Preece Family Tree

Events

Families

Attributes

Pedigree

1. 1. Sarah
      1. William Griffiths
         1. Thomas Griffiths
         2. Sarah Margaret Griffiths
         3. Morgan Griffiths
         4. Ivor Griffiths
         5. Gwilym Griffiths
         6. Mary Ann Griffiths

Source References

1. 1851 United Kingdom Census
   1. • Page: HO107/2456/384/11
2. 1861 United Kingdom Census
   1. • Page: RG9/4043/68/18
3. 1871 United Kingdom Census
   1. • Page: RG10/5381/16/23
4. 1881 United Kingdom Census
   1. • Page: RG11/5297/126/50
5. 1891 United Kingdom Census
   1. • Page: RG12/4456/95/17
6. 1901 United Kingdom Census
   1. • Page: RG13/5051/124/12
7. 1911 United Kingdom Census
   1. • Page: RG14/32585/89
8. Western Mail
   1. • Date: 13 March 1914
      • Page: Page 6
      • Citation:

        APOLOGY IN DOCK.

        LETTERS TO PORTH MAGISTRATE.

        A WILL DISAPPOINTMENT.

        BROTHER'S REGRET FOR BEHAVIOUR.

        Ivor Griffiths, described of independent means, of 'The Limes', Pencoed, was brought up in custody on remand at Pontypridd Police-court on Thursday (before Mr. D. Llenfer Thomas, stipendiary) charged with sending a letter threatening to kill or murder his brother, Mr. Thomas Griffiths, M.E., J.P., of Maesgwyn, Porth.

        Mr. A. Ivor Parry (Messrs Morgan, Bruce and Nicholas, Pontypridd) prosecuted, and Mr E. T. Davies (Llantrisant) appeared for the accused, who seemed to feel his position acutely. There was a further charge against defendant of assaulting his sister, Miss Sarah Griffiths, but this was adjourned.

        Mr. Parry said there would be no doubt that the letters forming the subject of the charge had been written by accused and sent by him to his brother. There were two sons and two daughters of the late Mr. William Griffiths, Cymmer, who died on February 22, 1893. Under a will executed on February 16, 1893, the late Mr. William Griffiths left all his property to his wife absolutely. Up to that time there was no outward dissention between the brothers or any members of the family. There were references in the letters to Groes Farm, and accused appear to have the idea that his father's estate was undervalued for purposes of probate and that Groes Farm was not included. But, as a matter of fact, the farm never belonged to Mr. William Griffiths. He bought the farm, but the deeds were made out in the name of his wife. This was one of the things accused seemed to have been dwelling upon in these letters.

        DISSATISFIED WITH WILL

        There was no outward dissendion until Mrs. Griffiths, the mother of accused and prosecutor, died on February 14, 1913. There were various legacies in her will, including one to accused, and to Mr. Thomas Griffiths she gave all her freehold property, Groes Farm, for his life, subject to his paying two annuities of £10 each. The income from the property was, roughly, £40 a year, so that all prosecutor derived under his mother's will was £20 a year, and this he arranged to pay to his sister, Miss Sarah Griffiths.

        Mr. Ivor Griffiths, the accused, was (said Mr. Parry) in an independent position, and his wife also had independent means, so there was no suggestion that he was poor in any sense. At the reading of his mother's will accused intimated that he was dissatisfied with the terms of the will and the position under the will, but his tone then gave no indication that the letters forming the subject of this charge would ever have been written. The matter, however, appeared to have taken hold of his mind, and since his mother's death he had taken the course of writing threatening and insulting letters, not only to Mr. Thomas Griffiths himself, but to his wife, Mrs. Thomas Griffiths; to his sister, Miss Sarah Griffiths; and to Messrs. Insoles (Limited).

        DEMAND FOR £1,000.

        The following letter, the first of many, was sent to prosecutor within a month of his mother's death:-

        Thomas, - Can you see your way clear to send me a cheque for £1000? If not your brains will be flying about.

        A subsequent letter to Mrs. Thomas Griffiths, posted on June 18, 1913, set forth accused's grievance under the will, in which the threat was repeated in another form.

        Copies of the letter having been handed to Mr. E. T. Davies, the Stipendiary said the letter need not be read. It was a painful letter, and it would be undesirable to give publicity to the contents.

        Mr. Parry, continuing, made reference to further letters of a threatening nature, and these were put in.

        Reference, said Mr. Parry, had been made to an alleged assault on Miss Sarah Griffiths, and, though these proceedings gave great pain to prosecutor, he could not with justice to himself and the other members of the family treat the letters as he had done before. It would have been foolhardy to allow these letters to go any longer unchallenged. Whether they were written out of sheer malignity or were the effusions of a disordered mind was a matter for another place.

        MR. THOMAS GRIFFITHS'S EVIDENCE.

        Mr. Thomas Griffiths bore out his advocate's statement. On the day of his mother's funeral the will was read by Mr. Jones, Congregational minister, Pencoed. There was not the slightest truth in the charges his brother made. Witness got no benefit under his mother's will.

        Cross-examined, witness said he had always been on good terms with his brother. Accused was certainly dissatisfied when his mother's will was read, and he said that he believed his father had said the money was to be equally divided between the children.

        Mrs. Thos. Griffiths and Miss Sarah Griffiths, Groes Farm, Pencoed, produced letters which they stated to be in the handwriting of accused.

        SISTER'S STORY OF BLOW.

        Miss Griffiths, a lady of delicate appearance, said that on February 26 she was returning to Pencoed from Cardiff, and saw accused on the platform at Cardiff. He did not enter the carriage then, but did at Peterston.

        Accused asked her for money, and then struck her (witness indicating by putting both her clenched hands to her face).

        In reply to Mr. Parry, she said he struck her about the face and head with both hands. There were in the carriage a Mrs. David, a Miss Griffiths, and Mrs. Francis Ashman. Mrs. David protected witness, and another lady pulled the communication cord. The train was stopped and the guard turned accused out of the compartment. She received a letter containing threats which was in her brother's handwriting, and was posted on March 3.

        In reply to Mr. E. T. Davies, witness said the accused seemed to have had a few glasses. Police-sergeant Mitchell deposed to receiving accused from the custody of the Pencoed police. He read the warrant, and accused replied:-

        Nothing much, I did it while under the influence of drink and knowing that my mother died in February, 1913, and in the will left from £8,000 to £10,000. There was nothing left to me - only the small sum of £20. According to my father's will, he warned my mother very particularly to divide the estate equally between us children, and according to his will I was entitled to about £2,000.

        ACCUSED'S APOLOGY.

        Accused, rising under obvious emotion, now said in reply to the formal charge:-

        Not guilty of those things. I did not mean any harm at all. That is simply a flash in the pan and finished with. I never dreamt they would take any proceedings because we had been very intimate for 50 years, my brother and I - not a single cross word, only lately a little dispute over my mother's will. I have nothing more to say.

        Accused then resumed his seat in the dock, but rose again almost immediately and added:-

        I beg to offer my very sincere apology to my brother and sister for what I have done, and vouch to you it will never occur again.

        The Stipendiary refused to consider an application for bail at the present stage, and remanded accused in custody for a week, but added to Mr. C. T. Davies that he proposed making certain inquiries, and though he held out no hope, he thought it might be possible, if he was satisfied with the result of those inquiries, to take a certain course if very substantial sureties for good behaviour were forthcoming.

9. Wills on file
   1. • Page: Thomas Griffiths (1849-1927)
10. UK Government: National Probate Calendar
    1. • Date: 25 May 1893
       • Page: William Griffiths
       • Citation:

         GRIFFITHS William of Cymmer Llantrissant Glamorgan grocer died 22 February 1893 Administration (with Will) Llandaff 25 May to Sarah Griffiths widow Effects £455.

    2. • Date: 7 October 1913
       • Page: Sarah Griffiths
       • Citation:

         GRIFFITHS Sarah of Groes Farm Pencoed Glamorganshire widow died 14 February 1913 Probate London 7 October to Thomas Griffiths company director and Sarah Margaret Griffiths spinster. Effects £2777 7s. 6d. Resworn £1687 7s. 6d.

11. General Register Office: England & Wales Death Index
12. Carmarthen Weekly Reporter
    1. • Date: 17 July 1914
       • Page: Supplement - Page 2
       • Citation:

         J.P. Threatened by his Brother.

         SEQUEL AT GLAMORGAN ASSIZES.

         Ivor Griffiths, described as a grocer, was bound over at Glamorgan Assizes at Swansea, on Tuesday (before Mr Justice Atkin), when he pleaded guilty to a charge that he, on June 11, at Porth, feloniously and maliciously sent, delivered, or caused to be delivered a letter threatening to kill or murder his brother, Mr Thomas Griffiths, J.P., mining engineer, of Maesgwyn, Porth.

         Mr Marley Samson, for the prosecution, recapitulated the facts, and said that on behalf of the family he wished to say that they believed it to be their duty to take steps to prevent the prisoner being a menace to his brother and the other members of the family in future. It was true the accused man had given way to drink, and was probably suffering from one of those delusions often caused by alcohol. He thought it was a case in which the prisoner should be placed under restraint for some length of time. He then called Supt. Gill, who said complaints had been made on two occasions of prisoner discharging a revolver in public. He was charged on one occasion but acquitted.

         Mr Wilfrid Lewis, addressing the judge on behalf of the prisoner, said prisoner had lived on perfectly good terms with his brother and sister till the mother died in 1913. The prosecutor, Thomas Griffiths, had left the family circle in his younger days to seek his fortune elsewhere, and the prisoner remained at home for some thirty years, and assisted his father in making a considerable fortune. The father died, leaving the whole of his property to his wife. The prisoner said that it was always his father's wish that he should be provided for, but when the mother died she left the property to his brother and sister, leaving him the sum of only £20. It was after this that the trouble began, and the prisoner had written letters extending over a period of twelve months up to March, 1914.

         Mr Marlay Samson, intervening, remarked that his instructions were that the prisoner was provided for.

         Mr Wilfrid Lewis said that, whilst the prisoner now fully realised that he had done wrong, he was honestly labouring under a delusion that he had been very badly treated in-deed. It was further to be noted that the prisoner, although he had plenty of opportunities, had never attempted to carry his threats into operation.

         His Lordship asked where the prisoner got the revolver.

         Mr Lewis (after conferring with prisoner): The prisoner says he never bought a revolver. This is an old revolver he had 28 years ago.

         His Lordship, addressing the prisoner, said "You have pleaded guilty to sending these letters threatening to kill your brother. I have read the series of letters which you have sent to members of your family, and very disgraceful letters they are - letters that no respectable man should write to anybody, and certainly letters you should not have written to your brother and sister. It is quite plain you have been suffering from what is a complete delusion as far as the property is concerned. They have done you no wrong at all. I hope that that is the view you now take yourself."

         The prisoner nodded his head two or three times.

         "If there is any doubt at all about that," continued his lordlship, "I should have to put you in a place where you could do no harm. (Prisoner again nodded). I am prepared to believe that for the future you will realise that your brother and sister are people against whom you have no grievance, and that you will live in peace with them. If you are wise you will keep off the drink. You have been in prison for four months, and, therefore, have undergone some of the probation the prosecution considered necessary. I think I shall be acting in the best interests, even of the prosecution, and I now bind you over in the sum of £20 to come up for judgment within the next two years if called upon." His lordship then explained to the prisoner the result that would immediately follow on the infringement of his bond, and he was discharged on entering into recognisances.