Papurau Newydd Cymru

Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru

Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

15 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

[No title]

Volunteers at Conway.

. Proposed Testimonial to…

FATALITY AT SEA.

Advertising

ROUND ABOUT AT WHITSUNTIDE.

[No title]

Extracts from Madge's Letter.

. WORDS OF THE KING.

[No title]

The Bethesda Quarry Dispute.

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

The Bethesda Quarry Dispute. POLICE PROSECUTIONS. LENGTHY HEARING. FINES IMPOSED. There was not nearly so much excitement dis- played in the trial of Bethesda residents for obstruction and "persistent following" as there was in the case of the quarrymen trials last November, but the court on Tuesday was im- mediately filled to the doors the moment the doors were opened. Mr Lloyd George, M.P., was unable to attend, and the defendants were re- presented by Mr William George. The mem- bers of the quarry committee and Mr W. J. Parry, chairman of the Relief Committee, were present in court. There were seven defendants, but ten sum- monses. One of the cases was brought by the police, for whom Mr S. R. Dew appeared. The other cases were prosecuted by Mr Hugh Vin- cent, who was presumably acting for the management. The charges were heard before Mr Thos. Lewis and a strong bench, Mr John Bryn Roberts, M.P., being a member. Mr William Jones, M.P., was also present in court. The charges were preferred under the gene- ral heading of "labour laws," and were divided as under:—"Persistent following," defendants William David Williams (two charges), Eliza- bteh Williams. (two), and J. Machno Williams (two); "obstruction," Griffith Jones, Isaac Davies, Richard Edwards, and Lewis Jones. Of the last batch, one is a solicitor's clerk, another clerk to Mr Wr. J. Parry, and a third a com- mercial traveller. Mr Vincent (Messrs Carter, Vincent and Co.) prosecuted in the "persistent following" cases, and Mr Dew in those of obstruction, while Mr William George defended in all. Upon- the cases being mentioned, the Chair- man said his attention had been called to the presence on the bench of one magistrate who was objected'to—namely, Mr W. J. Parry. He had a perfect right to sit, but his (the fthair- man's) attention had been called to it as a thing which was not desirable entirely for Mr Parry himself. Mr Parry: Unless there is some legal ground for objecting I mean to sit. Mr Vincent: Having made my protest I will say no more. This is a case taken under the labour laws in connection with what has been described as the unhappy Bethesda dispute, in which Mr Parry has notoriously taken a pro- minent part on the side of the strike. He has issued an appeal to the public, signed with his own hand, in which he characterised- Mr George rose to object to the introduction of matters to prejudice the minds örtIïeÍnagis trates beforehand. If there was any legal objection to A&,Iii-agi st rate he had his remedy in his own hands. Mr Vincent disclaimed any desire to poison the minds of the magistrates. It was an ob- jection he bound to take- After the bench deliberated the chairman announced that they had decided they had no jurisdiction. It was a matter of taste, but a verdict come to was liable to be questioned if the bench requested Mr Parry to retire (ap- plause in court, which was suppressed). As William David Williams had not been served with a summons, the case against him could not be proceeded with. The case against Elizabeth Williams, his wife, and two cases against J. Machno Williams were proceeded with. Mr Vincent, in opening the case, referred, to the sad state of affairs at the quarry. He was prepared to admit that a large number of the Penrhyn quarrymen, possibly a large majority, were not prepared to accept the terms offered to them. They had a right to do so, but a minority, it might be a small one, were willing to go to work on the terms offered, and they also had a right to do so. But it would appear ,that there was at work a species of intimida- tion, a species of tyrrany, no longer unseen, but loud and demonstrative, and, as he (Mr Vincent) suggested, intended to intimidate per- sons desirous of returning to work. Men already gone to work were met regularly going to and from their work at the quarries, and booed and hissed at. Mr Vincent observed that it might be considered a harsh step on his part to proceed against a woman in this case. All he could say was that he had done it deliberately, because the women of Bethesda were the worst of the offenders in this sort of thing.—(Laughter.) Sergeant Owen ,Bethesda, gave evidence of the occurrences on the 30th May. Hundreds of people gathered at a point called Ponttwr shortly after five in the evening, and when the officials had passed they marched in procession as far as the railway station, and followed two men named John Evans and Richard Davies along what is called New-road. The crowd hooted and was disorderly. When they were returned witness met and spoke to the defen- dant Williasm and her husband, the latter of whom claimed that he had a right to walk the highway. He had remonstrated with the same people on the previous evening. Replying to Mr George, witness could not swear that the defendant was among the crowd when the pro- cession was on its outward journey on the 30th. Police-constable Hugh Thomas spoke to see- ing the defendant in tjhe crowd in an excited state and booing loudly. Cross-examined: He saw no violence com- mitted towards anybody. The majority of the crowd were women and children. The police present had no difficulty in keeping the crowd back. John Evans, a, marker at the quarry, said that he had worked as quarryman during the last three weeks. Last Thursday he left the quarry with Richard R. Davies, and reached the high- road near Bethesda Station. There were hun- dreds of people there, who hooted him and his companion. They" weJle escorted by a couple of policemen, who tritd but failed to turn the crowd back. He felt intimidatedl He was willing to con- tinue his work, but upder protection. Cross-examined: He had not been injured, but he could not say Hvhat the crowd would do in future. It was getting warmer every day. In his opinion the crowds assembled for the purpose of showing 4isapprobation of his and his companion's condfuct. He alleged that last Thursday night the Cry was raised, "They all ought to be killed to the devil." A stone was thrown on that occasion which could not have come from anywhere but the crowd following him. He was not struck, and he would not describe the crowd s a stone-throwing crowd. He thought one of the police pulled his baton on that occasion, bt could not say whether he flourished it over the heads of children, and he did not see anyope remonstrate with the officer. ■ Richard R. Davies, a marker at Penrhyn Quarry, gave similar evidence, and said that he saw a policeman flourishing a baton, but did not see him do anything with the baton. This was the case for the prosecution, and Mr George asked if the bench on the evi- dence given, considered there was any case against Mrs Williams. No evidence against her | had been brought as to disorderly conduct in the part of the road specified in the charge—a defect which was fatal, and could not be amended. The bench pointed out that they were em- powered to amend the information, and for that purpose Mr George would, if he chose, be en- titled to an adjournment. Mr George replied that he wanted no adjournment, but would proceed. The summons was accordingly amended, and the hearing continued. After an adjournment for luncheon, Mr George called the defendant Elizabeth Williams, who said that she did not follow the two officials immediately. The crowd, consisting mostly of women and children, preceded her and her husband. She denied that either she or her hus- band did any shouting. The crowd was not dis- orderly, apart from the shouting, and no attempt was made to injure anyone, with the exception of a stone which came from Carneddi- road, and not from the crowd. Upon the stone being thrown one of the officers lost his temper, and drew out his baton, which! created a com- motion among a group of children.—Replying to Mr Vincent, she admitted that she and her husband were at Pont Twr on the previous evening at the hour the officials were expected to pass from their work. There was also a large crowd gathered to witness the officials. Sergeant Owen asked her and her husband to move, but did not tell them that it was wrong to look at the officials. She admitted accom- panying the crowd on the 30th without having business. William Morris, Bethesda, said that the crowd was not disorderly. He saw a policeman flourish his baton above a section of the crowd, which fell back, but afterwards pushed forward. Witness had business on the road on the occa- sion, which he declined to disclose, but he was also there for the purpose of seeing the offi- cials home. He was pressed by Mr Vincent as to whether he took 'part in the shouting. In the first instance he declined to answer, but subsequently denied that he took any part. He, in common with others, disapproved of the offi- cials working in the quarries. William Thomas Jones, Frondeg, said that he j-emonstrated wth the constables who took his staff out, and the constable explained that he had been frightened. Up to then there was no excitement. Mr Vincent: It was a kind of a funeral party then.? Witness: Yes, only that it was the funeral of a live man.—(Loud laughter.) William Pritchard, school attendance officer, Raehub, said that when the above incident occurred he thought that the policemen would be killed, such was the anger of the crowd. Mr Vincent, in cross-examination, put a ques- tion as to the location of the man W. D. Wil- liams, whereupon Mr W. J. Parry made a re- mark to witness. Mr Vincent protested, as he had done before, against ahysuggestion being made. It was highly improper, and Mr Parry's whole conduct, he alleged, was a disce to the bench. Mr Parry retorted that tls^ suggestion which he made did no harm. Mr W. George, for the defence, argued that iothing was suggested by any of -the witnesses t.) incriminate the defendant with the excep- tion of the evidence of the constable Thomas, which, however, was open to an explanation. There was nothing in the law to prevent the defendant from expressing her disapprobation of the officials working in the quarries, so long as it did not take a form which amounted to intimidation of the workmen themselves. The explanation of the presence of that daily crowd was quite simple. The sight of officials being escorted home by constables was one which was not too often seen, and it constituted a novelty which it was onijr aatnral that .a., crowd should assemble to witnesfe. He personally had seen the sight on one occasion, and a curioJis sight it was, and he ws not surprised at the assembling of crowds. There had been a talk of intimidation, but he maintained that the intimidation was aj.1 on the other side. The police force had been gradually increased at Bethesda, and this amounted to a direct incen- tive to arouse curiosity and to excite the people. He denounced the prosecution for bringing for- ward vexatious proceedings, and characterised it as a suicidal policy. The magistrates ought not to allow themselves to take sides one way or the other. Let the Bethesda trouble work out its own salvation with the powers of starva- tion on one side and the power of endurance on the other. The Bethesda people had cer- tainly no intentiop of trespassing beyond the limits of the law; Mrs Elizabeth Williams was fined 5s. and costs in each case. Mr Vincent opened a similar case against John Machno Williams, who, Mr Vincent alleged, was particularly prominent in dis- orderly conduct in connection with the crowd referred to in the last case, and who was charged with attempting to force his way past the police when they attempted to keep the crowd back. Defendant kept crying, "Stick together boys. The police have no right to stop you. Stick together, and we'll go." Superintendent Rees, of Conway, gave evi- dence in support of Mr Vincent's opening state- ment, and said that the crowd had stopped till defendant began shouting out. Defendant told witness that the police had better let the crowd go on, or there would be a row, as they were determined to follow the officials home. De- fendant did not say a single word as to his being on his way to business. Witness's im- pression was that the crowd had assembled for the purpose of intimidating the officials. Cross-examined, he considered the defendant was incitng the crowd to a breach of the peace. Police-sergeant D. M. Jones, Conway, cor- roborated, but said the defendant told him he was going h^me that way, and that witness could not stop him. By the Bench: Defendant was trying to rush through the police cordon. Defendant never said a word about being on business. Further evidence was given by the officials, both of whom, however, stated that they had not seen the defendant in the crowd. Mr George, for the defence, stated that his client followed the crowd simply on his way to see some horses which he had in a field, and insisted on being allowed to go past the police. He denied, however,( that he had been guilty of any disorderly conduct. As to the allega- tions of the police, his suggestion was that the police had mistaken defendant for his brother, who was in the crowd, and who had just been. turned out of court, being, as the bench would have noticed, a very excitable and demonstra- tive persoi. Defendant gave corroborative evidence, and positively denied the correctness of evidence given by Superintendent Rees and Sergeant D. M. Jones. Crossf-examined: He did not think either of those Witnesses had any animus against him, but. they might make mistakes. By the Bench: He denied calling to the crowd together, and also that he had had any argu- ment in any form with Superintendent Rees. As a-matter of fact, after stating his business to a sergeant, he was allowed to pass on. John Prichard corroborated defendant's state- ment, as did William Levi Roberts. The Bench considered the charge fully proved, and observing that his conduct might have incited the crowd to violence, imposed a fine

Advertising

. THE FUTURE OF THE WELSH…

LIST OMISITORS

The Bethesda Quarry Dispute.