Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

11 articles on this Page

BRIDGEND.

.BLAENAU 6WENT.

MONMOUTH COUNTY COURT.

News
Cite
Share

MONMOUTH COUNTY COURT. This court was held on Friday, the 15th inst., before J. M. Herbert, Esq. There were a great number of cases for trial, some of them, however, were settled out of court, and others, having been investigated to a considerable extent, were ad- journed to the next court. The first case that was tried was that of Richard William Johnson, liquor merchant, Gloucester, v. James Powsll, Coleford. This was an action to try the validity of a bill of exchange alleged to have been given by defendant's wife, in her own name, to plaintiff for the amount of L15 Is. 7d. The wife denying ever to have given the bill said that she never signed any bills for her present husband, although he could not write, except shop bills and receipts for money, in which cases she always subscribed her own name that she was not much of a scholar, could not read the writing on the bill in question, it was net her handwriting, nor was even her name which was attached to it ever written by her. No evidence to prove the contrary, the learned judge said to Mr. Wanclyn, the U, Fl"'ULia" attorney,' aim unless lie coweradduce proor uut-ite- wife had signed the bill, and could refer to some case which justified her in so doing, verdict must be given for defendant. Esther Coles v, Thomas Williams.A. claim of 1:4, being ar- rears of rent for a cottage in the palish of Llanfihangel Peny- rhos, which was formerly the property of Thomas Jones, but now, by virtue of a mortgage deed, is that of the plaintiff. After it was proved that the defendant had been duly served with notice to pay the rent to the mortgagee, he was ordered to pay the arrears sued for by instalments of 8s. every eight weeks. Messrs. Reesand Co. v. James Todd, iiisolveiit.-The defen- dant in this case is a land and mineral surveyor, late a resident at Abergavenny, but having been arrested for debt. on the 24th of May last, has been since in Monmouth couiity,gaol. l'iiis was an action brought against him by his opposing creditors, for not fully and correctly inserting in his schedule the state of his pecuniary affairs, and attempting to conceal some property in which he was alleged to be interested. Mr. Batt, who was himself one of the prisoner's creditors, and who, it seems, had previously obtained judgment against him, appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. Owen appeared for the defendant, after he had been examined, and when it was too late to re.ider him scarcely any service. The defendant, examined by Mr. Batt, said that the houses on the new road Abergavenny, which were nominally his, had not been inserted in the. schedule,; that he had purchased them for 14-00, but having no money to pay for them, Mr. Morgan advanced money upon them, on condition that he could at any time, without any expense, take possession; that he did not recollect what sum was advanced on them that he never had the deeds that the conveyance was not made absolutely to him, and that he had now no inte- rest in the houses. He further admitted that Mr. Isaacs, his brother-in-law, had advanced money on his wife's property at Trevethm, near Pontypool, for which money he had signed a policy for IHr. Isaacs, as a collateral security, so that he had now no interest in this propertythat his.wife's life had been insured; and that he had performed some services, by means of his profession, to Mr. Morga.n of the, Hill, for which he was to receive the sum of JE 1,000. Neither of these items were in- serted-in his schedule. The prisoner's defence was that, as he had no interest in any of the property he had omitted, he thought it was of no use to insert it. His case was adjourned to the next court; the prisoner was returned to the gaol, and very leniently allowed by the learned judge to amend his sche- dule. There were many interesting features in this case we shall, when it comes on next, furnish our readers with a full detail of it. William Rumletf v. Matthew -This was an action brought to recover arrear of house rent E2 16s. 4d. Mr. George appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Pearson for defendant. It seemed that defendant, having had notice to quit, occupied the house for a considerable period after the expiration of' the time specified in the notice, and would not give up possession until he was taken before the magistrates at Coleford on the 9th Feb., j 1317, when lie was ordered to quit within eighteen days, and that the landlord in the interval had been several times keep- ing possession of the house, and had made repeated attempts at getting defendant out by force. There was therefore in the case the difficulty of judging whether the defendant after the expiration of the notice was a tenant or a trespasser, for it was for this period the arrear of rent was claimed. Judgment was deferred. Highway Y. Samuel James.-A claim of £ 2 14s. 6d. for sundry articles of shop goods supplied to defendant. Ordered to pay 10s, a month. Highway v. James James.—-Another claim of 17s. 5d. for si- milar goods. Ordered to pay 6s. a month. Highway v. William Jones.-Amount of debt 18s. Ordered to pay all within a month. Highway v. -Debt E7. Ordered to pay 10s. per month. Highway v'. -ICeer.-A claim of £2 14s. 4d. for grocery, &c. Ordered to pay 10s. a month. I Sctknizal v. William Peacli.-Defendaiit having not paid the instalments which the court had previously ordered him to do, and not appearing to-day, was by his honour com- mitted for twenty days to Gloucester prison. Anne Griffiths v. James Rennolds.—Defendant had rioji paid one of the instalments previously ordered by the court, and did not appear to-day. We did not hear his lordship order him to be imprisoned, which probably he did at the close of the court. 1 enjamin Hughes v. Henry Ilowells.—rDebt £ 16 7s. 6d., pre- vious y proved. Defendant having not complie I with the for- mer orier of his 'ordship to pay 1:1 per month, was now com- m; nde 1 to pay 33s. a month. ■■•; Iogtes v., Thomas Wutkins.—This was an action to re- covEf M, being a balance d Ie for a horse which plaintiff hrd solcL'd -fendant for £ 43. -Mr. George appeared for pi in-iff, and Mr. Owen for defendant. Defendant's plea was that on condi. tion the horse would turn out well and lucky he promised the additional £ 5. But he had never made any complaint of the horse, and had, as he admitted, sold it for upwards of £50. When the judge heard this, he ordered him to pay within a month. Sarah Grindle v. James Bar gam.—Plaintiff claimed £ 2 Is. for grocery. Defendant did not appear. Ordered to pay 5s. per month. Grindle v. White.—Debt £ 3. Ordered to pay 5s. per month from the 6th November next. Grindle v. Ila)-i-is.-Debt E2. He was ordered to pay 4s. per month. James Rudge v. George -,This was a claim of C12 10s. for work done to defendant at the Oakwood chemical works, Gloucestershire. Plaintiff deposed that defendant hired him on the 9th of August, 1847, told him he should have 30s. a week, and paid him £ 1 on account. Defendant pleaded that he carried on the work for his mother, had no interest in it, but was merely an agent. Ordered to pay £ 1 per month. James v. ls(tacsoit.-This was an action brought to recover cer- tain clothes which Captain Isaacson had given to a little boy, the son of plaintiff, when in the former's service, but which, when he suddenly dismissed him, he retained and also for part of the boy's wages alleged to be due. Mr. George ap- peared for plaintiff, and Mr. Wanclyn for defendant. The in- vestigation of this case took up much time. The judge re- marked that the question was whether when a master agrees to find a servant clothes the latter has a right to them any longer than he is in the former's service, when there is no agreement to the contrary, whether the property of the clothes pass to the servant. And as to the question of wages, he observed that a master has a right to turn away his servant for an offence, and is justified in not paying his wages under some circumstances. Judgment for the defendant. Phillips v. Simmons.—An action to recover £ 30 lent by the defendant, for which he had given plaintiff a note. Mr. George conducted the case for plaintiff, and Mr. Owen pleaded for de- fendant. Judgment for the former, and the latter ordered to pay 10s. per month. Turner v. Robe)-ts.-This was a claim of 8s. 4d. for drapery alleged to have been supplied to the wife of the defendant, the Rev. Mr. Roberts, formerly the vicar of Monmouth, but now residing in London. Mr, Powles appeared for defendant, who stated that his client Mr. Roberts had no recollection whatever of having ordered or received the goods for the amount of which this action was brought, but if his wife had she would have no objection to pay. The plaintiff, who appeared to be a widow keeping a shop at Coleford, deposed that she had de- livered part of the goods to Mrs. Roberts herself, and part by her instruction at Mrs. Mushet's, her mother's. Plaintiffs books were produced, and the entry examined, which did not appear to have been recently made. The judge, however, on the alleged grounds that all the goods had not been delivered to Mrs. Roberts herself, gave judgment for defendant. Turner v. Jar)-et.-A claim of 5s. 6d. for a cask. Defendant pleaded that the cask was for Mr. George Skipp, and that he told plaintiff so when he bought it. Plaintiff stated that he said in reply that he would not trust Mr. Skipp, but would enter the cask for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff, payment to be made forthwith. Ford v. Jones.-An action brought to recover damages for bodily injury inflicted on plaintiff by defendant, when driving his pig from plaintiff's premises. Mr. Owen for plaintiff, and Mr. Wanclyn for defendant. It appears that defendant, seeing plaintiff severely beating the pig, went towards him, whereupon a struggle ensued, plaintiff attempting to retain the animal and take it to the pound, and the defendant attempting to take it home. The plaintiff on examination deposed—He did beat me with a large stick on my head and sides I struck him after he had struck me I walked that day from my house to Crosby- chan, and thence to Monmouth and back to my house I wanted a warrant.; it was not you, Mr. Owen, who told me that unless I went to a doctor I could recover nothing it was he that gave me this wound on my forehead he broke the stick in giving it (the stick was now produced). I have been able to do no work since I have not been cleaving wood. Dr. Price deposed—He came to me there was not a great wound on his head'; he complained of pain in his sides no ribs broken. The plaister was then removed from his fore- head. The wound, slight as it was, appeared as if it had been inflicted by scratching the skin with the nails of the hand ra- ther than by a blow with a stick. Plaintiff s wife deposed--He struck my husband down; took the stick from his hand, and beat him with it on his head; band was Dealing mm 1 diet not see my husband cleaving wood since j he has thrashed a little leasing; he did not use any abusive language to him; we followed the pig from the garden to Mrs. Roberts's meadow. His pigs did not use to come to our garden. Defendant stated—As I was going to bed that Sunday night I saw my pig in his garden; I went to fetch it; I should not have it, he wished to keep it. I struck him after he struck me first. Defendant's servant boy-I saw the battle; he struck master first; master took the stick from his hand; they laid hold of one another, master threw him down. Defendant's mother—I am 68 years of age. I never before Z, had a book in my hand to swear. I saw Ford beating the pig on his ribs it was my pig. I saw him beating my son. Ver- dict for plaintiff. Damage 10s. The professional men appeared rather disappointed that they could not persuade the judge to order defendant to pay the cost of plaintiff's action; for the latter being a poor man, the prospect of recovering it was not very bright. Hawkins v, Hawkins.-An action to recover possession of a piece of land situated in New Court, Gloucestershire. Plain- tiff as an heir-at-law claimed the rent. Two wills were pro- duced, the validity of each of which was questionable. The case had been under consideration the last court, and is to-day again adjourned to the next. Powles Horisen.—A claim of £ 3 10s. for rent of house and garden. Ordered to pay 30s. per month.

ABEKSYCIIAN.

PONTYPOOL,

,.NEATH.

MONMOUTH.

COMMUNICATION BY POST BETWEEN…

CARMARTHEN.

,SHEEP.

MEKTHYR.