Papurau Newydd Cymru

Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru

Haverfordwest and Milford Haven Telegraph and General Weekly Reporter for the Counties of Pembroke Cardigan Carmarthen Glamorgan and the Rest of South Wales

Nid yw statws neu berchnogaeth hawlfraint yr adnodd hwn yn hysbys.
Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

7 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

Advertising

MILFORD HAVEN IMPROVE. ----MENTS.-

Local and other News.i

PEMBROKIANS BN LONDON. I

Haverfordwest Petty Sessions.

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

Haverfordwest Petty Sessions. These fortnightly petty sessions were held on Monday. The following magistrates were in attendauee :-Mr Jos. Thomas (chairman), Mr W. P. Ormond, Mr T. L. James, Mr Wm. Williams. SCHOOL ATTENDANCE. There were a large number of summonses before tho court for neglecting to comply with school attendance orders. Fines of 2s 6d were iuflicted in a few cases. In the cases of first offenders the summonses were adioiiriipfl- nnJ MATRIMONIAL INFELICITY. Mary Whelton applied for maintenance and a separation order from her husband Bartholemew Whelton on the ground of desertion. Mr W. J. Jones, solicitor, appeared for the com- plainant. The evidence revealed a very unhappy state of affairs in the domestic circle of the Wheltons. Mrs Whelton described the treatment she received from her husband who finally left, and although he was able to earn 30s a week refused to contribute anything to her support. Bartholomew's story was slightly different. The fact was that he was positively afraid to go near the place owing to beatings received from a junior member of the family. He had a wound on his face regarding which Mr Jones was anxious to receive some information but Mr Whelton said that was his business. The court ultimately refused to grant the order required, upon which Mrs Whelton said she would immediately seek admission to the Work- house. A MAINTENANCE DEFAULTER. David Henry Picton appeared in custody on a warrant for £15 for the maintenance of his illegitimate child. Picton said he had no money. He had gone to sea but came back with only a couple of pounds. He could get £2 now if that would be accepted. The Chairman asked if defendant could find bail. Defendant stated he could not. If they wished they could send him to Carmarthen. He had done worse than that. Subsequently Miss Ormond, the plaintiff, offered to accept half the amount, but as this was not forthcoming Picton was removed in custody. EXTRAORDINARY ACTION ABOUT A DOG. I Wm. Roberts, dog-fancier, and Henry John, black- smith, St. Martin's, were prosecuted at the suit of Lewis Pugb, for alleged conspiracy to convert to their own use a;dog the property of prosecutor, namely a wire-haired fox-terrier. The case excited much interest and the court was crowded during the hearing which lasted up to a quarter to five o'clock. Mr W. D. George, solicitor, appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr W. J. Jones, solicitor, appeared for the defendant Roberts. John was not represented professionally. Mr George, in opening the case, detailed at length the circumstances under which the occurrence was alleged to have taken place. The prosecutor, he said, was a cele- brated breeder and exhibitor of valuable dogs. In the moath of last December Mr Pugh had two puppy dogs of the same litter, and one of these dogs he sold to Mr Roberts. Mr Roberts and Mr Pugh had had some previous dealings. Mr Pugh showed Mr Roberts the two puppies and agreed for the sale of one of them. With regard to the other, which was the subject of the present prose- cution, Mr Pugh said he was keeping him for show purposes. Due notice was given to Mr Roberts of Mr Pugh s intention not to part with him. This dog was named "Rough." The dog was put out to keep at Prendergast with James Henry Summers, and was subsequently removed to another man, one of the defen- dants, Henry John. When the dog was at John's Mr Pugh and Mr Roberts had a conversation about the dog and Mr Pugh referred to him as his. About the 11th September in the present year Mr Pugh, having occasion to show the dog to a customer went to John for him, but he found the dog was not there. John made a statement about the dog and then admitted to Mr Pugh that he had lost him somewhere near the Rising Sun. John asked him to wait till after Sunday and perhaps he would find him. In the early part of the next week the crier was sent out to advertise the loss of the dog. From infor- mation received Mr Pugh subsequently journeyed to Chatham, where he found the dog in the possession of Lieut. Russel, of the Royal Engineers. Mr Pugh immediately identified the dog as his own. Lieut. Russell handed Mr Pugh certain letters which he would put in evidence, and these letters he would undertake to prove were in the hand-writing of Roberts. Air Roberts 1 don't denv them Mr George then proceeded to read the letters of which there were four. In these letters Mr Roberts offered Lieut. Russel certain dogs detailing the special qualifi- cation of each. In one letter, that of the 17th Septem- ber, he stated he was sending that day the dog named "Rough" in a box. He remarked that he was the cheapest dog he had over sold and that he was worth a good deal more than he was getting for him (It). Mr Jones' on behalf of Mr Roberts asked where was the evidence of conspiracy. It was the duty of the prosecutor to establish conspiracy before he gave evidence of decided 171. was prepared to admit the letters and the sale. The Clerk the proper time to object is when evidence is tendered. Mr George: There are surrounding circumstances which will show irresistibly that a conspiracy existed. The dog was offered to Lieut. Russell while in the custody of John. Conspiracy was also proved in the pedigree that was sent with the dog which was not a true pedigree of the dog "Rough." If Roberts had been dealing in a bona way he would have gone to Mr Pugh and got the correct pedigree. By the Court: The dog Rough was a brother to the dog already sold to Roberts. The dog had been identified by a number of people so that there could be no doubt about that. Mr George proceeded to say that after the dog had been brought back and identified he had received a letter from Mr Roberts. The letter stated that he could prove that he bought the dog openly and paid the value of 20s for him. Mr Roberts suggested to him to arrange a meeting between himself and Mr Pugh at his office and he would explain. He (Mr George) wrote to say lie did not think that would be a tA ,iX. T.. 6 further letter to him Mr Roberts said Harry John came to him and asked him to buy the dog. He (Mr Roberts) replied that he thought it was Mr Pugh's dog, but John said he had given it to him. He (Roberts) said the dog seemed to be dying. He offered him 15s for it. He (Mr Geoige) said that letter showed a conspiracy between ? ?' They tnÛ1icked in a dog which Roberts knew to J be Mr Pugh's, and which he further knew that he did not intend to sell. It was a most unusual thing to deal with a man like John when he knew who the owner was. This dog was worth from C20 to £ 25. It was bought by Roberts behind the back of the owner, and sold by John for a sovereign. Roberts further described the dog in his letter to Lieut. Russell as the cheapest dog he had ever sold. He asked the Bench to say that this was not a bona fide sale. Mr Pugh asked John if his statement was true, and John admitted that he did sell the dog under pressure by Roberts. Mr Pugh, complainant, in reply to Mr George, said he was a dog breeder and exhibitor. On the 1th December 1898, he 0 had puppies; one of these was a dog called 11 Rotigh," which was now in the custody of the Sergeant. There was another dog in the same litter. He sold that one to Roberts. Mr Roberts saw those two. By the Bench Roberts gave Cl for the other doo- Witness said he sold the other one because he was not up to his class. He was very much inferior to "Rough." The two puppies were out of his bitch, Rowdy Fire- away." He asked the price of Rough and he (wit- ness) replied he was not for sale. Roberts remarked that he was a very promising dog. This took place at Mr Summers' house at Prendergast, where the two puppies were. Roberts bought the other dog on or about 7th June, and the dog in question was taken to Henry John soon afterwards. Sometime in the beginning of September he had the dog home to auoint his log for a slight irritation. He was then taken back to John's house. In the week of the 11th September he went to John's shop and asked him about the dog. He said he had lost him. He questioned him about the dog and he replied he had lost him down by the Rising Sun on the previous Tuesday.) He said when he would be going out for his walk on bunctay he would scour the country. On the following Monday he again saw John, who said he had not found the dog and that he should have the loss cried on the Monday, 1 uesday and Wednesday. He went to John again and told ?°U have to get the asssistance of the police. ? ?hi.lst A dog was with John and before witness knew of i.t1 s loss witness had a conversation with Roberts in his own house. This was before he had him home to dress his leg. Roberts said, That is your dog over with Harry liarvel (meaning John.") Witness said it was. Roberts asked was that the brother of the dog he bought, and witness replied it was. Roberts said he was a foolish man to leave it with John as he was a brute and further that he was a dull man, and he would make the dog as dull as himself. (Laughter). After that he went to Chatham Barracks and saw Lt. Russell, in whose possession he found the dog "Rough." Lt. Russell handed him the letters (produced) they were in Mr Roberts' handwriting. The pedigree in the letter of 11th September was utterly wrong. The value of the dog is about C20, and if he had him under his charge he would make him more valuable. By the Chairman I refused X200 for a dog. Witness, continuing, said he had authonsed no one to sell the dog on his behalf. In consequence of the lnf.for nf "Rnhprt.s tn IVfr f innivra nr,  ?  ?   ??j-,? nitucM went to iebl'y to Iiiiii. He replied 11 11 will confess tho truth. Roberts sent to me for the dog up to his house, saying, it is aUng-ht, on co the do" is away from Haverfordwest ho would stand all the "trouble if there was any. Roberts paid me £ l for the dog." Cross-examined by Mr Jones When a pup "does not turn out to satisfaction it is not the custom to give it to the person walking it. It was not the universal custom, but it was done sometimes. He was certain that he was in Roberts house within six months. The (log was in the best ot health. Re-examined by Mr George Rough did not turn out wrong, and there was therefore no reason for the suggestion that he was to be given to John for his keep. As a matter of fact he had settled with John a few days before. James Henry Summers deposed that he lived at Pren- dergast. He remembered having two puppies to rear up for Mr Pugh. He identified the dog in Court as Rough. The other one was name. David Edward Thomas deposed he was an owner and fancier of dogs, and had been all his life. He was a j neighbour of Mr Pugh. lie knew the dog which was being taken care of by Henry John. He identified him in Court. Cross-examined by Mr Jones: He had heard of un- satisfactory pups being given to the persons walking them. He had never done so himself. Mr Jones addressed the Court for the defendant Roberts. He pointed out that the case was a most unusual one. He did not remember one of the kind and he desired to impress upon their worships in a case of this kind that they should insist on every detail of the law being complied with. A dog was not the RlIbject of a larceny at common law being neither a thingnor a i chattel as denned bv the Act, and that being so even if the dog were stole'?it did not come within the law. The complainant in order to establish a charge of Conspiracy must show that two or more persons conspired. One could not conspire. Two or more men must meet and agree on every detail of the transactions suggested and that was really to convert the dog—both knowiiV it to be the property of someone else, and to deprive that some- one else of his property.. It was clearly laid down that for two or more to conspire was a misdemeanour. The communication ot John to Av Pugh, he asserted, was absolutely no evidence against tha defendant Roberts, 1 and again lie was driven to ask where the evidence did come in as to concert between these people as to the transaction which the prosecution allege. There was not a shred or tittle of evidence against Mr Roberts of concert or agreement between John and himself. Mi-Roberts had got his character to vindicate and was most desirous to go into the witness box. He was offered the dog repeatedly and refused to have it. He ultimately bought it from the man and sent it away in the broad daylight. The dog could have been identified through the box and it was sent by the usual route and consigned in his own name. Mr Roberts then went into the witness box. He said he had seen the dog in custody. He bought him from Harry John tor a sovereign. Mr Pugh offered him the dog in May. He wanted a brace of wire-haired terriers and Went to Pugh's to see a brace. He showed him a few at the house. One of them suited him. He (Mr Pugh) then took him to Prendergast to see others. They went to Summers and the dogs were turned out. Witneea asked which he wanted to sell. He pointed out the other one. Witness asked what he wanted for the brace. He replied 3.)8. He walked home and sent his son with the 35s. and he brought back two dogs-one he had seen at Mr Pugh's house and one at Prendergast. In June he wanted a brace of smooth fox-terriers to go to Roumania. He went to Pugh's to see a brace, one was an all white and the other had white marking. He asked an unreasonable price and witness did not buy. He took me through his house up to the Castle Back and near to Henry John's house he showed him Rough." He said he was not good enough for show and he would sell him. Witness said he was no good to him. A good many weeks after witness was passing Cromwell corner. Harry John stood there with this dog and a bitch and told him that was the bitch that he (witness) gave him when a pup and asked him if he would buy her. Witness said he would and said that he would hear from him in a few days. He asked witness then if he would buy him, alluding to the dog Rough." Witness told him the dog was in a dying state with distemper and didn't look as if he'd be alive many days. He would not like to risk anything on him. Previous to this he said to John I thought that was Pugh's dog." John said Pugh didn't want him and he could do what he liked with him. Some weeks after witness sent to Harry John and told him if he liked to bring the bitch he would give him 15s for her. He came up with her and the dog was following him, and he came out to the back of the house with him. Witness brought the 15s and paid him. Before John went away he again asked him to buy Rough." Witness offered him the same as he paid for the bitch. John then went away with the dog. Some weeks after Harry John came to the house with the same dog and asked a sovereign for the dog. Witness gave the sovereign and John went away. The Court: Was that Rough Witness Yes. Did you know it was ? Witness Yes. In reply to further questions witness said it was quite customary to give dogs away which did not turn out well. He believed John's story, and thought he had a perfect right to buy him. Otherwise he could have bought him as well from Pugh. He had not such an opinion of the dog as Mr Pugh had. He thought him a waster." When he heard something about John he told him to go and tell the whole truth. John asked him to say he bought him from a country man whom he did not know, but he refused, and told him to tell the truth to Mr Pugh. He went to the police station himself, but the Superintendent refused to take his statement. Cross-examined by Mr George: He wrote to Lieut. Russell on I (ith August. You said to him you had a dog ten months old with head marking. Was that the dog Rough ? YerT likely it was. You know whether it was: you wrote the letter F-I wrote to him about other dogs. The letters having been read it was found that the letter which referred to a seven or eight months dog was the one relating to Rough." You wrote that he was the cheapest dog you ever sold, and wrote a good deal more. Is that true ?—It may be true. Is it true he is a -1 waster ?"-He is. Was he a waster on the 11th September ?-He was not much better. When did the transaction between you and John take place ?—I cannot fix the day. On the 11th September you sent it off. How many days had you the dog before that ?—Perhaps two or three. At any rate, Mr Roberts, there is no doubt that it was 'Rough" you sent to Mr Russell om the 11th Sep- tember ?-I don't believe so. — When you sent the dog you gave Russell a pedigree? -Yes. Was it a true pedigree ?-I don't know. I never saw it since. Do you swear that is a correct pedigree (pedigree handed to witness) r-1 don't swear it is. I was writing otheis at the time and may have mixed them up. When did you receive payment from Lt. Russell ?—On the 19th September. I hen you got the money before you sent off the dog ? —I always do. (Laughter). What became of the dogs you previously bought from Mr Pugh ?-One was sold to Russell and the other to person named Graves. Although you bought this dog for XI from John in September, it was not till October that you mentioned anything of it?—Nobody asked me about it. Henry John, the other defendant, volunteered to give evidence. He said Roberts sent for him one Tuesday. Ho went over and" Rough" was with him. Roberts asked him to sell "Rough. Witness told him it WILli Mr Pugh s and that he knew it as well as he did. He was teasing witness to sell it for a sovereign. He told him he could not as it was Mr Pugh's dog and Mr Pugh would find it out. Roberts said he would send the dog away by the mail at night and no one would know any- thing about it. He had the sovereign in his hand and teased him to sell. Witness gave way and took the sovereign and he (Roberts) said there would be nothing more about it. If there was any bother he said he would stand the consequences. Witness never offered the do for sale at any time. The dog went away by the m.11 that night. Witness admitted he was in drink. Next day wituess went to Roberts to try and get the dog back, but lie was told it was too late as the dog had been sent away. By Mr George He was not definite as to the day 00 which the transaction took place. The Magistrates, having consulted, decided to return both defendants for trial at the Assizes to be held in Carmarthen, November Uth, and accepted bail for their appearance. Mr George asked if the magistrates would make an order as to the custody of the dog. The Clerk said they had no power to make any order.

- - - -Anniversary Services…

Sudden Death in Gartlett.