Hide Articles List

14 articles on this Page

THE (MW jY V* ai*t




[No title]

[No title]


(feriiitf JnltEipft. .




Family Notices




TREDEGAR COUNTY COURT. JENKINS V. LLOYD. [TO THE EDITOR OF THE MERLIN AND SILURIAN.] Sir ,-Ha ving been concerned forthe defendant in this matter, I venture to trouble you with a few lines to correct the erroneous impression which the report of the case in your paper of Saturday, the 26th ult., is calculated to convey. Your reporter, I conclude, was not present on the second day of the court, and was consequently un- aware that I obtained on that day a renersal of the judgment of the day before. He also omits to state that I on the first day took an objection to his Honor's jurisdiction, on the ground that the action was barred under Stat. 9., Geo. 4., c. 31., ss. 27, 28, by the previous conviction of. the defendant before the Justices at Bryn- mawr, and that the conviction signed by the two Justices who convictad, was produced to the court j; but that thiiob- jectionwas overruled by his.Honor,who held that the pro- duction of a certificate of the conviction was indispensable. Not having the Act of Parliament before me, I was unable at the moment to contravene such decision,; but on the next day, having in the meantime looked into the Act of Parliament, and satisfied myself of. the validity of my objection, I applied to His Honor to review his Judg- ment, on the ground of the misinterpretation of the Act. My application was immediately granted, ard on refer- ence to the clauses of the Act, His Honor most un- hesitatingly reversed his judgment of the day before, into which he had been misled by the erroneous inter- pretation given in a text book, and not having the Act of Parliament to refer to. I think it further due to, my client, to. state that he did not obtain his summons against Jenkins in the first instance with a view to its being a bar" to any pro- ceedings against him, which of course it could not be, but under the belief that a gross and outrageous, assault had been committed on him by Jenkins and I am firmly convinced, notwithstanding the evidence of the man Thomas, that Jenkins was the aggressor, and that the injury inflicted on him by my client was really only in self-defence. What amount of resistance will not the prospect of being gouged justify ? This was the view of the case taken by the Justices at Brynmawr they evidently thought that evidence which was sufficient to dismiss Lloyd's summons at Crickhowell, was not suffi- cient to sustain a charge of gross assault on the part of Jenkins at Brynmawr, and though they could not so entirely disregard the oath of Thomas, with reference to the first blow having been given by Lloyd, as to dismiss the summons in this instance, yet they thought the ends of justice would be amply satisfied by a fine of One Shilling. I shall fell obliged by your inserting this letter in your next. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, G. SYDNEY DAVIES. Crickhowell, Oct. 1st, 1857. Defendant's Attorney. [Our correspondent must have overlooked the report of the case Jenkins v. Lloyd, in the MERLIN, of the 26th ult., of the second day of the Tredegar Court. It was there distinctly stated that Mr. Davies did make the ob- jection he adverts to, and moreover the clause of the Act on which it was founded, was inserted. The reversal of the-first day's judgment, so far from not being mentioned at all, was given in the very words of the judge.]