Symud i'r prif gynnwys
Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

10 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

Ar Ben y Fen tail.

Bankyfeliu Notes,

o I Chokcy a'i Denlu.

- -«*— Lljthyron Oliokey and…

o I Cltokey.

Ferryside and District Gossip.

Llaiidilo Petty Sessions.


Llaiidilo Petty Sessions. SATUBDAY.— Before Messrs A. S. 'Gnlston, J. L. Thomas, Major Thomas, and Messrs E. Richardson, and Du Buisson. NOT PROPER DRUNK. George Reynold-, a tnunp, was charged with begging at Llandilo on tho Sih of April, and also with being drunk.—Defendant admitted tho charge of begging, but said, in reply to the second charge, I was not proper drunk, but I was the worse of drink." —The Head Constable stated that he also attempted to rob persons, but the bench declined to deal with that offence. -Eviden -!o of the begging was given by J. Pritchard Davies, and of tho drunkenness by Inspector Airs Nellie Jsrtie." gave evidence to show that he had threatened her far refusing to give him anything.—Defendant was sent to goal for a month. DEFRAUDING THE HAILWAx COMPANY. EXEMPLARY PENALTY. Ebenezer Thomas, a fanrer, Ffynongoch, Llan- fihangeJ-Aberbythych, was charged with travelling without a ticket on three different occasions on the G.W.R., and with travelling b?yond the distance on the 14th of March, without .tendering the 'extra fare. Mr Ludford prosecuted, and Mr J. W. Nicholas defended. J.l\lr Ludford stated that the Railway Company had good and sufficient ground for having brought on the cases, which disclosed the steady and persistent purpose of defrauding the company, and showed a new method of travelling thej maximum number of times at the minimum of cost. The result in each case was the loss to the company"' and a gain to 'the defendant. If he proved the cases, he was asked, by the authorities at Paddington to press for heavy penalties. It was not a ca,e:of a poor man, to whom the expenditure of a few pence meant something, but defendant was a well-to-do man, who had been trying to save his banking account by the sacrifice of his principles. Major Thomas and Mr Du Buisson, being share- holders in the G.W.R., withdrew from the bench. John Williams, Garnant, guard, Great Western e Railway Company, deposed to remembering the 18th of January last. He knew the defendant, and saw him ou the day mentioned alighting at Pantylfynou from the 10.35 train from Llandovery. j'Whon"he alighted he went straight into the branch train for Biynamn an. Witness was in charge of the Bryn- amnian train that day. Defendant got out at Garnatit.-By Mr Nicholas Witness knew defendant travelled on that day. He had made an entry on his book. It was not there with him. lie-reine-,iibered it well. He could not say who travelled on the 4th and 11th. He had other dates.- By the Clerk: He had not since the 18th of Jan. last refreshed his memory. —By Mr Nicholas He might have looked at the entry, but had no need of doing so to refresh his memory. Witness could not tcll:wli,ther it 'was a tine or wet day, or whether the sun was shining, but he could tell by his book whether it was wet or dry. Witness did not say anything to tha man. Defen- dant had a basket with him. Witness had not shown the book to Mr Ludford.—By Mr Ludford He paid more attention to his duty than to the state of the weather. He was quite .sure of the date. Henry Rees, booking clerk, Garnant, Great Western Railway Company, said he remembered that date. Defendant came into the booking office at Garnant on the arrival of the 11.45 train from Panty- ffynon. Defendant said he wanted to pay excess fare from Ammanford, as he had no time to get a ticket there. Witness bad a book with him to show that he took the excess. He produced it. The excess was 4>d.—By Mr Nicholas Witness knew the defendant, as he travelled that way often as a rule every Saturday. Witness had been five years at Garnant. -By Mr Ludford The reason why defendant's name appeared on the excess book was that he had paid excess so often that witness knew him.—Mr J. W. Nicholas contended that the book referred to by the guard ought to be before the court, -By the Clerk: The witness Rees was re-called, and stated that he had excessed others he knew, but defendant's was the only name he entered. He got suspicious of defen- dant, because he was always coming to the office and saying he had been to a late to get a ticket at Ammanford. William Evans, Ystalyfera. Brynhyfryd, said he was a brother-in-law to the defendant, He recollected Saturday, January 18th. Defendant was'at witness's house on that day. lie came there on Friday, the 17th of January, and remained there until Saturday eve- ning. Witness saw him nearly the whole day long. He saw defendant between 11 and 12 o'clock at Ystalyfera. By Mr Ludford It was last January witness was talking about. Defendant came to Ystalyfera now and again. He was in the habit of staying the night with defendant. Witness could give no idea as to when defendant had previously remained there for the night. The reason why defendant came to him on the 17th January was that witness was writing to his brother-in-law in California. He could not sav ftuaicoo uuiiiit* \1.d.UU"CJ. Witness pr lll tnat address only on it. There was no more on it but he could not remember the address. Defendant came to witness by the train which left Brynamman at 11 o'clock. Witness was writing the letter when defendant came to:the: house. He thought it was on Saturday he posted the letter. He could not remember how much he paid for the stamp. He had never before or since sent a letter to his brother-in-law. He had received many from him during the last twelve months. His brother-in-law had been out 40 years. Witness had married 20 years. Defendant had not received a letter from his brother- in-law until 12 months ago. Defendant might have left the house at 8 o'clock and not returned until 2 o'clock It was a fact his brother-in-law was deact last February twelvemonth. The letter was meant for those who had the care of his brother's effects.— Re-examined by Mr Nicholas Witness had stated it was not possible for defendant to be at Pantyffynon on the 18th at 11 o'clock. Witness said now he could not say. Evan Evans, son of the last defendant, stated that he remembered Saturday, the 8th. It was impossible for the defendant to have been at Pantyffynnon at 11.1;) on the 18th of January, as he was at Ystalyfera on the 18th of February. Witness persisted in saying it was February. Mr Nicholas, under the circumstances, asked the bench to let the other cases stand over for a while, until he had seen his client during the adjournment. On re-assembling, Mr Nicholas stated that he had finished with the first cast and did not intend to appear in the other cases, as defendant preferred to go on his own way. The second case was that which dealt with an offence on Saturday, the 8th of February. Mr Ludford said it was a similar charge to the previous one, the defendant having travelled from Llandebie to Ammanford without a ticket. Defendant said he had never done such a thing. William Lloyd, stationmaster, Liandebie; D. Thomas, lad porter, Llandebie; John Williams. guard; Inspector Tudor I)avies Inspector William Jones and David Walters, late porter at Garnant; gave evidence in support of the charge. Being asked if he had any questions to ask the last witness defendant said it was of no use. They were all "reporters," and had joined in a block against him. He was having a great injustice done him.— Clerk You dm't know yet.—Defendant I know something. In the third charge, John Price, assistant guard, deposed to seeing: defendant get in at Llandovery by the 10.3,1 train on the 2fitiof February. He travelled to Pantyffynon and went to the Garnant branch train. John Griffiths, booking clerk, Llandilo and Henry Rees, Garnant, gave evidence in support ofithe charge. The fourth charge was a charge of travelling with intent to defraud. John Griffiths deposed to issuing the defendant a ticket to Tirydail, by the 10.30 train. The number was (>804. He knew the number because it was the only ons issued by that train. Inspector Thomas Jones, Pantyffynnon, and George Evans, ticket collector, also gave evidence. Defendant being again asked if fie had anything to say, said he had but wunld not be auything the better of saying it. The bench said they were unanimously of opinon that the defendant had been guilty of persistent fraud, and fined hun 1 and costs in each case. The bench, at the same time, stated that they thought there was a little laxity of arrangement with regard to the collection of tickets at such a 'junction as Pantyffynnon. pall tyffyllll 'In. A COMICAL DRUNK. John R._ Phillips, a collier, of Cwmamman, was charged with being drunk at Llandilo on the 31st of March. The case was proved by Inspector Griffiths, who said he had been compelled to lock defendant up The defendant, by his comical conduct in the court, created considerable diversity, even the bench at times being compelled to join it. The Head-constable he described as a gentleman, and more than once gave the latter friendly, but vigorous pats on the back, declaring more than once that he (the defendant) was "all there," and flourishing his artrti all the time like windmnls. He was mulcted in the snm of 10s.



[No title]