Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

12 articles on this Page

TREDEGAR.

News
Cite
Share

TREDEGAR. COUNTY COURT.—TUESDAY. [Before J. M. HERBERT, Esq., -Judge.] The list contained:—adjourned case, 1; not served last court, 5; new plaints, 74; judgment summonses, 11; and insolvency, 1. Solicitors in Court-Mr. Horace Sheppard, clerk Mr. Roberts, Tredegar; Mr. Owen, Pontypool; and Mr. Cathcart, Newport. THE BLAINA IRON COMPANY. Unusual interest appeared to be evinced in regard to a "truck case," arising out of a matter which has on two occasions been heard, in another shape, by the magis- trates in petty sessions at Blaina. It will be remembered that a Mr. Charles Green, a clerk at the company's shop at Blaina, was charged with maliciously injuring a piece of paper, purporting to be an order for payment, the property of Moses Robinson, a collier in the employ of the iskuna Company. The case then assumed another shape Mr. Green was subsequently accused of stealing the said order. This charge also fell through and out of it arose the "case of truck;" the order in question being one of the grounds upon which the present or third step in the proceedings was instituted. The parties in the case were Moses Robins, of Bryn- mawr, collier, v. Messrs. Cruttwell, ironmaster, Blaina. Claim for X40 14s. 10d., for work done. Mr. Owen appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cathcart for defen- dant. Mr. Cathcart, addressing the Court, said he wished to make an application at that early stage, because it would be a matter of great convenience to all concerned, if, instead of waiting till the case was called on, in its ordi- nary turn, the application were now heard—it being for the adjournment of the case to the next court, in conse- quence of the unavoidable absence of the defendant, at Bath. The Judge asked if there was any objection on the other side. Mr. Owen said he never liked to stand in the way of a fair adjournment; if Mr. Cathcart said he was not ready, and wished to have an adjournment, he (Mr. Owen) would not oppose; for he was always anxious to arrange fairly and honourably with all parties. The Judge: Do you object to an adjournment, then? Mr. Owen: Would it be any use to object? The Judge: I do not know. Mr. Owen: Well, then, I have always found my 1 earned friend, Mr. Cathcart, most courteous to myself; nd shall not oppose the adjournment of the case, upon aintiff's paying all costs. ThisVas agreed to, and the case stood adjourned to the ond day of the next court, at ten in the morning. CAUTION TO INNKEEPERS. Henry Iggulden, innkeeper, Blaina, v. seven defaulters, or non-payment of scores." In one case, his Honour said there were entries of gin-hot," &c., which plain- tiff -uldnot recover for, if the defendant (who was not present) had attended to object to it; but as he 'was not m Court :to object, he (his Honour) would not take the objection for him.-Orders according to circumstances. ■J, A WRITTEN CONTRACT. -Benjamin Irons Webb, agent for Messrs. Blackie and .•> booksellers, v. Thomas Johns, Rhyrnney.—Plaintiff said this was an action for the recovery of £ 1 6s. 6d., f,gr a book supplied to defendant, entitled u The Car- penter's -Guide." The order book (produced) showed ♦ t (^enc'ant duly signed the contract, engaging to wke the book of plaintiff, who gave evidence that he ad supplied^ the book, but that defendant had returned w? • ^10 v°lume into the passage of his (the Ltlni5^ £ 0US?- -Plaintiff returned it in a similar man- +r _? y throwing it into defendant's passage; and tboreupon he recClved a letter from defendant, who said 5 no.t P&y> as times were bad, and he would TK r^uTniDS the book, to cheating him of the amount. J.ne Judge said that this contract, being in writing must be satisfied. Judgment for plaintiff: ami payment by two instalments. 3 •COALBROOXVALE WORKS-CONTRACT. John-Jacobs, miner, v. Thomas Morgan, contractor — This was an action to recover £ 5 for work done.—Mr Roberts appeared for the plaintiff, who proved being gaged by defendant, and paid a part of the amount On h* applying for he remainder, defendant said he would pay if he was.put into Court. HE nut in a I mg that he bad been paid defendant, who was also plaintiff but it is m the office.—The Judge Then get t out of the office. I allow the costs of plaintiff* attor- ney, and three witnesses.-To be paid on the <6th of August. Mac William, tea-dealer and draper, Merthyr, v. five brothers and a sister, named Jones, who bad become in- debted to him for good..s.-Orders aecordiag to circum- stances. Rees Edmonds, grocer and draper, Garnfach, v. several defendants, for small amounts.-One of the defendants, who said he had no work, but possessed a wife and six children, was emphatically told by plaintiff: You must drink less, William, and you will then be able to pay more. INSOLVENT. David Evans, of the Globe beerhouse, Brynmawr, came up for his final order.—Mr. Baker, of Abergavenny, for whom Mr. Roberts attended, was solicitor for the insolvent.— Final order granted. BRYNMAWR—A CASE FOR THE EXCISE. David Willams, brewer, Brynmawr, v. a widow, named Sarah Lewis, who said the amount, 18s., was for beer sup- plied to her for sale, without a license—Judge Let me tell you, Mr. Williams, that if she liked to take the objection, she had no need to pay; for the plaintiff could not assist another to carry out a fraud on the revenue. But, as de- fendant did not take the objection, his Honour would not take it for her.—To pay 2s. a month. P0NTABERBARG0E9—PAYMENT BY TICKET. Thomas Rodwell v. John Duckett, JE25 4s. 2|d,, for work done'-Mr. Roberts appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cathcart for the defendant.—The plaintiff proved being employed by defendant, to work at Pontaberbar- goed, at 5d. per yard for cutting, and lOd. per yard for gravel and stone that came out of the cutting. Defendant also asked him to finish another man's work, at 3s. 6d. per day and he agreed to do this. The work was mea- n X. Joues> surveyor, and was done properly.— Cathcart cross-examined the plaintiff, said the cut- mg was for the purpose of turning a stream of water T e stone was not to be taken at 5d. extra, but 10d. ner yar it was to be 15d. per yard for the rock and the *3 ^'as. n°t agreed that shop-tickets should be taken lor goods, xu liou of cash. Many of the workmen took the tickets; but he would only take a few, and paid his men at 3s. 6d a day, in cash. He could not recol- lect the names of the men whom he had paid; for he was no scholar. Being pressed, plaintiff said one man,named Ben of Pontaberpergwm, he had paid about 50s. in three weeks. He would rather fetch up the men to speak for themselves, but he could not tell their names. One was named Dick, whom he had paid 45s. Had paid Georgey zC3 5s., and George Ddvis, £ 5. He could not recollect what the others were paid, as they only worked a day or two but all the sums he had named, he had paid in cash, and had received £ 10 8s., and 12s. credit for shovels, himself. Did not undertake what he called the « day work" for J63. Had taken tickets, or goods, to the extent of 5s. Part of the goods were liquors they ■were obliged to get at the inn, and the others at Barnes |&°P, which he and his men divided between them. They had had no settlement with defendant.—Re-exam- ined by Mr. Roberta: I know nothing of having had than £ 5 in tickets.—To the Court: I never autho- red my men to take tickets. I refused ticke^ bu ^as told I must take tickets, or nothing; and our settle- ment took place at an inn.—George Davies, labourer, m of plaintiff, corroborated bis evidence; and said they had received tickets-" But what was em. Twas starving us alive! We didn't object to take em r-«Jse we should starve. Rodwell did not pay us cash H°J "be be -one his8elf! l^US.f 2 5eT? ? haYe paid me 10s.; but he has not paid me £ 2. f 1 tlCJiet for 2s- 6d-> 1 had t0 svive lton mf the ladv for Is. 6d. Rodwell owes me about 30s. for the Work now.Mr.AueunnJenes, surveyor, Gellygroes, Py°vodthe measurement of the work, as stated by the plaintiff, to be correct -This was the case.—Mr. Cath- cart said defendant had paid 18s. 7d. into court to-day, as the full amount due to plaintiff. [An omission in the copy forwarded to us, prevents our giving the decision in this case.] TREDEGAR-A SPECIES OF PERJURY. Thomas Morgan, administrator of William Prosser, de- ceased, v. William Meyrick.—Mr. Waters, for the plain- tiff; and Mr. Owen, for the defendant. This was an action brought in detinue, to recover the sum of £ 50, being £ 2 10s., for a watch; £3 19s. 7d. wages due to deceased from the Sirhowy Iron Company at the time of his death; £ 5, as value of wearing apparel; JE10 18s. for household furniture; and £35 on three promissory notes of the several values of jE20, jElO, and £5., from the trustees of the Primitive Methodist chapel, at Sir- howy, made in favour of the deceased, of all which, it was alleged, the defendant had possessed himself-the total being £ 57 7s. 7d., of which, plaintiff abandoned 7 7s. fd., to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court. J The plaintiff, being called, and examined by Mr. \Y aters, proved that he had taken out letters of adminis- tration from the Llandaff Court, to the estate of William Prosser, deceased, who was a collier, residing at Mount i ieasant, Tredegar, and who died intestate, by accident, on the 30th of May, 1855, possessed of the property des- cribed. Witness also stated himself to be the first cousin of the deceased. Mr. James, grocer, of the Circle, Tredegar, proved that on the 2d of June last, the wife of the defendant, Mrs. Meyrick, (with whom the deceased had lived prior to his death) brought three several promissory notes to his shop, being for jE20, £10, and £5, to ascertain what those and other DaDers" were. The Judge here expressed his opinion to the learned advocate for the cause, that the excess abandoned should have included the whole of the furniture claimed; and after a short argument between the legal gentlemen and the Court, Mr. Waters abandoned the £10 18s. for furniture. The Judge then amended the plaint, and the case pro- ceeded his Honour asking Mr. Owen what he had to say as to the promissory notes. Mr. Owen I am instructed there are no such notes as those described in the plaint, and which the plaintiff sues for. In reply to the Judge, Mr. Owen said he would admit notice to produce the notes. The Judge Then have you got them ? Mr. Owen We have not. Mr. James's examination continued, to prove the existence of the notes in the possession of the defendant's wife: The notes were drawn in favour of William Prosser, and referred to a debt owing to him by the trustees of the Primitive Chapel, at Sirhowy. My son was with me, and we examined them together; and we told Mrs. Meyrick what they were. The Court here requested to know if the notes could be produced and Mr. Owen replied in the negative, on the assurance of his client. After much apparent difficulty, however, Mr. Owen elicited from Mrs. Meyrick, that she had one of the papers" with her, which he then induced her to produce, and handed to his Honour, who said it was drawn in favour of the deceased Prosser, for £20, by the trustees of the chapel named, and was nego- tiable and if the other two were similarly drawn, they also would be negotiable. The note was, no doubt, the property of the plaintiff, and his Honour, asking if Mr. Waters could carry the case any further, suggested that the wife had better be examined, to ascertain what had become of the other two notes she had shown to Mr. James. Mr. Owen intimated that he could not call Mrs. Mey- rick-at least until he had cross-examined Mr. James. Mr. Waters Then I will call her. Elizabeth Meyrick sworn: My husband and myself were living with deceased, when he died. I did not go to Mr. James' shop with the notes. Mr. Waters Did you show him no papers at all ? Witness (reluctantly) I showed him one at his nouse. The Judge Then why did you say you had not ? Witness: I have quite .forgotten what I have done lately. Mr. Waters Do you swear that you only showed Mr. James the X20 note now produced ? Witness (hanging down her head): I only showed him one. I did not show him a £ 10 note, signed by Joseph iLibbs; nor a £ 5 note. I do not know what other papers there were. The Judge Now be careful, woman. There are two respectable witnesses who saw you with those papers which you deny having had-llr. James and his son. If you persevere in your statement, you are open to two risks—the one, to be indicted for perjury, and the other, to transportation for seven years. Mr. James and his son are here; therefore, be careful what you say. Where are the papers you showed then ? Witness: Well; I have not got them. The Judge That is not the question. If I find you prevaricate in this manner, and swear in direct contra- diction to other persons, I will most certainly order you to be indicted for perjury. Now, I ask you-where are the papers you showed to Mr. James ? Witness (confusedly) I do not know-I had no papers. (Exclamations of surprise from the crowd.) The Judge: I will certainly have you indicted for perjury, if you persist in stating what is untrue. Mr. Owen (to witness): Why do you not tell the truth ? What papers did you show Mr. James, and where are the papers ? Witness I showed him some papers; but I do not know where they are now. The Judge here addressed the husband and witness, fh advised him to cause his wife to deliver up the £ 10 and £ 5 notes, which could be of no possible use to him or her, not being endorsed. His Honour also impressively stated to the husband, that if the wife per- sisted in untrue statements, she could be indicted for per- jury; and the judges had evinced the strongest deter- mination to carty out the law to its full extent, by inflict- ing'the term of seven years' transportation. Mr. Owen also repeatedly advised the wife to state the truth, and say plainly what papers she had shown to Mr. James, and where they were at present. The Witness: I do not know what papers I showed to Mr. James. I cannot read or write. Mr. Waters: But did not Mr. James explain to you what the notes were? Witness I believe he did tell me there was az.,ote on the chapel at Sirhowy. To Mr. Owen: I have had so much trouble, that my memory is gone. I showed Mr. James some papers, but I don t know what became of them. I ha?e some papers at home now. Mr. James, to Mr. Owen: She brought four or five different papers to me. I called my son to sce ;l"sSddihat ",e thK° Mr. Owen But she is unable to read or write. Mr. James But she has ears. Mr. Owen: People in her station of life, know but little about promissory notes. Mr. James I tried to make her understand, and have' no doubt she understood me well. Mr. James Griffith James, son of the last witness, stated that the wife of Meyrick had brought papers to his father's shop, in a basket.; and on ascertaining that she wanted his father to inform her what they were about, .she was told to go round to the house door, and go into the parlour. There both witness and his father examined the notes, and found them to be for £20", £10, and JE-3, in reference to the loan advanced to the trustees of the Primitive Methodist chapel at Sirhowy, by the deceased 1'rosser. On being informed what the notes were, she appeared to understand. Mr. James: After that, when I board that plaintiff had administered to Rosscr's estate, I sent for Mr3. Mey- rick, and advised her to give up the promissory notes she had brought to me. The J udge Then you gave very good advice. This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. Owen objected that it had not yet been proved what the notes were. Mr. Waters; We have given the best evidence we can. The wife of the defendant was shown to have had the three notes in her possession and Mr. James and his son prove them to be for zC20, £ 10, and £,5. The Judge: I will adjourn the case, Mr. Owen, for you to produce the two other notes. This (the JS20), of course, you will say is the plaintiff's ? Mr. Owen assented. -Che Judge I shall adjourn the ease for the produc- 011 °f the two other notes. I never knew anything more malicious, Mr. Owen, than for your client to keep tnem ba^ for thcy are not 0f the slightest use to him. I nould advise the plaintiff to give notice to the maker of M vv^no'es» not to pay any other person than himself. statr.1* ,w,en Here is a trustee of the chapel, who will Mi■ w knew of only one note. desirous ca^C(* 011 M1'- Hibbs myself, not being sive litio-af se People involving themselves in expen- unwillinenpoa' an'J 1 am sori7 t0 say he sll0Wcd mu?h existence of ti, a almost challenged us to prove the for the trustees*notes> and said it wouid be time enough to pay. PaJ"> when it could be shown who was The Judge • Th» parties. ere may be some collusion between the Mr. Waters: Vertr vi i „ notes are not produn^ t 7' ^our Honour. If the other rick to be indicted f™' prcs3 for the wife of MtT" After some further • case was arranged bv tlT*8^011' tIlis mosfc unP^easant Prosser's watch, and ^lfe of Meyrick giving up &c.; the question of tL lng to 6lve UP the clothes, one. two notea being still an open j. ,ijouraea toWod_ <. WEDNESDAY. Tredegar, grocer, 4c., for the sum of J613 4,. the°b«- lance of an account.—Mr. Henry Roberts, attorney for plaintiff. Defendant appeared in person.-The defence was, that he had settled the account with the plaintiff's husband before he died, producing a receipt for £10, paid on account of the balance due, and a set off for bricks. The receipt produced in court was alleged to have been altered in the date from Dec. 4th, 1849, to Dec. the 14th, 1853, by defendant, to defraud the plaintiff.—Mr. Brim- field, 'clerk to Mr. Horace Shepard, Clerk of the Court, proved that, at the request of plaintiff, he called upon defendant, a short time back, and asked to see the receipt, which was shown to him by defendant. Having a sus- picion that there was an alteration in the date, he wetted the stamp, which he partly removed, and discovered the apparent alteration from Dec. 4th, 1849, to Dec. 14th, 1853. The receipt being handed to witness, in court, he said, that since he had last seen it, there had been a fur- ther alteration by erasing the date 1849.—His Honour went minutely through the account, both in plaintiff's and defendant's books, and found that defendant had altered his books likewise, since the account between him and plaintiff had been sent in. His Honour expressed himself strongly upon the conduct of defendant, and gave judgment for the whole amount, with costs, zC3 8s. 4d. Total, £ 16 12s. lOd. payable forthwith.-Thc amount was immediately paid. The remainder of the cases were of no public interest.

USK.j

[No title]

ONE HUNDRED MILES PER HOUR!…

---"--THE BRITISH FOREIGN…

[No title]

---------WESTMINSTER POLICE…

Welsh Matter.---Legendary,…

''IT SAVINGS BANKS.

GARDEN OPERATIONS, &c.

FROM TUESDAY'S LONDON GAZETTE.

PONTYPOOL.