Flintshire Observer Mining Journal and General Advertiser for the Counties of Flint Denbigh

Mold Petty (Sessions. Rhydymwyn Licensee Chzrged with Permitting Drunkenness. "INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT." Assault by a Woman: Lively Scenes at Mold. Monday. —Befoi e Mr. P. T. Davies-Cooke (in the chair), Capt. Lloyd, R.N., Mr. J. T. Morgans, Mr. Peter E. Roberts, and 1!1 1 Mr. Thomas Jones. INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL ARREARS. John Dalton, of Mold, was summoned in respect of arrears of payments to an indus- trial school. Supt. R. Y. Davies said that an order had been made against the defendant, the case being adjourned to enable him to pay. He had not paid, nor had he attempted to pay. Defendant said he was only working two days a week. The Chairman: Where are you working? Defendant At Shotton. It was stated that the amount owing was £1 3s. 6d. The Chairman told the defendant that the Bench did not wish to send him to gaol, but unless lie paid in a month's time the probabilities were that he would have to go to gaol. ALLEGED DANGEROUS DRIVING. CHARGE AGAINST A CHAUFFEUR DISMISSED. George Frederick Brown, chauffeur, Bir- kenhead, was charged with driving a motor- car in a manner dangerous to the public. Mr. F. Llewellyn-J ones, Mold, presented, and Mr. A. D. Dean, Liverpool, defended. J-U'. Llev.elivn-Joncs said that on Satur- day. April there had been an accident at the corner of King street and Bridge street, Mold. Immediately after the acci- dent P.S. Whitehead and a fair crowd of people were standing at the coiner. Sergt. hiteliead noticed a motor car coming from the direction of Queensferry at a very fast rate. The sergeant and other witnesses would inform them that the speed was un- doubtedly dangerous to the public. hen the car was passing the Bridge Inn the de- fendant sounded the horn. He did not in any way slacken speed, although lie must have .seen the crowd, until the sergeant held up his hand to stop the car. The car was Pulled up at the point where the sergeant was standing. The sergeant took the driver s name and address, and told him that he would have to report him for driving to the danger of the public. Defendant then ask- ed at what speed he said he was driving. The sergeant replied, "At least 30 miles an hour." A gentleman sitting in the car said, "It's all right. I have got nis num- ber. It's 28. Go on." That was rather an impertinent remark to make under the cir- eumstanc-es. The Bench were well aware that at the place in question there was one of the most dangerous corners in the dis- trict. There had been more than one acci- dent there. Warning notices had been put up the day before the offence was alleged to have been committed. Sergt. Whitehead said that on the day in Question a collision had taken place between a motor car and a motor cycle at the corner of King street and Bridge street. When he got there, there was a crowd of 100 to 130 people at the spot. While he was standing there he noticed a big car coming along at a terrific speed. n" ran into the road and held up his hands. The car was stopped right up against him. At the least estimate the speed of the car was 30 miles per hour. He was often on point duty in the town, and had a good chance of judging speed. Until he held up his hand the defendant did not give any indication of reducing his speed. Defendant was driving in a manner dangerous to the public. It was the most dangerous turning in the town, and warning notices had been put there. When the car stopped he asked the driver to produce his licence, which he handed over. He also took his name and address, and told him that he would report him for driving in a manner dangerous to the public. Defendant said, "What speed do you think I was com- -•"g at?" Witness said, "You were coming at least 30 miles per hour." A gentleman at the back of the car said, "It's aU right. I have got his number. His number is 28. Go on," The car was then driven away up King street. Cross-examined by Mr. Dean: Defendant could see the crowd all right?—Yes. Do you suggest that lie drove straight in- to the crowd at 30 miles an hour?—I don't suggest anything. I 'lY that he approached and passed the danger signals at 30 miles an hour. Weren't you a little bit excited at the time No. Didn't you say, "I am going to summon Jou. I am going to summon you?"—No, because I cannot summon—I only report. Was it not in consequence of your excited attitude that Mr. Williams (owner of the car) said he would take your number?- There was no excitement at all. The only tiling I was afraid of was that he would <ia-'h through the crowd. Did you notice a man staggering in the N road between the bend (at Raikes' Lane) and the corner?—No, there was not a single Person in the road. Albert Lloyd, Caerwys, said he drove a motor car. He was at the corner of Bridge street and King street on the occasion in question. There wa-s a crowd there. He saw the car driven by the defendant coming along the road. It was travelling at a speed of about 25 miles per hour. It was difficult to judge speed when a car WAS coining towards one. He thought that under the circumstances the car was being driven too fast. The driver did not seem to reduce his speed until the sergeant raised his hands. 1\1 Richard S. Davies, merchant, Rhydvgaled, I Id) also gave evidence. He stated that he saw the car first when it had just come r round the bend. The road was clear. The car came round the bend at 26 to 27 miles per hour. The speed was dangerous to the public. Witness said that Sergt. White- head did not seem excited. THE DEFENCE. Mr. Dean, addressing the Bench, said that Mr. Ronald Williams, who employed the defendant, had given instructions for the case to be defended. He felt that it was a case which ought not to have been brought. The evidence he was going to put before them would show that when they came round the bend the driver had to slow down in order to pass a man who appeared to be drunk. Having passed that man, they ap- proached the crowd at a speed of about 20 miles per hour. The car was under perfect control. The suggestion that the car dash- ed into the crowd at 30 miles an hour was absolutely ridiculous. The defendant, giving evidence, said he remembered going round the corner into the road leading into Mold. There was a man walking in the middle of the road, and he had to slow down in order to pass him. Then he went on, and seeing the crowd standing on the corner lie slowed down. The car was under complete control. He was blowing his horn all the while. The speed was just over 20 miles per hour. He could pull up the car in its own length. There had never been any complaint against him before. By Mr. Llewellyn-Jones: Where was it that vou saw this man?—Just by Raikes' Lane. Just as you were coming round the bend? —Yes. After you passed him you got your speed up again to 20 miles per hour -Yes; I had a clear road before me. You were relying upon the crowd moving away? No, the crowd was on both sides. The road was perfectly clear. You know that this is a dangerous corner? —Yes. You know that even to drive from 15 to 20 miles an hour past that comer is rather a dangerous rate?—No, not when you have the car under perfect control. Do vou snggest that you would be justified in driving up to the speed limit? Not when just passing the corner. Did you slow up at all when you were passing the warning notice?—Yes. Do you think it would be safe to drive past that corner at 13 miles per hour?- Yc. Ronald Williams, of Birkenhead, owner of the car, said that on the occasion in question lie was sitting in the back of the car. He corroborated what the driver had said. He thought it was almost impos- sible for anyone to judge the speed of a car when in front of it. The car was under perfect control. Defendant, who was a careful driver, had driven him 60,000 miles. Cross-examined by Mr. Llewellyn-J ones, witness said that the notices near the corn- er were not danger notices but caution no- tices. A caution notice meant that one should go at five miles below the legal limit. With a clear read, and driving at 15 miles 0 1 per hour, a driver could pull up in three yards. Gumer Owen, motor car driver, said lie was at the entrance to Bridge street un the occasion in question. He could not say ex- actly at what speed the car was going. It was under perfect control. In reply to Mr. Peter Roberts, witness said lie did not consider that the car was being driven recklessly. The Bench retired for a few minutes to consider the case. On their return the Chairman said they had decided that under the circumstances they would not be justi- fied ill convicting, but at the same time they thought that the police were quite right in bringing the case forward for deci- sion. The evidence was not quite strong enough to enable them to convict. The chairman called attention to the advisabili- ty of placing stronger warning notices at the place in question. Mr. Ronald Williams said he was a mem- ber of the Automobile Association, and would bring the matter before them. LIVELY SCENES AT MOLD. V.SSAULT BY A WOMAN. Susannah Gunning, married woman, of Chapel street, Mold, was summoned by Ro- bert Edwards, of 21, Glanravon road, Mold, and Lillian Edwards, his daughter, for assault, and Elisha Bassett was sum- moned bv Lillian Edwards to provide sure- ties to keep the peace. Mr. J. B. Marston, who appeared for the complainants, said that on Wednesday night, May 6th; Robert Edwards, his wife, and daughter had been to the Picture Hall, Mold, and came out a little after 10 o'clock. As they were returning home they met Mis. Gunning, who was in a drunken condition and using bad language. Mrs. Gunning as- saulted Robert Edwards and his daughter. Mr. Marston, after outlining the circum- stances, said that his clients only brought these proceedings to prevent Mrs. Gunning from attacking them again. Miss Edwards wished the Bench to bind Bassett over to keep the peace, as One had used threats to- wards her. Robert Edwards said that on the night of Wednesday, May 6th, he and his wife and daughter were returning from the Picture Hall about a quarter past 10 o'clock. As they were going down Wrexham street he saw Mrs Gunning standing against a wall. She came towards them and used bad lan- guage to his wife and himself. When he asked her why she so insulted, him, defend- ant gave him a smack on the Face with a tin or something which cut the brim of his hat. She ran at him and tried to kick him, and they fell to the ground together. She tried to bite him. His daughter came to assist him, and Mrs. Gunning struck her. Defendant again tried to kick him, and a man came up and said, "You go home, Ed- wards." Mrs. Gunning replied to the man, "You leave us two together. I'll have it out of him." Witness went home. Next morning, as he was leaving to go to work just before half-past five o'clock, he met the defendant at the corner of the entry. She said, "I'll have it out of you," and tried to give him a blow. ° Lillian Edwards said that on the evening in question 6he saw Mrs. Gunning try to I kick her father. Witness got hold of her hands, and defendant then hit her. On Thursday morning the defendant Bassett put his fist in her face, and said he "would give it to her, too." She was really afraid of him, and wished the Bench to bind him over. Mrs. Edwards, wife of Robert Edwards, also gave evidence. Mrs. Gunning elected to give evidence on her own behalf. She said that Robert Ed- wards took hold of her by the throat and swore that he would murder her. Her wit- nesses were not well, or they would have been in court that day. She and Mi-. Ed- wards struggled together, Complainant kicked her in the face, and etiiother man also came up and gave her a kick. They all went home afterwards. Witness was cover- ed with blood. Next morning she saw Mr. Edwards and asked him why he had kicked her. He picked up his umbrella and threa- tened to strike her. She said, "You do; you arc by yourself this time." lie took hold of her neck and swore that he woulct murder her. Bassett said that when lie came out of the house the first thing lie heard was Edwards shouting, "I will murder you." All the peo- ple were up and watching from their bed- room windows. He went to Robert Ed- wards and said, "Hold on, Robert. She is only one among a lot of you. You are a coward to kick a woman." He never spoke to Lillian Edwards he had not spoken to her for a number of years, nor did lie want to speak to her. The Bench fined Mrs. Gunning 2s. 6d. and costs in each case—a total of £1 2s. 2d. --or in default 14 days' imprisonment. Bassett was bound over in the sum of for six months to be of good behaviour. INNKEEPER SUMMONED. CHARGE OF PERMITTING DRUNKEN- NESS DISMISSED. Fred Goode, licensee of the Sun Inn, Rhydymwyn, was charged with permitting drunkenness. Mr.' F. Llewellyn-Jones pro- secuted, and Mr. J. B. Marston defended. Mr. Llewellyn-Jones, outlining the case, said that two persons in respect of whom the offence was alleged to have been com- mitted were recently sent to prison. The police felt it was only fair that those men should be brought there that day, so that the defence could cross-examine them if de- sired. The police placed themselves in communication with the Home Office, who took a similar view of the matter. Both prisoners were present that day. On Sun- day, May 3rd, these men—John Birmingham and Paul Diamond—were found helplessly drunk on the main road between Mold and Rhydymwyn shortly after five o'clock. He would call evidence to show that shortly before that the men were at the Sun Inn, Rhvdvmwyi), and were there served with 'three pints of beer. lie would satisfy them that the last place they visited was the Sun The licensee and his wife were not at home that day, and had delegated control of the house, but that did not in the least relieve the defendant of responsibility. Joseph Edward Jones, son of P.C. Fred Jones, Rhydymwyn, said that on Sunday, Mar 3rd, lie was cycling from Rhydymwyn, and overtook Hugh Jones, John Birming- ham, and another man. Binningliam and the other man were drunk, and could not walk properly. Hugh Jones, Ilendre, Rhydymwyn, stated that on the day in question two men, John Birmingham and Paul Diamond, assaulted him on the road between Mold ancl Rhydy- mwyn. Both men were drunk. Cross-examined by Mr. Marston I put it to you that you were drunk yourself and brought these men into trouble?—No. John Birmingham (one of the convicted men) was then brought into court to give evidence. He said that on the day in ques- tion lie walked with Paul Diamond and an- other fellow from Denbigh. They were sober. Mr Llewellyn-Jones What did you plead at the last court? Mr. Marston No, no; you can't have any evidence given in a previous case. Mr. Llewellyn-Jones contended that the witness was proving hostile, and if that were so, he was entitled to ask him whether at any other time he had made a statement quite opposed to the one he wa,s now mak- ing. His case was the two men were drunk. He called a witness to give evidence to that effect, but he said they were not drunk. Therefore, he was a hostile witness at once. The Bench permitted Mr. Llewellyn-Jones to treat the witness as hostile. Mr. L1. Jones (to witness): You have made a different statement before?—I had to do because it was a case of 20 to 1. You pleaded guilty to being drunk because I it was 20 to 1?—Yes. Did not you tell the superintendent this morning that you were drunk at this public house?—No. I told him I pleaded guilty because there were too many witnesses against me. In reply to the Chairman, Birmingham said he was sober when he left the Sun Inn. They would not have served him if he had been drunk. P.C. Fred Jones, of Rhydymwyn, said that on Sunday, May 3rd, he went to arrest Birmingham and Diamond on the main road between Mold and Rhydymwyn. The two prisoners were in a drunken condition. Hugh Jones was sober. Samuel Roberts, of the Nursery, Gresford, said he walked with Birmingham and Dia- mond to Rhydymwyn. They called at one house on the way, and then went into the Sun Inn, where they had three pints of beer. After the second pint his compan- ions seemed to be talking a lot and to have had enough drink, but they were not exact- ly drunk. They seemed worse after the third pint. Tegid Smith, of Northop, said he was cycling towards Rhydymwyn on the day in quest-ion. He saw Birmingham and Dia- mond, who were in a drunken condition. The first named spoke to him, but he could not make out what he was talking about. Hugh Jones was sober. Sergt. Whitehead said that in consequence of information received from a motorist on Sunday, May 3rd, he went in the direction of Rhydymwyn in a motor car, and reached I the point in question shortly before 6 o'clock He found Birmingham and Diamond in the I custody of P.C. Jones. Both prisoners wer-e drunk. There was nothing in the condition of Hugh Jones to suggest that he was in drink. Mr. Marston, addressing the Bench on behalf of the defendant, said that Goode was a highly respectable man. He had lived at the Sun Inn for something like three years, and before that he was in the service of Mr. Raikes, of Llwynegrin, for C, about 15 yeans. On Friday, May 1st, Mr. Goode and his wife had to go to Glouces- tershire to attend the funeral of Mrs. Gcode's mother, leaving their son and daughter in charge of the house. Mr. Goode had always been very careful in con- ducting the house, and had given strict in- structions to his children and servants. He had told them many times that they must not serve anyone with signs of drink about Ö him. On the Sunday afternoon defendant's son went out for a walk, leaving Miss Goode in charge. Her sweetheart, Mr. Goodwin, was also in the house. Miss Goode had to go into the kitchen in order to serve tea to a couple of travellers. Birmingham, Dia- mond. and Roberts came to the door, and Mr. Goodwin attended to them, the men being in a fit condition to be served. Fred Goode then gave evidence in sup- port cf his solicitor's statements. Cross-examined by Mr. Llewellyn-Jones, he said lie left his son and daughter in the entire charge of the house. Hettie Goode, daughter of the defendant, said that she was at home on Sunday, May 3rd. About 4 o'clock in the afternoon she was preparing a meal for a lady and gentle- man. The only other person in the house was Mr. Goodwin. She asked him to at- tend to the front door and be careful whom I he let in. Arthur Hugh Goodwin said that Miss Goode asked him to attend to the door as she was busy. He opened the door and saw the three men in question. They were perfectly sober, so he admitted them. He asked them where they came from, and they told him that they had come from Cerrig- ydruidion. He served them with a pint each, and shortly afterwards with a second pint. In a quarter of an hour he served them with another pint each. They knock- ed again and lie refused to serve them. He told them they had had the limit. They went out and walked along the road all right. Mr. Llewellyn Jones: Why did you not give them a fourth pint?—I was under the impression that three pints was the limit. Your idea is that a person who goes to a public house is entitled to three pints and no iiiore"Ye.s. You will be surprised to hear that the men were found drunk shortly afterwards?— Yes, I did not expect it. Christopher Evans, of Rhydymwyn, said he saw three men coming from the direction of the Sun Inn, about 4 o'clock. They were walking perfectly straight, and lie consid- ered they were sober. George Falconer said he saw the three men, and they appeared to be sober, but the other man, Hugh Jones, seemed to have had some drink. Alfred Pearson said he was with the last witness on the day in question. He saw Birmingham and Diamond, who were both absolutely sober. Harry Coffin, of Malpas, Cheshire, spoke to seeing the three men leaving the Sun Inn. He took them to be perfectly sober. Paul Diamond, the other convicted man, said he remembered getting into some trouble, but he was perfectly sober that night. Mr. Llewellyn Jones: What drink had you had?—Four pints. I had two in the last place. Not three pints?—No, two pints. If the man who served you says he gave you three pints he is making mistake? Yes. The Bench, after considering the case in private for a few minutes, decided that there was not sufficient evidence to convict. The Chairman said he wished to warn the defendant to be very careful. IRREGULAR ATTENDANCE. Arthur Fellowes, 28, Mill Lane, Buckley. was summoned by Michael Lewis in respect of the irregular attendance at school of hit) daughter, Maude, aged 12. He was fined 2s. 6d. and 5s. costs. A similar fine was imposed on Joseph Davison, Nant Mawr, Buckley, who was summoned in respect of the irregular at- tendance of his son John, aged 11. COAL PICKING. Annie Dalton, of Milford street, Mold, and Mary Williams, 74, Wrexham street, Mold, married women, were summoned by the Mold Collicl ies, Ltd., for stealing coal I valued at hl. The case was proved by P.C. Hughes. Mr. Richardson attended Oil behalf of the Company, and stated that while the pro- prietors did not desire to be vindictive they asked for the c-o-operation of the Bench in order to put a stop to a practice which was assuming serious proportions. The Chairman, in stating that the defen- dants would be fined 10s., said the offence was a serious one, and the Bench had ser- iously considered the question of sending the defendants to prison-a. course which would be taken if they appeared before them again. SEEN BETTER DAYS. Llewelyn Lloyd, labourer, MilfortI street, Mold, was fined 2s. 6d. and costs for drunk- ness at Hendre, Rhydymwyn. P.C. Fred Jones proved the case. Supt. Davies intimated that the defendant had seen better days. BIRCH ROD FOR A BOY. At a Children's Court John James O'Neill, aged rn, living with his parents in Milford street, Mold, was charged with stealing a quantity of coal valued at 3d. from the Bromfield Colliery. Defendant said the coal was given to him by a woman. The Bench ordered that the boy should be given six strokes with a birch rod.