Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Monmouthshire Merlin

The copyright status or ownership of this resource is unknown.
Hide Articles List

10 articles on this Page

Advertising

Somatic xmsT.

[No title]

MONMOtlTHSHIftE LENT ASSIZES.

[No title]

[No title]

NISI PRIUS COURT.

News
Cite
Share

THURSDAY 1\IOItNING.-JvllIl Thomas was indicted for having, on the 15ih January, wilfully and maliciously stabbed Edmund Williams with intent to murder or do him some grievous bodily harm.— Mr. Greaves, for the prosecution, stated the case to the Jury. It appeared in evidence that on the 15th January; the prisoner and other persons, among whom was prosecutor, were drinking at the Castle Inn, at Tredegar; an altercation ensued between two of these persons; the prisoner and another young man were shortly after in the passage, were the latter was en- deavouring to prevail on prisoner to put up a dagger which was attached to the end of a stick he held in his hand, and on un- sheathing which he said if any person were to strike him he would make him repent it; the prosecutor, who was in the bar, came into the passage and told prisoner to go home and not make a row there, to which prisoner answered, what ? Pro- secutor replied, that if he said what again, he (prosecutor) would what him prosecutor then pushed prisoner to make him go out, when he heard some person say, take care of the stick, whereupon prosecutor struck him, and subsequently repeated the blow, and persisted in pusing him out; shortly after he be- came insensible, and on examination it was discovered that he had received two wounds, one in the chest and the other in the left side. He was attended by two medical gentlemen, be- tween whom much doubt existed as to the cause of the state of exhaustion in which he was found.—Mr. Charles Phillips, for the defence, ably cross-examined the witnesses for the purpose of showing that great and violent provocation had been given by prosecutor to the prisoner, and he succeeded in eliciting that the prisoner had been pushed and struck before he retaliated. The learned gentleman then proceeded to address the Jury, and made an eloquent appeal whether the act of the prisoner was not the unpremeditated result of the natural feeling of anger produced by the violence and indignity of the provocation he had received, and not the consequence of previous malice. He concluded by calling a number of respectable witnesses who had known the prisoner from an early age, and who con- curred in giving him a most excellent character.—Mr. Greaves then replied, after which the learned Judge proceeded to ad- dress the Jury, recapitulating the evidence with great minute- ness, and explaining the law as it applied to the case. When his Lordship had concluded, the Jury consulted tegether for some time, and returned a verdict of Not Guilty. David Watkins was indicted for stealing four sheep, one the property of Thomas Williams, and three the property of John Williams. Verdict—Not Guilty. Joseph Harrhy, was indicted for maliciously cutting and wounding a heifer, the property of Thomas Williams, of Wil- crick. It appeared by the evidence of a servant of the prosecu- tor, that he saw prisoner tie the tails of two heifers together, and afterwards inflict the wound, for which he stood indicted. In answer to a question from his Lordship, he said he could not swear that in endeavouring to separate the tails, his hand might not have slipped and so inflicted the wound. His Lordship ob- served that it might have been a wanton freak on the part of the boy to tie the tails, and then seeing the consequence, he might have endeavoured to separate them, and by that means committed the offence. Verdict, Not Guilty. In order to expedite the business Mr. Sergeant Talfourd was deputed by Baron Parke to try prisoners in the Grand Jury Room. The following were sentbefoe him :— Gen. Phillips for stealing coal, at Newport. Guilty: Four months' imprisonment and hard labour. Thomas Daws (a traverser), for stealing a piece of beef, at Usk. Guilty Three months' imprisonment and hard labour. DavidlPowetl and Charles Miller (traversers) for stealing deal boards, at Newport. Not Guilty. Peter Flower and Henry Jones, for stealing a bucket and six gallons of porter. Guilty Fourteen day's imprisonment and hard labour. William James, forstcaling knives and forks. Guilty One months' imprisonment and hard labour. William Pugh, for the manslaughter of Thomas Griffiths, at Tredegar. Not Guilty. Richard Halbauck, for stealing coal, at Newport. Guilty: One week's imprisonment. NISI PRIUS COURT. TOWGOOD v. JONES.—Action on a bill of exchange for £19. ). 0.—Undefended. Verdict for the plaintiff, and execu- tion directed to issue in ten days. FA RR r. AUSTIN.—Action on a note of hand for £ 300.—Un- defended.—Verdict for the Plaintiff. KNIGHT v. WALKF.R.—This was an action to recover arrears of salary. It appeared that in ,v>e beginning of the year 1836, the parties entered into an ag "nt, by which the plaintiff (who had previously been an in practice on his own account) agreed 10 become be defendant, (A Walker, of Newport), at a f 1\' i. ■■■ nnnum, payable quarterly. In the months rri' !»in •»verk another agreement was entered into, v -:¡:¡er,"ces hav- ing arisen as to the terms of ■ -imc IB,' 1 was agreed that in future the plaintiff shu "ci 's <he t's clerk at a salary of £3 per week, payai/ s 't»!v ;> ,„. vided that in case any default should be f te 1. Un. WCMV payments, the former agreement should be n. r--1 ,j in force. It further appeared, that in the month o. v, anx differences again occurred, and finally the second a.j- n- was put an end to, and the plaintff quitted the defendan. 1 fice. He afterwards brought the present action, in which claimed half a year's salary under the first agreement, on the ground that it was revived by a default in the payment of the weekly salary. On the part of the plaintiff, the aigreementit were put in, and the point principally relied upon, was that the first £3 had not been paid. For the defendant, it was shown that the subsequent weekly payments had been regularly made, and a receipt was put in, signed by the plaintiff, acknowledging to have leceived a certain sum as the balance" of his salary. It was contended, therefore, lhat although lhere was no direct proof of the payment of the first £3, yet the fact of its subse- quent weekly payments having been made, afforded strong evi- dence that there had been no default made. The learned Judge left it to the Jury to say, whether they thought the first agieement had been revived by default of the defendant, intimating an opinion that the evidence was very strong in favour of the presumption that the first £3 had been paid.—The Jury, after consulting for some time, found a ver- dict for the plaintiff. Damages, £75, being the amount Cf half a year's salary. JOHN v. JONES AND JOHNS.—Mr. Talbot opened the plead- ings. This was an action for an assault. The plaintiff com- plained that he had been violently assaulted, knocked down, kicked, and his nose broken, by the defendants, who pleaded that plaintiff had struck Jones, who then assaulted plaintiff in self-defence, and the other defendant assisted Jones. Mr. C. Phillips stated the plaintiff's case to the Jury, and called the following witnesses — Ann Baldwin, a niece of the plaintiff's wife, said she had lived with her aunt for fourteen years. Plaintiff is butler to Mr. Prothero, and keeps the "Old Bush" public-house, at Newport. He sleeps at home. On the night of the 13th of August last, he and his son went to bed about half-past eleven o'clock, and shortly after we heard a knocking at the door. J jsked who was there; a Captain Matthews (who was in lhe habit of coming to the house) said, it is me." I opened the door, and a sailor-like man pushed in, and said he wanted to sleep with Captain M. My aunt said something to him, and he struck out she "screeched out," and phintiffand his son came down stairs in their trowsers and slippers. The man ran may, and my uncle went out to look after him. In two or ihree minutes I went out, followed by a man named Thomas Hopkins, who lodged in the house, and Captain Matthews. We found my uncle lying on the ground, his face bleeding. Five or six men were standing round him, amongst them the defendants, John Jones and John Johns. Daniel John cried out Murder." Captain Matthews asked Jones what he had been doing 1 Jones held up his fist and said, II It IS bloody work." I could see by the light that there was blood on his list. My aunt asked Jones if he meant to murder her husband 1 Jones made her no answer. Hopkins raised my uncle from the ground, took him in, and helped him up 10 bed. He had been beaten unmercifully. His shirt was covered with blood. He kept his bed for a fortnight.—Daniel John, plaintiff's son, said, that healing his mother scream, he came down stairs in his Irowsers, and found the sailor, who struck his mother a second time, and aftel wards collared the witness and dragged him into the street. He then ran away. I saw five or six men, amongst whom were the defendants, come out of a beei-shop close by. I said. "I will give any man 5s who will catch that sailor." My father lhen came oul in his shirt and trowsers, and asked, who had abused his wife 1 1 said the man had ran away. Upon that, John Johns stepped forward, struck my father, and knocked him down. He got up on his knees, and Then Johns caught him by ttie hatr wiiti one'hand and krpt striking him in the face with the other. All the other men gathered round and helped 10 beat my father. I tried to push Johns away 10 prevent his beating my father, and he struck me in the face. Johns said d-n his eyes, kill the b-r." I was severely beaten myself; I had three teeth knocked aut. The sailor came back and helped to heat me I could see ^ho the men were by the lightning.—On cross-examination the wit- ness said he did not know who the sailor was I will swear my father did not strike Jones first; I did not strike Johns at all; I tried to push him away from my father I will swear that Johns was not knocked down I did not see him on the ground at all. The defendant Jones and the other men are employed at the Iron-works. Captain Matthews is master of a coasting vessel I believe he is now at Brixham.in Devonshire.—Sarah Knight, a girl in the plaintiff's service, and Thumas Hopkins, who lodged in the house, were then called, and corroborated the statements of the former witnesses.—Mr. Hawkins, surgeon, Newport, said he was called in to attend the plaintiff on the morning of the 14th of August, and found him in great pain, with a great many bruises on his face, &c. His eyes were closed, apparently from violent blows, and there was an inden- tation on the nose but 1 did not perceive any fracture. He complained of pain in the side and could not bear the pressure of my finger; I attended him every day for a fortDlght. and afterwards for another fortnight occasionally. Mr. Sergeant Ludlow (with whom was Mr. Whateley) ad- dressed the Jury for the defendants, and undertook to prove that the plaintiff had struck the first blow, imagining that Jones had been tne person who assaulted his wife, and that throughout the whole affray the plaintiff and his son had been the aggressors, the defendants having acted meiely on the defensive. For this purpose the learned Sergeant called thiee men, Henry Williams, David Thomas, and Moigan Rees, who all swore to the facl of the assault having been committed in the first place by the plaintiff and his son. and that the defendants were badly used but they contradicted each other upon various minor points (the witnesses having been kept out of Court), and in the resnlt it would seem that the Jury disbelieved their version of the story, for they found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £ 60.—[At first the Jury stated that they gave the plaintiff jE30 damages from each defendant, but they were informed liS his Lordship ihat he would not receive such a verdict, as the damages must be joint, not separate and they accordinely found as above.

[No title]

[No title]

[No title]