Welsh Newspapers
Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles
9 articles on this Page
[No title]
ADVICE TO MOTHERS.—Are you broken of your rest by a sick child, sutferin.g with the pain of cutting teeth ? Go at once to a chemist and get a. bottle of Mrs. Winslow's Soothing Syrup. It will relieve the poor sutferer immediately—it is perfectly harmless — it produces natural quiet sleep, by relieving the child from pain, and the little cherub wakes'as bright as a button." It has been long in use in America, and is highly recommended by medical men. It is very pleasant to take-it loothes the child-it softens the gums—allays all pain—relieves wind—regulates the bowels—and is the best known remedy for dysentry and diarrhea, whether arising from teething or other causes. Be sure and ask for Mrs. Winslow's Sooth- ing Syrup, and see that Curtis and Perkins, New ork and London" is on the outside wrapper. No mother should be without it.-Sold by all Medi- cine Dealers at Is 14d per bottle. London Depot, 493 Oxford-street. [15.459 CHALLENGE TO THE WORLD.—The Bristol Daily Times and Mirror, August 5th, has the following': Messrs. J. C. Swan and Co., of 16, Queen-square, in this city, have invented a pocket microscope, which is a marvel in all that such an instrument should be. It has great power, remarkable definition, and does not require focuss- ing. The cheapness of the article will make it exceedingly popular when its merits are more widely known. It is called the" Bristol Microscope," and is a great credit to the inventor, as much for its extreme simplicity as its power.-The Western Daily Press says: The Bristol Microscope has a magnifying power of '20,000 times, &c., &c.-The Western Daily Telegraph says The Bristol Microscope is the most compact and useful scientific in- strument we have ever seen; it possesses extraordinary power, and is very easily managed, &c. The price of the Bristol Microscope is only 2s, or free by post, with printed directions, for 28 stamps.-Address, J. C. SWAN AND Co., opticians, 16 Queen-square, Bristol. 15,452
IABERGAVENNY.
ABERGAVENNY. THE FAIR. -This event, the principal fair for stock, &c., here, took place on Monday, and was well at- tended. Of sheep between 5.000 and 6,000 were penned. Stores were selling at from 25". to 30s. each, IJadnors being the principal attraction. The cattl,e department was much better represented for quality than might have been expected, considering the drought. A fair quantity was on show. The The prices ranged thus :-Fat beasts, of which there were few, X22 to X25 two-year-old steers, from jCl3 to 4C17. Horses were a good show, but of poor quality. Good useful carters were selling at from £ 30.
BLAENAVON.
BLAENAVON. LOCAL BOARD. -The usual monthly meeting of the above Board was held in the Girls' Schoolroom on Tuesday last. Present Messrs. T. Hemming (chair- man), J. Pritchard, G. Burford, J. Gill, J. Burgoyne J. Thomas (clerk), and Joshua Evans (surveyor).' The minutes of the last meeting were read and con- firmed. Mr. Thomas reported that the balance now in the hands of the treastirer-imotiiitedtot49 9s 10 id. The Collector reported that be had paid to the trea- surer that day the sum of £ 23 4s 6d on account of the general district rate. The Surveyor's accounts were examined and allowed, and cheques were signed for ;E58 2s 6d. The following resolution was passed :— "That the Clerk write to the Monmouthshire Railway and Canal Company, calling their attention to the very dangerous state of their bridge in Prince-street." THE WAR.—TWO very appropriate and effective THE WAR.—TWO very appropriate and effective sermons were preached in this Church, on Sunday, bv the Rev. J. Jones, vicar, in aid of the funds for the sick and wounded of the French and Prussian armies. In the mortiing, the Rev. Vicar selected for his text. the 36th and 37th verses of the 10th chapter of Luke and in the evening, he preached from the 4tli chapter of Genesis, and the latter part of the 9th verse. "Am 1 my brother's keeper .?" In alluding to the sufferings of the soldiers in the hospitals and on the battle-field, the Vicar earnestly solicited the sympathies of his hearers on their behalf, and he hoped that their sub- scriptions would be given with feelings of gratitude to God, for keeping England free from the horrors of war. The collections were unusually liberal, amount- ing to more than £ 11.
CHEPSTOW.
CHEPSTOW. BOARD OF GUARDIANS.—The usual weekly meeting of this Board was held on Saturday last, when the fol- lowing Guardians were present :—NIr. CE. Seys (in the chair), Rev. J. Price, Messrs. D. Baker, C. P. Chan- dler, S. P. Williams, G. Roberts, J. Taylor, J. P. Rymer, J. Croker, E. Woodroffe, G. Jones, G. Pros- ser, E. J. W. Smith, Captains Jenkins and E. Lewis, and Colonel Noel. The balance at the close of the day was stated to be £ 471 5s. lid. The number of inmates in the Workhouse was stated to be 109, against 108 last week, and 118 the corresponding week of last year. The number of vagrants relieved was stated to be 60. This being the day for receiving ten- ders for supplying the Union with provisions for the ensuing quarter, the following were accepted Meat, Mrs. O'Leary, at G!d. per lb. groceries, Mr. Wright flour, Messrs. Karslake and Co. milk, Mrs. Dobbs, at 3d. per quart potatoes, Mr. Beamish, at 4s. per cwt. ale, &c., Messrs. Smith and Allen; and coal, Mrs. Parnall, at lis. 9d. per ton. A MAS ACCIDENTALLY SHOT.—On Tuesday last, Mr. Doward, of the Day-house Farm, aud another gentleman, were shooting over the preserves of Mrs. Curre, of Itton-court, at Shirenewton, and were ac- companied by Charles -Tones, Mrs Curre's gamekeeper. About four o'clock in the afternoon these two gentle- men sat down on the ground, to partake of luncheon, the gamekeeper being some few yards off. Captain Cawburn's carbine gun was loaded, and cocked, and a rabbit runcing by, he lifted his gun to fire, but before he could take aim his gun accidentally went off, and shot poor Jones in the thigh. He was immediately conveyed to his home, where Dr King was soon in attendance, and he ordered Jones to be taken to the Union, whither he was conveyed in great agony. When he got to the Union, Dr. King found the poor fellow was so weak, through loss of blood, that his leg could not be taken off, and the sufferer lingered until one o clock 011 Wednesday morning, when he died. The unfortunate man was only 33 years of afp, and he xeaves a wife and five children to lament their loss.. ————
PONTYPOOL.
PONTYPOOL. POLICE COURT.-SATURDAY. [Before H. M. KEXXARD, Esq., chairman, Colonel BYRDE, E. KEXXARD, Esq., and the Rev. T. EVANS.] THE DOC. TAX.—Margaret West was charged with keeping a dog without a lioenoe—On the application of Mr. Biilger, supervisor, the case was adjourned lot a fortnight, and it was intimated that it would pro- bably he settled within that time.—James Rees, similarly charged, sent his mother to admit the offence, and he was fined 25s.—John Jones, of Golynos, was similarly charged.—Mrs. Jones pleaded that "it was only a little one."—Fined 25s.—George Bright, of Garndiffaith, similarly charged, proved that his dog was under six months old at the time alleged, aud the case was dismissed. ° 'TWAS ON A SUNDAY MORNING. --James Jones was charged with trespass in pursuit of coneys, on lands belonging to the Trustees of the late C. H. Leigh, Esq. —Jesse Maise}% son of the head keeper, deposed that on Sunday morning he caught defendant ferreting for rabbits in a hole in a bank near the canal. -Defenllant, who had been previously convicted of a like offence, was fined 40s., 01* three weeks hard labour. FOND OF GAME.—Thomas Cobner, who did not ap- pear, was also charged with trespass on lands belong- ing to the Trustees.—Jesse Maisey stated that he caught defendant in the act of taking up a wire laid to catch hares.He had been cautioned before.- Fined 40s., or three weeks hard labour. WAGES. George HOllway was summoned for wages alleged to be due to Maurice Welsh.—Defendant pleaded that he was not indebted, and after hearing evidence, the case was dismissed. ° j AFFILTATION.-Davill .Jones, who was represented by Mr. Alexander Edwards, was summoned by Eliza Arnold, to show cause, &c.—The woman sard that defendant had given her money for the support of the child since its birth, but Mr. Edwards was instructed to deny that.—Adjourned for corroborative evidence. NEGLECTING WORK.—William Lewis, charged with neglecting his work, at Blaenavon, agreed to return and to pay the costs.—Daniel Jenkins, similarly charged, was ordered to pay 10s. damage, and 10s. costs ASSAULT.—Mary Carron, who did not appear, was charged with assaulting Mary Murphy.—Murphy said that defendant was a lazy young woman, who stole a pound of sugar cut of her house, and because she accused her of doing so, defendant struck her on the side with a flat iron.— Fined 20s., or 14 days' hard labour. "GET OFF MY, WALL!"—James Greenway was charged with assaulting John Sadler, a lad, at Cwm- ynyscoy.—Complainant's version, supported by a wit- ness, was, that defendant hit him on a wall, on which he was sitting, and kicked him on the head.—The de- fendant and a witness, on the other hand, said that the boy persisted in sitting on a wall in defiance of defendant, to whose premises it belonged, and that defendant merely pushed him off.—Defendant was told he must not take the law into his own hands, though he appeared to have received provocation, and he was fined 15s. J OH ANN ACAREY AGAIN.—JohannnCarey was charged with assaulting Ann Nash, at Abersyehan.—The evi- dence was very contradictory, and the language intro- I duced was abominable. It appeared that Mrs. Nash was as pugnacious as Johanna, and wished to return to the fray after they had been parted.—Ordered to divide the expenses. DISORDERLY. — Thomas Jones and Richard Rich- ards were fined 6s. each, or seven days' hard labour, for fighting at Abersychan. OBSTRUCTING THE POLICE. — David Morgan, a young man, and Eliza Jones, the latter of whom did not appear, were charged with obstructing the police in the execution of their duty, at Abersyehan.— It appeared that on Monday evening P.C. Lewis, 60, ar- rested a man named George Smithy, on.a charge of highway robbery with violence at Aberdare in March last, when the defendants interfered and tried to rescue Smithy.—P.C. McGra assisted Lewis, and the mob set upon them, and a very serious disturbance occurred. The volunteers happened to be passing on their return from the inspection at Pontymoile, and with their aid Smithy was secured.—Defendants were fined X3 each, or one month's hard labour. STEALING A SHAWL.—John Shean was charged with stealing a. shawl, the property of Mary Mead, at at Abersyehan. It was clearly proved that defendant took the shawl, and pawned it at Mr. Crawcour's The defence was that he and Mary got drunk together and that he pledged the shrj,vl wi.h her sanction.—He was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions. STEALING SUGAR. — Mary Ann Lee was charged with stealing a pound of sugar from the iiouse of Mary Allen. The girl, who is only twelve years of age, and was leading a vagrant life, sold the sugar to a Mrs. Evans for twopence.—The Bench sent the girl to the workhouse for a week with the intention of getting her into some institution. RATES.—Abraham Bloom, Rachel Jones, William Prosser (who has gone from the Dublin Stores to America), and John Twissell, were summoned for poor rates, and were ordered to pay. ,I •« jM"i|
'-" ! __,IBLACKWXXm~
IBLACKWXXm rr> f J TY SESSIONS.— FRIDAY .Before Messrs JOSEPH DA VIES, W. L. WILLIAMS O V JAMES, and Dr. JAMES! Solicitors present-Mr. C. R. Harris TREDE^R a. Sredp £ Thomas Jones tioned not to stray from f ■' l)ay cos^s and cau- near Rhymney. & CERTAM FOOT^TH field PLEADED"1 ^guilty LO'JLNS'^ARS^ days in limbo, aud was now discharU & LICENSES. — Michael Richards, of CLMR^ tr Mynyddislwyn, vvho did not come forward ^N'LS regular licensing day, appeared before the P.PN.W day. After a good lecture, the MAGISTRS^ he would have his license, but he must be more careful in future.—Isaac Mason, Fountain Troed. rhiwgwair, applied for a spirit license—MR C R. Harris supported the application, and explained the situation of the house, which was two miles from any other licensed house.—The Bench granted th« application. I TRESPASS. — Tranter v. Whitfield. Mr. C. R Harris for complainant—The parties live at Biack- wood, and defendant, in fetching water from a certain well near Tranter's house, had damaged some cabbage. -13. W hitfield said she would not trouble Tranter again and the Bench dismissed the case, and ordered complainant to pay costs. WOMEN'S QCAI^ELS—COLIINS v. Finnessey.-This was a case 01 calling hard names and usic- fists.— and, after costa. '= 0 e-i defendant 5s. and Elizabeth Davies v. Catherine Mannev —In thi<* case threats had been used I • "V3 r u™u »s oetendnnt, but in the R ;^N1SES >UCH <LEC!I«ed to bind over SLED AN A'LJOURNMENFC FO* A week was PISF WOEK -\T ABERCARN.-John Williams, Richcrd L.V gun, and John Davies were charged as above -Mr. Harris represented the Company, and Mr. ^L IEUS appeared for Laygun, and Mr. Lewis of DO^XAIS, for llhams.— The charge was not pressed, and deieudants were ordered to pay costs and resume duty. NEGLECTING DUTY UNDERGMUXD.-John Thomas, a FCUS man at Abercnrne, was summoned for n—lect- MG a fire to the detriment of the current of air in a pit at Abercarn.-Witnesses proved the offence, and Mr. Harris, for the Company, said the lives of a large number of colhers had been placed in the greatest jeopardy by the conduct of defendant. Defendant said the proceedings were taken through spite because he refused to unload a tram of coal for the overman. The Bench said it was a most serious charge defendant would be imprisoned for one month, which, it was hoped, would be a warning to others who had similar dutv to attend to. ° ASSAULT-Young ?•. -The parties re- side at Lbow Yale, and from the appearance of both litigants, move in a very respectable sphere of life MR. Plews for complainant: Mr. Harris for defendant. The quarre. arose through a couple of canine speci- mens, one being the property of com: Jain ant, and the other belonging to defendant.-Miss Rosewarne, it as alleged, pusaed Mrs. Young out of the house, which we presume, constituted the assault.-Some not very laay-like language was deposed to by witnesses, pro and con, and, A iter a lengthy hearing, defendant was fined 5s. and costs. CW-RW BACH.—SMALL PUNISHMENT.— Superinten- oent Fowler made an able speech on the subject of Cwrw Bachs, which he said would continue to flourish unless the magistrates put the fines heavier than here. tofore in other words, he said, in effect, that the Bench must pile on the agony" if they desired to stop it.—Mrs. Ungues, a widow, was then called forward to answer a charge of conducting one of these con- cerns at Tredegar. She admitted her guilt, but put in the old plea-she had children, and had nothing to live upon. —Mr. C. R. Harris said the effect of a heavy fine woulu be to throw the children on the parish as the woman would go to prison.-The Bench consulted for a short time,-and fined defendant lOs. and costs. A N4rc„iv DoC -Tho, Pr„,Jclt by the Ebbw ale Company for the value of a sheep kil.ed by his dog, on the mountain, near the Mountain Air Inn. No one saw the dog do the deed, but tho: circumstantial evidenje traced the "piurder"' to him. and the Bench ordere 1 defendant to pay 20s and ex- penses. LARCENY.—Thomas Quigley, for stealing trousers was committed for trial —The prisoner, a tall, wiry customer, whose coat was so tattered that finding AN armhole was surely a matter of chance, there were so many outlets, when being brought from Blaina to Blackwood took leg bail, and gave the constables a smart run while it lasted. Fallin! ..hart of stea.m, he took shelter M a wood but Sergeant Williams was soon on the track and the "biaoelets" being applied Mr. Quiglev was quickly secured.
GAEDEX OPERATIONS.
GAEDEX OPERATIONS. KITCHEN GARDEN. n Thin the autumn-sown crops of carrots and onions at once, as the ground from the recent heavy rains is now moist, and the surplus plants can be drawn out without injury to those remaining. The thinnings may be planted to fill up vacancies in the rows if re quired. After the heads of Gloke Artichokes have been gathered, cut away that part of the stern left on the plant, to encourage the production of a fresh growth from the bottom. The manner in which the various root crops are stored exercises a material influence over their keeping properties. The onions should be exposed sufficiently under cover to enable them to get quite hard and dry before finally storing for the winter. Bulbs which are solid and well ripened keep much better than others that are soft and spongy, or have bng green nocks therefore the latter must be carefully sorted out, and put on one side for immediate use. Proper attention is not paid to this simple but important matter, and the supply runs short towards the end of the winter in conse- quence. Where Cardoons are grown, tie the leaves together rather loosely, break the ground up about them, and PAC* the soil round their stems to a height of about twelve inches, aud give the final earthing up a month hence. Also earth up Celery and Leeks • the main crop of the former will now be in good order fdr receiving the final earthing. Attend to former directions, and trench or ridge up the several quarters as last as they become vacant. FRUIT GARDEN. Take advantage of wet and otherwise unfavourable weather for outdoor work for examining the fruit gatuered in the early part of the month. Remove all that show the least signs of decay, and take them to the kitchen for immediate use. Better, in fact throw them away altogether than leave them to infect those in contact with them. Gather Filberts and other nuts when ripe, and after they are thoroughly dry pack them in earthenware JARS^ and cover them down close by these means the kernels will keep plump and fresh until spring. A sprinkling of salt will keep them nearly as fresh as when gathered from the tree, but it turns the husks and shells so black as to render them quite unfit for the table therefore where any consideration is paid to appearances, they must not be salted. FLOWER GARDEN. Pot up as quickly as possible the remaining portion of the stock of bedding geraniums, and get them under cover; but give plenty of air when possible. Ver- benas must also have close attention, and be kept free from green-fly and mildew, and also have sufficient air to well harden them for the winter. Three parts of the verbenas which perish during the winter are cod- dled to death through insufficient ventilation Ver benas are much hardier than they are commonly sup- posed to be, and with care they can be wintered IN A temporary frame, covered with straw hurdles in ordi nary winters. In getting up a stock of bedding plants for next season, pay particular attention to what has done well and what has tailed, aud make preparations accordingly. It shoum be borne iu mind that what does well in one garden will frequently fail in another, and it is from this circumstance that many good bed. ueia are unjustly condemned, and others unduly praised. This is especially the case with bedding ge- raniums, for some varieties which flower well in poor S°v, GR°W and produce few flowers in gardens where the soil is of a more fertile character. Good plants of Aurea floribunda and Prince of Orange cal- ceolarias, if lifted carefully and potted in good soil, will come in nicely for the conservatory in the spring. The first-named variety is the best, 'because of its bright yellow colour, which harmonizes so well with the other colours then prevalent. FORCING. MELONS Where these are grown in pits heated en- tirely by fermenting materials, aud the fruit full- grown, and the heat has declined sufficiently to render it doubtful as to whether the fruit will reach maturity or not, cut them off with a piece of the vine, and place it upon a shelf close to the glass aDd fully exposed to the sun, in either the pine or plant stove. Others in pits heated by hot water must be pushed on as fast as possible, to finish them off whilst there is sufficient solar warmth to create the crude sap intp saccharine matter, or the fruit will not be worth eatinf. Let the vines in pots remain out of doors for the present, and lay the pots on their sides, if there is any danger of the soil becoming too wet. Prune the vines for very early forcing soon, and cover the border with a good thickuess of dry leaves or litter, to keep off the heavy rains.—Gardeners' Magazine.
i ; CQ MONMOUTHSHIRE OF SEWERS.
CQ MONMOUTHSHIRE OF SEWERS. 1i^ILIty m To REPAIR THE SEA WALLS. in t?,11 aS Ability of owners of certain d Portiotf Par*s'1 Hcdwick to repair and main- f^ided on ivr0t, tlie "prescription sea wall" was levpi rednes(lay- A Court view and survey ti°§e \v-as, ^f the Hundreds of Caldicot and Went- li ? P^ject nf l°n ^ie ^'th and 17th days of August, hCities of +o survey being to place on record the t et»t own owners of land, with the names of of tl, 3 c^argeable with the maintenance and lu^^ted rt? sea. walls, sea banks, and other works ^Unce frev''itli. The Commissioners invited the 0f Persons interested who might be de- N to f1V-nS information to enable the jury to We iUf TrJSllt conclusion. The survey was made C^bv «pon their survTey no evidence was 0r on the part of the Commissioners with G ^alf110^ in the parish of Redwick. l)t4Ce thp T\ aI'Fe:ircrl to have been repaired by His pP t° -Uuke of Beaufort from time immemorial pace's, 4e year 1848, when a large sale of His if^Usk T-S *n that locality, viz., the parishes of Magor, Whitsuu, GoldclifT, and k 17th held. The Court adjourned from Publj to the 2Stli September a notice .ed in the meantime that in case of any r. If)p on the part of owners of land liable ,rs> notice should be given to the Com- Bp j Wi a statement of the ground of objection, a i 5ot!?ess ^be Court commenced at the King's a v' cori M.30, on Wednesday morning, when jj. ^sting 0f eighteen persons were sworn in U ^pute. There were present the Right i >' thp tTre(^eSar' *n the chair; Mr. 0. Morgan, P. v- Turberville-Williams, the Rev. F. the Rev. Freke Lewis, Messrs. W. S. b J^eac- F. Justice, Lewis, T. LI. Brewer, J. P A\ A. Williams, W. C. Webb, and R" Yj fe 0riirrifssioners, with Mr. Waddington (clerk). r0 present Mr. Baker, solicitor, London tv Jigs i'att, and others interested in the pro- i *v^r- Fox appeared on behalf of the Com- I ariJ Mr. Colborne on behalf of Mr. Lewis J ,ai>d Mr Daniel Baker. Th« nature of the &W e understood from the following report of W inSs ^6ti%acl(lingtou, in opening the business, drew the °f the Commissioners to notices he had re- i ^at})S part of Mr. Daniel Baker and Mr. Lewis J of j,' objecting to the new survey and to the find- a J'"ry 'a support thereof and raised an fa to the form of Mr. Baker's notice, inasmuch x specify the grounds of objection, in com- Ufftioi ^'th the terms set forth in the notice of 27th ,CV87°- it °lb°rno (on behalf of Mr. Baker) contended tll6 tflOse proceedings were merely in continuance of tk Pfoceeding3 of the 16th and 17th August. Fur- that the Court of the 28tli was in reality the >j « Court as held previously—namely, the Court of fot^and survey held on the 16th and 17th, and there- Si- as open to Mr. Baker to come at any time so ligfj.48 the inquiry was open and he could claim a WjJ'0 be heard. He would contend that it was itn- f ^or a iury lind in support of the survey. It Of tj, 0 treated as their survey, and not the survey j Purveyor, until the whole evidence had been s* before them upon which they were asked to Mr ^ab^ity to maintain the sea walls. tlty. Vr10"! °n behalf of the Commissioners, contended e information given in the notice was not 5fat. if ^orilmissioners retired to consider the point Sa'd tK°n ret"rning into Court the Noble Chairman the ca taken into consideration the facts of %3i(]Se> as far as their knowledge went, and they "^Ir- Kaker's information irregular and in- ailf^ tlierefore they could not hear him on the t Mr. p5Casion- •^bep00 orne bere proposed that he should put in a to t?°-^ce sPecifying grounds of objection, accord- requirements. Mr p°x That is absurd. l4e fit' Colborne Well, the Commissioners can refuse °X Qf course it does not prevent Mr. Baker rv\ (W' these proceedings at another time. s rectM°lborne And I tell you this—it is specially f the assessment upon the survey should -t? be ^6 lands in respect of which the liability is j.°1 nj-ed, and that is one of our grievances. H.C,1W'UJe'Ss to assess tbe lability, but you don't par- tQfo-iV 'Se the land upon which that liability is to be and therefore I propose, before the Court af>peap° Put in a further notice. Of course it will your notes, and you can reject or not at Scretioa. I consider the Court of view and T.'ey is still sitting. ^r. Waddington This is not a Court of survey. v. Colb u-oe I beg you pardon, I say the Court of lew and survey is still sitting. )41. Warldington: X otlling of. the sort; a survey is t-VSee with the eves, and we can't see the sea walls at Vdistanee. Mr \>^°lboruo again urged the point. He thought; c«utm er was entitled to appear, because it was a \v°[;i(j"ation of the previous Court. Surely Mr. Fox Mr See what was wanted. i isdon x 0f course I see, and I say anything tnat V J°'<iay does not damnify Mr. Baker nor nnyo e e can come at the next Court, and traverse jj^inor he likes. ?Sr. Colborne Very well, you must proceed your 4l^?Vay; 1 suppose. I may say 1 think the oath ijj, y su*( n to the jury is sufficient. 148 tii after a few preliminary remarks, remind- 3ur o" the purpose for whijh they wcreas- Uifj1- ~V1Z-? that of imposing upon certain occupiers 11 t'le Pans^ Redwick the duty of doing •beyi Repairs to the sea walls—said the question t° consider was the objection made by Mr. *illiams. The terms of that objection he would fait read to them. It was no doubt exceedingly un- V Mr Le vis Williams should come there and objection in the form he had, because the f°rthH'ere these the matter was adjourned expressly Obta: e Purpose of enabling his friend, the Clerk, to Jlota?,Certain documentary evidence which lie had 8pec hand the other day on the occasion of the in- tbat 10,1 being made It was then adjourned in order evj(j Clerk should produce proper documentary! to f etlc.e in support or Mr. Lewis W illiams's liability Hot; c'ei'tain walls. He would read to them the bad given. It was dated on the 12th Sej>- Sol; -er' an^ addressed to the Commissioners from the CojJ21^?1* on the part of Mr Lewis Williams—"To the (Jj.g^issioners of Sewers for the levels of the Hun- W 8 Caldicot and- Wentlooge in the county of W^outh. As agent for and on behalf of Lewis ibams) of the parish of Redwick, in the county of tn0llril0Uf^' gentleman, and of the representatives or y^stees of Lewis Williams, of the same place, gen- Sa^an' deceased, —I hereby give you notice that the lu Lewis Williams, and also the said representatives trustees of Lewis Williams, deceased,object to draft j^vey of the sea walls, banks, and works connected ^erewith within the level of the Hundred of Caldicot, j? far as the same relates or appertains to the prescrip- j8°tl sea walls in the parish of Redwick, and so far as it Proposed and intended by such survey to charge or the liability, &c., upon the said Lewis William', ■tyi'lv And he further gave notice that the said Lewis vev objected to the confirmation of the said sur- *bo' 'kc. Now he would, upon the evidence he was s to adduce, pi'ove that Mr. Lewis Wdliams was Si to repair these prescription sea walls. He ^e^ore done reading that his friend probably withdraw his objection, because he 5e]f 'I show them that Mr. Lewis Williams was him- Pai>. • present owner of the property, and had re- fath these walls and that the late Lewis Williams, ^bPer °f the present owner, had in this Court appeared b^Vj11 a similar question was heard before a jury, pro- Hehy, before some gentleman he was then addressing, subse<|uently acknowledged his liability by ^drawing his plea of not guilty. Now, with refe- to that liability, he had done these repairs and *lso *°me ProPortion to the cost of repairs. He would Mr ?rovf '*y .so.me correspondence in the matter how ajj,i ewis W illiams had acknowledged his liability, at l,pon giving them that evidence they would Com?Ce See iraPossi^i'it.y of Mr. Lewis Williams teDa t0 that Court and questioning his liability to lo?Xthe Inscription walls in respect of the liability ^ell ] e vvas charSed ^t survey. It was very known that the late Mr Lewis Williams, his pe 'Who lived in Red wlck,acq ulred considerable pro- 1% from the Duke of Beaufort in 1848. In the year was the iirst presentment he should trouble *eWn (^arch 23rd, 1854), he was presented to cerj. with lime, stone, and other proper materials, a lO fain Pai't of prescription walls, containing 14 feet by at a certain price. Mr. Fox, after detailing fr0&) '^tances about the presentment remarked that Jjtat time to the present Mr. Lewis Williams and 0o^. ?niel Baker had been a thorn in the side of the in Qjf118?'011, Now, the result of the first proceedings ^■th es^ou was this- -and it was an extraordinary one tbe ^Proceedings were in due form drawn up, and trjjj^tter was to be brought on in the usual way for M^tthe Court of Sewers to be held in the room in enga^ t^ey were then assembled. Learnedcounsel were <f^ou both sides and there were several adjourn- al °Q the matter, but eventually the consequence I withdrew their plea of "not guilty," and they • pleaded guilty on that presentment, and gave to him an undertaking which he I read, Mr. Fox here read the undertaking given by Mr. Baker, which was given on behalf of himself and Mr. Lewis Williams, pleading guilty to the liability, and giving a guarantee to pay costs. Well, in the following year, Mr. Baker came and paid them'the costs. Now, after that, it was a strange thing that his friend—who was engaged for Mr. Lewis Williams and others in conjunction—should come there and state that he was not liable to do those re- pairs. Of course he could come there as often as he wished at the same time it was for the jury who were sworn to consider those matters, to say whether they would not give some serious weight to prior proceedings, which proved that Lewis Williams had acknowledged his liability to do these very re- pairs. He thought if he proved those and other facts, they would say Mr. Lewis Williams was bound in re- spect of the tenure of land in the parish of Redwick, to repair and maintain those walls. He wanted to impress upon the jury that their duty then was only to decide as to his liability, but they had nothing to do with the increase or decrease of such liability if he showed them he had once admitted his liability to repair those walls. It was not in their province to say it had extended or diminished—that might arise before them if he were coming there to plead an abatement, and even assuming that were so now, it had failed hitherto, and would sure to fall on every occasion. After hearing all the evidence, their duty was to ascertain whether or no he was liable-not to say lie was liable to £10, jC30, or £ 40—but was he liable at all because he need hardly tell them if lands of any description were once liable at all they were ever liable, howsoever and whensoever any parties might become possessed of them. Consequently it arose in this way. The Duke of Beaufort, for instance, was formerly assessed for the whole of those lands—he may have let them out in certain lots and proportions -what he (the speaker) wanted to do was to show them the absurdity—supposing the liability were to be subdivided in any way the Duke of Beaufort might please—supposing he had 500 acres of land in the parish of Redwick, and supposing he chose to sell the whole in half acre lots, to a thousand people, were they expected to suppose the Court of Sewers were going to assess the liability upon a thousand different parties—such would be an absurdity for it would be reducing the liabilities to twopence or threepence, and the Court of Sewers would be the collectors of that small amount. The real fact was this the whole of the lands were liable into whose ever possession they came and if a party were found possessing a half an acre of land (formerly liable) he was liable to do the whole of the repairs in respect of that estate. And i the only remedy he had was against other parties who he believed were liable with him—he could ascertain who those parties were, and he could see if they paid their proportion—but his lialnllnj was entirely on the whole. He would draw their attention to that be- cause such liability once established could not be altered according to law, and he was sure if they only dealt with the law as they found it, there would be no difficulty m dealing with such matters. No difficulty had arisen before, and he did not sea why it should y then. However, be that as it may, he would ask them then to confirm that survey as regarded the whole of the parties, especially as regarded the party in question, Mr. Lewis Williams, the objecting party. He would call the Clerk to produce certain documents, in order ———— A Juror (interposing) Then supposing it were done as you say—let out in 500 half-acres, one half acre to each, which half-acre would you put it on— which man ? Mr. Fox Any single man', and' he would of course have to sue for the liability of others. The Juror Then with whom does the power rest for fixing on that one man ? Mr. Fox replied that the Commissioners would fix upon any single person. The subject of liability was a question between him and others, and he would have to see after the other persons. He was the pur- chaser, and he should have estimated his liability at the time of purchase The liability which existed they could not alter in any shape or form—it was a liability attached to the land, into whosoever's hands it came. That being so, if he shewed them Mr. Lewis Williams had admitted his liability, he should submit they were bound to find their decision accordingly. The Juror Well, the party you say upon whom the charge is made is to sue others -but in what way, may I ask ? Mr. Fox Well, by issuing a writ. I'll put it to you in this way—— Mr Colborne .Yes. I shall have a word or two to say upon that point bye and bye. Mr. Fox (to the Juror) I beg your pardon. I un- derstand your question to be this-In what manner can he recover the money due to him ? I will shew you. Supposing certain works in connection with these walls are ordered to be done, and cost £ 100, and Mr. Lewis Williams is owner of a part of this estate—he is charged with the liability of the repairs of these sea walls with the other different paities named, the cost of that repair being zeloo. You come in to assess that £100 upon him, and it is his duty to ascertain who are the parties liable with him, and it is his duty to see to the recovery from those parties of the amounts which may be due from them. And you see the fact is this —all these estates in this level are purchased subject to such liability. I dare say many of you are aware that they are sold at an unusually low price- A Juror Yes, sir. Mr. Fox And no doubt the vendors and the Duke oi Beaufort's solicitors—very wisely—didn't chose to show what that liability was when this estate was sold. I don't say it was so in this particular instance, but 1 know it is a common thing for them to do so and any purchaser buys subject to these things, and if he does not look out for these liabilities that cannot alter the question between the Court of Sewers and the parties becoming owners. It cannot efleet the liability—the land is liable, and so long as it is liable any persou who is in possession of any portion of that land—however small—is liable to do these repairs. There is no question about it in point of law. I am only explaining to you how the thing arises—if a party, remember, finds out that the Duke of Beaufort should pay a certain portion, he can go and sue for it, but, if he chooses to purchase subject to liabilities—then upon him rests the onus of ascertaining who are the parties liable with him. The Juror Then you mean to say all persons are liable ? Mr. Fox Of course. Every individual party is sio liable into whose possession the land has come -if not so the party can get rid of the liability. There is no hardship, in point of fact, because everybody buys knowing his liability. No doubt Mr. Lewis Williams knew he was liable when he purchased this land, and under those circumstances and subject to this liability, he purchased, and not only that, but, gentlemen, I emphatically repeat, it is a matter well known to all that lands are bought at a much cheaper rate in consequence of that liability ———— A Juror That is their fault, then. Another Juror And you assert that everybody is liable ? Mr. Fox I say, sir, every purchaser is liable and it is because of that liability that they purchase at a much less price than the land would otherwise fetch and I expressly tell you it is a law which neither you nor any human being can alter. The Learned Advo- cate then called Mr. Waddington, the Clerk to the Commissioners of Sewers, who said there had been no survey of this level since 182.'}. He produced a presentment of March 21, 1854, which stt f irth that a certain por- tion of the prescript: '.v«ui in the parish of Redwick was out of repair, ar.u i^t certain sums were required to put it in repair. Mr. Lewis Williams and Mr. Daniel Baker objected to do the repair, but they afterwards withdrew their plea, and pleaded guilty, and paid the coats of the prosecution, amounting to CSO. Mr. Baker I say £94. Mr. Waddington continued There was another presentment dated March, 1855, and amongst others, Mr. Lewis Williams was held liable for certain repairs. That was endorsed a true bill by the jury. Mr. Colborne: I shall have a word or two to say in cross-examination as to the admissibility of this. Mr. Fox All right. Examination continued Another presentment dated 19tli March, 1857, and Mr. Lewis Williams was in- eluded therein. That was endorsed a true bill. Then there was a presentment in March, 1860, in which Mr. Lewis Williams was included, and the jury en- Mr. Lewis Williams was included, and the jury en- dorsed it a true bill. In April, 1861, there was a presentment, in which Mr. Lewis Williams was in- cluded with others. That was endorsed a true bill. The repairs then cost above £100, and Mr. Williams did the work. There were similar presentments in March, 18G2 March, 1864; April, 1865; March, 1866; April, 1867 and June, 1868, in which the same parties were included, and Mr. Lewis Williams, or his representatives, were called upon to repair the walls. In the beginning of 1870, an order was made upon Mr. Lewis Williams to pay £ 51 8s. 7d., due for repairingtheprescription walls inthe parish of Redwick. Mr. Fox here read the order in question. That was au order to pay in respect of work done to walls, and with regard to a portion of which, he was bound to tell them, there was no order from the Court that work should be done. It was done voluntarily on the part of Mr. Lewis Williams. (A letter was read, written by Mr. Colborne, asking the Commissioners to allow Mr. Williams to pay his proportion of the amount claimed, as he had previously paid the whole of the claims made upon him-Mr. Waddington's reoly was also read, pointing out the impossibility of relieving Mr. Baker from his liability.) Now, he (Mr. Fox) thought if anything admitted a liability the letter just read did most certainly. The jury would mark ) the words, "has on previous occasions paid the whole. Examination continued In July of this year, Mr. Colborne sent a cheque for X21 8s. 7d. in payment of Mr. Lewis Williams's proportion. At a court held on the 27th of July, the Commissioners passed a minute to the effect that the Commissioners accepted that sum, in consideration of a previous transaction in which Mr. Daniel Baker was concerned. Mr. Colborne I presume the forms of all these pre- sentments are similar ?-A. They are. —Q. And in no instance do the presentments state the number of the jury? A No.—Q. And in no instance do the present- ments state or define particularly the lands in respect of which the liability is assessed ? A. They do not. Mr. Colborne Then I object to the reception of these presentments as being invalid on those grounds, and I don't care how many times you multiply your proof-twenty invalid documents don't make one valid. Mr. Colborne then cited the authority of Sergeant Woolryche and others, as to stating the number of a jury, arguing that a presentment might have been made by three persons, instead of twelve. Therefore he would raise an objection upon the grounds that not one of those presentments conveyed any proof of a full and proper jury. He would also object on the further ground, that they did not describe the lands in respect of which the liability was to be assessed. Several authorities were here cited upon this point, Mr. Colborne remarking that they might be multiplied to any extent, and as Mr Fox was fond of a black letter, he would take him back to the time of James I., if required. After lengthily citing from Coke's reports, Mr. Colborne remarked that his objection was supt- ported by authorities which could be multiplied to any extent. Those presentments were mixed up with a variety of persons—from the Duke of Beaufort to the yeoman—but it did not define the estates. He would say it was a fatal objection to the validity of those presentments, that in no single instance did they spe- cify the lands in respect of which the liability was assessed. Now Mr. Waddington had given them no- thing back beyond the year 1854. Perhaps he would do so, and thereby fulfil the words iu the presentments, that the repairs were carried out in the same way at a time wherein the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. Mr. Waddington What do you want ? If I had known this, I could have brought a large box of them. Mr. Colborne I have given you notice to produce them. Mr. Fox Whatever you want you shall have. Mr. Colborne Then I want Mr. Waddington to trace back beyond 1854. I want you to show, say 1824, or perhaps you can go back to the lastcen ury. No doubt the records of the Court are kept regul uly. Mr. Waddington said In Mr. Wakeman's survey of 1823, the Duke of Beaufort was held liable for the prescription walls, but it did not state in respect of what lands. Mr. Colborne proceeded to cross-examine the Clerk at great length and ultimately asked whether the mi- nutes belonging to the Commission showed that a meeting was held in 1767. There had been a survey that year, and surely that would appear. The Clerk Yes, in all probability. Mr. Fox Now this has been tried over and over again, and rejected ad infinitum, and why attempt to try this ridiculous question over again ? Mr. Justice (warmly): But is it law ? It is not law it is occupying the time of the Court to no pur- pose. These presentments have been passed by the jurors the Court has nothing to do with their vali- dity they have been confirmed and it is idle to occupy the time of the Court in this way. Mr.Colborne I can assure you if you were occupiers of land, and assessed for the Duke of Beaufort's sea walls, you would not think it idle time at all. Mr. Waddington, in answer to further questions by Mr. Colborne, said he had no evidence prior to 1854. Mr. Fox And is it within your personal knowledge that these presentments you have produced here have been produced in evidence in superior courts upon trials of repairs and presentments—on trials similar to these ?A. Yes, on trials at Gloucester. Mr. Justice And received as evidence ?—A. Yes, and received as evidence. Samuel Williams, mason, Penhow, said his father had done many repairs for the Duke of Beaufort at the prescription walls, in the parish of Redwick. In 18.36 there was a great storm, and he did the repairs for the agents of the Duke of Beaufort. He conti- nued to do the repairs until the sale of the Duke's lands in 1848. In 1S61 he did repairs for the late Mr Lewis Williams, in the same parish, at a cost of up- wards of f 100. He also did work for Mr. Williams in 1S64, and down to the present time in the same parish. In January, 1S69, he repaired the wall, and Mr. Williams suggested that the whole of what was required should be done at oace. Was paid for the work by Mr. Adams. Mr. Fox That was part of the work done without an order of the Court, and Mr. Williams paid X21 8s. 7d. towards the cost. Cross-examined The suggestion by Mr. Williams was to secure the wall from a further breach. Some- times lie was paid by the Surveyor, and sometimes by Mr. Williams. Witness's memory would carry him back forty years, and from that time down to the time of the sale the repairs were done by the Duke of Beaufort. Mr. Colborne And the sea would not wait whilst the liability was being questioned ?-A. It did not last Saturday fortnight, at all events. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. Colborne then addressed the jury. He said if the unfortunate purchascr of half-an-acre of His Grace's land found himself liable to the repairs of 500 acres, it was one of the most startling pieces of law—to say nothing of justice-he had ever heard propounded, and one he should be prepared to test before any tribunal. The jury had been told what they could and what they could not do but he would tell them it was their view and their survey. The change given them was that they should diligently enquire into, &c.; and if anything was explicit, that charge was. He would tell them there was not the slightest feeling on the part of the gentlemen he represented against the Duke of Beaufort-all that they desired was that justice should be done to them. It was not justice to say that a man who had become purchaser of a portion of His Grace's estate should be made liable for the whole. His client had not the slightest objection to go in share and share with others who had bought some of those estates for which the Duke was formerly liable but he strongly objected—and he was sure they did not attempt to make them liable for any more than a fair share of the property. Ha contended that there was no evidence which should fix such liability on his client on the contrary, the proof had been the other way. Further, he never before heard of attempting to put upon one man—who was owner of a tract, in conjunction with others—the liability for the whole. The argument was monstrous. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, then, would be justified in calling upon one man to pay the income tax of the whole nation, and telling him to sue others. Then as to the alleged liability on account of the payment of a certain sum on behalf of Mr. Lewis Williams's father by Mr. Baker. Why had they not enough to suggest that payment ? Had they not before their eyes a power- ful Court represented by two professional gentlemen ? Had they not before their eyes that these proceedings were a matter of £80, as had been shown, and there- fore them would pay the small cost of repairs as a matter of economy. It would be better to put up with it under such circumstances than resist such a grievance. But now the opportunity had arrived now that there was a new survey—now that there was a jury fairly entering upon the enquiry, he cilile before them to say only put upon me what you find my real and fair liability." He had always under- stood that whether in criminal commissions or civil commissions no man's life, or person, or property, was to be taken away from him by extortion or confession on his part—that any charges laid against him or his property were to be substantiated by evidence. He would call before them Mr. Daniel Baker, who would show exactly the circumstances under which the plea of guilty was entered to that presentment. There was no objection on the part of Mr. Lewis Williams or on the part of any one purchaser to pay his fair proportion ———— Mr. Fox Don't say they object it is only Mr. Lewis Williams. Mr. Baker I object. Mr. Colborne Then that is an unauthorised re- mark on the part of Mr. Fox. It is plain that some- body must bell the cat," and it requires, you see, £ 80 to bell the cat here. Mr. Daniel Baker was then called, Mr. Colborne at the same time handing in two letters, which had passed between the Duke's agent and Mr. Baker, as to the sums paid by himself and Mr. Lewis Williams. A long discussion took place as to the admissibility of Mr. Baker's evidence. Mr. Fox objected to it, as Mr. Baker's case was not in question. A conversation then ensued as to the joint and several liability of the parties who purchased the land from the Duke of Beaufort, and it was said by the Commissioners and their clerk that the Superior Courts had decided the course which had been taken in these matters, viz., that one purchaser might be held liable for the whole of that particular portion of the prescription walls in the parish of Redwick, and that those who were jointly and severally liable must be made to pay their proportion by the one who is held responsible by the Court. Mr. Colborne said he must leave the matter in the hands of the jury, but he protested against the doc- trine laid down by the Commissioners and their legal advisers, that any single purchaser should be held !T liable for the whole, and if proceedings of this kind were to cost individuals £ 80 each, all he could say was, might the farmers living in the level be delivered from such an injustice. Mr. Fox, on the point of law raised by Mr Colborne in respect of the form of presentment, contended that the presentments had been held valid by the superior Courts. They were perfectly valid and correct, be- cause they presented the parties named in them as liable by reason of their tenure. Mr. W. S. Cartwright (Commissioner), on behalf of the Commissioners, said,—Gentlemen of the jury, I have been requested by my Lord Tredegar to put before you, as well as I can, what we consider to be your duty on this occasion. The duty which you have to perform is this-you are to satisfy your minds that the lands for which Mr. Lewis Williams claims exemption did or did not form part of the lands of His Grace the Duke of Beaufort, which, prior to 1848— and from time immemorial— were liable to charges for ) repairs. As it appears to the Court the only thing you have to ascertain is this—was this land of the Duke of Beaufort—from a time of which the memory of man runneth not to the contrary,- liable to the re- pairs of the prescription walls? There can be no doubt upon this point—that the Duke of Beaufort had and, as evidence has been given j7ou, for a series of years, I believe 40 years—been liable to the re- pairs of the prescription walls. It is, then, for you to consider and determine upon evidence whether a portion of this land is now the property of Mr. Lewis Williams and if you are satisfied in your minds that a portion of the land does belong to Mr. Lewis Williams—then the law, and not your judgment or the judgment of this Court -but the law, has laid down that, inasmuch as the whole of these lands jointly and severally when in the hands of His Grace the Duke of Beaufort were liable to these prescriptions, so the law says now — whether these lands are sub-divicled among few or many owners that each of those paties is liable to the whole repairs; and in the purchase of those lands it was very well known that such liability did exist. It may be a very hard case that one person '—Mr Lewis Williams—is to be burdened with this rate whilst many other parties are liable; but, inasmueh as the law makes that one particular property he has purchased solely liable, he must bear that hardship and instead of putting the onus of the subdivision and the expense upon the Court, he himself must make that subdivision. Therefore it is your duty to look well into the question you have now to consider which is this—whether Mr. Lewis Williams's lands form part of the land which formerly belonged to His Grace the Duke of Beaufort. And how is it disputed on the part of Mr. Williams's advocate ? He does not dispute the former liability of the land to the re- pairs iu question but when he disputes he does it ou the alleged hardship of Mr. Lewis Williams being called upon to pay for the whole of the repairs. But the law says, as 1 have before told you, it is a joint and several liability; and, as a joint and several liability, any particular purchaser—but no particular portion of bud-is liable to the whole of these repairs, and he must arrange and subdivide these repairs amongst other parties who are purchasers of the land. I have endeavoured to put the question clearly which you will have to decide. It is not a question of a jury upon a presentment but is this—whether or not Mr Lewis Williams's lands were formerly part of the lands of His Grace the Duke of Beaufort upon which these repairs were thrown. The Jury were here requested to consider their verdict, and, after consulting about a quarter of an hour, expressed a wish to retire. They were absent nearly an hour, and upon returning into Court handed in a written verdict, which was read by the clerk as follows :—"We find that Mr. Lewis Williams, in conjunction with others, is liable to the repair and maintenance of the prescription walls." The Noble Chairman thanked the jury for the trouble they had taken in the matter. It was now 3.15 p.m., and the attention of the Court was occupied a considerable time in consequence of seven of the jurymen refusing to sign the present- ment, ou the ground that Mr Baker's case should have been heard, and that he had not had a fair trial. After a discussion between the Jury and the Com- missioners, which lasted nearly an hour and a half, 14 of the Jury signed the survey.
MONMOUTH RACES.
MONMOUTH RACES. The first day's races were reported in our last rmmber The running on the second day (Friday) was as shown below :— „ BOSOUGII MEMBER'S PLATE. A Handicap of 3 so vs. each, 1 ft. to the fund, with < £ 25 ailded hy Sir John Ramsden, Bart., M.P. Eiders as for the Troy Plate. One mile. Chickalt-ary Cove 1 Oiipsu'uai 2 Gladice 3 iourran. SOMERSET PLATE. Of 5 sovs. each, 3 ft (half to the fund), with 40 sovs. aade(l for two years old, 6st. 71bs. three, Sst. four Sst. _71bs.; five, six, and aged, Sst. 10 1hs.; mares and geldings allowed 31bs a winner of 50 sovs., 51bs. twice, or of 100 sovs., 71bs. extra. horses having started twice without winning allowed olbs.; thrice, 91bs. Five furlongs (10 subs). Mr. Adam's Lady Louise 1 Mr. W. Nelson's Peahen colt 21 Mr. Price's Marplot 3 TREDEGAR NURSERY HANDICAP Of £50 added to a Sweepstakes of 7 sovs. each, 3 ft. (half to the fund). For two year olds. Winners of a handicap after the weights are out, tor carry 51bs. extra, Six furlongs (4 subs). Marplot w.o. O WYE CLARAING STAKES Of 30 sovs. For two years old, 7st. 41bs. three, 9st. four, Ost. 121bs.; five, six, and aged, 10st. 3Ibs.; the winner to be claimcd for X'1-0 if for £80. allowed 51bs.- if for .£40, lOlbs.; if for £ 20. lOlbs.; mitres and geld- ings allowed 31bs. horses that have started twice without winning allowed 31bs. a winner of a stake of the value of 50 sovs. to carry 51bs.; or of .£100, 71bs. extra. Entrance 2 sovs. to the fund. Six furlongs. ranada j Pistache 2 Masquerade 3 -T our ran. THE LADIES' PLATE (A Handicap for all ages), Of 50 sovs., given by the Ladies of Monmouthshire and neighbourhood the winner of a handicap of the value of = £ 50, after the declaration of the weights, to carry 5lbs. extra. Any number of horses the property of the same owner may run for this race. Entrance, 2 sovs., to go to the fund. One mile one furlonsr. < Mr. Adam's Lady Louise 1 j Mr. P. Merton's Merry Lass 2 Three ran. CLYTHA PLATE, I Of £ 40, for horses that have never won a flat race, steeple chase, or hurdle race, val)$e < £ 50. Horses which have started three times in such races, without winning allowed Tibs. Three years old, lOst. four, list. 31b. 1 five, list. 121b. six and age(1, 12st 21bs. Horses that have been in a training stable since since the 1st of Au- gust, to carry lOlbs. extra; the winner of the Welter, i aos. extra. Gentleman riders. Professionals, 71bs. extra. Entrance, 3 sovs. to the fund. One mile' and a half on the flat. Mr. P. Merton's Merry Lass 1 Mr. Bates'sPistache disq. MONMOUTHSHIRE STAKES, Of 10 sovs. each, 5ft., and 3 only, if declared by noon, on kept. 13, to Messrs. Weatherby only, with 50 sovs. added a winner of a handicap of the value of 100 sovs. subsequent to the appearance of the weights to carry SIbs extra; if five or more horses start, the second to save his stake. One mile and a half (14 subs., three of whom pay 3 sovs. each.) Mr- A. Rolls's us Witchcraft 11 Mr. J. Day's Dentelle 2 I Three ran.