Hide Articles List

10 articles on this Page











PONTYPOOL COUNTY COURT. TUESDAY. [Before J. MAURICE HERBERT, Esq., Judge.] The list contained 73* new cases, 15 adjourned, 13 judgment summonses, and 6 old cases. I)(SOLVET..Nichola" Iffixtres, grocer, &c., Pontypool, passed his first examination without opposition. He was- supported by Mr. Gi-cenway.-Ilis Honour remarked that the estate ought to pay a respectable dividend Mr T. P. Prothero: Yes, yau* Honour; there are a great many debts Thomas Morgan v. Lane.—Claim for beef and lamb, supplied to the defendant.—Mr. E. B. Edwards for the plaintiff, who said he supplied the beef to Miss Lane's servant girl, and hia son the vaal to the --e Darly The amount sued for was 7s. 9J. The girl swore that she never had the meat; and Miss Line deposed that no meat, since the settlement of her bill in 1857, had been had by her or her authority.-Ilis Honour thought the meat had been delivered to some one else by mistake.—Non- suit. Hewy Harris Y. Giles Jones.— This was an action to recover 20s., the value of a sheep, said to have been in the possession of the defendant, but belonging to the plaintiff, for whom Mr. Greenway appeared. Plaintiff deposed that he is a farmer living at Gelly- deg, and owning about 800 sheep. in July, 1856, he bought eighteen sheep of William Rees; the pitchmark of Mr. Reea-" u." in a circle-was upon each sheep be succeeded Afl- Rees in the occupation of the land ra which the sheep were he put his mark on the animitls, burning an H" on those which had horns, and those which h'ld none on the nose undet the right eye. His Honour asked if the sheep were present ? Mr. Edwards answered in the negative, observing that he was afraid the animal would be found an uniuly witness. His Honour, perhaps, might ha.ve found it the best witness. He remembered a similar dispute at Monmouth. The sheep was brought into court. Oae of the patties remarked that he would sr'on sho w to whom the sheep belooged. Billy) Lill- said hl, "caine here, come along, and the sneep immediately ran across to him. Ihere eoaid be little doubt left then as to whose pro- perty It was. (Laughter.) Plaintiff continued: In July last, twelve months after, he saw one of the 18 sheep in the pound; he went to Giles Jones about it, who said Charles Andrews brought it there, and that another man owned the ewe the man he said was from Newbridge plaintiff said I suppose that must be John Powell," and told Jones to let Powell have her, and he would go after her plaintiff afterwards saw the ewe in Giles Jones's field; a demand had been made for her. Cross-examined by Mr. E- ll. Edivards, who appeared for the defendant. There were a great number of sheep in the pound at the same time I merely looked through the bars I saw the mark on the sheep distinctly the mark was twelve months old: I know all my sheep as well as any man. William Rees deposed to having sold the sheep as men- tioned by the plaintiff; he never sold sheep to John Powell. Cross-examined: I have bought sheep of John Powell, those I afterwards sold to plaintiff. Thomas Rees said he saw last week the sheep that was in the pound upon defendant's far. Other evidence suggested that the sheep in question was taken from Gellydeg mountaiu to Pontypool, where she was impounded, afterwards being placed on the land of the lord of the manor at Groesvach. John Powell, living near Newbridge, deposed that in 1855 he tacked 20 sheep with David Davies he sold 15 of them to Mr. Rees, leaving five with Davies one of them was that in dispute; he was sure of it, from the mark. His Honour Were they not all marked ailke ? Witness said all were punch marked in the ear but that in question, which was marked with a knife. Cross-examined: A did not see the letter "R" in a circle when I saw the sheep in the pound, the wool had been torn off, except a bit on the hind part. David Davis had seen the sheep in question, at a sheep gathering.J une> loo6, the animal was at tho Travel- lers' B«8t» luie was a mark upon the ear; saw no other mark except a « p» vvit(l pit £ h> Charles Andresvs remembered assisting Harris in washing sheep saw the ewe in question in June, 1857 an our or fiya d^ys after took her to Giles. She was not marked under the eye. 3 honour, in giving judgment, said he thought the ewe Waa the plaintiff's. The evidence as to identity was very unsatisfactory and he preferred to decide the case as one of mistaken identity than that he should hold Harris guilty of an active fraud, in marking the ewe after having been impounded and after he had disclaimed the ownership. The sheep must be given up, or 20s. be Pa»d. T Thomas Morgan v. Charles JVillia'ns-—The defendant is a quarryman, residing at Risca. He was sued for 9s. 3d., the value of meat aij pplice, to him. He strenuously denied that he had had the meat. Plaintiff asserted the reverse, stating that it waa bought and delivered on a Sunday. In reply to his Honour, defendant at first de- clined to shelter himself under the Sunday Trading Act but upon the Judge expressing a strong opinion against him, he asked permission to plead the statute; and this being allowed, he received a verdict.

[No title]