Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

7 articles on this Page

Family Notices



USE. j


held at tne Town Hall, on the 6th inst., at which there were present: Messrs. Thomas Watkins (in the chair), W. Price, George Williams, Thomas James, Edward Price, John E. Williams, Walter Blower. James Powell. C. G. Watkins, William Gwatkin, and W. Gough. After the minutes of the last meeting bad been read and con- firmed, Mr. Watkins reported that the making of the seven chains of new road in Goytre bad been let to Mr. Abraham Williams for dB90 10s. It was resolved that the Chairman Vice-Chairman, and Messrs. C. G. Watkins, James Powell, J. A. Williams, and Thomas James, be a committee to carry out the intended improve- ment on the highway, and the diversion of brook at Llangwm Ucba and Llangwm Isha (three to be a quorum). The Surveyor also produced his estimate; shewing the cost of the work. A letter trom the Rev. Thomas Evans, Rector of Goytrey, was read, cotoplaiiiing that three gates had been placed upon a road in Goytrey leading from the upper part of the parish to Lianover and Pontypool, and the Clerk was directed to send a copy of the letter to Colonel Byrde, who, it was stated, bad put up the gates on the Penystan road. The usual order as to signing chequt-s was made, and the meeting then adjourned to the 3rd of September at four o'clock. PETTY SESSIONS, AUGUST 3, before G. R. GREEN- HOW-RELPH, S. CHURCHILL, W. R. STRETTON, and E. LISTER, Esqrs. INDECENCY. —John INDECENCY. Coney, jun., was charged with "in- terfering with tile comfort" ot certain lailway passengers, at Usk, on the 21st of July. It appeared that the" inter. ference in question consisted in defendant having come out of the water in a state of nudity, and exposed himself to the passengers in a train which was standing on the embankment near to the station. He pleaded guilty, and said he had been drinking. Fined 18s., including costs; to pay in a fortnight, or, in default, 14 days' hard labor. DRUNKENNESS, —Oliver DRUNKENNESS, Church, tarmer, Llangeview, was charged with being "ruuk at Usk, on the 28'h July. Defendant pleaded guilty, and was ordered to pay 6. including costs. THE ADJOURNED HIGHWAY CASES. —The justices who had undertaken to view certain encroachments at Liang. view (Mr. Greenhow-Relph and Mr. Churchill), now re- presented that the defendants (Edward Jenkins and Lewis Morgan), had promised to aiter the fences, as they (the justices) hat suggested, by which the encroachments would be removed. Both cases were adjourned to the 4th of January next, to enable defendants to carry out their promises, WAGES. case, in which John Williams was sum. moned by Edward Lewis, for wages, was allowed to be withdrawn, being, as the Bench said, a question for the County Cuurt. SETTLED. —In the case of Samuel Willmott, brick-burner, charged with leaving the employment 01 Thomas Day, the the parties did not appear, and it was stated that defen- dant had returned to his work. POOR-RATES. case* in which summons bad been taken out for the non-payment of poor-rates in the parish of Llangeview were said to have been settled. COUNTY COURT, AUGUST 4, before His Honor JUDGH HERBERT. At this court the cause list was unusually heavy, there being set down for hearing 6 adjourned cases, 1 judgment reserved, 3 not served from last court, 77 new plaints, and 1 bankruptcy adjourned last examination. AN ACTION TO RECOVER FOR GOODS SUPPLIED TO A WIFE. Margaret Edwards v. Joseph Lewis.—The plaintiff in her statement alleged that the defendant's wife had been in the habit of running up an account for goods, and which bad amounted to the sum claimed, 1;2 16s. 6d. She produced her books, and proved the validity of the claim. Defendant said he did not know anything at all of the matter; be had been in the habit of giving all his earnings to his wife, and concluded that she had made right use ot them; he was not aware that she bad obtained credit to anything like the amount claimed; he had a wife and four children-he was a common labourer, and his weekly earnings did not average more than 12s.; he had no pro. perty whatever. In answer to the plaintiff, defendant said he did not possess a rick of hay. His Honor made an order fur payment of the amount claimed by instalments of 6s. a month. -r/v-vr nttatrrt\to cit*« William Blower v. Ferdinand Capel Hanbury Williams and others.—The following summonses arose out of the same circumstances as a case heard at the last court, in which it will be remembered, the huntsman of the Monmouthshire Hounds was defendant. The first case heard to-day was against Mr. Bateman, jun., for tres- passing upon land in the occupation of the plaintiff. Plaintiff, on being sworn, said: I claw) 5i. for damages to fencing caused by riding over my land after the hounds; I cannot swear to seeing Mr. Bateman there myself, but I believe my man can swear to him; it was on the 27th of January—not the same time as the case of Mr. Fisher; I was in the field myself; I cannot say over how many fields they rode; they rode round forty acres of wood; I have some one here to speak to the damage of the wheat, clover, and fencing; I should have put it differently if I bad laid it myself. Cross-examined by Mr. R. Bateman (lather of the defendant): He asked me which way he should go when he was on my farm; I said, Go round the hedge, and don't go across the field, and then you will do me no damage;" he had been on the land before tha I did not complain, of his having been on it I told him to keep round the bedge; I allowed him to go over the field, although be had been trespassing on my clover. Jusoph Rogers deposed: I am in the service of Mr. Blower; I saw Mr. Frederick Bateman on the land, coming through the Park Wood; Park Wood is on Mr. Blower's land; defendant went from the wood through a wheat field, along and into the road; I did not see him in the road- I aid not see him in the clover field; defendant was riding a grey horse. Cross-examined by Mr. R. Bateman: I am quiie certain it was a grey horse. His Honor: It is not proved defendant was in the clover. Mr. John Herbert was then called to give evidence as to the amount of damage done, and said: I am well ac- quainted with the value of land; I went, in company with Mr. Pritchard, to value it; this was in the end of January; I went over the land after the second riding; I should ray the damage altogether was £ A. His Honor: But I must have the damage laid separately for each field. Witness continued: I cannot tell exactly the damage to e ch; there were three fields of wheat, and about eight bushels of wheat damagtd; there was as muob or more damage done in the one field as in the other two put to. gether; in the Caellan field the damage might be put at about 35s.; the next field 16. and the upper end Park field Ira.; the other might be about 6s., and the fencing 4s.; there were two or three fences; the one between the wheat field and the Caellan field, 2s; the Caellan field, Is.; between the clover and stubble, 6d., and 6d. for the upper end Park. Joseph Rogers recalled: I did not see defendant in the Upper End Park field. William George next gave evidence as to the damage done. and continued: I have been a farmer all my life; I went over this land in the latter end of January, after the 27th; I went in company with Mr. Williams, ot Green Court; I agree with Mr. Herbert that it is clay land, and wherever the horse put its foot it tears it up, and starves it; I remember the clover field, and I should value the damage at from 8 ewt. to half-a-ton, by what the horses trampled on; it was over the same clover field that I was taken over in December; it was very wet, and I went in a day or two after over the fresh grass; I value the damage to the fresh grass at £ 2; in the other field I should say there was a sack of wheat, which is worth about 30s.; in the other two fields there would be about two or three bushels; for tne fencing I should say about 8s; it would take a good two days to repair it. Mr. Bateman, jun., sworn: I remember being out in January, and being in the fields referred to; I did not ride over any wheat at all; 1 asked Mr. Blower which way I should go; I was then uoing through the gap; when I asked him be said, Keep up the side, and mind the hedges and wheat;" be made no objection to my going, and did not complain of my having been over the clover field before that; there were about 60 out altogether; all the 60 did not keep together; there were some in one field and some in another. Mr. Robert Bateman asked Mr. Blower where be saw his son, to which the plaintiff replied that he saw him in Upper End Park field, but it was useless complaining, as he (defendant) would not listen to him. This concluded Mr. Bateman's case, and the case against the Hon. J. F. Clifford-Butler was next taken. Plaintiff again sworn: I saw the defendant in the field, but he would not give his name; I have no other evidence to give in this case.—By defendant: I asked you for your name, and you would not give it. Defendant deposed: I was in Mr. Blower's field on thii- 1 occasion; there were only one or two others in the field a the time; it was ater the hounds had gone by; I cann out of the wood and rode by a man breaking up sticks; I said to him, "let me go by you;" I was then going quite slowly; he repli-d, "no, 1 won't let any man go," but added, if xou give me your nalDs I will let you go;" ] gave him my name as Butler; I had ridden round his land, but I don't know that I had been on any of his t clover.—Cross-examined by plaintiff: A man was with me when I gave my name; after I said "Butler," the man behind me added, "the Hon. Clifford-Butler;" I make a. point of never riding on wheat; I remember the stubble field; I am quite certain I did not go across any wheat field. The next case heard was that against Mr. Capel Hati- bury Williams, which had been adjourned from last Court. It was a double action—for an assault, and for damages in riding over the land. His Honor explained the nature of the assault, observ- ing that the law would not permit plaintiff to arrest a man, nor stop a person simply to make him give his name. If the defendant was trespassing on any particular part the plaintiff had a perfect right to stop his going in that direction; but it was clearly proved that the plaintiff only took hold of the reins to ascertain his name, and not to stop him from going in any particular direction. Mr. Blower intimated that he would withdraw the ac- tion for the assault. His Honor: You may please yourself: your can either withdraw it, or I will give you a nonsu;,& e Mr. Blower. A nonsuit sir? I don't understand it. Would you pleasfi to tell ire what it is ? (Laughter). His Honor: Well, if I nonsuit you it will, give you power to try your cause again. Mr. Blower ultimately decided to withdraw his action for the assault, and the case for damage was then pro. ceeded with. Plaintiff sworn: I saw Mr. Williams on my land on the 27th of January; he was on the young clover and-wheat, and rode to and fro over the wheat—the Caellan wheat nctd.—By defendant: I did not see you before; I cannot tell you where you went; I was by myself; Major Stretton has had the land valued, and it was valued at 30s.; Is. 6 I. 1 has been paid into Court, but I clllim 2s.; there were 25 in the field altogether. Defendant sworn said: I was on the pathway; I was not on the clover field at all; plaintiff was standing there; Mr. Blower was standing about 30 Jarrls off the wood they came up to; if he had asked us we would not have gone over, because we might have gone over the brushwood; there were about 14 or 15 in the clover field I went. right round the clover, not over it at all: it was then Mr. took hold of the reim and held me; there it was he got mv name; I went into the «heat field along the hedge; there was a gap there, and I shot past, the gap, and had to turn back along the hedge side; I could not have done any damage to his wheat the way I went; Mr. Little was with me; the gap was broken down before. Mr. William Hunter Little sworn: I came up to the last witness in the field, and saw a man holding the horse by the bridle; it was in the clover field; we had not been over the wheat but came through the Common; I bad not been with Mr. Williams bef"re we met there; Mr. Blower let his horse go, but we found we could not get through, so we turned back and came to the gap; I did not notice what was in the field. An action against Mr. Alpbonse Herbert was here stated to have been settled out 01 Court. The case against Col. Roden was next called on, and Joseph Rogers deposed to seeing him on his master's land on the occasion in question he was after the bounds, and the witness saw him in the clover field. The action against Mr. Lister was next brought forward, and was adjourned to the next Court, by consent. In the case of Mr. Charles Boulton, Is. had been paid into Court, but this did not satisfy plaintiff, who was then sworn, and said: 1 saw defendant in the clover field, but not in the way I had pointed out to him-along the hedge; instead of which he went in the clover, and before I came up to him he was in the wheat; he could have got round the wheat field as well as going across it, because he had a park of 40 acres before him; I did not s. e him in the clover field. Defendant sworn: I was on the road-way, not in the field; I went through the Park Wood to go to the place; plaintiff was not on the mad-way at all. This case was ultimately settled by the plaintiff aceent- UL Cl. next called, and the plaintiff said he saw him in the young clover. and in the wheat field.—Cross-examined by the defendant: I saw you come over the gap; I swear vou did not come by the clover up to the gap; you did not ask me where to go, nor speak to me; I did not tell you th..t you were doing no damage; I did not tell you that you might go where you liked, and go to h- Defendant said I ha 1 leave from Mr. Blower before I came on the ground; I a4ced him if I should be trespass- ing, and be said, you can go where you like, and go to h I kept along the course pointed out to me; I did not go across the wheat field, but went about 10 yards along the side of one wheat field to get into the turnpike- road. Plaintiff re-examined by his Honor: I never gave him any leave; I never saw him till I saw him in my field. Mr. Charles Coleman's action was next heard, in which plaintiff deposed to having seen the defendant in his clover field, on the 11th of December, 1865,-thil was not at the same time as the otii ers.-Cross-e ami tied by defendant: You were in the clover fie;d; there is no road-way through the Park Wood; there is no road over my field into the Park Wood.—Judgment was given in this case for the plaintiff for Is. damage. The next case, that of Mr. W. B. Gething, was adjourned. His Honor then questioned several of the defendants, but neither Mr. Knight nor Mr. Boutton could tell how many were out in the hunt. His Honor, in giving judgment in the cases he had not already adjuuicatd upon, said, in the case of Mr. Cl-fford- Butler there could be no compensation, as, from the evi. dence, he had gone in a irection sanctioned by the plaintiff. Still, he thought it would have been better had the plaintiff been aware of the course they had taken. He believed also that tlie plaintiff had given Mr. Knight and Mr. Boulton permission, and sanctioned their goiug over his land. In i tios, cases where he had give" permission he (the Judge) should give no damages, but would non- suit the plaintiff. I" the case of Mr. Bateman, his Honor, after re-consideration, gave a verdict for the plaintiff. The money paid into Court by Mr. Williams he thought was sufficient; he would also give judgment against Col. Roden for the a 'me amount, with the expenses of two witnesses. Mr. Blower, on hearing the decision of the Court, said Weil, then, I suppose the wheat must go to the wall. HIs Honor: if you repeat that statement, Mr., Blower, I will commit you for contempt of Court. You will pit-aie to withdraw it. Mr. Blo*er then withdrew his remark. Since the Court-day the Judge has re-considered some of the judgments given, and by his direction they have been entered as follows:—. Blower w. Hon. J. F. Chfford.Butler; claim, 5s. Judg. meat for plaintiff.—-Same v, F. C. Williams. Judgment for money paid into Court i 2s, 6d.—Same v. Colonel Roden. Judgment for Is. 6d.—^iaine v. Charles Boulton. Judg- ment for money paid into C iurt, 2s.—Same w Frederick Bateman. Judgment for plaintiff.—Same v. G 'o. Knight. Judgment for defendant.—Same 11. Charles Coieman; claim, 6s. Judgment, for Is.—Same w. Lister and Gethirig; adjourned by consent.—'Same v. Major Stretton, Richards, fi. Pritchard, jun., and Alphonse Herbert; settled. It will be in the recollection of our readers that at the last Court, Mr. Bluwer summoned the huntsman, Richards, for damages, 95, for an assault, and also for riding over his ground after the hounds. His Honor, after hearing the evidence on both sides, reserved his judgment; and he now gave judgment for the defendant. AN ACTION FOR THE RECOVERY OF SALARY. Joseph Rennie v. Morgan Jones.—Mr. Gustard (of the firm ot Waddtugtou all,A Gusiard), appeared for plaintiff; and Mr. Blount for tHe defendant. The plaintiff is a superintendent of works and contractor, and from his statement—a very lengthy one—it appeared that in June of last year he saw defendant about the erection of the Naptha Works at Usk; they had h d, several meetings, and at one, at Pontypool, on the 2nd ot September, he agreed to erect the building at 2s. 3d. the perch tor the building, and 2s. for the boundary wall; his salary for the superintendence of it was to be two guineas a week; twelve men were brought from Pontypool and the work was proceeded with; on the first pay-day Mr. Morgan Jones" subbed" the men; 'la a fortnight afterwards de- fendant was poorly and could not attend to pay the men, so he gave plaiutiff a cheque, which was cashed at Mon- mouth, and with which he paid the men; the whole of the money (£205s. 7d.) he paId to the men; plaintiff told defendant that his lastsituation was worth two guineas a week, and that he could not undertake the work for le-s money; he never paid the men but that once; he did r.ot include his own salary in that; he had expended £ £ 12s. 8 ind claimed £ 12 19-?. for working labour, oui of wnieh he nad only received £ 4, leaving n balance of £ 13 lis. 8 I.; it wis in his (plaintiff's) house the agreement was made; le did not recollect defendant's son makin.r a note of any. thing that was said; he recollect ed the cheque, on the 31st if October, for A;20 5s. 7d; he knew Mr. Jones'hand- I writing, ctuld not be positive whether the signature pro- duced was Mr. Jones'; the agreement for the work was nothing to do with his «ages. [Here detendaut proiiuced • le ter written to him by the plaintiff, tending to show t->at the laiter had agreed to do the work for a stated sum; and it was consequent on a conservation he had with dp- fendant that he replied to this leiter, in which he begged or a little longer time, and said, I am certain I shall He able to make it pal., if you will only encourage me."] — Plaintiff said he finished the work.—Mr. Blount then called the defendant, who said he went round the site of the works with plaintiff to see what was to be done; he sked plaintiff what would be the price for doing the Work, and the latter said 2s. 3d. all round; detendaut agreed to give him 2s. 3d. tor the building and 2s. for the boundary wall; he agreed to tbis, and the contract was made on those terms; he (defendant) asked his son to make a note ol it, and he did so at the time; did not say anything about being paid for his services as superintendent; he said he was going to work it himself; he did not say he should be a loser, but witness told him he would; he said he would take it by the perch.—Henry Andrews, who was present at the tim ■ the agreement was made, said that the plaintiff undertook to do the work at a fixed price.—Benjamin La irence, architect and surveyor, New- port, deposed to having measured the work done, of which ha gave particulars.-His Honor, in giving ju igment, ,aid the plaintiff had apparently mistaken the law, in sup- posing that he could recover; but according to the evi- dence the coutract included all expenses, and he must, therefore, give judgment for defendant; one witness and tiia attorney's claims allowed, AN ACTION FOR MAINTENANCE OF A CHILD. Robert Jones v. Robert Barton.—In this case both parties reSide at Ragla The detendaut had h id a chihi Committed to his care, and which he wanted to place out somewhere; knowing tne plaiutltf lie took the child there, and after a conversation with him and his wife agreed to leave it in their care, to be treated as one of their own the child was very delicate, and. from plainiiff's statement, they did not have an hour's r. s any night while it was there;" defendant paid £1 at the time, which plaintiff said was only for one week! Detendaut said he paid Xil ana at the same time >a.ld that would do tor a month, at 5s. per week. The cblld, died in a fortnight, and toen ca ue funeral expenses, which the plaintiff bore, and he now sought to recover these items of expenditure, amount- ing to 1:4 12s., together with a proportionate sum as com- pensation for personal anxiety. His Honor, alter bearing defendant, gave judgment for £1 7s. 6d.; one witness allowed. ACTION JOB WAGES. James v, Pritchard.—In this case the plaintiff was a lad ot about 13 or 14 years of age, and he had agreed to work tor the deienoant for Is. a week, with his board. He stayed in the employment of defendant for six months, when he left, because he did not like his situation. Ten shillings had been paid into Court, but the plaintiff claimed 15s. more. For the defence it was proved that plaintiff was not in the employment of defendant but in that of his father. His Honor nonsuited the plaintiff. MINOR CAUSES. John Pitt, laborer, Usk, v. William Gwyer Lovett, Newport Claim, A;12 Ih., for work aud tabor. Adjourned. William, Conway, chemist, Pontypool, v. Joseph Evans, Usk. Ciaim, 14- tor gooda. To pay in a week. Richard Satchill, Usk, v. James Cording, Llangwm Dcun. Ciaim, 5s 8d., for goods. To pay in a week. Charles Tedman, tailor, Raglan, v. Edward Rosser, laborer, Raglan. Claim, £1 12s., for goods. To pay by three instalments. William Cocker, miller, Goytrey, v. William Phillips, laborer, Goytrey. Claim, 91 Is. 3d., for goods. To pay by 3s. a month. Jones and Powell, Usk, v. Joseph Evans, Usk. Claim, 93 6J. 3d., for goods. To pay iu a week. Same, v. Richard II or ton, Llanbaddock. Claim, £ 4 Os. 81., for gooos. TopayjBlinatnonth. James Parker, grocer, Usk, v. Walter Jones, Llandenny. Claim, 5s. 2 i., lor goods, To pay i<> a month. Enoch James, tailor, Raglan, v. William Ford, laborer, iuumuioukli. UIUIUJ, lis,, Tut guuua UUU wum. iu yay forth" ith. Lewis Morgan, blacksmith, Llanvair Discoed, v. Joseph Lewis, IVustivy, laborer. Ciaim, 4s. 2d., tor goods aud worK. Judgment for 3s. 2,1. in a mouth, James Paine, shoemaker, Usk, v. Frederick Morqan, Raglan. Clai:<, £ 1 19s, 6d., for goods and work. To pay oJ as. a month. Same v. Wm. Meredith, Llanbaddock. Claim 13s. 6d. for goods anil work. John Lewis, laborer, Kemeys, v. Isaac Wilks, smith, Goytrey. Claim, 96 6s. lid. Judgment for £ 3 13s. Id.— admitted by defe. d ,ut-1011, forthwith, aud the balance by 5s. u month. Same v. Elizabeth Lewis, Goytrey. Ciaim, JB3 15s. lid., for goods. To pay i-y 5Js. u month. Same v. John Jenkins, Mamhilad. Claim, 18s lid. To pay 4-. in a week, and the balance by two instalments. Richard Satchell, giocer, Usk, v. Elizabeth Timewell, Uxk. (JiUiin, £ 5s. 7d., for goods. To pay by 10s. a month. BANKRUPTCY. RE George Roberts.—This bankrupt, who came up for his last examination, was opposed by Mr. Alexander Edwards, on hena t uf the trading assignee, Mr. Thomas. The opposition was based upon the sale of a horse, winch a st p-son of the bankrupt hud bought, and it was not clearly elicited where he obtained the money to make the purchase. The examination was consequently adjourned to the next Court for the attendance of the step-son.