Hide Articles List

14 articles on this Page






[No title]




SECOND DAY'S HEARING. Another special sitting of the court was held on Tuesday for the further hearing of the case. The cross-examination of Police-sergeant R. H. Thomas was resumed before the same presiding justices. Witness said he was satisfied that gaming was indulged in on the club premises. Betting books and racing guides were found on the premises; and one of the members had been fined for street betting, and another cautioned for gaming at the club. He also produced a sporting telegram which had been sent to a person at the club, and be (witness) had been offered racing tips by members of the club. Mr B. F. Williams: I hope you won ? (Laughter.)—I did not accept it. Witness, con- tinuing, said the committee spent more last year on matches than they did on the brass band of the club. The rules stated that proposal forms should be signed three days before election. In his opinion that meant three clear days. Mr B. F. Williams: I see; you have been reading Every man his own lawyer." (Laughter.) Witness did not suggest that there had b6en embezzlement by the secretary in connection with the discrepancy between the amount received as subscriptions of members and that paid to the bank. Police-constable H. South (452) gave evidence in corroboration of that of the previous witness. At the time of the police raid on the 6th of March he saw three men drunk on the club premises. He had frequently noticed rowdyism and dis- turbance at the club. He had seen five men go from the club tea a neighbouring field to drink, and when they left he found an empty bottle of John Dewar's on the ground. Mr B. F. Williams: What do you mean ? Had they been consuming Mr Dewar himself ? (Laughter.)—Witness No, whisky. He had on several occasions seen men leave the club under the influence of drink. Mr B. F. Williams Why did you not arrest these men ? The Bench It is not usual to arrest men who are merely drunk. Mr B. F. Williams 0, isn't it! (Laughter.) Inspector D. Morris testified to cases in which men who had left the club under the influence of drink being fined for drunkenness at the court. When the club closed on Sundays he had seen men carrying bottles away wholesale. Police-constables J. Clyncb, Beedlee, and James Fuller, and Sergeant Poolman gave similar evidence as to the character of the club, which was supported by the opinion of Deputy-chief- constable J. F. Gidd;ngs. For the defence, Mr C. H. Kempthorne, archi- tect and surveyor, gave evidence as to the structural capacity of the club premises and Mr W. E. Knapman, M.S.A., architect, having spoken as to the accommodation available, the (Jourt adjourned for luncheon. On resuming James Johnson, the secretary of the club, and one of the defendants in the case, was called. He was appointed secretary in March. 1900, at a salary of £ 2 a week and 6d per day for refreshments. He described the mode adopted for the election of members, and said no visitors were allowed on the premises of the club, and those responsible for the management had done their utmost to carry out the establishment in a proper manner. He denied the allegation which had been made that the club was run by brewers. He (witness) had never signed a proposal form without the authority of candidate, proposer, or seconder. Mr T. R. Thompson According to the rules the proposal form should be signed by the applicant himself. Mr B. F. Williams And an infringement of that rule would not make the club other th m bona fide. It would only be an irregularity. Mr T. R. Thompson That would open the door to any amount of irregularities. Mr B. F. Williams: But irregularity does not affect the club as a bona-jide institution. Witness declared that all the money received by way of subscriptions had been paid into the bank. He denied that drunkenness had been I¡ encouraged on the club premises at all. When- ever a member was found to have had enough, I the steward would refuse to supply him with any more drink. In cross-examination, witness said that on the day of the raid the club was bom- barded by men, who were nob members, coming to the door seeking admission. The committee had consequently appointed the chairman of the club, at a salary of two guineas a week, to look after the members. The average attendance at the club on Saturday was 150 to ?0Q, I He could not give any explanation why the sub- ( scriptions of meuibe-f from February 9ih to March J 6th had not bstn p.iid m;o the buik. Mr T R Thompson said according to the books j about JB13 worth of beer and cpirits was given away to members on tha 1st of January last. This, he thought, was an improper use of funds. Mr B. F. \Yilliams That is one of the objects NY of the club—social intercourse. (Laughter.) Mr T. R. Thompson It says moral improvement in the rules I should say immoral improvement. Mr B. F. Williams It is a species of elevation, Sir. (Laughter.) Mr David (to witness) Under what head would these free drinks come ? Mr B. F. Williams Mutual helpfulness. (Laughter.) Mr T. R. Thompson asked whether the defence were prepared to meet the charges of drunkenness ? Mr B. F. Williams repiied that in the face of the evidence, it would be helpless to struggle against the charges of drunkenness. In addressing the Bench, Mr Francis Williams said this was a workingmen's club, and one would not expect a club of this kind to be conducted with the same scrupulous regard to rules as clubs of a superior class. He admitted irregularities, but still he contended that the club was yet a bona-fide institution. The ideas of social recreation which the members seemed to have were those of our grandfathers, and not present- day ideas of propriety. (Laughter.) The Bench were of opinion that the case had been proved, and ordered that the club be struck off the register of clubs, and that the premises be not used for the purposes of a club requiring registration under the Act for a period of twelve calendar months. Mr Thompson added that great credit was due to the police for the very efficient manner in which the case for the prosecution had been prerpared. Mr David applied for costs, and the Bench I granted j615 15s, Mr Thompson regretting that it I was not in the power of the justices to grant special costs to the police. AN EXPLANATION. We are asked to state that the solicitor referred to during the evidence of Sergeant Thomas as i having appointed himself arbitrator of disputes in connection with the Unionist Club, is a solicitor not now residing at Barry, and was not Mr F. P. Jones-Lloyd, who was instructed for the defence.





[No title]