Carnarvon and Denbigh Herald and North and South Wales Independent

THE BETHESDA RIOTS. ] GASES AT THE ASSIZES. QUARRY-MEN FOUNT) GUILTY. I The public manifested a very keen interest in the Betliesda cases, which came on for trial be- fore Mr Justice Phillimore, at the Winter As- sizes. opened at Carnarvon on Saturday. Dur- ing the days the trial lasted, the court was in- conveniently crowded. Nine men and one woman were indicted for riot -1 'Richard Jones (20), farm labourer; Frank Plater (27). hairdresser; William Hughes (25), labourer; Hannah Roberts, married woman and the following quarrymen John Williams (48), Robert Roberts (38), Tho- I mas Lewis Owen (22), John Owen (23). William Owen (20), and William. Lewis Owen (20).—Mr Trevor Lloyd and Mr Graham Wilkin (instruct- ed by Mr S. R. Dew, Bangor) appeared for the Crown and Mr Samuel (Moss (instructed by Mr W. 'George, Criccieth) defended. The petty jury who triedt the case were: — Messrs Richard Griffith, Denio John Hughes, Richard Hughes, David Jones, Richard David Owen, Thomas Owen, Richard Owen, !R. 0. Ro- berts, Richard" Roberts, Teter Roberts, John Owen Thomas, and -Edward Thomas. THE CASE FOR THE CROWN. Mr Trevor Lloyd opened the case for the Crown in a lengthy speech, in the course of which he said it was a matter of public notoriety that there had been unfortunate disputes at Bethesda, but with them they had fortunately nothing to do. The prosecution alleged that the ten, defendants were guilty of riotous conduct on Tuesday. July 30th, by assembling in the streets when the workmen at the quarry came out at half-past five in the evening, and hooting, boohing, and using violent language towards the men who were legitimately at work. It was important. for the jury to note that the men who were at work were lawfully at work. If I they desired to go to work and to accept the I terms of Lord Penrhyn. they were entitled to do so without molestation from anybody, and the law would protect men who were legitimately carrying out their work. On the other hand, their colleagues who die-sired not to work had a perfect right to exercise their own judgment. He was sure that the jury, as men of integrity and common sense, and as men of the world, would show by their verdict that they would uphold the law. On the day in question, as be- fore and! since, it was necessary for the men I coming from the quarry to be accompanied by policemen to their homes. These men were ter- rified by the demeanour and conduct of the I crowd, int which the defendants were alleged to have taken part. It was easy to feel secure in ai peaceful place like that court, but one could imagine what it would be like in a place like Bethesda, and how easily those men going from their work might be frightened by the attitude »f a hostile crowd. He did not know that any overt act was actually done by any defendant Jjiat frightened any particular person, but it was TOe crowd collecting together, the boohing, and the language used, that put the workmen in fear of their limbs, and even of their lives. Chiefly composed of men. the crowd also included women and children, and the women no doubt I to a great extent urged on their husbands in this disorderly conduct. Amongst the defendants there was one woman, but he was glad that he would have no evidence of actual violence to ) offer against her, although she boohed and shout- I ed with the others. He should, however, have *•> bring home actual violence to some ox the men. While a constable named Jonies, for in- stance, was going with three workmen on the way to their homes, ihe was surrounded by a hostile crowd, and he saw the defendant Thomas Lewis Owen throw a stone. He went up to the man and charged him witth having thrown the stone. Another defendant named Thomas .Hughes came up and took hold of the constable's arm-, so that he should let Owen go. Then the brother of Lewis Owen came up with a stone in his hand, and threateningly said to the con- stable that. if the latter would Dot let the man go he would throw the stone at his head. The constable, knowing it was his duty to hold the man, did not let him go, and1 Owen threw the stone at the officer's head so that his helmet was I broken. WORKMEN'S EVIDENCE. John Henry Jonies, -a young Tail, who was returning from the quarry on the day in ques- John Henry Jonies, a, young Tail, who was returning from the quarry on the day in ques- tion, said that the conduct of the crowd was such that he was afraid of his life. He and the other quarrymen were accompanied by police- men, and it had become usual for them every day to be protected in their going to and coming from the quarry.Replying to Mr Moss, the witness sauT that lie could not identify anyone who was in the crowd. John Thomas, another quarrvman, gave simi- I lar evidence. ;He spoke to one stone being thrown. He and others residing near him con- tinued) to be escorted by police when going to work in the mornings. I Robert Williams, a third quarrvman, said that ¡ the crowd boohed and shouted "Traitors" after him and his fellow-workmen. He could not say whether they considered those who had gone to work to be traitors. I Mr Moss Is it not one of the points in dispute between Lord Penrhyn and the workmen that his lordship will not "recognise the Union? The Witness I cannot say anything about; that. But you were out on strike?—-Yes. ¡ The Judge And you went back?—-Yes. Mr Mos&: Do wot the men who are still out. consider that the men who have gone back have broken faith with them? — I can say nothing about it. 4t this stage, the court adjourned until Mon- day. His Lordship, in bailing the accused out as previously, on their own recognisances, warned them that in the meantime there must be no disturbances nor interference with any wit- nesses who had given evidence or intending wit- nesses. MONDAY'S HEARING. The court sat from ten until after eight •o clock on A.ibiiiday. QFuritlier evidence was given, the first witness called being Owen Morris. Caellwyngrydd, a slate sawyer, employed at the mill in connection with the lenrhyn Quarry. He described the crowd as tearfully wild," and) stones were thrown, a man named W llliams accompanying him being struck on the shoulder. The crowd set. upon Police- constable Jones (27), but he could not see what took place Cross-examined! by Mr S. Moss, M.P.. witness said there were 18 to 20 men working at the quarry who lived at Caellwyngrydd. and about that number left the quarry together on the day in question. At that time, a large number had come back from South Wales for a fortnight's holiday. He could only speak to two stones being thrown, one of which struck Rowland Wil- liams. He saw Police-constable 27 out of sight in the crowd (laughter). He got home safe; the whole thing onlv took a short time. Re-examined The women who filled the street boohed, but he could not say that the men did so. By the Judge: The police escorted them up to the gate of the bouse. Rowland Williams, quarryman, Caellwyn- grydd, a man well advanced in years, gave gene- rally corroborative evidence. The crowd, using oaths, threatened to kill them, and he did not know what would have happened to them had thev not been protected by the police. Cross-examined The women were constantly I pestering them. Sundays and weekdays, they were escorted bv Polie"-cr>nstabl» Jorips. who was with a crowd a hundred yards behind them. and as witness's btck was turned tr the crowd I he could not see what happened to Jones (laugh- ter). POLICE EVIDENCE. Police-constable Edward Piercp Williams. No. 54. onp of the two policemen referred to in the preceding evidence, saw a very disorderly crowd of 250 to 300 people assembling on the <Jav in nuestion. who greeted the mm returning from: the nunrrv with threats and shouts. He rfcoor- ni^od all thprlefpnrhnt". except John Williams and Hannah Roberts, taking an active part in the crowd, shoutir.g and hooting. Ho saw three stones massing bim thrown from behind, ordinary small stones from the road. He re- turned to assist Pol ice const^bl^ Jc-°k, SIT- rounded bv orn^r^. Juries ttbs bleeding fwnn a. wound in toe back of the hond. Jones had his staff out, and witness also drew liii staff, rvr.r.n..1!r--] ..At, Lh" time he h"cl be«n onh- +1->rf" W""at- Bfth" 1--T", ('1-1 f1"" C',T fljof 1-. r., 1".(, 1'")nf- fltrr,TT.T^ T-Tø h",l V" — +1, J'abit of on.rmnt 1, r't" cf. bt»* ho rot ;i1Jo.\rfd to dr, <"I) _\11 tl,n nnbo* in th" ^ist-iot now *r -"•)rrr djpl. He dH r>r& k"I)r.>K .11:1 v'tb 4>i« «Helt. locked! im Hm'W ^nbseque-ntlv. a^d summoned boo for 'ilt, but the magistrates dismissed the case. They also dismissed a cross-summon* ] by William Hughes against him. He identified Hannah Roberts as being in the crowd near Llanerchymedd Shop. He could swear to her I dress, and identified a blouse produced in court as the one worn by her on that occasion. He V'as not remonstrated with for drawing his truncheon. He did not hear Sergeant Nelson tell him to put his truncheon up. Police-Constable 41 (Richard Williams) corro- borated, and identified Frank Plater. Robert Roberts, John Williams, John Owen. William Hughes. Thomas' Lewis Owen, and Richard Jones as they came down to join the crowd. He also saw William Owen and Owen Lewis Owen joining the crowd, and making themselves ready to receive the workmen when they arrived. He identified Hannah Roberts as being in the crowd. Stones were thrown. In cross-examination, he said that he identified Hannah Roberts, and could remember how she was dressed. Show¡Il the blouse identified by the previous witness, be said it was not the blouse worn by the defendant (laughter). Hannah Ro- berts gave her name a-S Mrs Jones. Chapel House. The crowd said they were going to (til! the workmen. They followed him and another constable escorting eight men to Llanllechid £:.1' 50 yards, but he turned and looked at them for perhaps five minutes, and the crowd went back to the square. THE POLICEMAN'S BOOK This witness said he entered the names of the defendants whom he identified down in his book at the time. On producing the book. Mr Moss pointed out that the date on the book was October 16th. for that entry. He turned up another page, marked July 30th, the d'ate in question; but Mr Moss pointed out that this' entry followed instead of preceding that of October 16th, and was, as a matter of fact. the last entry in the book.—Wis Lordship tried to elicit some explanation, b .t failed to satisfy himself. His Lordship told lhe jury that he did not think witness had written the names at the time.—Replying to his Loi l- t-hip, witness said he had been seven years in the force.—Re-examined All the defendants except Hannah Roberts admitted to him that they had been iu the crowd. Police-Constable Robert Jones M7) identified William Owen. Thomas Lewis Owen, and Wil- i.am Hughes, as being in the crowd. Witness charged Thomas Lewis Owen w; throwing stones, and William Hughes struck w't^ess several times in the chest. Owen Lewis Owen came up with a stone in his hand, and threatened him. Owen Lewis Owea threw the stone, anti hit witness on the back of the head, drawing blood. Witness afterwards1 drew his staff.— Cross-examined The women in the crowd re- monstrated with him for drawing his staff, one saying it was a shame he should draw his staff on a harmless lad who had done nothing to him. Dr John Griffith, practising at Bethesda, gave evidence as to the nature of the wound, which was an incised wound on the side of the head, an inch long and half an inch deep. Police-Sergeant Nelson identified William Owen and Owen Lewis Owen as being in the crowd. He saw William Owen throw a stone after the quarrymen. He corroborated Constable Jones's evidence as to the assault committea upon him bv William Hughes and 0. Lewis Owen. Witness took filenames of all the defendants shortly afterwards. They included Hannah Ro- berts ■who cave a false name. Not one of them denied being there. The woman was in the crowd, and he heard her shout, "After them, lads kill the whole lot of them." He had seen her in previous crowds n the same place, and he also recognised her by her blouse. Replying to Mr Moss, witness said that a tort- night after the committal he called upon Hannah Roberts to make certain inquiries as to her age. She declined to reply to any questions, but told witness to go to Amlwch Church for satisfaction (laughter). ° There was no truth whatever in the suggestion that 'he told the woman that he wished to withdraw the prosecution against^her. This closed the case for the prosecution. MR MOSS'S DEFENCE, In opening the case for the defence, Mr Moss pointed out that there must be a tumultuous dis- turbance of the peace, there must- be an assemb- ling for a. common object and the persons en- gaged therein must actually effect that object before they could be fouad guilty of a riot. His Lordship: I caitiot remember that, Mr Moss. Mr Moss then que, 3d from "Archibald, whereupon the Judge v-marked that it did1 not mean that the persons completed all that they desired to do, but that. they took certain steps in the process of doing it. The learned advocate, resuming, said that he would at any rate submit that before the defen- dants could be convicted of riot thev must exe- cute an unlawful purpose in a tumultuous manner. He desired particularly to explain manner. He desired particularly to explain that Rachub was a small congested district, con- sisting of the square whiA had been referred to, from which branched off one main street, from which again branched off several smaller streets. If men were in the habit of coming together in the square—as men would meet in all towns and villages—on holidays and Saturday evenings, t everybody would agree that if they were not there for an unlawful purpose, it was no riot. Assuming all the defendants to be in the crowd on the date in question—and it would be proved that some of tuem were not there-he maintained that the jury would require a much ftroneer force of evidence to convince them that they were there by a pre-arrangement to break the peace. There was, he said, not a- tittle of evidence of pre-arrangement. Although some 18 or 20 of the men who worked in the quarry lived at Raqhub only five of them were called by the prosecution, and though presumably those five had lived in the district all their lives. it wa.s significant that according to their evi- dence not one of them Siiw any of the defendants either at Rachub or Caellwyngrydd on the evening in question, and there were only two police officers1 who spoke to the identity of all the defendants. Dealing individually with the defendants, counsel pointed out that he would be able to prove that neither Richard Jones nor Plater, though in the Square, took a.ny part whatever in the disturbance, and tbe latter was immensely surprised when Sergeant Nelson came to him to ask his name. As to Robert Roberts, a curious fact about hiin was that he was there with a chad, and witness after witness would prove that they saw him going about with the child on his arm during the whole of what the police had described as a disturbance. A peculiar fact also attached to the case of John Williams. This man hsi a son actually employed in the quarry, and he (counsel) thought that the jury would agree that it was a most extra- i ordinary thing if he took part in a hostile de- j monst-ration under such circumstances. As to Thomas Lewis Owen and Owen Lewis Owen, they also were on the Square—in fact, it would be'difficult to find any person residing in that neighbourhood who was not on the Square but neither of uiem took any part in the disturbance. The moi-t that could be saici was that it was a verbal demonstration among the men. Owen Lewis Owen would swear that Constable Jones was not struck by him. The Judge, interposing, observed that the striking of the officer did not look like a verbal demonstration. Mr Moss, continuing. said that what he wanted to put to the jury was that it was not a riot. It would be proved of the remainder of the male defendants that they took no part what- ever in the disturbances. The same thing ap- I plied to the female defendant, and a Mrs Jones would' be called to prove that Sergeant Nelson put to her the questions which he alleged he pu t to Hannah Roberts; and if the officers were so greatly mistaken in her case how were the jury greatly mistaken in her case how were the jury I to rely on their evidence with regard to the other defendants. EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE. Richard Jones, one of the defendants, went into the box and denied emphatically that he took any part in the disturbance. It was equally untrue that Sergeant Nelson warned him on the previous Saturday evening and that he asked Nelson afterward's to let him off. Mrs Anne Griffith, Caellwyngrydd, gaye evi- dence to the effect that she had seen Richard Jones in the Rachub, Square at about a quarter- past five. William Griffith, coal merchant, and a poor- law guardian, said lie heard Police-Constable 41 ask KTchard Jones if he had been in the crowd, to which Jones repM that he had been in the Square. He knew all the defendants, who were respectable men an<J their conduct good. Frank Plater, bait-dresser, one of the defen- dants. said he was in the Square from 5.30 to 6.15 on the day in question. He had gone there to welcome some friends coming back from South Wales, and arriving by train. He saw the workmen, but did not interfere with them in a.ny way. H? had never seen workmen escorted by policemen before this strike. He had seen no stones thrown and heard no booing I by the crowd. He spoke to John Hughes, pro- prietor of a boot shop.—Cross-examined He had seen the crowd. He had been warned by Sergeant Owen, who wanted him to stop the sieging of hymns in his shop. [ John Hughes, who keeps a bootmaker's shop at Caellwyngrydd, generally corroborated the last witness. John Williams, another defendant, a. quarry- man, residing at Caellwyngrydd, said he had gone to Rachub Square to meet an old friend, Robert Roberts. wHo had been working at his side in the quarry for 17 years, and who had returned that day from South Wales. Robert Roberts was on the Square wit.h a child 20 months old in his arms. The people of the village generally congregated on the Square. When the workmen from the quarry arrived a few women and children cried "boo." Neither he nor Robert Roberts took part in any distur- bance. He had a son working at the quarry as an engine driver now. He had himself worked at the quarry for 35 years. After the distur- bance Sergeant Nelson asked him his name, but Police-Constable 41, pointing with his stick, said "That is not- the man we are looking for." Witness asked Sergeant Nelson what he (wit- ness) had done. The sergeant replied that he had done nothing but stand on the Square with Robert Roberts.—Cross-examined He had gone to the Square because he knew Robert, Roberts would probably be there about six o'clock in the evening. He had not gone with the intention of molesting the quarrymen; he had a son working and would not Like to see him molested, and would not. therefore, care to molest any of the men in the quarry. No one booed except a few women or children. Owen Jones, Mill-street, Bethesda, a quarry- man on strike, corroborated the last witness. John Williams and Robert Roberts did not go with the. crowd following the workmen.—Cross- examined He did not hear anyone shouting "Traitors." The men still out regarded those who IiacT returned to work as traitors. Robert Roberts, quarryman, Caellwyngrydd, another defendant, now working in South Wales, said he had reached Bethesda. that morning on a fortnight's holiday, and after travelling all the previous night bad remained in bed all day. He had, in accordance with the usual custom before and after the strike, gone to the square that night, and had his little child on his arm. When the workmen from the quarry appeared a few children shouted "boo," but no men shouted. He saw no. stones thrown, and took no part in any hostile demonstration. Mrs Elizabeth Jones, Caellwyngrydd, whose husband works in South Wales, gave evidence to the effect that the police had held their staffs over the heads of some of the defendants, and she had told them they ought to be ashamed ¡ of themselves for drawing their truncheons against men who had done nothing to them.— Cross-examined She had never been warned by the police as to molesting the quarrymen now at work.—Re-examined Witness now resided in South Wales, and had come up to give evidence in this case. She had never taken part in any demonstration. HOW THE POLICE ACTED. ¡ Thomas Lewis -Owen. another defendant, generally corroborated previous witnesses for the defence. He had been at Talysarnthat day, and had to go through Caellwyngrydd to get home. Police-constable 27 seized him by the shoulder, but did not say anything. The policeman pushed witness's brother, Owen Lewis Owen, against the railings because Owen had asked the con- stable to leave witness alone. Witness's mother was there with his brother. Witness and his brother went straight home. Owen Lewis Owen, brother of the previous witness, and another defendant, corroborated. He commenced his evidence in English, and said he had been in South Wales for seven months. His Lordship: We are getting on; witness is giving his evidence in English. Witness I can't go on far in English, my lord. His Lordship Everybody in South Wales knows English. Witness I have only been there seven months, my lord. Witness continued his evidence, speaking very slowly, and at times oidv finding English words with hesitation. He saw the policeman seizing his brother, and went to him, asking him to let his brother go. Police-constable Jones hit wit- ness's mother on the eye with his staffT but did not say it was intentional., His Lordship If it was accidental, it is ab- solutely unimportant. Mr Moss it- shows, my lord, the state of the excitement in which the police-officers were at the time. Witness, proceeding, said there would have been no disturbance were it not for the presence and action of the police. He had never been I warned by the police as to his behaviour.—Re- examined He had returned from South Wales owing to an accident, and had been working at the lutv in th« neighbourhood of Bethesda for a fortnigllt before the alleged riot, William Jones corroborated the evidence of the brothers Thomas and Owen Lewis Owen. Thomas Lewis Owen had done nothing when Police-constable Jones took hold1 of him. Cross-examined He was a quarryman on strike. He could not say why the police escorted the workmen, but presumed it was because the men were afraid. ¡ William Hughes, labourer, corroborated pre- vious witnesses for the defence, particularly with respect, to the brothers Owen. He had seen blood on the policeman's head before the brothers Owen met the police. His Lordship pointed out that this had not been suggested before the magistrates. Mr Moss said no evidence for the defence j had. been taken before the magistrates. His Lore ship said possibly the suggestion about the blood being on the policeman's head before he met the brothers Owen might be an about the blood being on the policeman's head before he met the brothers Owen might be an afterthought. Mr M>oss pointed out that the summonses were served on Thursday, and the hearing took place on the Tuesday following, leaving only three days for getting up the defence on a charge of riot. JUDGE'S OPINION OF THE EVIDENCE. The Judge, addressing Mr Moss, put it to him to use his discretion as to calling more evi- dence of that kind. The witness had denied that there was any boohing or routing as the men get to the square, though he practical^ ot there with them If the man had owned up to it and said that the defendants did not do those things, he could have understood it. Mr Moss What the witness said, my lord, I was that he did not hear it. The Judge He was there, and could not help hearing it if there was any truth ill what the Crown said. You will use your discretion. The Foreman of the jury stood, up and re- marked that they had heard enough, but his Lordship observed that the defence had more witnesses to call. I Mrs Catherine Owen, mother of the brothers Owen, among the defendants, gave evidence in support of her soils' version of the affair. Police- Constable Jones.had struck her in the eye when lifting his staff to her son. Neither of her sons I had done anything to the police. She had seen blood on the constable's head before her sons were interfered with. Mrs- Margaret Griffith generally corroborated the last witness. She remonstrated with the police for drawing their staves to lads who had done nothing to them. P-olice-Constable Jones then pushed her, and she asked him why he struck her for nothing, but he did not reply- — Cross-examined She had' met the quarrymen. but had never booed them. She had not been warned by the police or anyone, W. T. Jones, formerly employed at the 1 en- rhvn Quarries, denied that Ow'en Lewis Owen did anything to Constable Jones, but the con- did anything to Constable Jones, but the con- stable "pushed him until he lay against some railings on the side of the road. I John Owen, one of the defendants, that he did' not see any of the disturbance. The same uight. however. "Sergeant Nelson charged him with being present and asked for his name. The last witness's mother and Miss Mary Jane Hughes, B.A., assistant mistress at Carnarvon Board School, gave evidence proving an alibi in his case, and, at his lordship's suggestion, the jury found John Owen not guilty, and he was discharged. Two other defendants. William Owen and William Hughes, were also called. The latter denied that he struck Police-Constable 27 at all. EVIDENCE OF CHARACTER. Rev T. Dennis Jones, B.A.. Congregational minister of Llanllechid, called to give evidence as to character, declined to be sworn, electing to make affirmation. John Williams. Robert Roberts, and William Owen were members of his congregation, and bore excellent characters. The Rachub-square was a common place of resort for the villagers. Rev Thomas Hughes. Wesleyan minister, of Ti ■egarth, had known the defendants Thomas Lewis Owen and William Lewis Owen for eight years, and they bore excellent characters, and were known as quiet, peaceable men. Police-Sergeant Owen, of Bethesda. said he knew all the defendants well. He had1 nothing against the defendants, except William. Hughes. --Cross-examined: He had warned Plater and Owen Lewis Owen. THE CASE OF HANNAH ROBERTS. Mrs Hannah Roberts, the only female among the defendants, a woman well on in middle age. aid she had not been in the crowd on the date mentioned at alL Sergeant Nelson came to her house on the following Thursday night when she was m bed. Her husband asked why she was being summoneu, ana being told said she ha.d not been in the village the night m question, Ihe blouse she wore tnat night was one of those produced in court, but was not the one identified Dy a police witness in the court; that did not belong to her. She flatly contradicted the evi- deuce of Pol ice-Sergeant Nelson— Cross-ex- a.nuned. Her husband was one of the strikers. Shis had never been in the crowd meeting the men coming from the quarry Richard Roberts, husband of the last witness, corroborated las wife's evidence—Cross-ex- ammed: He was constantly at home from the beginning of the strike until the 30th of July His wife did not leave the house that nitrht Hugh Roberts, a workman in the employ of the Bethesda Urban District Council, had "seen the crowd on the night in question. He had seen a tin being thrown after Police-Constable Jones as he went up the street, and immediately after he saw blood, on the officer's neck. This was before the dispute between Police-Constable Jones and the brothers Owen, and he further generally corroborated the evidence of the two defendants. He tried to give his evidence in English, but broke down, and had again to revert to Welsh. co He did not see Hannah Roberts, but he heard I ohce-Sergeant Nelson ask a woman named Mrs Jones, 1y Capel, for her name. David Williams, manager of the Llanerchy- medd Shop, said that Mrs Hannah Roberts had not been in his shop at all on the night in ques- tion. Sergeant Nelson, however, came into his shop, and asked Mrs. Jones, Chapel House, who was in the shopr for her name and address. Cross-exammed: Hannah Roberts came tb his shop a fortnight later, the night- she got the summons. Pressed whether he had subsequently told the police that Sergeant Nelson was right, wad that Hannah Roberts was in his shop," he denied most emphatically, and said it was abso- lutely untrue. This was received with loud applause, and the Judge ordered the portion of the court whence the applause emanated to be cleared. Re-examined: The suggestions of the prosecu- tion as to what he had said after the event were absolutely without foundation. Hanna.h Roberts had! not been in the shop at all that night. His Lordship ordered this witness to remain in court. MrSl Jane Jones, Chapel House, Carmel, cor- roborated the last witness as to what had oc- curred in the shop. She wore the blouse pro- duced in court, and identified b- a police wit- ness as the one worn by the defendant Hannah Roberts. His Lordship ordered the defendant to stand by the side of the witness, to see if one could be mistaken for the. other. Witness was taller and broader and younger in appearance than the defendant.. This closed the- evidence for the defence. REBUTTING EVIDENCE. The prosecution then called rebutting evi- dence. Police-constable 27 stated that David' Wil- liams. the manager of the shop, had come to him on the square a week after the riot, and told him that Sergeant Nelson was quite right, and that Hannah Roberts was in his shop that night. • jL>o'li|ce-consta.ble 54 (re-called) dbrroborate-d the last witness as to the alleged conversation I between David Williams and P.C. 27. Mr Moss,, in addressing the court for the de- fence, said that no one could help regretting the fact that there was a strike in the neighbour- hood, and that a disturbance- of any kind should have occurred in consequence. Men were per- fectly within their rights ilt abstaining from work, if they so thought fit aw the result of their dispute with Lord Penrhyn on the question of combination, and Lord Penrhyn had, on his part, a perfect right to take his own attitude in the dispute. He commented on. the absence from among the witnesses of persons who might have given information as to the identify of men who were taking part in the disturbance. When they heard that, beyond the throwing of three stones, there was nothing more than booh, iitfg and shouting, he should have thought that the course of justice would have been satisfied with regard to the striking of the policemen by the police seizing the actual delinquent. Nothing had been proved which ordinarily con- stituted this a case of rlwfc. The police had ad. mittedly made a mistake in the case of John Owen, and he thought the jury would come to the conclusion that they had likewise made a I mistake iti the case of Hannah Roberts, and if they could make those mistakes, he ventured to say that not much reliance was tb be placed on the police evidence in the remaining c^ ATI the defendants, with the exception of Wil- liam Hughes, had had excellent characters given them. THE SUMMING UP. His Lordship, in summing up, gave a resume I of the law on the question of riot and the evi- dence generally. He asked the jury to apply their clommon sense to the circumstances of the case. He did not suppose that the threats of killing the qjuartymen alleged to have been uttered by the strikers Avere really intended. If thev we're satisfied that only a few women shouted "booh." that did not constitute a riot. shouted "booh." that did not constitute a riot. He, in going over his* notes, had divided tbe j defendants into four classes. In the (^'sf rlclnuid: Jones, John Williams and Robert Roberts stood by themselves, anc no^ ? :K^eStr^owd. Frank pWr. 'tc,od in tbe class. Then came the case of Thomas Lewis Owen. O. Lewis Owen. Wiham Owen, and William Hughes. There was police evidence that William Owen ;in 1 one of the brothers Owen threw stones, TVir whole hare -in the alleged riot depended upon the case of stone throwing. There wa.s an alibi put for- ward on behalf of Mrs Hannah Roberts, and the it was a very serious conflict of evidence between th- polic^ and the wit'ie-nes for the Iirilh r; gard to ber and r.ru- citlaiiv as to whether David Williams did or d d ret fri' the police that Hannah Pot-tis ..1' mi his sh'p i-n the ivght in ruiest'i-.i !>••. »h» i-irr. who ve-e acqrainted with tbeb ow countrymen, determine on the evidence before '1,Cr" THE VERDICT. The jury then retired, and, after an absence of 20 minutes, returned a verdict of not guilty no-ainst Richard Jones. John Williams. Robert Robert-, and Hannah Roberts, disagreeing as t;> the other five defendants — Frank Plater. Thomas Lewis Owen. Owen Lewis Owen, Wil- liam Owen, and William Hughes. His Lordship discharged the first four, and directed the jury to reconsider the case of the remaining five, After a further absence of 15 minutes, a ver- diet of guilty, accompanied by a strong reeom- mendation to mercv, was returned. His Lordship deferred judgment until Tues- day morning, intimating it was within his dis- cretion to impose a fine instead of imprison- ment. Prisoners were then released on recognisances in £5 each, to come up for judgment the fol- lowing day. TUESDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. THANKING SUPERINTENDENT R0W- LANDS. His Lordship, on taking his seat on Tuesday miming, said the superintendent in charge o the police arrangements at Carnarvon should be thanked for the excellence of his arrange- ments. There was a very large number ot people in court and outside the court, the pre- vious dav, but everything was managed ex- tremely well. He felt much indebted to the officer'and the police superintendent. THE SENTENCES. Mr Moss, then. addressing his lordship in mitigation, said that with regard to the four men named Thomas Lewis Owen. Owen Lewis Owen. and William Hughes, the- had for seven and eight" months orior to this riot, been- out of ths district, and had never taken any part whatever in the disturbances. The Judge One has th remember that Owen Lewis Owen has been twice Warned. Mr Moss: Since the riot the: bave found employment in South Wales, and all of them, have left work in South Wales, in order i" comei here to take their trial. Work is wait- :-T» for them as soon 3,g they go back and v-oh re'Tard to Plater, I am told that he misunder- stood the question put to him yesterday, re- garding a man being summoned! for swf.arin.g. The man was summoned, but the case was dis- missed. As these men have work to go to, I should suggest that your lordship have it' in your power tb bind these peoole over in their own recognisances with or without sureties. If you do so. I don't thii.k your lordship's leniency will be misplaced. The Judge: What about William Hughes. Evidence ot character was called respecting all the others except iiim. It "u Inild be rather mud upon him if something couia be said his favour, and has uot been said. Sergeant Owen was ualled to giVe evidence, and he said that apart to being twice fined far drunkenness, he bore a good character. He had been twice warned during the strike disturb- ances. His Lordship, addressing the prisoners, said: Frank Plater, and you others in the dock. I agree with one of the ministers who said he was surprised to see people of such respectable char- acter in the position which you are in. No doubt, you are people of general good charac- ter, and that makes it all the sadder that you. should, have to be punished. None of you. now,- glory in what you have done. All are evidently sorry and ashamed that there was that riot U* the Square at 'Rachub on the 30ch July. Sot only you five, but the other five, all shew b1 your earnest endeavours to prove that you ha4 no participation in the riot, whatever might haJ^ been your feelings at the time, that you are no1V' sorry and ashamed tliat there had been a riot- I hope that- is the general feeling of the minetSr "who have behaved on the whole extremely well durmg this-, very trying time of the strike. hope that such punishment as I must give to you, will not only be a lesson to you, bur to all the other miners, that they must keep within tbs law, whatever their feelings may be, and whi^ exercising their own liberty in refusing to work; they must give fo their fellows .the liberty to work if they chose. Frank Plater, you taken a foolish partisanship in this matter. 1 am quite certain that you were in the CTO^ cheering the people on, and adding to the noisø and the disturbance and terror, but you ha-ve done nothing more. It will be enough to you £ 5, and imprison you until it is paid, regard to the other four, I must treat you as having done something more than mere shout and demonstrate. Thomas Lewis 0^er\ and William Owen. I believe. threw stones, a-t!; I am sorry to say threw them behind peop'e^ backs, and wotLid not have been discovered Jt the policeman bad) not turned. It was a IJIOj cowardly thing to throw stones. I must you each to prison for a fortnight. With regjj* to William Hughes and Owen Lewis Owen. each struck an officer in the discharge of duty, and you must know perfectly well tlwt police have to keep the peace. They arL/ljf strikers, and they are not opposed to you. one object is to keep the peace. William struck the policeman in the chest; and he been warned twice before. Owen Lewis did worse than that, and threw a stone at policeman, and. hit him in the head. I sh.ot1 \J punish both of you more severely only I feel were acting under excitement, and Owen J;e 's Owen thought that he was taking his brothc^ part. You will each be imprisoned for month and in order to make the sentence degrading, you will be treated as second-0'3 misdemeanants. The sentences were received in court -w;be some surprise. A number of women ^°nts. gallery, mothers and relatives of the def^11 0f went into hysterics, and had to be carried 0 court screaming wildly. THE NEXT CASE WITHDRAWN the Mr Trevor Lloyd, after consultation wit Chief-Constable, said he liad' been instructed the desired effect had been accomplished y^r^ punishment awarded to the others, and was no desire to go on with the case agalIlst "It' bert Roberts. — Roberts was defended by Moss, M.P. (instructed by Mr D. G. Davies ■ Mr Lloyd added that subject to the co e. of the Judge, they would withdraw this cha His Lordship said that as that course n;lCVj)0]e suggested by Mr Trevor Lloyd, and as tbe object of these proceedings was to preserv^ peace, he would consent J.o the withdraw No evidence was offered to the jury- 'Brought in a verdict of "Not guilty." E]t. THE JURY AND THE INTERPRET^ His Lordship said he felt sorry the jury not be properly remunerated. He bad ,.l(T everything he could1 to assist them, and i t" to find that the Under-sheriff had pay for their lodgings overnight ai (, The interpreter, too, had been greatly venienced. and had done his work extrei"^ the previous day. He thought he sh°*L be considered', and that the Under-Sheti make a charge against the V the fury. TSat was a principle winch ougft be properly established. re It was explained that ai special alio would be made to the interpreter. The Foreman of the new jury then tola jr lordship that- many of them had been convj^iienced, and had to cc-'me three times. That cost them 111 tDlJt' alone 12s each. He would, respectfully a" their railway fares at least bp paid. y His Lordship expressed bis rerret J1 ,Alr" could not make such an order. He j," all he could, and had tried to mak- tbe R y of the jury as Hftht as he could. It p1io^.„ understood that- there bad be?11 The Under-SbeTiff bad simplv paid for the .^t- ings of the jurymen who had to sf -v over" This concluded the business of thp assi^"