Hide Articles List

16 articles on this Page


I-Ammanford Police Court.


I- Ammanford Police Court. Monday, January 13th.-Before Lieut.-Col. W. N. Jones, Dyffryn (in the chair) Mr. W. J. Williams, Brynamman; and Mr. Tom Morris, Garnant. I CONSTABLE SWORN IN. P.C. Vincent, formerly stationed at Gar- nant, was sworn in. He has served in France for several years, anl was attached to the Welsh Guards. The Chairman said they were all very glad [- to see him back, looking so well. AFFILIATION. Miss Catherine Jane Roberts, of Penrhiw, Tycroes, summoned David Henry Walters, of Forest Hill, Pontardulais, to shew cause, &c. Mr. T. R. Ludford, solicitor, Llanelly, ap. peared for complainant, and Mr. C. Dahne, solicitor, Swansea, for the defendant. Defendant's solicitor applied for an ad. journment, and Mr. Ludforl agreed to the order of the magistrates that the case be adjourned for fourteen days. APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF I ORDER. Miss Millie Harries, of Park Terrace, Pantyffynnon, applied for an increase in the amount of order made in respect of her illegitimate child, against David Harries, of Tynewydd House, Cwmllynfell, who had been adjudged the father. The defendant had written stating his in- ability to attend, and the case was adjourned until February 10th. FAILURE TO GIVE INVOICES AND I RETURNS. Mr. David Thomas, the Local Food Inspector, summoned Messrs. Peglers, Quay Street, Amman ford for failing to give invoices and returns of dealings in sugar for the months of October, November and December last. Mr. T. M. Evans, solicitor, Ammanord, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Andrews, solicitor, Swansea, defended. Mr. Andrews said that the section of the Order under which defendants were charged was divided into two, which meant two separate offences, and that the two offences could not be included in one summons. He suggested that the summons should be amended, and he wished to know under which of the sections the charge would be made. After exchanges of opinion as to whether the summons was in order, the Chairman sug- gested that the summons be amended, and that the word information should be in- serted instead of the word invoice." In- formation would cover it. Mr. Andrews remarked that the summons should have been made out in accordance with the words of the Order, and that no- thing was stated in that part of the Order about invoices. Mr. T. M. Evans agreed that the word information should be substituted for the word invoice." In outlining the case, Mr. Evans said that the summons was taken out in consequence of complaints which were received, and which extended over three months. The defendants were registered retailers who had a branch shop within the local Urban Area. The work of the Local Food Control Committee was partly to see how many customers were regis- tered with the various retailers, and they were to be furnished with lists shewing how many customers were registered. Supposing a retailer had 150 customers, the Local Food Control Committee would see that the 150 who were entitled to gib. of sugar per week were given their supply. He described some of the duties of local retailers with regard to the furnishing of a list shewing the number of customers, &c., to the Local Food Control Office. Dealing with the charge, Mr. Evans said that the complaints became so persistent, until at last the Fool Control Committee had to take serious notice. People complained of being without sugar for two, three, four, and even five weeks. As a result, the Local Food Inspector was instructed to make enquiries into the matter, and on December 9th last he called with Mr. E. Harries, the manager of Peglers' local branch, for the purpose of see- ing the invoices, &c., relating to sugar. The complaints continued from the beginning of October up to the end of December. It became incumbent that the Food Inspector should look into the matter. Mr. Harries, the manager, produced the books, but they were no evidence whatever. The Inspector asked for the original invoices relating to sugar for the months referred to. The manager replied he could not produce them; they were at Peglers' Stores, Newport. i Subsequently the Inspector called on Decem- ber 23rd, so that Mr. Harries had ample time to obtain the invoices. On this visit the Inspector asked for the production of the invoices covering three months ended 31st December. Again the invoices were not pro- duced, and Mr. Harries made the same reply. The matter was reported to the Food Control Committee, and a resolution was passed that the present proceedings should be taken. The firm had done everything to assist the Local Food Control Committee, and it was with extreme regret that the present proceedings were taken. At the same time, the interests of the public had to be considered and pro- tected. Mr. David Thomas, the Local Food In- spector, in giving evidence said that continual complaints had been made, and on the 9th December last he visited Peglers' Stores and asked for the production of invoices relating to sugar for the last three months, viz., October, November, and December, 1918. The manager said he did not have them; they were at Newport. He again called at the shop on December 23rd and asked for the production of the invoices, when the same reply was given. Cross-examined: The books of the manager were produced, which shewed all rationed food sent to him from the head office. The manager was prepared to shew all other books relating to the matter. Invoices were issued by wholesale firms. Mr. Andrews remarked that in this case the invoices had never been issued from the head office to the local shop. The manager, Mr. Edward Harries, who was also summoned in respect of the same offence, was then called, and said that invoices were never sent to any of the branches, and bore out his advocate's remarks. A letter was handed in from the head office of the firm in response to Mr. Harries' com- munication, stating that the auditor would not permit the invoices to be sent to the branches. Mr. Andrews, in addressing the Bench, referred to the fact that the manager hal pro- duced the advice notes and books for the insepction of the Food Inspector, and that he had not withheld any information in his pos- session. It was very 4dlifficult to define whether the advice note was an inyoice or not. Per- haps if it had the word invoice" printedi upon it in large letters instead of the word: adv ice, i t might have been accepted as an invoice. The manager had been told by the Inspector that he did not require inspec- tion of the advice notes, but that he required inspection of the invoices. The Chairman remarked that the manager should have taken some steps to have the invoices ready for the Inspector by the time he called on December 23rd. In delivering the decision of the Bench, the Chairman said that the matter had been carefully considered according to the evi- dence, and that being the first case of the kind which had come before them, they did not consider it a very serious case. An order would be made that the defendants pay the costs of the cases and also advocate' s fee. I fee. LARCENY. Deputy Chief Constable John Evans sum- moned Gwenllian Thomas, of Llandilo Road, Brynamman, for larceny. There were three charges against defendant. Mr. Maddocks, draper, Station Road, Brynamman, giving evidence, said that he left his premises on the 24th December last and went for a few days' holidays. He returned on the following Friday (the 27th) and found certain articles of clothing missing, the total value of which was f-i I 10s. Id. He received some of the articles from P.C. Thomas, of Brynamman, who had re- covered same. P.C. David Thomas said ;fce received com- plaints about certain articles being missing from the premises of Mr. Maddocks. On December 29th he saw defendant, and in- formed her that he was making enquiries about the missing articles. The defendant replied: I don't know anything about it." Witness requested her to give an accunt of her movements, and defendant said: Yes, I have been there. He then cautioned her, and defendant made a statement to the effect that she was going up Station Road on Wednesday, the 25th of December, and that when opposite Mr. Maddocks' shop she went up as far as the back door and tried to open it, but found it was locked. She then tried the window, and found that the catch was not closed. She opened the window and went inside into the kitchen, and from there into the shop. She took the clothes, and they were in her mother's house. She packed them in a sack which she found on the pre- mises. She went out the same way as she came in. She went up Llandilo Road, and emptied the contents of the bag in the par- lour. Her mother was out at the time. Defen- dant then went out, and when she returned her mother asked her where she had had all the clothes from, and she replied that she had been to Mr. Maddocks' shop. During the conversation the defendant said that all the articles were in the house. Witness cautioned her and charged her with stealing the articles, and defendant replied that she had nothing further to say, and that she was sorry and did not know what tempted her to do it. P.C. Thomas further said that he saw the defendant and her mother on the 3rd inst., and informed defendant that certain articles were still missing ofrom the shop. The defendant cried, and said: Wait a bit and I will get them for you. I am wearing some of them now." The defendant returned and handed several articles over. Witness again cautioned and charged her, and defendant replied: I have nothing further to add to what I have already said." Mr. Maddocks, in the witness-box, said that articles were missed previously to the dates mentioned, and that he' received several articles, including two ladies' coats, a silk hat and a tie. The value of the articles was 16 8s. P. C. D. Thomas added that on January informed her that some other articles were I 8th he saw defendant at her house, when he still missing from the shop, consisting of a gents velour hat, one brown cloth coat, a child's navy blue Kitty, and also a fawn- coloured coat. He cautioned her, and she made a statement to the effect that one evening about two months ago she went out about 8 o'clock. She saw Mr. Maddocks going down Station Road, Brynamman. She then went round the back of Mr. Maddocks' shop and tried the door, and found it was locked. She then tried the back window, and found it was not fastened. She opened the window and went into the kitchen, and from there into the shop, and took a veloui hat, a child's navy blue Kitty, and about four yards of blue cloth, which had been made into an overcoat, and some other cloths, also made into a coat. She took the articles home. Witness charged her with stealing the articles, and defendant replied: 1 am very rry. You have get all that I have taken now." The value of the articles was £6 8s. The defendant pleaded guilty, and said she was 19 years of age. Defendant was also charged with having stolen certain articles from the premises of Mrs. Charlotte Rogers, of Leicester House, Brynamman. Mrs. Rogers, giving evidence, said that on the 3rd inst. she missed certain articles from her shop. The goods missed were 4 pairs of boots, one pair of brown shoes, and one pair of court shoes. The total value of the articles was S-9 5s. 5d. P.C. Thomas gave evidence of having seen the defendant, when he informed her he was i making enQuiries about the missing articles. She said that about a week ago, on a week- night, she saw Mr. Rogers and his wife going down Station Road. She then went up and tried the back door, and found that it was locked. She then tried the back window, and found it was not fastened, and she entered the house, and then went into the shop. She took four pairs of ladies' boots, one pair of court s'hoes, and one pair of brown shoes, and took them home. Some of the articles were handed over to witness. The defen- dant did not keep the court shoes, as they did not fit her. Defendant pleaded guilty. Mrs. W. J. Williams, of Brynamman, then addressed the magistrates, and gave the defen- dant a good character. Defendant had at one time been a good girl, and she (Mrs. Williams) hoped their Worships would have mercy upon her. She would undertake to look after the girl in future and to take care of her. The Chairman said that they blamed the defendant's mother more than the defendant. Mrs. Thomas, the defendant's mother, was called before the Court, and the Chairman said that as a woman of 44 years of age she should know better than to encourage her daughter in such a practice. It was obvious that she knew that the girl could never have got the articles honestly, and that the girl was encouraged. The Chairman, continuing, said that they were sorry to find the girl charged with those offences, and he advised her to refrain from taking other people's property. What does not belong to you, belongs to someone else," remarked the Chairman, so do not take any. thing which belongs to other people in future." The magistrates ordered that the goods be restored to their owners, and that the value of the articles which were damaged should be paid by the defendant. An order was also made that defendant be bound over in the sum of i.20 to be of good behaviour for two years, and the girl was cautioned by the Chairman. WILFUL DAMAGE. The adjourned case of David Davies and M. Davies, brother and sister, was settled, an arrangement having been made between the parties. Mr. T. M. Evans, solicitor, Amman ford appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Samue! Griffith, solocitor, Ammanford, for the defen- dant. Mr. T. M. Evans raised an objection to a certain clause in the agreement drawn up by the surveyors of the parties, and on the Chairman (Lieut.-Col. W. N. Jones) under taking to see Lord Dynevor about having the water of which it was complained drained on to a field owned by his lordship, the respec- tive advocates agreed to the case being settled. OBSTRUCTION. I P.S. Morgans, of Llandebie, summoned David William Evans (17), of Brown Hill, Ammanford, with having obstructed the high- way at Llandyfan Road, near Llandebie, on Sunday, the 5th inst. While persons were coming from divine service, the defendant used a flashlight at their faces. P.S. Mor- gans charged him, and he made no. reply. P. C. Higgins charged Morgan Morgans, 18, High Street, Ammanford, with a similar offence in Llandyfan Road. White witnes: i l an- was proceeding in plain clothes along Uan- dyfan Road, the defendant flashed a light in his face. Witness took possession of tht flashlight, and defendant attempted to run away, but he was caught. It had been found that defendant had given a wrong name and address, and his correct name and address were Morgan Morgans, of 18, High Street, Ammanford. Defendant did not appear. William Jones, of College Cottage, Der- wydd, was also charged with having obstructed the highway in a similar manner, as also was Oswald James, of Bryncoch Farm, Derwydd Road. The magistrates, after considering the cases, imposed fines of 10s. inclusive on the three defendants present in Court, and Morgan Morgans was ordered to pay the sum of 15s. inclusive. All the applications for increases under the Increase of Maximum Payment Order, 1918, with the exception of one case—in which an increase of Is. was made—were adjourned until February 10th, so as ta enable parti- culars to be obtained as to t hl earnings, &c., of the respective defendants, and also the real circumstances of the cases.

IAmmanford County Court.I


[No title]

[No title]

IAnrhegu Alcanwr. I

Lloffion o Lanfihangel.

Clywedigion -o -Gwynfe. I

[No title]