The North Wales Express

:t.6.4 'I; 1M CARNAKVoNSlllliE UUAHIKE SESSIONS. The court re- assembled at ten a.m. on Friday for the trial of prisoners. The magistrates present were Mr B. T. Ellis (chairman), Colonel Holt, Mr R. Carres, the Hon G. S. D. Pennant, Mr E. G. Powell, and Mr 0. Evans. The following gentlemen were sworn on THE GRAND JURY. Messrs John Bloom, 17, High-street, Bangor (foreman); John Enul", butcher, High-street, Bangor; Edward Evans, Waterloo Inn, Bangor: J. ,1. Evans, Brynderwen, Bethesda; J. Edwards, IS, Ogwen-terrace, do. J. Edwards, Penlan- etreet, Pwllheli; Thomas Griffith, slater, Rmgør; Lloyd Hughes, Belle Vue Hotel, 'Bangor; William Hughes, 4, Penrallt-terrace, Bangor; Henry Jones, Castle Bank, Bangor; J. Jones, Albion Inn, Bangor; William. Jones, butcher, High-street, Bangor; William Jarvis, stationer, High-street, Bangor; R. Jones, 10, Ogwen-terrace, Bethesda H. Prichard, draper, Llanfairfeohan; G. 0. Roberta, architect, Llan- degai; James Southwell, accountant, Port Penrhyn; Richard Williams, driper, High- street, Bethesda. The Chairman said that he had been called upon, to take the chair in consequence of the sudden ill- -ness of their respecte d chairman, Mr Edwards. Mr Edwards, on leaving the couit on the pluvious day. was suddenly seized with rheumatic gc ut, and this morning was unable to move. Commenting on the calendar, Mr Ellis was sorry to inform them that the state of crime in the county was numerically greater than they had been accustomed to. There were in all eight prisoners, and some of the cases were of a serious and shameful character. The chairman then proceeded to call their attention to the individual cases. Referring to the case of John Hughes, charged with attempting to commit suicide at Bethesda, he said they might very well have spared its hearing. The best way in such cases was for the magistrates to hand over the prisoner to the care of friends who undertook to look after him. The last case on the cilendar was OLe of a verv shameful and disgraceful character. IT V, A- the "case of William William-, who was charged with indecently assaulting his daughter- in-law. The chairman then gave an outline of th. .idence. and informed the grand jury that the. eyidelll e of the wife could not be-taken against the prisoner. RESIGNATION OF THE CLERK OF THE PEACE. Mr W. T. Poole said as that was the last oppor- tunity he should have the honour of rendering them any further services, ne begged to thank them-the members of the Carnarvonshire bench -for the uniform kindness, forbearance, and con- sideration they had all shown towards him during the last twenty years. The Hon. Douglas Pennant, M.P., expressed -what he was sure would be the universal regret of the bench at Mr Poole's retirement. Mr J. H. Roberts, on behalf of the members of the bar said they had invariably been treated with courtesy by Mr Poole, and that gentleman had always been glad to render them any assistance. On that account they regretted his unexpected resignation. Mr Poole briefly replied. The trial of prisoners was then proceeded with. LARCENY AT PWLLHELI CAUTION TO SHOP-KEEPERS. Mary Griffith, married woman, was charged with stealing a dress piece of the value of 19s, the property of Edward Wilson, draper, Pwllheli.— Mr J. H. Roberta prosecuted.—Enoch Jones, ship- carpenter, Pwllheli, stated that on the 10th April last he saw the prisoner go up to the prosecutor's door and take a dress piece from the pile of goods. Witness informed the prosecutor what he had seen, and the prisoner was apprehended with the dress piece in her possession. The prisoner refused to plead.-She was found guilty and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, while the chairman zemarked that the practice of exposing goods for .sale in the street was a bad one, leading to crime, and ought to be discontinued. A DRUNKEN* SPREE AX1) ITS CONSEQUENCES. Thomas Hughes, 34, shoemaker. Penygroes, Llanllyfni, was indicted for unlawfully and maliciously wounding Hugh John Thomas, quarry- man, Penygroes. Mr J. H. Roberts (Messrs Roberts and Thomas), prosecuted, and Mr Allan- son (Messrs Turner and Allanson), defended. From the prosecutor's evidence, it appears that on the evening of the 23rd May, he and a number of his friends were returning home from the neigh- bourhood of Llanllyfni, when they had visited .some public houses. When approaching the railway bridge, a short distance from Penygroes, on the Llanllyfni road, they met the prisoner, and a quarrel ensued between them with reference to some house. This resulted in a scuffle, and blows were given. The prisoner afterwards went away, but soon returned from the direction of Penygroes. accompanied by some of his companions. A second scuffle ensued, in the course of which the prosecutor shouted, "I have been struck with something besides a knife." Having gone to Dr Griffith's surgery, it was found that the prosecutor had been stabbed in the head. Being cross- examined by Mr Allanson, prosecutor admitted that he did not know who struck him that evening. He denied being drank, but admitted having been drinking whiskey from a ginger beer bottle. A witness named George Jones, who was called for the prosecution, gave evidence as to the scuffle that ensued between the prisoner and prosecutor. He did not see the former use a knife, or any other instrument, but saw a blow bfcing given. The prosecutor was neither drunk nor sober. Blood flowed freely'from the prosecutor's head as soon as the blow was dealt by the prisoner.—Dr Grif- fith, a surgeon and physician practising, said that he examined the prosecutor's wounds on the evening of the 23rd May last. There was a wound measuring about an-inch and a quarter in depth and half an inch in length above the left eytbrow. and a similar one above the right. They must have been caused by a sharply-pointed instrument. In reply to Mr Allanson, witness said that a person falling on a piece of a ginger beer bottle might have been injured in a similar manner. There were no marks of jaggedness 011 the prosecu-. I- tor's wounds, which were clean and incised. There were no contusions.—John Thomas Jones, recalled, said th\t the whiskey bottle was not broken that night. Witness had it now at home. —Sergt. Lewis Williams deposed that on the evening in question he heard the noise of a crowd proceeding in the direction of Llanllyfni. In con- sequence of what he heard, witness and another officer followed them, and subsequently met the witness Jones, who complained of the conduct of the prisoner and his companions. Witness after- wards met the prisoner, who s ud that the prose- cutor had threatened to stab him. Witness after- wards saw the prosecutor in Dr Griffith's surgery, and a warrant was issued for prisoner's apprehen- sion, which took place at Portmadoe, where he had absconded. In a statement made to the officer, prisoner denied having stabbed tHe prose- cutor, but admitted striking him with his knuckles. For the defence, Mr AllanFftn con ended that the prisoner did not use a knife on the occasion, but merely struck the prosecutor with his bare fist in self-defence. If lie (Mr Allanson) could prove this, then the prisoner was entitled to an aequital. —Several witnesses were examined in support of the contention.—The Chairman summed up the case in a lucid manner, and informed the jury that they could either find the prisoner guilty of the graver charge of wounding or of a common assault. -After a consultation, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of the minor offence. -Tite court sen- tenced him to six months' imprisanment with hard labour. SENT TO PENAL SERVITUDE. Jumes Price, 30, a labourer of many aliases, pleaded guilty to having entered the dwelling house of Robert Ellis, Bcddgelert, and stealin rr therefrom a silver watch, together with a brass chain, a nieklet silver chain, and a gold chain, the property of the said Robert Ellis. Prisoner, who pleaded guilty, admitted a conviction for bur- glary at the Denbighshire assizes.—The court sentenced him to fourteen years' penal servitude, and at the expiration of that period to be under police supervision for seven years. ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT SUICIDE. Jo-in Hughes, quarryman, Llanllechid, pleaded guilty to a charge of having attempted to commit suicide on the 11th April last. Mr Roberts, Ban- gor, appeared for the prisoner, and said the medical evidence would prove that he was suffer- ing from delirium tremens at the time the deed was committed. He (Mr Roberts) urged the court to be satisfied with calling the prisoner for judg- ment at any time they required.—Mr J. H. Roberts remarked that he appeared for the prosecution. It was the wish of the committing magistrate that the prisoner's relatives or friends should enter into recognisances for his good behaviour, but it seems that they would do nothing of the soit.—Mr J. Roberts, in reply to the Chairman, said that the prisoner's brother and brother-in-law were now ready to enter into recognisances for his good behaviour.—The Chairman,addressing the prisoner, said that the court was willing to accept his surety in the sum of £20, and that of his brother in a similar sum for his appearance to come up for judgment when required. The bench were sorry to sec a man like the prisoner, who had served his country with the Grenadier Guards, and who held a certificate for good conduct, being brought up under such a charge.—Prisoner was afterwards discharged. UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIX. Charles Smith, 20, labourer, pleaded not guilty t1 having uttered counterfeit coin at Carnarvon. Mr George Thomas (Messrs. Roberts & Thomas), in opening the case, said that on Saturday, the 25th of May, the prisoner went to the Patent Slip tavern in this town. andtlieee attempted to utter a counterfeit coin. The landlord informed him that the coin was not genuine, and asked whether he kYlew the consequences of doing such a thing. The prisoner then left the house, and in about two hours afterwards called at the Three Crowns' tavern in Bangor-street, where he requested the servant girl to change the coin. The girl took it to her master, who subsequently gave the prisoner in charge.-During the examination of Mr Noble, the landlord of the Patent Slip Vaults, it was elicited that one of the witnesses for the prosecu- tion, a seaman named Harman, had left the town. This witness' evidence was of a very material. character, as he was the only person able to identify the prisoner as the party who was at the Patent Slip Vaults.—The bench ordered his recognisances to be estreated.—The case, however, was proceeded with, the witnesses examined being Mrs Margaret Jones, Mr Isaac Peters, Three Crowns, P.C. Robt. Williams, and Mr Humphrey Williams, jeweller, <Src.—Prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour. ATTEMPTING TO RAVISH A CHILD. William Williams, 39, sailer or labourer, was indicted for attempting to ravish Catherine Jones, two-and-a-half years of age, the illegitimate daughter of his wife, and also for committing a common assault on the said Catherine Jones.— Prisoner pleaded guilty to the second count only. Mr Allanson prosecuted. The particulars of the case, which were reported in our last issue, were not entered into.—After a private consultation, the bench sentenced the prisoner to 12 months' hard labour. THEFT BY A SERVANT GIRL. Ann Thomas, 30, domestic servant, pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging her with stealing the sum of £ 12, the property of Laura Williams, Llandwrog, on the 18th May. Mr J. H. Roberts prosecuted, and Mr J. A. Roberts defended.- Addressing the jury, Mr Roberts said the prosecu- trix was in service at Hafottywyn, Upper Llan- dwrog, and seems to have kept her money in a small box which was on the mantel-piece in the bed- room. About five o'clock on the afternoon of the 18th May, the prisoner came to the house, and after affecting to be afraid of the men consented to take a cup of tea in the bedroom. Prosecutrix left the room to fetch water, and on returning heard the lid of the box being closed, but, being a person of a nervous disposition, did not say anything at the time. Having finished tea, the prisoner (who had been in service at Hafottywyn for a short time) requested prosecutrix to go out and look whether the men were about. Prosecutor complied, and the prisoner directly left the house. Having re- turned to the house, prosecutrix found her money missing from the box, and gave infcrmation to her master's son, who overtook the prisoner and brought her back. Prisoner made a general deuial to the charge, but eventually produced from a handker- chief in her breast the sum of X8 in "gold. She also made a statement to the effect that she earned the money for midwifery, adding that the money had been seen that day by Mary Williams, Bont- newydd. The latter person had seen the prisoner at her house that day, but she did not see money in her possession. In a statement made to the police sergeant, prisoner said that she had shown the money to Mary Williams and to her relatives, and that she had a belonging to a militia-man, who was a reserve-man. When the case was heard by the magistrates, it was suggested that the prisoner was not possessed of £12, but he (Mr Roberts) would call Mr Daniel Thomas, a farmer, to prove that he had kept zCl5 for her sometime ago. The empty purse in which the money had been kept was found in a bush in the spot where the prisoner was caught after she had left Hafot- tywyn* Prisoner had directed the master's son to tke place where the purse was found. It would also be seen from the evidence that she had been at Hafottywyn about a month previous to that day of the alleged theft, and representing herself to be in straightened circumstances, had re- ceived a shilling from the prosecutrix, who letched it from the room where the money were kept. The prisoner saw the prosecutrix enter the room on the occasion. -Prosectitrix and several witnesses were examined in support of this contention.— John Roberts, a private in the 23rd Regiment, was supouied by the prosecution, to prove that the prisoner had no money belonging to him in her possession. It was however found out that he was an adverse witness.—Mr Roberts called attention to the fact that a police officer at Enniskellen, had questioned the witness as to whether the prisoner had any money in her possession belonging to him, and he replied in the'negative.—Witness: What I told him was that a person named Ann Thomas hid no money belonging to me.—-Mr Roberts Did the police officer at Enniskellen write down what did you say?—Witness: I don't know.—Mr Roberts: But hadheapeninhis hand? —Witness No, nothing of the sort.—Mr Roberts: Did you not tell him you gave no money to keep until you return home ? — Witness: No.—Mr Roberts Look at this paper, will you swear that you did not say so ?—Witness (looking at the paper) I cannot read this (laughter).—Mr Ro- berts Do you swear that you did not say so ?— Witness: I told the officer that I did not give money to any Ann Thomas to keep for me.— —Witness was cross-examined by Mr Hughes as follows :—Supposing the officer asked you whether you had given money to Ann Williams, what would have been your answer ?—Well, of course, that I did give her the money.—The prisoner is called both Ann Thomas and Ann Williams ?— Yes.—You have been keeping company with the prisoner as Ann Williams Ycs. — And you always called her Ann Williams ?—Yes.—And is the prisoner at the bar Ann Williams ?—Yes.— What money did you gave her?—Four pounds.— IIow did you get that money?—By working, of course.—And what reason had you for giving the money to the prisoner, Ann Williams?—I had no reason whatever, except that I have as much faith in her as in anyone else (laughter).—Mr Roberts And you are going to marry her? (laughter).— Witness (laughing) Well, I don't say that now (laughter).—After further cross-examining the wit- ness, Mr Hughes addressed the bench contending that he would show that the prisoner had the sum of C8 at the time the robbery was alleged to have taken place.—Ellen Jones, Ebenezer, depos- ed that she had seen £8 in the prisoner's possession about seven months ago.—John Jones, Well street, and his wife, gave evidence to the effect that the prisoner stayed at their house on the day preceding that of the alleged robbery, and had seen £ 8 in gold, together with some silver, in her possession.— The Chairman, summing up the evidences, remark- ed that was rather a remarkable thing on the part of the prisoner, who was at the time said to be possessed of XS, to have gone to the prosecutor's place, and representing herself to be in poor cir- cumstances.—After a short private consultation, the jury found the prisoner guilty, and the bench sentenced her to six months' hard labour. CRIMINAL ASSAULT BY A TAILOR. Win. Kemp, an Irish tailor, pleaded not guilty to an indictment charging him with having attempted to ravish Margaret Jones, aged 19, a domestic servant employed at the Globe Tavern, Carnarvon. Mr J. A. Hughes prosecuted. The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to 12 months' hard labour. The Court rose at eight o'clock. SATURDAY. THE COLWYN BAY IStlLDlNO DISPUTE. The Court re-assemblecl at 11 o'clock on Satur- day, when the appeal by the Colwyn Bay Building Company against the decision of the Llandudno nm gistrates was resumed. The m agistrates present were Mr B. T. Ellis (in the chair), the Hon. Douglas Pennant, M.P., Mr A. B. Wood, Mr E. G. Powell, and Mr R. Carreg. The respondents' case was concluded on Thursday evening, and the case to-day was opened by the appellants. Dr. Bank- hurst raised a number of objections, and sub- mitted that the conviction ought to be quashed because the offence was not within the meaning of the law. The law defined the offence to be the bringing forward of any house or builcing forming part of any street or any part thereof be\ond the front wall of any house or building on either side thereof, and not to build any addition thereto, &c. Instead of using the word "thereof" in the con- viction "such uuildings" had been used, and this rendered the conviction bad, as the language of the statute had not been followed. Under the 250th section it was necessary to lay the information or complaint within six months from the time when the matter of such complaint or information respectively arose. If the offence was not de- scribed in the language of the Act, there was no offence. He would show that "thereof" meant either side of the street, and he contended that anybody had the power arbitrarily to interpret "thereof" to mean" building." 1Ir Segar argued that a verbal error did not render the con- viction bad. If there was no real grievance and no misleading, the conviction would stand. The point ought to have been raised at the first hearing, as it was quite as preliminary as any objection to the jurisdiction of the court. The otliei was no real grievance.—The bench over-ruled the objection on the ground that the appellants had been misled.— Dr. Bankhurst next objected that the conviction did not show upon its face by whom the proceed- ings had been institu ted. He also objected because no proof had been put in of any obstruction except on one side.—Both objections were over- ruled by the bench.—The learned counsel for the appellants next objected that the locus in quo was not considered a street within the meaning of the Act.-This was also over-ruled.-Dr. Pankhurst next argued that the written consent of the Urban Sanitary Authority had been given t,) the erection of the buildings in their present position. The appellants insisted that they had submitted to the authority every respect, and it was monstrous to suppose, having complied with the submitted and approved plans, the Authority should have them brought up, and put to the gre t expense of pulling down the buildings.—At the conclusion of the legal argument, evidence for the appellants was called. —James Ebenezer Cooper, manager tor the appel- lants, said that he superintended the erection of the buildings in question, first and last. He used the plans produced in carrying out the work, and followed it to the letter. The basement was set up on the 25th September, aud from that time the work was steadily pursued. The excavations were complete and visible, and anybody nassin^ could see it. On the 27th September theitone founda- tions and basement were put first in. The founda- tions corresponded with the plans. The buildings arose above the ground in February He had had a conversation with Mr Davies, the'surveyor, about the buildings. Mr Davies suggested that the ex- cavations wore dangerous, and that people might cavations were dangerous, and that people might fall into them. Posts were therefoie put down to prevent any accident on such account. He recol- lected seeing Mr Williams, the cl airman, about the works, at the beginning of Xarch, and he further saw him on the 1st of April. The main walls, together with the roof, were up at the time. The whole of the front wall was up to the ground line. From the 25th September all the pegs were put in, and anybody passing could see to what extent the five buildings would project. On the 1st of April, Mr Williams sent for witness to the buildings, and said to him, several times, "Take those buildings down." Witness asked him to explain himself, and Mr Williams said that they were going out beyond the building line. Witness said that he was carrying the work out according to the plan passed by theUrban Sanitary Authority, to which Mr Williams replied thattliey were doing nothing of the sort, and that they would be served with a summons on the following day. Witness was strictly pursuing the plan thai time, and had not since deviated from it.—In cross-examination by Mr Segar, witness said he was not in a bad temper at the time of the interview with Mr Williams. Witness pointed out the line on the plan which represented Mr Edward Eoberts' house. -In answer to the question, Dcn't you know that any person going along that ,)ad could see for himself that the houses are not parallell with the curbstone, but are thrown btck?" witness replied, Nothing of the kind. They are per- fectly straight. The building line vas maintained all through these erections."—Mr George Felton, architect, Llandudno, said that lie had had about thirty years' practice, aud knew tin locus m quo. He had examined the buildings wiih reference to the building line. The plans were sufficient, and had been followed out, with the exception of an immaterial small matter in connection with the elevation. The most prominent projection on the fifth building was expressed on ihe plan by a dotted line, which was the line of tlu bay windows. The building line, he maintained, was the main frontage of the building, which carried the roof. That was what he had always iiterpreted the building line to be. A great partial of Llandudno had been built under his direction.—Mr Segar said that the question as to which was tie building line here was not the question which oiglit to be de- termined by the bench. It was scarcely necessary therefore for the witness to say vhich was the building line, as they. would thereby be asking him to decide the case.—The bench ruled that the witness could be asked, according tchis experience, which was the front wall of the row of houses in that street; and on the question being put the witness said "Thfmain wall that carries the roof." —Mr Segar wished to be understood that he objected to the question being pvt.—Mr Felton, continuing, said that as to the projections, they were what he termed "permitted excrescences." He saw nothing in those plans which exceeded what he might term "permitted excrescences." The plans bore the signature of the chairman of the Urban Sanitary Authority, and that was sufficient to approve them.—The Chairman, after the magistrates had consulted, stid it was the unanimous opinion of the magistrates that No. 10 of the bye-laws had not been complied with, and that the plans were not .sufficient.-Dr. Bankhurst observed that was not the question of the sufficiency of the plans. The plans had been approved, and they were thereby made sufficient.—Mr Segar said he did not see what remained to be tried.—Dr. Bankhurst said the question was of so grave a nature that the appellants must ask for a case, and must therefore put in evidence.—Mr T. E. Marks, C.E., and surveyor of fourteen years' experience, Llandudno, now engaged as engineer and clerk to the Llandudno Improvement Com- missioners, was called to give evidence on the question of consent. He said he had had con- siderable experience in preparing and inspecting Z, plans. He had seen the plans in question, and was of opinion that they sufficiently represented the buildings intended to be erected in pursuance of them.—Mr Segar objected to the witness ex- plaining the plans, as the plans sufficiently ex- pained themselves.—Mr Marksthen said he hadbcen to the place in question, and knew that the plans showed how far the bay window would go beyond Mr Edward Roberts' house. The plans were per- fectly clear, and the buildings had been carried out according to them. If these plans were sub- mitted to him, lie should say that they complied with the Llandudno by-laws.—Mr Thomas Booth Farrington, surveyor and agent, was next called. Beforc his evidence was proceeded with, the witness Cooper was re-called, and questioned as to the exact date when the foundations and base- ments were laid. He said it was a few days after the 25th Sept.say the 30th Sept.,—but he could not be quite certain.—DrParkhurst: The informa- tion was not laid until the 17th April—more than six months—when the matter of complaint arose. —Mr Segar contended that because the excavations had been commenced more than six months before the complaint was laid, the case did not break down, because so long as the buildings were being proceeded with, and had not been completed, the offence was daily being committed.—Mr Williams, the chairman of the Conway Board of Guardians, objected to the buildings as soon as the stones began to rise from the ground.—Mr Powell asked if there was any possibility of arranging the case ? After a discussion between the learned counsel, it was decided to refer the matter to an architect to be agreed upon between the parties, and in the event of the parties failing to agree as to the selection, that the appointment should be left in the hands of the Chairman. The business of the court concluded shortly after 7 o'clock.