Papurau Newydd Cymru

Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru

Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

12 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

Carmarthen Borough Quarter…

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

Carmarthen Borough Quarter Sessions. MONDAY. Before the Recorder (Mr Arthur Lewis). THE GRAND JUIIY. The Grand Jury consisted of the following gentlomea :-James Philipps, Pictou-terrace (foreman) C A Cooko, Lammas-street John Thomas, Morley-street D Warren Lewis, King-street C II Pratt The Avenue C 0 Collard, Queen's Hotel John Harries, Nott's-squaro W Crossuian. Blue- street D Maurice Jones, Kerri House B A Lewis, Morfa House T Conwil Evans, King-street 0 Chapman, Blue-street; Z D Jones, Colombo Stores John Morgan, Blue-street F W Tristram, Elliston- terrace; R 0 Jones, Oak House Henry Portnell, Waterloo-terrace E Gwyuno Thomas, Woodbine J T Greenwood, John-street Evan Morris, Old London House and Arthur Evans, Penllwyn Park. THE NEW ACT. INTERESTING SKETCH OF LEGAL I HISTORY. The Recorder in the course of his address to the Grand Jury, said he wished, first of all, to call their attention to a very im- portant change which had taken place in criminal procedure since he Iat had the pleasure of addressing them. Some four o days ago an Act had come into force which would in future 1), known as the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898." It was an Act which I would practically revolutionise the procedure in these courts which were charged with the duty of administering criminal justice. By that Act an accused person might at any parf, of the proceedings, upon his own application, go into the witness-box, aud give evidence upon his own behalf. That had hitherto not been the case with regard to criminal evidence therefore, he thought they would agree with him that it would have a very important bearing on the futuro of criminal law in this country. Of late years the tendency had been in favour of what had been called by a very great authority on criminal law, the open witness-box." It might surprise them to know that at the beginning of the Queen's reign, even in civil cases, the parties to the action were not competent witnesses. So jealous were the courts of having anything before them that could be considered as tainted evidence that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant could go into the witness-box and give evidence on his own behalf, because it was felt that they were so deeply interest- ed in the result of the proceedings that their evidence could not be safely accepted by the court and jury before whom the case was being tried. The first step towards remedying what he ventured to think was an evil was brought about when county courts were instituted. By the Act passed in 184C parties to suits were made competent witnesses in the County Court on their own behalf; and their husbands and wives were also made competent witnesses. So far, the proceedings in the Superior Courts bad not been altered, and it was not until 1851 that the parties to suits in the civil courts were made competent witnesses, and not until 1853 that the husbands and wives of parties were made competent witnesses. So far he had been dealing with what was the state of things with regard to the Civil Courts. So far the criminal prooedure had not been affected, and probably it might not be known to all of them that until 1$36 a prisoner could not have counsel to speak for him in the courts. The prisoner was allowed to have a counsel present on his behalf, who might 'put questions to the witnesses, under cross- examination but that counsel was not allowed to address the jury on behalf of the prisoner whom he defended. This was remedied by an Act passed in the year 18:3G, which, if he recollected aright, was called the Prisoner's Counsel Defence Act." Since the year 1872, several Acts of Parliament—some 25 in number—had been passed of a quasi-criminal character, in which it was competent to prefer criminal charges against persons, and iu which also the prisoner and his or her wife or husband are competent to give evidence. The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 —which dealt principally with criminal assaults upon women and children—made it competent for the prisoner or his wife to give evidence on his behalf when charged under the Act. This system seemed to have given rise to considerable confusion; and, therefore, it was thought wise by the Legislative to pass this Act, which was of u general application, and now in every criminal case, the accused person could go into the witness-box and tell his own story upon oath. They owed this change in the law to a gentleman who was intimately connected with this county, one who had been a distinguished member of the Circuit to which he (the Recorder) had the honour to belong, and who now occupied the position of Lord Chancellor. He referred to Lord Halsbury, who for several years presided over the Carmarthenshire Quarter Sessions. Subject to certain restrictive pro- visions, with whiah he need not trouble the jury, any person charged with an offence, or his or her wife or husband, was a com- petent witness fot the defence at every stage of the proceedings, whether be was charged solely or jointly with others. The prisoner himself had to make application to the court for leavo to give evidence if he wished to do so. There were several provisions in regard to cross-examination which were for the protection of the accused person. It seemed to him that-although it was not expressly stated in the Act-it was not intended that the prisoner should be a com- petent witness before the Grand Jury. And for this reason the Grand Jury had not to try the case. They had not to decide whether tho prisoner was or was not guilty of the offence with which ho was charged. The only duty of a Grand Jury was to determine on the evidence called upon behalf of the Crown, whether there was a prima facie case against the prisoner to be tried by the petit jury. For that reason he held that it was not intended that the prisoner should be a witness before the Grand Jury. Upon that opinion he proposed to act in the present case. The Recorder then proceeded to instruct the Grand Jury to return "True Bills in the two cases which would come before them. THE TREBERSED HOUSE-BREAKING CASE. David John Phillips, aged 17, an engine- cleaner, living at Johnstown, who had been in custody since the 22nd July, was charged with breaking into the dwelling-house of T. Evans, Trebersecl Mill, and stealing there- from the sum of f 1 6s 2d, six silver spoons, and a pair of silver tongs.—Mr Lleufer Thomas (instructed by Mr D. E. Stephens, Carmarthen), was for the prosecution and Mr J. Lloyd Morgan, M.P. (instructed by Mr James John, Carmarthen), for tho defence. The particulars of the case have been already fully given in the Reporter The principal witness against the prisoner was Daniel Thomas, who had been in his company on the day of the house-breaking, and who had accompanied him to Ferryside the foil swing day. This witness first said that he booked to Ferryside in the ordinary way, but, on being pressed, admitted that lie had had the ticket from Mr Joshua, an official of the Sunday School, which had a trip to Ferryside that day. He insisted, however, that he had paid for his own ticket; that prisoner had not paid for both. Mr John Lloyd Morgan commented on the fact that, according to the evidence, the witness Thomas was practically an accomplice, and that, therefore, according to the common do^triue laid down by judges, a conviction should not be made except his evidence were corroborated. The witness Thomas, who was the only witness against the defendant, had reason to congratulate himself on the fact that he did not himself stind in the dock. The learned counsel asked the jury to reject the evidence of Thomas altogether, and to acquit the prisoner. He held that the witness had come to tell what was untrue, and to get himself off. Mr John Lewis, J.P., Penllwyn Park, said defendand had been in his employment. Defendant was a quiet, honest boy. The Recorder, in his summing up, said that Thomas was not a person in whose uncorroborated testimony he would place implicit confidence. If not an accomplice actually, he came dangerously near to being I an accomplice in this matter. Very probably tho prisoner was the catspaw of Thomas in the matter; but even if the prisoner was the hand which carried out the crime planned by other, he was equally guilty. If however, the jury, believed the evidence of Thomas, that consideration ought not to induce them to acquit tho prisoner. Tho prisoner, if he actually took tho articles, was guilty, even if his was not the mind which planned the robbery. But these circumstances ought, if the prisoner were found guilty by the jury, to weigh with the court in passing sentence. It was not exactly the case that Thomas's evidence was incorroborated, because the constable (Thomas Davies) had found the stolen spoons in the house of defendant's mother. The Jury found the prisoner Guilty," and recommended him to mercy. They also expressed an opinion that Daniel Thomas was the abettor and instigator of the crime. The Recorder said he entirely concurred in the verdict. Mr Richard Lloyd, Dark-gp.te, was called to give evidence of character. Ho had employed the boy for some time, and had found him a most respectable boy. He was willing to take the boy into his service again. Mrs Phillips, the mother of the prisoner, said she did not know that he had got into bad company. She was willing to go bail t3 zn in the sum of JE25 that he would be of good behaviour, if lie was not sent to prison. The Recorder said he was very reluctant to send a young lad to prison. If he erred it would be on the side of mercy. Prisoner was bound over in the sum of £ 10, and his mother in the sum of E25, that he would come up for judgment when called upon. If he behaved well, he would hear no more of this; if he got into trouble again, this conviction might be used against him, and lie be sent to prison. The decision of the Recorder was received with applause. THE CHARGE OF FALSE PRETENCES COMMENTS BY BAR AND BENCH. Louisa Evans was charged on four different counts with obtaining goods by false pretences.—Mr John Lloyd Morgan, M.P. (instructed by Mr James John) was for the defence; Mr Lleufor Thomas (instructed by Mr D. E. Stephens) prose- cuted. Mr John Lioyd Morgan objected to three of the counts on tho gronnd that it was only on the charge of obtaining three boots from Daniel lLvans by falso pretences that defen- dant had been committed, and in regard to which recognisances bad been taken. After a long discussion between the learnod advocates, The Recorder desired to quash counts 3 and 4 of the indictment but not j and 2. He quashed counts 3 and 4 on tho ground that the prosecution had failed to comply with the provisions of the Vexatious Indict- ments Act, and that they had failed to apply for loave. The counts quashed are tlioso which refer to the getting of the beefsteak from Mrs Nathaniel Thomas and the grapes from Mr Winter. Mrs Evans, wife of Mr Daniel Evans, bootmaker, was cross-examined by Mr Lloyd Morgan as to her statement that the girl who had the boots had black hair. Mrs Evans said that this description was given by her husband and not herself. zn Mr Lloyd Morgan Did you agree to that because you had a natural disincliriation to contradict your husband ? The Recorder Is there a natural disin- clination on the part of married ladies to contradict their husbands ? (laughter). You are not speaking from experience, Mr Lloyd Morgan. Mr Daniel Evans, Mrs Nathaniel Thomas, Miss Palmer (assistant with Mr Winter), and Mr William Evans all identified the prisoner as the person whom they had seen in their shops on 1he 9th August. Mr A. Ll. Lewis, of Commerce House, said he could not swear to the identity of the prisoner with the woman who came into his shop on this date. He had a conversation with the woman who was wanting some silk skirts for Mrs Williams. The Recorder asked Scrgt. Harries whether anybody answering the description given by the witnesses had disappeared from Carmarthen lately. Sergt. Harries said he had not heard so and, in answer to further questions, said that he had not since the magisterial enquiry made any enquiries as to that. Mr John Lloyd Múrgan asked if any information was forthcoming as to the bookings from New Miiford to Carmarthen that clav. The Recorder said that this was a matter which could be ascertained from the railway officials. He thought it was not a matter to be brought forward by the defence. Suffice it to say that no evidence was tendered on the subject. Theophilus Evans, uncle of the defendant, and landlord of the White Lion and Margaret Evans, his wife, gave evidence to the effect that defendant came home to them on the 11th July, and had remained with them until she was arrested by Sergt. Harries. She had only left home in tho interval to go to Haverfordwest sports on tho 1st August. The following persons gave evidence showing that defendant was at the White Lion on the 9th of August all day :— Daniel Davies, Milford, fireman (now a chip-potato merchant); Arthur Jones, Tumble, Gertrude Evans, sifter of the defendant; Mary Anne Beavan, wifu of John Beavau, hairdresser, Milford Thomas Henry Merchant (13), cousin of the defendant; William Henry Lloyd, postman, Miiford. and his wife. Louisa Evans, the prisoner, then went into tho witness-box, and took oath. She said she was in the employ of Mrs Williams on the 11th July ehe then went to stay with her uncle; and did not return until she was brought back by the police- sergeant. Cross-examined by Mr Lleufer Thomas She was not looking for a situation. She was ouite satisfied to work for her uncle. She went to Haverfordwest on the August Bank Holiday with four others, whom she named. On August 9th she had breakfast at 8.3o a.m she then was busy washing until about 2 p.m., assisted at intervals by her aunt'. Mr Lloyd Morgan contended for the defence that tho circumstances under which the witnesses for the prosecution saw tho girl who had the goods was not such as to preludo the possibility of their being mistaken. Not one of the witnesses for the prosecution said that they knew the girl not one of them claimed to have seen her before. Had they identified her as a person whom they know well, the case would have been different. But the witnesses had merely identified a person whom they had no\ cr seen before, and whom they had only seen for a few minutes. There were several items of evidence which the police might have brought forward had the prisoner been guilty and the presumption was that an effort had been made to get them but without avail. Sergeant Harries when he went to arrest tho prisoner had Mr Evans with him, who could identify tho boots but tho boots had not been found. The railway officials again were most anxious to help the police in tracing criminals and at every station on the G.W.R. a record was kept cf every ticket issued, and, of the train for which it was isUi d. If anybody booked from New Miiford to Carmarthen, the record of it would bo available months afterwards. Were the theory of the prosecution true, they would have been able to show that a ticket from Miiford to Car- marthen had been issued early that day, and that a ticket from Carmarthen to Milford had been issued the same evening. Moreover, at a small station like New Milford, they they would have been able to find a porter or other official to identify her, or a ticket- collector at Johnston. The presumption was that the police had endeavoured to get such evidence, and had failed to do so. If there were not a single witness for the defence lie would ask the jury to dismiss the case on account of the weakness of the prosecution. Then the description given to the police by Mr and Mrs Evans was tint tho olfonder was dark haired and pale faced." Prisoner was certainly not dark haired, and the suggestion was that she was paler on the 9th August than she was now. But if anything was calculated to make her pale, it was the ordoal through which she had now to pass. The way in which the bungling identification was carried out at Carmarthen was most discreditable and improper. Prisoners were usuall}* identified by being placed amongst several others of the same figure. But Mrs Evans went into the station house, and saw tho girl iu the kitciieiij and S;IKI, "So you have como on a visit to the Sergeant She did not say, "You aro the one who stole my boots." No she never referred to it. Stio assumed that the prisoner had come to Carmarthen to accept the sergeant's hospital- ity. It was contended that the Sergeant asked the girl, "Do you know the Tumble?" but the girl said she answered No," understanding tho question to bo Do you know meat the Tumble ?" It was a pity that that Sergt. Harries, after 29 years' experience of the police-force, had not learued that it was not his duty to cross-examino the prisoners. There was nothing that Judges impressed more upon policemen than that it was their business to keep their ears open and their mouths shut. However, it sometimes happened that the order was roversed-the oars wero shut and tho mouth pretty wide open. On the other hand, the witness for tho defence—putting aside tho relatives even—were people who know prisoner well, and who could not ho mistaken as to her identity. If they had said what was not the case, they had committed perjury whereas the most that could bo said on the other hand was that the witnesses for the prose- cution had made a mistake. What the prosecution soemcd to have thought was- because the offender personated Mrs IN,'Illlanis' servaiit-tliatitliisgirl, who had rocently left Mrs Williams' service was the culprit; and had sought her out accordingly. It was easy identifying a person when one went there expecting to see them. The conclusion of Mr John Lloyd Morgan's speech was received with applause in court. Mr Lleufer Thomas contended that although the witnesses disagreed as to details yet the five all swore positively that the prisoner was the woman. They swore to her features. He admitted that, the method of identification adopted was irregular yet that did not vitiate the evidence of the five witnesses. He contended that the various discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses for the defence showed that their testimony had been made, cooked, and invented. They agreed in nothing except in stating that the prisoner was at New Miiford on the 9th August. The Recorder, in his summing up, said that it was a pity that more adequate means of identification had not been adopted in this case, as in other counties. He thought, too, it was an inconvenient plan before a prisoner is charged that a police-constable should go on a sort of roving commission, and make fishing enquiries. The Jury found the prisoner Not guilty." The verdict was greeted with loud and con- tinued applause. The latter case lasted from 2.30 p.m. until 9.40 p.m.

Advertising

LLANDPEUSANT.

The late ney. D. Pugh Evans.I

Carmarthen Borough Police…

Advertising

Carmarthen Board of Guardians.…

Death of the Rev. W. S. Calverlcy,…

Carmarthen County Petty Sessions.

Carmarthen County Court.

The Great Need of the Age.

IL L A N G A V O C !v .