mr 'David Jones had his accounts, in readiness for that -day..Mr Thornton- Jones came over. Meanwhile, defendant never communicated with Mr Thornton Jones until the. very morning of his arrival, when he telegraphed asking Mr Thorn- ton; Jones not to come over -that dlay. As he had just said, iMr Thornton Jones came over, and notwithstanding the fact thait defendant was in the1 town, Mr 'Thornton Junes had been unable to find him, though he had instituted inquiries in several places where he was likely to he found. Mr Thornton Jones oame. over on another day, and oTi that .occasion the defendant, Jones, made an admission about, the bogus, bundles produced to the four beneficiaries representing securities. The securities, such as they were, were then 'handed over to Mr T'horntoin. Jones. As a result those proceedings were- iinstitiited. Banking Transactions. Me Roberts then proceeded to state in some detail how certain, trust monies or securi- ties in existence in 1891 had disappeared or belen: depreciated by 1901,.and handed the Bench .sheets showing the securities as -they existed in 1891 and as they appeared int 1901. Among 'the cases mentioned weret the following: lhomas Wil- liams, Tanybea-nan, was represented to. have had ^700 advanced to him. As a matter of fact, it was advanced Ito him in May, 1894. Ini May, .1895, Williams sold property at Oonway for £445. Mr Porter, 'Of Conway, acted; for the purchaser, and paid' the purchase money by cheque, payable to the account of the firm of David Jones and Roberts. This1 cheque was' handed ioMT W. P. Roberts personally, was en- dorsed by him, (and paid into the firm's bankin.g account, the docket for the bank being prepared by iMr Roberts. Although, there was a separate trust account in another bank, this trust money was paid info- the firm's accoun't at the. Metro- politan Bank-, where the firm. » account was at that time already overdrawn- to- the extent of £ 2,261. In June, 1896, Williams paid off-the balance off the mortgage, but notwithstanding this David Jones, continued toinrclude the inter- est on: that mortgage among the periodical pay- ments made' to Mrs Hughes down to -last year'. Another case was that of Moses Roberts, who was said to have had advanced to him a sum of ^2,700. As a matter of fact, however, he had) never had a. penny piece of trust money ad- vanced to him. There was a ;mortgage in ex- istence for £ 2,750 at the time of David Hughes's death, but it was -piaid off in 1893, after- Da vi:dJ Hughes's death, and the same day it was ad- vanced to Dr. Evans. In 1897, Dr. Evans paid off the m'ortgage by a cheque by £ 2,500, the whole of which, went into- the account of David Jones and! Robert's, where they had' at the' time an overdraft of £ 2,779. The money had remained to the or edit of the firm's account -ever since; it had never been invested in any way, but interest had continued to' be' accounted for in the turst account every yead. This money was paid; by Dr. Evajus, in Janu- airy, 1897, but was not accounted for in the trust account until the following June, when it wa's represented as having been paid by 'Dr. EvansJ and a cheque for £ 29 was paid as interest ftfofl1 January to June, iwrn-ch was an admission that it hia-d remained in the firm's banking account. 'lobe money had now disappeared in. the overdraw at the bank. John, J: 1 Goehs, was represented as a mort- gagor for £ "500. but no -part of 'the trust went to this. In 'March, 1897, the firm f6- cedved a sum of £ 1,205, which'was representee in their books as JHjenblas money. TnaJt inoft- giage was for ZI,500. The cheque was paid to the credit of the firm's banking account. In the ca'se of Robert Williams, Pentremawr' a mortgage was in existence at the time of D'a^i" Hughes's death. David Jones gave Will1'31113 novice to pay up the ifUorttgage, and he did so, but where the money went could'' not be dis* covered; the prosecution -could not find it bad gone to ,thecredllt of the firm's account. Owen Pritchard appeared as a mortgagor £ 2,500. This sum had been 'advanced by late David Hughes, and the mortgage was l existence at the time of his de'ath. In Pritchard solid property, for which he receive £ 850. Mr J. Porter, Conway, -again, aoted fc" the purchaser, and a cheque was drawn fo!' ,6855, payable^to the ,firm of Jones and Roberta and was so paid into the firm's banking accoutw- it being arranged that Z500 of this should g) towards payment elf the mortgage, the remain del' less costs, being paid by the firm: to. Pritchard. The firm's banking account was thus- credited with £500, their bank -overdraft at the tllne being £ 2,658. In 1900, iJritchard! sold further property to the Colwyn. Bay, Gas Company fO'r £ 900, the whole of whic'h went into the bank: ang account of Jones and Roberts, whose overdraft was then £ 3,798. Later, a further sum of Cioo was paid by, Pritchard, and in July,. 1902, £ 719 was pa'id by c'heque to 'the credit Oit the firm's banking account on behaH of Pri,ic"- ard ünaccounit of other propertty sold by 11>1111: Mr Roberts paid the whole, of that sum b. cheque to. Pritchard, but when David Jont learnt this he immediately wrote- Pritchard, de- manding rtepayment of the £ 500, which, by the terms of the sale of the property referred t0' was to remain on m'orttgage. Prifcbard, GC. cordingly, paid! the sum of £ 500, receiving fro'11 Roberts a receipt signed by him.- The aJmotlllt was paid the same day into the banking ac.c,otl,ll" or the- firm,, the cheque, being endorsed Roberts. Other .small cases- were: mentioned1, and among j the securities scheduled iwas an alleged mortgage of £ 700 by a 'Mr Williams, of B,ro-niygad,al- But David Jones hadl ad!miiltt-ed that this did not exist. In any case, 'the deeds relating to il .1 were absent from the deed box.. Therel iwas also a, case of freehold' property the 'townl of Llanrwst sold to Mr Williams, ot Regent House, for £ 1,085. Iln July, 1,898, Wil- liams paid a deposit of CioS ios, and in l-'¡'ovel:l- ber a further sum of £ 176 ios., both being p ;vdi to; the firm's account, their 'bank overdraft bea^o £ 2,672. In 1902 the balance of £ 800 was paw and1 'thus the whole of the purchase money £ 1,085 went to the firm's banking account. 1°' iteresit on existing securities had been paid to Roberts, but never entered to the creol.it of t^e s trust banking account. The prosecution tio-ne-d ifuDther cases, winding up' with that l- v Wm. Williams, Post Office, Llanddoge't, w'hiC was- described as "a perfect mystery." Thefe were no dieed's whatever at present in existence1' but Williams admitted that a mortgage for £ '1^ existed, and that he had been, in the habtt Of paying interest at David Jones' office, and Davi1 Jones had admitted- that this wias no't a mortgai,^ affecting', the- Tynglwern property. There nothing in cash-book of the firm' bearing upol; The Financial Position of the Firm. As far as Mr -David Jones himself was 0011 >, -c-erned, Mr Roberts submitted it was ewide1" that hie had obtained trust funds to the amo"1 •• J of £ 9,877,of which £ 7,134 at least had gone j the credit of the firm's account at tihe bank, at1-^ ] on every occasion when: the trust montey paid into -that account the account was iar»e)^ ] overdrawn. That being so hie felt that he c-ou j ask the justices with confidence- to say that viie could' n'olt be the, least d-ou-bt as to [he C0111- plicity of (lr W. P. Roberts. The defend-3-11 had, been. pressed over and over agaiin during 1 last few years to (reduce their- bank overdra- j t1 Numbers of letters had been sent to them h'aV1^y the same: -object in view. Apart -from -this, a Roberts could not pretend ,thalt he did not kll,a\ 01 the- state of the banking account. The Chaii-rman a'skedl -what banks were ct cerned. j ■Mr J. T. Roberts replied- that the account" t the firm: wias. at the Mtetropoiliiya-n B.ank^ and t-3 of the trust at the North and South Wales both of Llanrwst. It was- manifest that j P. Roberts could n;oit be in, ignorance thait large, sums of monjey wienit to- the red tioni of th!e firm's overdraft, and he could ^y be in'ignorancie of the source whence that was obtaimed. 'Even 'if only one case in Mr Robertts: paid trust money to the creå; be the firm's account was proved, thiat shoulf- suc;i,el11:t to prove, his knowledge of what ;Ci9 goinjg on. Such paymentts were in. the,m,s'el1' cl misappa-oprialtion. The. senious paying trust money to the credit of the drawn accbunt of the firm Wa-s thliis—if st money had been paid to- the credii't of the t banking (accourJt it could not have been olbtat^ from the bank without the signatures oif the trustees. On the other hand, the payme:- ^0 the money into- the, firm's account wouid e'r,f 1 Mr David Jones or Mr W. P. Roberts to )jl6y the money out, and that was- placing the in .a position which neither o'f the, trustees a right to do. The present overdraft oi}^0^ David Jones and Roberts, notwithsfian'diiiii'o fact that £ 7,135 of this trust money had ? tim'e to (time been paid to thle credit of ^{t account, was £ 4,110. Mr Jo-nies's^owni 0'V;e*( .i(ri was £ 1,654. The advocate added that he posed' to call first a number of perisoins' .-| would give what might 'be oadled njegait^c -i dence—evidence that they had not o"3' of j money they were lalleged to- have j thajt they had paid) -off money tbeiy had | and were alleged still to- -owe-. Ail'l thesis p j had to be1 called, as otherwise it would 'e 11 | .s.ibl.e, for the defendants to say thajt the) 1 owed the monley. The Evidence. ?; Particulars of the Tyngwern Estatefor, The first witness was Wm. Williams, wlo -d, 4 many years was managing" clerk for the atuts. His evidence cniefly related to t' 'et, "Ii" ceipts and payments m-adle by the dtefenl^ connection' with the Ty-nigwe-rm Estate-l ■perty of the late David IIughes,. of 0)tj.»9 the defenda-nit Jones was co-trusitee with Continued on Page 7. « I