From the Cambrian:
Carmarthenshire Winter Assizes.
(Continued from our last.)
. — This
morning. Mr. Justice Cresswell took his seat upon the Bench at
.
The Dolauhirion Gate.
Thomas Morgan, aged 28, and Thomas Lewis, aged 24, were arraigned on an
indictment charging them with having, on , at Dolauhirion toll-gate in
the parish of Llandingad, assembled together, with divers other persons
unknown, and then and there the dwelling-house of the said toll-gate did
unlawfully, feloniously, and with force, begin to demolish, pull down, and
destroy. Both prisoners pleaded “Not Guilty.”
The Attorney-General (with whom were Messrs. Chilton,
Q.C., Evans,
Q.C., and E. V.
Williams, as in all the cases prosecuted by the Government) stated the charge
to the jury. He would occupy but a very few minutes of their time, in giving
an outline of the case before him. As so many days had been already occupied
in disposing of other similar cases, and as the jury residing in the county,
must be well acquainted with the disturbances which had sprung up in many
parts of South Wales, it would be unnecessary for him, in introducing this
case, to make any observations of a general character. The charge against the
prisoners was, that they had, on the night of , or rather early on the
following morning, assisted others and were themselves actively employed, in
destroying a dwelling-house. A month previous to the destruction of the house
to which he referred, the gate alone was destroyed and the toll house left,
and shortly afterwards a new gate was erected, and the toll-collector attended
early each morning and collected tolls during the day, but did not sleep
during night in the toll-house. Most probably an attempt would be made to
raise an objection on a point of law, that the house was not within the
meaning of the Act which had been framed and enacted for the purpose of
protecting dwelling-houses in general. He (the Attorney-General) admitted that
though the Act might not apply to every description of building which in
conversation might be denominated a house — a pigeon-house for instance would
not come within the meaning of the Act — still he contended that, where a
house had been occupied as a dwelling-house, and if some days prior to the
tumult, the party had been compelled by fear and terror to cease occupying it,
that house came under the meaning of the Act providing for the protection of
dwelling houses. He thought it right to call their attention as well of that
of his Lordship to that point, as the house had not been described in the
indictment as a “dwelling house.” It appeared that, on the night of
, after the toll-keeper had retired, that the mischief which
gave rise to these proceedings was accomplished. The case against the
prisoners was, that, on that night, a number of persons riotously assembled
together, prostrated the gate, and, thinking that as the former destruction of
the gate only had not prevented the collection of tolls, they had thought
proper to demolish the toll house too. A witness named Jones, a superintendent
of police, who would give evidence before them, was called to the scene by
watchers, who had been placed on the “look out” at the gate, partly to protect
the toll-gate, and partly to give the alarm in case of an attack being made.
The witness went as near the place as he could with safety have gone, and on
his arrival, he saw a number of persons, amounting to some fifty or more
running across a field, at the further end of which a gap had been left in the
event of an alarm. As he approached the toll-house, he saw a man, who
afterwards turned out to be the prisoner, Lewis, on the top of the house,
engaged in the work of destruction. He saw the prisoner glide down from the
roof into the field, where he was afterwards joined by the prisoner Morgan.
They walked together across the field towards Dolauhirion farm-house.
Suspecting that they were going towards some of the farm-buildings, the
officer galloped on the road, and saw both prisoners entering a bin or barn
attached to the farm-buildings. Now, the officer would tell the jury, that he
saw one of them when on the house slide down the roof, that, being on
horseback, he had ample opportunity to keep his eye upon them until they had
entered the house, when he procured assistance and took them into custody. He
immediately recognised them as the two who were at the toll-house, and unless
the two men were changed by something wonderful, he would almost say
miraculous, their identity was fully made out. The policeman pointed out to
one of the other witnesses, whose evidence the jury should hear, the place
where he saw the man glide down, and being then early in the morning, that
witness was enabled distinctly to trace their footsteps in the dew from the
toll-house to the farm-buildings, where they were apprehended. On the
prisoners’ boxes being searched, a horn was found in that belonging to Lewis,
and a pair of wet boots in Morgan’s box. On being questioned, Lewis said that
the horn was used to give notice of the approach of the Rebeccaites. Those
were the circumstances under which the prisoners were brought before them, and
which would be more fully detailed in the evidence of the various witnesses.
He (the Attorney-General) had been informed that an alibi would be set up on
their behalf. He would tell the jury that an alibi, if clearly made out, was
the best possible evidence; but if otherwise, it was the worst evidence, as no
innocent man would support his case by perjury. He had no doubt that they
would deal with the prisoners as the justice of the case required. The
Attorney-General then proceeded to explain to the jury a plan of the relative
position of the toll-house, road, farm-building,
&c., by which
they would perceive that one of the witnesses was in such a position, that he
could not have seen the prisoner Morgan on the other side of the toll-house.
Sure enough, there follows here some hair-splitting over whether the toll house was really a “dwelling house” as meant by the charge in the indictment, and whether the case should instead be filed under a different section of the law as a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The judge overruled this objection. On with the trial:
Evan Davies examined by Mr. Chilton,
Q.C.:– I remember
Dolauhirion gate toll-house, which was inhabited by Benjamin Evans previous to
the destruction of the gate, for two years. I was employed as watchman and
toll collector for two days previous to the destruction of the house. There
was no furniture in the house. I was employed to collect by Daniel Richards. I
went to collect tolls in the morning at six o’clock and left at ten in the
evening. I was during night employed to watch the gate. I was so employed on
. I left the house and gate safe that night. I watched until
and then left. When I returned
, I
found that the gate had been broken, and the front side of the roof entirely
gone, and the back part partly so.
Cross-examined by Mr. Carne:— To the best of my knowledge all the tiles were
off the front part of the house. A man named Rees came to me on the evening of
. We remained until ten that night, and left together, shutting
up the house, leaving no one in it. We returned that night to Llandovery, and
saw George Jones, policeman — I drank beer with him. It was then about
. When in company with
Jones, a person named James Phillips came to us. Upon being told something by
Phillips, Jones ordered his horse, and armed himself. He had a sword and
double-barrelled gun — wished me to go with him. I objected, but afterwards
went. On going up to the gate, we saw Williams and Thomas there. George Jones
got up to the gate a few yards before me. When I came up, Jones ordered them
to apprehend me as one of the “Beccas.” He said “William Thomas, apprehend
this man. He is one of the Beccas.” Jones then went away. He soon after came
up on horseback, whistling. This was
.
The moon had set and it was very dark. Heard some persons singing in a field
at a little distance. Joseph Williams said “that sounds like the voice of one
of the Dolauhirion boys.” None of us went up to see who it was. Jones and
myself then returned to Llandovery. It was now
. It was still dark.
Might know a person at four or five or even ten yards. Jones afterwards went
back to the gate.
Re-examined:— I was frequently in the toll-honse when B. Evans dwelt there. It
was a furnished house. I was in the shade when Jones ordered them to seize me.
George Jones, Superintendent of Police, examined by Mr. Evans,
Q.C., said — I
remember , when Joseph Williams, William Thomas, and Evan Davies watched
the toll-house. I used to go to the toll-house during the night to see if the
watchers were on duty. On hearing whistling in the field, I drew their
attention to it. Williams said, “I know that is Tom, the servant of
Dolauhirion — he is going for the horses.” I then left, together with Evan
Davies, and requested the other two watchers to remain. I proceeded to retire
to bed, after having reached Llandovery, when I heard knocking at the
door — found William Thomas there, who said, that there were about one hundred
“Rebecca’s” about the gate. Went to the Three Horse Shoes for the dragoons.
The patrol said, that he could not go without the officer. I said, “there was
no time to consult him, that the gate would be destroyed.” I then went off.
Thomas told me not to go, or I would be murdered.
The Judge:— That is no evidence.
Examination continued:— When I went to the gate, I saw several persons near
the pine-end of the house. I saw one man on the house, who slided down from
the roof. I tried to take the hedge. There were about fifty persons who ran
across the field. The man on the house was Thomas Lewis, the prisoner. I could
distinctly see him. He did not go in the same direction as the crowd, but
towards Dolauhirion farm-house. I galloped on the road to the place where I
expected them to come out. They went into a cow-house or bin. I called upon
them to come out, as I knew them. I revived no answer. I heard a noise in the
bin, as if undressing themselves. I went and called up David Evans, their
master, who gave me a candle, but could not give me a light. I then called
upon them again; they both answered, and asked what I wanted with them. They
came to the door, the upper part of which was open — they were partially
undressed. I charged them with breaking the gate, and told them, that they
must come to Llandovery. Morgan said, “He would be d–d if he would go, until
his master was up.” In ten minutes, the two watchers, Williams and Thomas,
came up. I had gone to the cottage, to get a light. I ordered Thomas and
Williams to take the prisoners into custody. They said, they would not, as
they were not armed. I galloped to Llandovery, and returned to Dolauhirion
with James Phillips, a constable. Noticed that Morgan’s boots were wet.
Phillips asked both, why their boots were so wet. One gave no answer, but the
other said, he had been out courting until three o’clock. On searching their
boxes, I found this horn [produced] in Lewis’s box. I knew it to be his box,
as he gave me the key. Morgan told me the other was his box. In it I found a
pair of wet boots. Asked Lewis what he did with the horn. He said, “To call
Becca, to see what sort of people they were.” It was between five and six
o’clock when I saw the man on the house top. I pointed to Phillips the place
I saw the prisoner on the roof.
Cross-examined by Mr. Carne:— It was not very dark when I returned to the
gate. It was not cloudy. It was not too dark to see a person fifteen yards
off. I passed a man who stood on the hedge, near the toll-house. I distinctly
saw and recognised a man on the roof. I had to pass a corner in going to
Dolauhirion. The corner of the house projects into the farm yard. The corner
of the house partially hides the door from the road view. I knew neither of
these men before — had not, to the best of my knowledge, seen them. When
Thomas refused to take them into custody, he did not say there was no
appearance of their being at the gate. I did not ask William Thomas to swear
that it was light enough to recognise a man at 20 yards off. He never told me.
“I would not take the world for telling a lie for you.” Never said, “Mind to
swear to the voices of the Dolauhirion boys: if you swear to their voices, you
shall have a hundred pounds.” Never said any thing of the kind. I have seen
the proclamation, offering a reward for the conviction of Rebeccaites, but not
as soon as it had been published [The proclamation was dated in London on that
day.] Never stood in that dock. Never was charged with robbing a man in
conjunction with Rebecca Lloyd. Knew a person committed to gaol for that
offence.
Re-examined:— I saw the two men enter the bin.
Mr. John Williams, surveyor of the Trust, was called to prove the correctness
of the plan, the destruction of the gate. and the damage done to the house.
His description was similar to that given by other witnesses.
James Phillips:— Is a constable. Remembers the morning the Dolauhirion
toll-house was destroyed. Remembers George Jones calling upon him on
. On
arriving at Dolauhirion, saw the two prisoners churning. Assisted George Jones
to take them into custody. Observed Lewis’s boots, which were quite wet. The
mistress of the house said she could prove they were in bed. I showed the
boots to her, and asked if she thought the wearer of them had been in bed. She
then said she “did not think that boy was afraid of Rebecca.” Witness also
proved the finding of the horn,
&c., in
prisoners’ boxes, as detailed by the last witness. He afterwards went to the
toll-house, and saw the damage which had been done [which witness described in
similar language to the other witnesses], Jones pointed to him the place where
he saw the prisoner jump from the roof. Could distinctly trace in the dew the
path of two persons walking from the toll-house to the farm-house. Knows
William Jones, who lives in a cottage opposite the toll-house.
Witness was cross-examined, but nothing important was elicited.
Benjamin Evans called:— Was toll-collector previous to the destruction of the
gate. Heard great noise on the night in question — the noise of tiles falling,
and the noise of men running. Judged they were a great many. Was not disturbed
by the firing of guns or the blowing of horns. I heard no noises with the
exception of the cracking of tiles. Lives at a considerable distance from the
gate.
The Attorney-General stopped the case at the suggestion of the Judge, who then
proceeded to charge the jury, and said that, at the commencement of their
proceedings, the Counsel for the prisoners rose an objection on the ground
that the house did not come under the meaning of the section constituting the
offence a felony. Being of opinion that the evidence did not prove the
existence of a “riotous and tumultuous assemblage,” he (the Learned Judge) had
to tell them that it would be their duty to return a verdict of “Not Guilty”
upon the present indictment. Verdict accordingly. There is an indictment for
misdemeanour against the prisoners.
So much for that.
Riot, and Assault upon Bailiffs.
Philip Philip, aged 56, farmer,
Wm. Philip, aged 23, farmer,
and Wm. Harries, blacksmith,
were charged with having, on , at Pound farm, in the
parish of Llangunnor, riotously and tumultuously assembled, with divers other
evil-disposed persons, and did then and there make a great noise, riot, and
disturbance, and divers of her Majesty’s liege subjects did put in bodily
fear, against the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, her Crown, and
dignity. The elder prisoner had his head bound round with two or three
handkerchiefs, as if labouring under indisposition.
The Attorney-General stated the case to the jury. The case which he had to lay
before them was in itself a very simple one. The prisoners were indicted for
convening and taking part in an illegal assembly, and with having assaulted
two bailiffs. The jury would find that this case was an instructive example of
the great danger to society of any illegal proceedings making head and taking
root in the community. The conduct of those who, taking the law into their own
hands, prostrated gates, destroyed toll-houses, and sought to get rid of what
they deemed to be grievances, was highly dangerous to society; but though not
disposed to moderate the guilt of those who unlawfully endeavoured to redress
grievances, supposed or real, the guilt must be greatly aggravated of those
who — and the present case was a specimen of that guilt — taking advantage of
the disturbed state of the community to further their own private ends — not
even pretendedly for the public good. They went far beyond the persons who,
though they set the first example of violating the law, yet professed to be
redressing some grievances, either real or imaginary, of a public nature.
There were many features in the case before them, in common with the Rebecca
cases, as far as the violent and illegal means used were regarded; but the
Rebecca cases professed to have some pretended public object in view, and,
consequently, some degree of public sympathy was expected; but in this case a
private right was denied — the right of a landlord to demand the rent due.
They would find that the right of the landlord to recover his rent by legal
process bad been denied, and that the prisoners had called together a riotous
assembly of persons, who had assumed the name of “Rebecca,” to prevent the
bailiffs executing their duty. Mr. Hall appeared for one of the prisoners
only; the other two were undefended by counsel. He hoped the jury would
therefore exercise care that the evidence affecting the undefended prisoners
should be well considered, that it may not be supposed that, because without
counsel, they are without defence.
Wm. Philip was the occupier of
a farm called the Pound, from the landlady, Mrs. Eleanor Evans. Philip Philip,
the prisoner who appeared to labour under indisposition, was a farmer,
resident in the neighbourhood as was William Harries. At Michaelmas, when rent
became due, the younger prisoner did not pay it, and Mrs. Evans instructed a
bailiff, named Evans — who was assisted by another person, named Lewis — to
assist him, to distrain for rent due, amounting to
17l.
10s. On the day previous to
the day of the riot with which the prisoners stood charged the bailiff, Evans,
probably with a view of getting differences adjusted, met the elder
Philip — told him that he had received authority in writing to distrain, and
informed him that he would execute the warrant on the next day. The reply made
by the prisoner was, that “the mother and her children” would be there to meet
them. What was meant by these expressions, he presumed, would be well
understood by all in Great Britain, especially in that county. Next day Evans,
accompanied by Lewis, proceeded to execute process, and at a short distance
from the house they met Philip Philip, the father, with whom Evans had some
conversation, during which the latter referred to the conversation which had
taken place on the preceding day. Philip said that the money was ready, but
there was some mistake made by Mr. Wilson in an arbitration, with which, Evans
said, he had nothing to do. He then accompanied the bailiffs towards the farm,
and upon meeting the young man near the house, addressing the bailiffs, he
said in a loud voice, “What the d–l do you come here to ruin me.” Immediately
upon his saying so, a gun was fired, and five or six gun-shots followed
it. — After that demonstration, appeared a number of persons disguised in
various ways — some with caps, bonnets, and others with blackened faces, false
beards, &c.,
who came out from some of the farm buildings. The effect of their appearance
was to make Evans and Lewis run away, but they were pursued and brought back.
When taken back there was among them a conspicuous tall man, who he might turn
out to be was not then important. He demanded Evans to give up his distress
paper, and when he produced them they were burnt. The tall man appeared to be
directing the whole proceedings. While the papers were burning, the elder
Phillip said that they must have the other paper — meaning the authority to
distrain. As the last scene of that strange conduct in a civilized, especially
a Christian country, the tall man sent for a Bible, made Evans swear upon it
that he would never again visit the place. Alarmed for his life, and from the
circumstance of guns being pointed towards him, he took the oath, but the
place being well-known, he adopted that course which the law pointed out, and
the parties were brought there to answer for their very gross violation of the
laws of their country. It would be the duty of the jury, after hearing the
evidence, to say whether, as the occupier of the farm, there had been any
doubt of the son’s participation in the affair. They would have to make the
same inquiry as it regarded the father — not forgetting the expressions used
by him. The other defendant would be identified by the testimony of one of the
witnesses who would be produced before them, and the jury would find him to be
the man who had administered that strange oath. He had to inform them that the
charge was not one of felony, but of misdemeanour only. Though such was the
case, he would not wish them to commit upon less proof. He felt it to be his
duty to point out the great mischief resulting from even a beginning to
redress any supposed wrongs by riotous mobs. It struck at the very root of
society, and set at defiance that law which was the protection of all — our
lives, property, and every thing near and dear to us. Though careful not to
impute to the prisoners this offence upon improper or insufficient evidence,
but if satisfied as to their guilt, they must not shrink from discharging that
duty which they owed both to society and themselves.
John Evans, the bailiff referred to in the Attorney-General’s address, was
then called. His evidence entirely bore out the statements made, as far as the
two Philips were concerned. He added that, when he and Lewis were in the act
of running away, the old man called out to the mob, “Catch them, beat them,
fire at them.” There was a tall man amongst them who took the most conspicuous
part in the proceedings. He was disguised with a false beard, similar to a
goat’s beard. He had for many years known the prisoner Harris. He could not
identify him as the tall man. He observed a fustian trousers under the cloak
worn by him. He at first insisted upon witness stripping himself, and walking
to Carmarthen in a state of nudity, but that was abandoned when the mock oath
had been administered. — This witness underwent a long examination and
cross-examination by Mr. Hall, who defended the prisoner Harris, but the whole
is contained in the opening address.
John Lewis, the person who assisted the last witness, gave evidence to the
same effect. In running away, he fell, and all the party commenced beating him
most violently. He bled profusely from the head, his garments down to his
shoes being covered with blood. The old man interfered, and cried “don’t beat
him — ’tis the other I want you to settle,” or words to that effect. Had it
not been for his interference, witness believed the mob would have killed him.
The witness positively swore to the identity of Harries as being the tall man
who took so conspicuous a part among the mob. Had known him for years, and had
an opportunity of recognising him when the mask and false beard accidentally
fell off when near the fire — leaving his face quite exposed.
Mr. Hall cross-examined the witnesses at great length, but the latter
persisted in his evidence that Harris was the tall man referred to. Both the
other prisoners who defended themselves, also cross-examined witness with
considerable tact, though occasionally straying to the dispute between
themselves and their landlady, which, in fact, had nothing whatever to do with
the charge. Their examination of witnesses proved that the elder prisoner was
not so deaf nor infirm as supposed during the first part of the trial.
Mr. Hall then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner Harris. He
commenced by deprecating the outrages which had arisen in South Wales, and
which no right-minded person could for a moment sanction. The only excuse that
could be offered for their existence was “gross ignorance” — fancying that
physical efforts could redress grievances — a more mistaken notion could not
be entertained. Mr. Hall spoke at great length upon the relative position and
duties of landlord and tenant, being of opinion that no relationship, if well
conducted, could be more conducive to the well-being of society, and then
proceeded to establish an alibi on behalf of the defendant Harris.
A witness named Ress was called to prove that between seven and eight the
prisoner called at his house, which was a mile and a half distance from Pound,
on the Swansea road. Other witnesses were called to prove conversations with
them at different times, until past nine, being the hour at which, according
to the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, the riot took place.
Some of the witnesses deposed having seen the prisoner on the Carmarthen side
of Pound farm, about nine. The prisoner’s father was called to prove that he
never wore trousers, the witness Evans having stated that the tall man in the
mob wore a fustian trousers.
Mr. Chilton replied on behalf of the Crown. He remarked upon the
badly-sustained alibi made out on behalf of Harries, Mr. Hall having opened
that Harries was too far distant from the scene of disturbance at eight
o’clock to be at the riot at half-past eight or nine; whereas, by subsequent
evidence, it turned out, even by that of his own witnesses, that he was at the
time in the immediate vicinity. As to the circumstance of all the witnesses
undertaking to swear to the time almost within a few minutes, it was quite an
absurdity, for no man, if asked a few days subsequently, could call to mind
the exact hour at which he held any conversation with another. He also
contended, that the testimony of prisoner’s father did not contradict that
given by witnesses for the prosecution, as fustian “leggars” might have been
easily mistaken for trousers made out of the same material. Mr. Chilton then
commented on the plea set up by the younger prisoner, Philip — that he took no
part in the assembling of the mob, and had no previous knowledge of the riot.
He thought the case clear against the two Phillips, and that the alibi set up
for Harries had not been sustained, especially when put in opposition to the
witness Lewis’s positive evidence of his identity among the mob. All sympathy
should not be exhibited towards the accused, but some should be displayed
towards witnesses who come forward to give evidence against those who set all
law at defiance. The Learned Judge having summed up the evidence, the jury
acquitted Harris, and returned a verdict of Guilty against Philip Philip, and
Wm. Philip. Sentence deferred.
