Hide Articles List

13 articles on this Page

Advertising

TO CORRESPONDENTS. ]

-_--------.--TIMES OF HIGH…

THE PETITION AGAINST LORD…

STOCK EXHIBITION.

SIGNS OF THE TIMES.

I ]; ua INTELLIGENCE.

((JAEKLbm. Jl*

PONTYPOOL. .I..,IYle

CHEPSTOW. t

MONMOUTII. 'J1

WEEKLY CALENDAR.

MONMOUTH COUNTY COURT. ;

News
Cite
Share

MONMOUTH COUNTY COURT. This court was held on Friday, the 10th instant; but the only case of importance, and which excited considerable local interest. was that of Stead v. Higgins.âMr. Galindo was attorney for the plaintiff", and Mr. J. E. Powles for the defendant.âThe plaintiff and defendant were two of the four overseers of the parish of Mon- mouth, for the year ending March, 1847. A person by the name of Win. Toombs, made out the rate books, the cheque. books, and the tax bills, for the overseers, during their office. Plaintiff paid him for doing so and some time afterwards, at a meeting of his colleagues, he produced the account, and re. quested each officer to pay his quota. Plaintiff stated that when he took office, all the officers agreed to employ Toombs, who was to receive two guineas for making out each rate. When the account was presented, the defendant refused to pay his propoition. Mr. Prichard, of the Queen's Head, swore positively to the defendant having agreed to employ Tombs, at the commencement of Higgins's year of office, at a meeting of the incoming oversesrs, at his (Prichards) house.âFor the I defence, Higgins stated that he neither consented to, norheaul I of, the proposal of the employment of Toombs, a. the meeting winch had been referred to. Toombs pei formed no part of the defendant's official duty. The plaintiff engrossed to him- Y' r l''i(> mm,la8cment of tbe parochial matters, even to refusing defendant the use of the rate book, when he wanted it for the 5 purpose of collecting money; and he therefore refused to pay any part 01 the expense, which had been incurred without his own concurrence. Mr. Aston, another of the overseers, corroborated Mr. Higgins's statement, as to not having heard, anything of the engagement to employ Toomhs at the meeting" f a Pr ichard's house, and also as to Mr. Stead having taken upon j' hitnseli the active management of the overseers' duties. He I also himself declined paying any share of the expenses, be. cause lie thought they were greater than they should have been.â fhe Judge, in giving his decision, remarked that he did not think the charges were extortionate, and it was but fair that each officer should pay his share, and not allow one of the number to be saddled with them, and particularly as the plaintiff's duties were much heavier than those of the defen- dant. With reference to the alleged agreement, he could not shut out Mr. Pritchard's evidence, who was a disinterested man in the transaction, whilst the testimony of the defendant, and of Mr. Aston, was that of parties concerned, and which, in the superior courts, could not be received. He, therefore, gave judgment for the plaintiff, and to be paid forthwith. In one. case, a defendant, who repeated that lie could not and would not abide by the decision of the Court, was com- mitted to gaol for forty days,