The Barmouth and County Advertiser and District Weekly News

BARMOUTH POLICE COURT. ] MONTHLY MEETING. I The monthly Police CourL was held on I Friday last, before H. J. Wright Esq.. (chairman), Alderman T. Martin Wil- liaras, Thomas W. Piggott, G. F. Gib- son, and Rbys Jones, Esqrs. WITHDRAWN. I Inspector Ben Evans applied that a case against John Williams, Gwastad. agnes, for selling- adulterated milk should be withdrawn. The Chief Constable (Mr Richard Jones) explained that a sample of milk sold by defendant was taken by the Police and same was found to be adul- terated. Stibsequently the Police"visited the farm and saw the same cows being milked with the result that the milk was adulterated as in the first instance. That being the case, the Police wished to withdraw the case as it was no fault of the defendant that the milk was adul- terated. The Bench granted the request. I A FOWL CASE. I Mary J. Roberts, 2, Ash Place, Bar- mouth, was charged by Inspector W. T. Laird, R.S.P.C.A, for causing unneces- sary suffering to nineteen fowls. In reply to the charge the defendant pleaded not guilty. All the witnesses were ordered outlet the Court. Inspector Laird stated that on March 8th he visited the defendant at Ash Place, and in the presence of her brother, Richard Roberts, informed her that he bad come there to make enquiries about the fowls which belonged to her at Tynyrardd, Cutiau, as he bad been informed that the fowls were in a dirty condition and only fed at intervals. The defendant replied that the fowls had plenty of food and were in good condi- tion, and that her brother had bought GOlbs of corn a fortnight ago, and also gave the name of the grocer. He then told the defendant that he was going to visit the fowls at Tynyrardd and asked her if she wished to come up the same time, and she replied that she would follow them later on. After making a few inquiries in the town he proceeded up and found that Richard Roberts had been feeding the fowls before be arrived there. Eleven of the fowls were caught and on examining them he found they were in a very poor condition—some bad a crop of food whilst others bad no food at all, and the fowls were dirty and alive with virmin. The ben house was in a filthy state, and vermin crawling about the floor. He drew the defen. dant's attention to the state of the fowls and she replied that she was feeding the fowls three times a week, and her brother remarked that he would clean the place out that day. He bad made inquiries when the corn was bought and found that it was on January 21st, the defendant's brother bought the GOlbs, but the defendant said that was a mistake. He gave instructions that the fowls should be fed once a day, and in reply the defendant remarked that she could not give them more than she did as it was 2t miles from Bar- mouth. On March 17th he again visited the fowls and found them huddled to- gether and with their wings down. He (the Inspector) fed them with some Indian corn he bought, and the fowls were very ravious and fought for their food. lIe examined some of them and found very little difference in them to what they were on his first visit. He saw the defendant and asked her why she had not fed the fowls, and she replied that they were not fed every day but alternative, and that in another fortnight they would be re- moved to Llanaber. He told her that the fowls were in a bad condition. Cross-examined 'He did not know that there was an acre of land attached to the house. The fowls could go out from the hen house into the forest close by. P.C. Oliver C. Davies stated that he accompanied the last witness to Tynyr- ardd and found that the fowls were in a very poor and filthy condition, He bad heard Richard Roberts stating to the Inspector that he had bought GOlbs of corn a fortnight previous to their visit, but on making enquiries from Mr L. O. Evans it was on January 21st that Rich- ard Roberts had bought the 60ibs at 5/8, The defendant said that she only bought the food from Mr L. 0. Evans. The Chairman—Did you buy any fend from any oce else duung that period ? The defendant-Yes, from Messrs. D. 0. Hughes and Francis Jones. The defendant said that the fowls had plenty of corn, and there was a garden where they could go and also to the woods close by. She had fed the fowls on an average about five or six times a week, and they were not in a filthy condition. E. Wynne Williams, veterinary sur- geon, Dolgelley, stated that he had visited Tynyrardd the previous day, and there he saw nineteen fowls, all in a flying and working condition. There was an acre of land for them to go about and plenty of soil and grass. There was also a woodland close by. If the fowls were only fed once a month it would be quite sufficient where they were situated in. He bad been informed that years ago fowls lived without any feeding at all at Arthog Hall. Cross-examined—The fowls were good but could be better. There was plenty of soil close by, and that would be suffi- cient for the fowls if they were only fed once a week. He did not catch any of the fowls but only saw them flying about. Mr Gibson said that in some parts of Kent fowls lived on what they could get from the laud. The Bench dismissed the case on ac- count of insufficient evidence to prove facts. The Chairman remarking that the defendant should keep the fowls clean and the henhouse tidy or she would get into trouble again MILK CASE. I Foulkes Morris, Tircoch, Llanaber, was charged by Inspector Ben Evans with selling adulterated milk with 4*5 per cent. water on March 4th. In reply to the charge the defendant pleaded not guilty. P.C. Oliver C. Davies stated that at 7.30 a.m. on the day in question he bought a pint of milk from the defen- dant's wife at Tircocb Farm, and divi- ded into three parts-one for the defen- dant, one for the Police, and the other for the Public Analyst. Inspector Ben Evans stated that the sample of milk was sent to the Public Analyst at Shrewsbury, and his report on same was that 4'5 per cent, of water bad been added to the milk on March 17tb. Vo visited Tircoch and saw Mrs Morris, and he told her the result of the analysis. She said that she had milked a cow which had been dry for four or five days, and bad put the milk into the cans which con- tained the milk of the other two cows. He (the Inspector) offered to go up the following day to see the same cows being milked, but the defendant's wife said that one cow was nearly calving and therefore only two cows could be milked The defendant said it wae not very often that his- wife went to milk the cows. On the day in question his wife had been down at Barmouth overnight, as her mother was veiy ill, and he met her as she was coming down after milk- ing the cows, and he (the witness) asked her if she bad milked all the cows. She I replied that she bad, and he gave her a good lecture for doing so, as be had left one cow unmilked for seven days, and she said that it would not happen again. On that day the Constable had a sample of the milk. He thought that the milk given to the Constable was not alright. As a matter of fa-ct the milk of the other two cows was thin and had been better. The milk went poorer because of the grass. He believed it was healthy milk. The cows were in the best of health and nothing had been the matter with them. He was not guilty of the charge at all. The Bench imposed a fine of XI and • ordered him to pay the analyst's fee, 15/- BREACH OF THE SHOP HOURS' ACT. R. W. Wharton, Central Stores; D. O. Hughes, Market Stores, and Francis Jones, Gwalia Stores, were charged by the Chief Constable with not closing their shops at 7 p.m. on April 1st. R. W. Wharton was represented by D. R. Williams (foreman) who pleaded guilty to the charge. D. 0. Hughes said that his shop was full with customers, some were in at 6.30 until 7.20, when P.C. Griffith Wil- liams visited the shop. Francis Jones said he could not pos- sibly avoid the rush on the night in question (laughter). The Chairman—It seems that the trade is very brisk at Barmouth. The Chairman said as these were the first cases to come before the Court they were going to take a lenient view with them this time, and each would be fined 1/ The Bench would like to draw the attention of all shopkeepers generally that the law would have to be carried out in future. BREACH OF THE FACTORY ACTS. Messrs. Lloyd and Williams, contrac- tors, Barmouth, were summoned by Mr John LI. Edwards, inspector of factories, with neglecting to observe certain parts of the mill gearing of a gas engine and ,not fencing certain parts. In reply to the charge the defendants pleaded not guilty. John Li. Edwards, factory inspector, stated that when be visited the defen- dants' workshop in Station Road on cer- tain dates the place bad been fenced in properly, but on December 13th a ser- ious accident befel one of the workmen owing to the place not being properly fenced. Thomas Lewis stated that he was em- ployed by the defendants on buildings and in the factory yard. On December 17th he was assisting Robert Lloyd saw- ing timber and the engine was going at the time. On December 18th he bad ocasion to go into the engine room for some tools and in reaching over for same he was dragged in and received injuries which laid him up for ten weeks. Previous to the accident he had seen fencing where the accident took place but not on the day of the accident nor the previous day. Robert Lloyd (one of the defendants) stated that the reason why the fencing had been taken down was that they were testing the new engine which had been put down, and to see whether it was in working order, and also the re- adj ustment of the horizontal shafting. They bad left the fencing so as to test the engine properly. That was the only reason why the fencing was not up on the day in question. They bad no wish to conceal anything and they had al- ways endeavoured during the last 18 years to protect their workmen in every possible way. i The Chairman said that the fencing had been in order at one time but not so I on the day of the accident The defendants were further sum. moned by the same officer with neglec- ting to give notice of an accident under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901. The defendants pleaded guilty, and said it was a pure oversight on their part. The Bench imposed a fine of. zel for each offence.