Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

8 articles on this Page







ROOSE PETTY SESSIONS. These sessions were held at the Shire Hall on Satur- day before O. E. Davies, Esq, A. B. Star buck, Esq, Capt. Child and the Rev P. Phelps. WILFUL DAMAGE. Elizabeth Cozens, of Freystrop, was charged with wilful damage to a colliery by James Cozens. The defendant did not appear. The complainant deposed that the defendant was his aunt, and that she cut down the tackling of two culm pits, and threw them down into the working. The pits were about four fathoms deep. His wife and the defendant had some words, and the defendant revenged upon him by cutting down his tackle. The defendant told him herself that she had done so. The damage was 8s. John Owen deposed that he saw the defendant cut down the tackle with a hatchet, and throw it into the pits. The Bench ordered the defendant to pay 83 damage and costs. CHARGE AGAINST AN INNKEEPER. Stephen Morris, publican, of Rosemarket, was charged by Mr Sturgeon,'supervisor of Inland Revenue, with neglecting to make, at the proper time, an entry of malt used in brewing. Mrs Morris, wife of the defendant (who was also pre- sent), said that the entry was not made in proper time. Her little girl mislaid the brewing paper und when she returned from school, she searched for the paper, and, finding the paper, she entered it. The entry ought to have been made on the 9th of Mav, but was not made till the 10th. Mr Sturgeon, in answer to the Bench, said that he went into the house, and found tbelnk wet. Lettice Rees, called by the defendant, deposed that she was working for Mrs Morris on the 8th of May. She asked her (witness) the day of the month, as she wanted to enter the brewing. She searched for the paper, but could not find it. Mrs Morris said that Mr Jones, the excise officer, was at her house on the Friday previous, 6nd the little girl mixed the paper with her school books, not thinking it was of any use. When she came home, the paper was among her books. Mr O. E. Davies asked whether the defendant knew that the officer was coming to her-house. Mrs Morris said she did not know. Mr Sturgeon My visits are always unexpected. The Clerk And sometimes they don't like to see you ? (Laughter.) Mr Sturgeon Sometimes. Mr O. E. Davies asked the defendant why he did not write to the Excise, stating that he could not fiud the paper ? Mrs Morris said she expected the child home from school. The Clerk asked if the defendant had any witness to prove that the little girl found the paper. Lettice Rees said she could prove it, and said the paper was found on the 8 th. The witness not appearing to have understood the question. it was repeated, when she said the paper was found on the day after. Mrs Morris said it was not found on the day afterwards, and the witness then said she could not remember when it was found. Mr Sturgeon I submit, your Worships, that we have proved our case-that the entry was not made at the proper time. Mr O. E. Davies I don't see that there is any attempt at defrauding the revenue here the entry was made after instead of before. Mr Sturgeon: The entry should be made 24 hours before brewing. Mr O. E. Davies Strictly speaking, you are correct; but I don't think there is any evidence cf unfair dealing. I think this is straining a case too far. It is a clear omission but it does not appear she did it with intent to defraud. Mr Sturgeon You think then, sir, there is no offence committed. Mr O. E. Davies I ask you do you really press this case ? Mr Sturgeon I am instructed to do so, sir. The defendant has made. an application to the commissioners to compromise the matter, but they declined to listen to him. They leave the case in the hands of your Wor- ships. Mr O. E. Davies Do they leave it to the discretion of the Bench ? Mr Sturgeon Yes. Captain Child: Our decision will then be final. Mr Sturgeon If you decide against us, we have the option of appealing. Capt. Child Then they don't leave it to the discre- tion of the magistrates ? The Clerk: They are not bound by your decision, sir. Captain Child I think that is rather Jesuitical. The defendant handed iri to the Bench the reply he had received from the Commissioners, and Mr Sturgeon stated that the defendant had been previously convicted and had paid a penalty of £ 5. Rev P. Phelps This is such a very nice case, that I think wo arefacting fairly by giving her the benefit of the doubt this time. That is my opinion at all events. Mr Starbuck I should like to give her the benefit of the doubt if we can. Mr 0. E. Davies: The opinion of the Bench is that we ought to give her the benefit of the doubt. Mr Sturgeon You think there is no offence com- mitted ? Mr O. E. Davies We think there is no intention to defraud. The case was then dismissed. Mr Sturgeon served notice of appeal against the decision on the magistrates beford the risir.g of the Court. CHARGE OF USING THREATS. Margaret Eoscn, of Milford, was charged with using threats towards William Lloyd. The defendant denied the charge. The complainant deposed that he bad been lodging with the defendant, and she had retained his tools and goods on account of rent which she said was due to her. He denied be owed her so much as she claimed, and she had refused him admittance, telling him that if he dared to enter her house, she would cut off his legs. He wa £ an old man, and was now reduced in circumstances and the defendant, taking advantage of his affliction and poverty, had stolen his handkerchiefs, and worn out one of his blankets. He had a memorial stone which he intended to place at the grave of his wife as soon aa he had money to pay the fees, and the son of the defendant dashed it to pieces. It was worth £3. Refused ad. mittance to his lodging, he was compelled to seek shelter in a shed, and as his tools were withheld by the de- fendant, he could not work. The defendant said she was quite willing to give up the complainant's property, if he paid iJero the mcneV which was due to her. She had not prevented his en- tering the house. The Bench said that if the case were pressed, they .should bo compelled to bind over the defendant to keep the peace, and suggested that they should allow Mr Starbuck, in' his private capacity, to settle the dispute between them. Boih parties consented to abide by Mr Starbuck'a de" cision, and the case was adjourned for a fortnight to give an opportunity for settling it. Martha Llewellyn, of Johnston Kilns, was charged with using thrsaU towards Jane Osren, of the same place. The complainant' deposed that the defendant threw" stones at her, one of which stiuck her dress. The Bench dismissed She case, ordering each party to pay her own costs. o



il M B