Haverfordwest and Milford Haven Telegraph and General Weekly Reporter for the Counties of Pembroke Cardigan Carmarthen Glamorgan and the Rest of South Wales

Milford Petty Sessions. Wednesday.—Before Dr. Griffith, Messrs. J Whicher, J. Bees and Colonel Roberts. DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Edward Owens was on the evidence of P.O. Warlow fined 2s. 6d. for being drunk and incapable in Charles Street, on July 25th. It was his first offence. Henry Williamson was fined 2s. 6d. for being drunk in Point Street, Hakin, on August 25th. P.C. Nicholas proved the case. Arthur Roach was ordered to pay 7s. 6d. and costs for being drunk and disorderly on the 1st inst. P.C. Nicholas said he wanted to fight another fisherman whom he struck in the mouth. Eventually he was taken away by his brother. He had been fined in May for a similar offence. For being drunk and disorderly in Victoria Road, and lor using obscene language, on Friday night William High, was fined 7s. 6d. and costs. P.S. Brinn gave the evidence. William Bartlett was fined 5s. and costs for being drunk and disorderly on the Point at Hakin. P.S. Brinn stated that a few of the inhabitants complained of him knocking at their doors. That was his first offence. WOMEN'S OBSCENE LANGUAGE. Kate Felix, Rose Evans, and Sarah Evans, were charged with using obscene language in the Hearts of Oak Square on the 1st inst. P.C. Morris said his attention was called to the Hearts of Oak Inn, where the defendants were fighting and using obscene language. The landlord asked him to assist in eiectinz them. He did. but on the Sauare thev continued the obscene language. Kate Felix was fined 2s. Gel., and the other defen- dants, who did not appear, 7s. 6d. and costs. FIGHTING ON THE HIGHWAY. William Pugsley and Peter Sturley were charged with Obstructing the highway by fighting on the 9th inst. P.C. Nicholas spoke to seeing the defendants fighting. Pugsley told him that Sturley had hit him in the mouth first, and then he defended himself. Pugsley said he was told that Sturley had hit one of his children. There had been a quarrel between their children. Lydia Victoria Primrose Sturley, a girl, said her little brother had a jug which Pugsley's little boy took from him and left in the road. Pugsley ran after her and hit her in the face, filling her mouth with blood. Thomas Camm said several of them were sitting under the hedge talking when Sturley called for Pugsley. He saw Sturley knocked down by Pugsley, an 'I then Sturley defended himself. James Davies gave corroborative evidence. Sturley was fined 53 without costs, and the case Mainst Pugsley was dismissed. ALLEGED SERIOUS ASSAULT. Mr Gilbertson mentioned the case of assault, Morris v. Swainson, in which he appeared for Mrs Morris, and Mr W. D. George for the defendant, and there was also a cross-summons. He asked for an adjournment as Mrs Morris was very ill, and quite unable to attend. She was suffering from a most serious and probably danger- ous injury. Mr George said he did not offer any objection to the adjournment. If the lady was suffering from the assault she must have been ill for several days, and they might have had notice of the application for an adjourn- ment. In face of this he asked that the costs of the witnesses be allowed them. Dr. William Grilfith deposed that he had been attending Mrs Morris since the date of the accident. It Was utterly impossible for her to leave her bed. She was in a very weak state, suffering from loss of blood and shock in consequence of the accident on the night of the assault. She had a very nasty wound in the head, and erysipelas might set in. She had not left her bed since, and for some days was unable to keep any food down. The bench decided to adjourn the case, and to reserve the question of costs. THE MILK PROSECUTION. Thomas Davies, of North Farm, was charged with selling milk not of the nature, substance, and quality demanded. This was a case in which the evidence was taken at the last Court, and it was adjourned for the evidence of the county analyst. Clarence A. Seyler, county analyst, now went into the witness box. He said the milk was deficient in butter fat to the extent of 25 per cent. Mr H. J. E. Price (magistrates' clerk) said the defence Was that defendant sold the milk as it came from the cow, and the magistrates thought they would like to ask the analyst a few questions. Witness said he should be pleased to answer any questions. Dr. Griffith: Do you consider this milk is lower in quality than legitimate produce ? Witness: I do; 2-75 is the lowest standard, and that is fixed by the Government officials at Somerset House, which we adopt. Mr Whicher Have you ever known any natural milk as low as that ? Witness: Except from a half-starved or diseased cow. With milk from a herd such a low standard would be auifce possible. I should expect from a poorly fed cow that the milk would be deficient in other qualities. If this had been a naturally poor milk I should have expected to find other qualities deficient, but they were not in this case. Cross-examined by Mr W. Davies George, who defen- ded, witness said he had sometimes found milk varying in quality when there had not been any tampering with it, and this was due to natural processes, but it very seldom fell below 3 per cent. The standard was fixed by Somerset House. The milk had every mark of the abstraction of butter fat. The method of milking would affect its quality. The milk first drawn from a cow was not whole milk, and was very poor in fat, but the last portion, known as "strippings," was very rich in fat. It would be possible for milk taken direct from a cow to Contain as low as 2'05 of butter fat by partial milking. Dr. Griffith: Would it be possible for milk drawn from t herd to be of the quality you examined ? Witness: No, I don't think it possible, but I do if drawn from a single cow by an improper method of milking. & Mr George said his client did not appear before them that day as finding fault with the Act of Parliament, or the way in which it was carried out. He was anxious to supply good milk to his customers, and if there was anything that he had left undone he would be pleased to carry it out. At the same time he wished to say that he was not guilty, and the change took place in some subtle way that he did not understand, and after the milking. He asked their worships to say that the milk of a poor cow was put in one can, and by a mistake was not mixed. Nothing was done to the milk from the time it was milked into the can until it was supplied to the customers. P.S. Brinn, in answer to the Bench, said the can was a two gallon one, and there was about a gallon of milk left in it when he bought the sample. He saw the boy selling at doors before he purchased. The Bench retired for a few minutes, and on their return said they considered the case proved. Defendant would be fined £1, and no costs. A FULL LICENSE GRANTED. At the last court Mr Colin Davics applied on behalf of Mr George John, of 28, Charles Street, for a full license, th applicant then holding a spirit and wine license with a beer off license. The magistrates adjourned the appli- cation for a month, and said they would inspect Mr John's premises before giving a decision, whereupon Mr Davies said Mr John would be pleased to comply with any structural alterations required. Dr. Griffith now said We have inspected the premises, and we grant the licence on one condition—and that is a rule we make in all applications made to us- there is to be no back entrance, except for the use of the family. The wall must be built up. If we find that any drink is served through the back door we shall refuse to renew the license. Mr Colin Davies said on behalf of Mr John he could Undertake to say that he would do all the Bench sug- gested. Dr. Griffith said they wanted thn wall built up seven feet, and they recommended that tiiere be painted on the back door No admission for the public." A VERY BAD CASE. Annie Fryatt and Jane John were charged with assaulting Fanny Conway in Hill Street, Hakiu, on the 11th inst. Mr W. Davies George appeared for the prosecution. Dr. Griffith: I am very sorry to see so many summonses here from that district. Mr George said unfortunately that was so. It appeared that Mrs Conway, who was a foreigner, either for that reason or some other reason for which she was not to blame, had incurred the great displeasure of the defendants she had been obliged to bring before the magistrates that day. Mrs Conway went to Mr John's, the butcher'sshop, and on the way saw Mrs Fryatt and Mr Conway having a friendly altercation in the street. When Mrs Conway had gone into the shop Mrs Fryatt followed, pulled Mrs Conway out, and committed an assault upon her, in which she was joined by Mrs John. Mrs Conway then did her best to defend herself, and with that excep- tion she was guilty of no assault whatever. She was struck On the back of the head, and caused serious injury. She could assign no cause for the enmity which her neigh- bours had against her, except that she was a German by birth. He asked for such a fine as would allow com- plainant tc reside as a peaceable citizen as she had every right to do. Fanny Conway stated that she had been at Milford about nine months, and her husband worked on the Docks. She had nothing to do with the two defendants. They threatened hpr all day, and on aoing out to the butcher's shop, Mrs Fryatt followed her and assaulted her, saying she was ruining her life by sleeping with her (Mrs Fryatt's) husband. That was not true. Mrs Fryatt struck her three or four tiaia3. She was suffering now from the effects of tho assault, and had been under the doctor's hands. When she went to draw the sam- raons sho was taken ill in Milford. She fainted, the doctor was sent for, and she w is carried home. She attributed this illness to the ill-usage she received on the day of the assault. Mrs Fi-yatt Did my hu :u iud ?tell you to leave my house three weeka ago ? Complainant: Never in my life; I have never spoken to your husband. Mrs Fryatt: Ha.s my husband carried notes to the dock for men from you ? Complainant: Never in my life. Mrs John Have you evsr called me any bad names ? Complainant: ever. William Jenkins (1:2), said he saw Mrs Fryatt and Mr Conway having a l\JW. saw Mrs Conway going into the butcher's and Mrs t rya^ ran up to her and offered to fight. Then Mrs Frvatt struck her ill the passage, and dragged her out. Mrs Joan came up and hit Mrs Conway on the baok of the neok. By the Bench Mrs Fryatt struck the first blow. Mrs Conway was not fighting, but defending herself. Mrs Fryatt: Mrs Cou'.vay spat in my face, and then I struck her. Since Good Friday Mrs Conway and I have been bad friends. She has caused my husband to abuse rne, and to keep me and mv six children hungry. She would have run away with my husband if he had gone. John Conway said he had been married over six years. He was having his tea about a quarter to six when he heard Mrs Fryatt say I will give the German two to one." He saw them assault his wife, and Mrs John struck his wife on the back of the head with a stone. He appealed to the crowd not to allow her to be punished like that as she was flesh and blood like themselves. P.C. Nicholas was doing his best to part them. He had heard the suggestions made by Mrs Fryatt and did uot believe them. It was a disgracc to Hakin and humanity to hear the language used. It wa* said that Mrs Fryatt's husband after he (witness) had gone to work, went into his house and slept with Mrs Conway all day. He did not believe it. He had more confidence in Mrs Conway than that. (Applause in court). Mrs Fryatt: Have you ever fetched Mrs Conway from my house ? Witness: Never. Mrs Fryatt: I have seen my husband nursing Mrs Conway, and what my eyes have seen I have to suffer for. Complainant (sobbing): I will make her prove it. Dr. Griffith said they were not there to hear such accusations, or any any such language from Mrs Fryatt. There was another court for her charges to be heard in. They considered it a very serious case. The defendants would each be fined £ 1 and costs. Mrs Fryatt: I can't pay, I'll go to gaol. The Magistrates Clerk All right, for a month. Mrs Fryatt (excitedly): I'll go to Carmarthen then. I'll go for twelve months for her, and then she can have my husband. Mrs John asked for time to pay, and a month was allowed. Mrs Fryatt went below into the cells, but later in the day she asked to be allowed to see the magistrates, and applied for time to pay the fine and costs. The Bench granted her a month. Mrs Fryatt and Mrs Conway were then charged by the police with fighting on the highway at Hakin. The facts were the same as given above, P.O. Nicholas proving the case. Mrs Fryatt was fined Is, and the case against Mrs Conway was dismissed. I REFUSING TO QUIT. James Hart, publican, of Charles Street, who did not appear, was charged with refusing to quit the Alma Inn, the landlord of which said defendant was very boisterous and wanted to fight. He went for P.S. Brinn, who persuaded him to leave and to go home. P.S. Brinn said defendant was most offensive to th e landlord, and he had some difficulty to get him to leave the house until he called defendant's attention to his being a licensed holder himself. Dr. Griffith said they were extremely sorry to hear that case. They considered it a serious offence against one who held two licenses in the town. Fined 11 and costs. NO APPEARANCE. j Eliza Shields was charged with assaulting Eliza Warlow, but as complainant did not appear, Mr Colin Davies, who was for defendant, asked for the case to be dismissed with costs against the complainant, and this the Bench granted. WOMEN'S QUARREL: CONFLICTING EVIDENCE. Elizabeth Britton was charged with assaulting Alice Lewis at Hubberston, on July 30th. Mr Colin Davies defended. Complainant stated that she went to fetch some milk and seeing Mrs Britton she hid herself for three quarters of an hour, being afraid to pass her. Mrs Britton, howevbr, waited for her, and said Now I will have my b- revenge on you as I have have got plenty of b money to pay for it." She struck her twice, and knocked her down in the road. Cross-examined: Mrs Britton had taken out a summons against her husband for assault. Her husband had not stated that it was her fault, and that she deserved what she got. She did not throw at Mrs Britton, or call her any names. She did not have time to speak before she was on the ground. She did not speak to Mrs Britton before she went into Mrs Jenkins' for the milk. She had had no unpleasantness with Mrs Britton before. Ann Davies and Mrs Morner each corroborated as regards the assault, and said they did not see Mrs Lewis strike Mrs Britton with a bottle. While these witnesses were giving evidence defendant frequently intervened with remarks, and Dr. Griffith said unless she conducted herself properly she would be ordered out. They were determined not to have such a scene in Court. She must remember she was in a court of justice. James Allen said Mrs Britton was pounding Mrs Lewis with stones, and Mr Lewis was trying to stop her. Defendant (to witness) You came here because I don't deal at your establishment. Mrs Jenkins said Mrs Lewis took refuge in her house for about half-an-hour, because she was afraid of Mrs Britton. Mr Colin Davies, for the defence, said Mrs Lewis attributed immorality to Mrs Britton, and struck her with a bottle. On her coming out of Mrs Jenkins' house, Mrs Britton struck her, and Andrew Lewis, the husband, struck Mrs Britton. Mrs Britton corroborated this. Mr Lewis struck her in the mouth, causing blood to flow. She then took up a stone and threatened to use it if anybody else struck her again. Mrs Maguire and Elizabeth Joshua next gave evidence, bearing out the statements for the defence. The latter said Mr Lewis told her that he blamed his wife because she had provoked Mrs Britton, and he was sorry he had hit the woman. The Bench said the evidence was so contradictory that they had decided to dismiss the summons. SCHOOLMASTER CHARGED WITH ASSAULT. Edward Pole, schoolmaster at Hubberston school, was charged with assaulting Henry Job, a scholar in his school ,a little boy. Mr W. Davies George defended. Elizabeth Job said her child came home on the 11th of August, and was walking lame on the tips of his toes. He said the schoolmaster had beaten him. There were three or four black stripes across the bottom of his back. She took the child to the schoolmaster, and showed him the marks. He said he was very sorry he beat the child, and that his passion overcame him. He asked her to look it over. Cross-examined There were managers of the school, but she did not know them. Mr J. Ll. Davies saw the child, and the condition it was in. She did not complain of proper punishment, but this was not the first offence. The child had not been to school since. She knew the boy had stayed away from school without consent, and was afraid to go to school. He had not a-bad record for playing truant. He had marks on him the week before. He was out the same day playing. No schoolmaster had the right to beat the child to the extent defendant had. It was more serious than her husband or herself had beaten him. P.C. Warlow said on the 10th of August he was returning the back way from Hakin when Mrs Job asked him to look at her child. There were three dark marks on the child's back, which were about 3} inches long, and looked as though they were done by a rod or a cane. Col. Roberts Do you know anything about this boy? P.C. Warlow: He is a mischievous lad, sir. Dr Griffith: Most boys are the same. P.C. Warlow: There are very few different at Hakin. Mr George, for the defence, said the charge was a very serious one. The defendant did not think there was any severity, any more than ordinary punishment. This boy had been playing truant, ard had a bad reputation for it. He used to go out in the recreation hour and not return. That was such a bad example that the master felt he ought to correct him, and he did it in a legitimate way by the cane. The boy was asked to stoop down and was given three strokes. He had a small boy as witness who was similarly punished the same day. Some people's flesh marked more easily than others. Mrs Job complained of the brutal way in which the punishment was administered. He made the child put his hands on his toes whilst he struck him with the cane. The bench retired, and after a few minutes absence the Chairman said the case was dismissed. COMPLICATED ASSAULTS. j Charles Hawkins was charged with assaulting Mary Joshua and Ada Joshua Martha Thomas was charged with assaulting Mary Joshua; Mary Joshua was charged with assaulting Martha Thomas and Mary Joshua was charged with using threatening language to Martha Thomas. Mr W. D. George appeared for Hawkins and Thomas, and Mr Colin Davies for the Joshuas. Mr Davies said the Joshuas were coloured people (mulattocs) and were subject to the greatest tyranny and I persecution. Mary Joshua stated that on the 6th inst., Hawkins struck her in the breast, and she cried Murder." Her sister came up and said to Hawkins You are a coward, why did you strike my sister ? He then struck her and she fell on the ground. He struck her three times while on the ground. He threatened to kill everyone of them, boys and girls, because there was no law for killing blacks. Mrs Thomas threw a saucepan of hot water over her because she told her to mind her own business. Cross-examined She was born in Milford. She had had no quarrel with Hawkins. The water did not scald her, but hurt her for one night. She had been living on peaceable terms with Mrs Thomas until she took a young man from her. She had got him now, and meant to stick to him, (Laughter.) She supposed Mrs Thomas was jealous. (Renewed laughter.) She challenged Mrs Thomas to come outside, but she would not come. That was after she had thrown the boiling water. She offered to fight Hawkins, because she would not allow anyone to strike her mother. Hawkins was courting Mrs Thomas now, and he would have to stick up for her. (Laughter.) Ada Joshua stated that Hawkins struck her to the ground and jumped on her. She fainted, and- a neigh- bour named Mrs Maguire brought her round with water. Hawkins was always insulting her about her colour. She was unable to go to work for three days after the assault. Cross-examined Hawkins had insulted her for six months. She had never insulted him and they had never quarrelled. Mrs Llewellin gave corroborative evidence. Martha Thomas stated that the Joshuas threatened to "take her b- liver out," and to strike her with a brush. Mary Joshua took a big stone, cut in the form of a bible, used to keep the door open, and threw it at her. She stepped into the the kitchen, or the bible would have hit her. Hawkins did not go out of her house that morning. Cross-examined The Joshuas and Mrs Llewellin were all telling lies. Hawkins was her lodger, and he had never threatened the Joshuas. She heard cries of Murder," but at that time Hawkins was in her house. Joseph Gwilliam, a lodger at Mrs Thomas's house, said he heard the Joshuas come into the kitchen and cause a row. Mrs Richards, a lodger at Mrs Thomas's, said she heard a noise. The Joshuas tried to get into Mrs Thomas's house and used very bad language. Mrs Thomas and Hawkins were not in the Joshuas' house. Mrs Lloyd said she saw Mary Joshua throw a stone at Mrs Thomas. Charles Hawkins corroborated the evidence given by Mrs Thomas. Mary Joshua threw the stone, and used very bad language. The Joshuas threatened "to pull Mrs Thomas' liver and lights out." The magistrates considered their verdict in private, and then fiued Hawkins 5s. a'ld costs for the assault on Mary Joshua, and 10s and costs for the assault on Ada Joshua. T.ie other cases they dismissed, and did not grant an appli- cation by Mrs Thomas to bind over the Joshuas to keep the peace. Each party would have to pay their own costs iu the dismissed cases. A CARRIAGE WITHOUT A LICENSE. I John Davies was charged with keeping a carriage without a hcense. Mr Boyle (Inland Revenue Supervisor) proseeuted. John Wallace stated that he saw defendant with two young li adies iu a cart. He spoke to him about it, and he promised to take out a license at the end of the week. ueiendant said he gave the young ladies "a lift" in the cart, and he did not know he was offending. Dr. (m ill th said he did not think it was generally known that a cart on the road would come under the section of a. carriage. He believed defendant did not know that he was liable. As that was the first case they would only impose a nominal fine of Is. TO KEEP THE PEACE. Alfred Davies was charged with assaulting John Jenkins on the 13th inst. Mr Colin Davies appeared for complainant. Complainant stated that he went into the Three Crowns Inn to have a drink. He tried to get his sister away from some men, when defendant said What the b- h have you to do with the woman ? and struck him over the eye and nose, knocking his head against the wall. Defendant: After you struck me I struck you back. Thomas Williams said there was a row between Mrs Britton and Mrs Morner, when complainant interfered and defendant struck him. Mrs Morner said if Davies had not had the blow struck by Jenkins her baby would have had it. They were insulting her because she was a witness against Mrs Britton. Lizzie Joshua said she could not say who struck first as they were both fighting on the ground. The parties were bound over to keep the peace for six months. ASSAULTING A NEIGHBOUR. I Elizabeth Brown was charged with assaulting Sarah Elizabeth Lewis, and the latter was charged with assaulting Agnes Emma Lewis. Mr W. J. Jones appeared for Sarah Elizabeth Lewis, who stated that on Friday last about 10.30 p.m. defen- dant's boy was creating a disturbance with a tin can and spoon just outside her door. She told him not to make a noise as he was disturbing everybody. The boy con- tinued, and her daughter took the tin from him. The defendant then came up, and after some words she struck complainant in the face twice, causing a b!ack eye, a lump on the forehead, and her nose to bleed very badly. Her daughter fetched P.S. Brinn, who saw her condition. Agnes Emma Lewis came up, and complainant asked her to go, but she refused, and she (defendant) pushed her off the steps. Minnie Thomas, the step-daughter corroborated. For the defence, Annie Smith said complainant struck Agnes Emma Lewis first. Agnes Emma Lewis stated that complainant struck her across the back, in the face, and pulled her hair. While she was on the ground complainant also struck her. Cross-examined Very bad names were called on each side. After complainant struck witness her sister struck complainant. P.S. Brinn said Mrs Lewis was bleeding profusely at the nose, complained of a lump over the eye, and was otherwise bruised. There was blood over her cheeks and mouth. Dr. Griffith: We will fine Elizabeth Brown 5s, and we dismiss the other case. AN EJECTMENT ORDER. On the application of Fanny Conway, of Hakin, an ejectment order was made against Edward Berrigan, a lodger, who had paid no rent for ten weeks. ASSAULT ON AN OLD MAN. George Fee, a boy, was charged with assaulting Henry Lewis an old man. Complainant said the boy threw a piece of ice which hit him on the eye as he lay in a boat on the dock. He thought his eye was out, the blow was so sharp. The boys of Hakin were constantly annoying him. Defendant pleaded guilty, cried, and said he was very sorry. The Bench administered a caution, and imposed a fine of 2s 6d. 1_ ADJOURNED. John Lewis, of Hakin, was charged with damaging fishing nets on August 25th, the property of John Lewis, ofPiS.nets on August 2oth, the property of John Lewis, Mr Gilbertson appeared for defendant, and said he understood the prosecution were going to apply for an adjournment. P.S. Brinn said they were unable to serve a summons on a principal witness in consequence of the man being out of the neighbourhood. The case was adjourned for a month.