Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

14 articles on this Page

focal fntdligeitft. .-—

THE ACCIDENT ON THE SOUTH…

MUD IN BANESWELL.

tTREDEGAR.

MERTHYR.

- MAESYCUMMWR.

RHYMNEY.

-----..---FALL OF DELHI.

THE CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTIC

Family Notices

'''*** (Our letter 13nx.

OUR NEXT MAYOR-WHO IS HE ?

ABERDARE.

News
Cite
Share

ABERDARE. An Inquest was held at the Queen's Hotel on Friday. on the body of William Rawson, aged 22, engineer at the Abernant works. He tried to overtake the engine while passing the Abernant office, and was crushed against the wall. He fell, and the wheels passed over him, killing him on the spot. Verdict, Accidental Death." PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH ACT. The long talked of proceedings against Richard Fothergill Esq, as chairman of the local Board of Health for alleged misconduct in taking the names of certain voters at the last election of members of the Board of Health, came off on Thursday last, at the police court. The magistrates on the Bench, were J. C. Fowler, J. W. James, and J. L. Roberts, Esqrs. Mr. Jones, of Neath, was solicitor, and Mr. Field, of the Midland circuit, was counsel for the complainants Mr. Simonds, of Merthyr, was solicitor, and Mr. Cook, of the Oxford circuit, was counsel for the defendant. The court was densely crowded during the proceedings, and considerable confusion was the result. This, com- bined with the inconvenient portion of the Court allotted to the Reporters, rendered it a work of difficulty to them to hear the witnesses or the learned counsel. There were six summonses against the Chairman of the Local Board of Health, which were as follows Mr. Richard Fothergill was charged for that he, within six calender months now last past, to wit, on the 27 day of August, 1857, at the parish, of Aberdare, Glamorganshire, being then and there the chairman of the Aberdare Local Board of Health—charged with taking, collecting, and returning the votes at the last election of persons to be members of the said Local Board of Health-unlawfully did neglect to comply with the provisions of the Public Hea!th Act, 1848, in that behalf, to wit, in then and there admitting a voting paper, signed by one Morgan Morgan, with the initials M.P." opposite the candidates' names, though the said paper was addressed to and intended for one Morgan Phillips, as you the said Richard Fothergill then and there well knew, contrary to the Public Health Act, 1848 Other summonses charged the defendant with admit- ting a voting paper, purporting to be that of Lewis Thomas, without the signature of the said Lewis Thomas with admitting the voting paper of John Eynon, of Cardiff street, Aberdare, sawyer, the said paper not having the initials of the said voter prefixed opposite the names of any of the candidates with admitting the voting paper of Elizabeth Watkins, of Mill-street, with- out the mark affixed at the foot thereof with admitting the voting paper of Jenkin Jenkins, of the Collier's Arms, at Hirwain, the paper not having the initials of the said voter prefixed opposite the names of any of the candidates at the said election with absolutely rejecting the voting paper of Richard Williams, although the same was duly perfected as required by law. Mr. Field opened the case, observing that the object at issue was most important-namely, to secure purity of election. Aberdare was placed under the Public Health Act, in the year 1854, since which time there had been four elections. The proceedings complained of took place at the election in August last. Mr. Fothergill had acted as chairman since the close of the first year, during which the Vicar had presided. The Act provided that the Board should be constituted of representatives elected by the ratepayers and owners of property in the district. It was therefore important that every member should be returned by the honest and free exercise of the rights of the electors. The act was first applied by an Order in Council, which in the case of Aberdare was afterwards ratified by an act of parlia- ment. The Board was constituted of twelve members, four of whom, or a third of the whole number, retired every year. In pursuance of this provision, the mem- bers, who retired by rotation in August last, were Messrs, Fothergill, Roberts, Price, and John; and there was another vacancy occasioned by Mr. Crawshay Bailey, M.P., having forfeited his seat in consequence of non- attendance. The result was that this year there were five vacancies to be filled. The four gentlemen who retired by rotation offered themselves for re-election, and there were five new candidates, namely, Messrs. Thomas Powell, John Watkins, Richard Partridge, John Samuel, and Thomas Evans. The learned counsel then read the sections of the Board of Health Act, from the 21st to the 28th, which describes the process to be pur- sued in the election of members, and the duties of the chairman in relation to the election. He would first of all refer to the case of Morgan Phillips or Morgan Morgan. The voting paper should be filled up by the voter placing his initials against the names of those per- sons for whom he intended voting, and then attaching his own signature. Morgan Phillips voted for Messrs. Fothergill, Roberts, Price, Jones, and John-four of whom were the retiring members. Against these names he placed the initials M. P. but he signed the paper Morgan Morgan," and yet that vote was admitted. The learned counsel then enumerated a number of cases, with the view of showing that in many instances the voting papers were not regularly filled up, but yet in those cases where the votes were in favour of the chair- man and his (the old) party, they were admitted, while, when the votes were in favour of the new candidates, they were rejected. Mr. H. J. Hollier deposed that he was clerk to the Aberdare Local Board of Health, and that the day of the last election was the 25th of August, on which day the voting papers were collected. Mr. Fothergill was chair- man at the time of the election, and the voting papers were examined by him on the 26th August. Witness produced the paper of Morgan Phillips, and the other papers alluded to by the learned counsel in his opening address. On being cross-examined by Mr. Cooke, he said The chairman and myself had some conversation as to the admission or rejection of about a dozen papers, but I do not recollect the particular papers. Previous to com- mencing the scrutiny I pointed out to the chairman the directions of the act as to the admission of voting papers having erasures and alterations, and the chairman, thinking those rules too stringent, decided a short time after we commenced upon admitting those papers which had alterations or erasures to a less number than the names to which the initials were properly attached. If a paper contained two erasures and three names pro- perly marked, that paper was admitted. Every rejected vote was afterwards signed by the chairman. I cannot state the total number rejected. Mr. Cooke submitted that the case was not within the jurisdiction of the Bench, but that it must go to the Court of Queen's Bench, and then if their lordships were satis- fied that a case was made out, it might go to a jury. Mr. Field replied, and, after some discussion, The Chairman (Mr. Fowler) ruled that the case was within, the jurisdiction of the magistrates. Mr. Cooke then, upon the facts adduced, contended that there was no proof of wiljul misconduct upolk the part of the defendant. It was Mr. Hollier who pulled each paper out of the bundles and said whether it was good or bad and there was no pretence to say that Mr. Fothergill altered the papers In any way after receiving them from the clerk. Mr. Hollier said that when handing the papers to the chairman, he made no remark as to the good ones, but when any error struck him, he pointed it out to the chairman, and he did not afterwards look over his shoulder, to see what wa.s done with the paper. Mr. Cooke made a few remarks upon particular cases, and then observed that out of the twenty-one voting papers produced there were only seven or eight which were wrongly admitted or rejected; and that out of a total of twelve hundred, tkese seven or eight papers were wilfully misplaced with a view to alter the result of the election, was extremely improbable. All the in- stances of erasure, he contended, had been satisfactorily explained. In conclusion, he denominated the case as one of the most barefaced of which he had ever heard. The magistrates then retired, and on returning into court after an absence of about an hour and a half, Mr. Fowler said that in this case the question was whether the defendant knowingly and intentionally ad- mitted the voting paper of Morgan Phillips, which was initialled and signed Morgan Morgan." This paper was put in. Tht other evidence brought forward in support of the charge was peculiar, consisting of a num- ber of other papers, some of which had been rejected, and some received. Had this paper of Morgan Morgan or Morgan Phillips been alone, nothing would have been more fair than to suppose that a mistake had occurred, and that the paper was admitted inadvertently but other papers were put in, from which the Bench were asked to infer that the paper in question was knowingly admitted by the chairman. Now, in order to see what force was to be attached to that description of evidence the magis- trates had carefully gone through each case separately. The argument arising from the cases rejected did not appear to have much, if any, force. The question then was, could the magistrates infer that the vote of Morgan Morgan was deliberately and designedly admitted, with the fully knowledge that it was an erroneous vote ? The cases adduced were jotted about among the 1200 voting papers, and in two or three cases the vote was admitted partially against the supposed interest of the chairman and his friends. The Bench were of opinion that upon the penal statute it would not be safe or right that they should infer against the defendant, from the evidence brought forward, any intention to offend against the right of purity of election, or any willful non-compliance with the statute. The scrutiny of the voting papers was properly performed in the presence of a legal adviser and the magistrates thought it fair and reasonable to hold that the offence charged was such an oversight or accident as was not contemplated should be brought under the penal clause of the Act. The summons would therefore be dismissed. The decision of the Bench was received with some demonstrations of applause. Mr. Field then intimated that, as he had no further evidence to bring forward than that already adduced, he would not proceed with the other cases against Mr. Fothergill. A summons had been obtained against Mr. Jenkin Rhys, mineral agent, charging him for that he, on the 27th August, at the parish of Aberdare, did unlawfully, knowingly, and falsely forge the marks or signatures of John Walters, William Griffiths, and Catherine Walters, to their respective voting papers for the election of persons to be members of the Aberdare Local Board of Health, and that you afterwards, on the day and at the parish aforesaid, unlawfully, falsely, and deceitfully did alter the said papers, well knowing them to be false and forged." Mr Field said that in consequence of a witness who had been in court all the morning, not being now present to prove the handwriting, he would withdraw the sum- 1 mons against Mr. Rhys. j The proceedings then terminated, after occupying ( about five hours. (

BANKRUPTS.