Hide Articles List

16 articles on this Page


[No title]



PONTYPOOL PETTY SESSIONS. SATURDAY. (Before Colonel BYRDE, Chairman, and the Rev. J. C. LLEWELLIN. A MISCHIEVOUS YOUTH. David Williams, a lad, was summoned for trespassing upon the property of Mr William Walton, at BlaeDavon.-Complainant deposed that he saw a number of lads in his field, among whom was the defendant, and he was breaking down the fence. He (prosecutor) had suffered so much from the mischievous inclinations of a number of boys that he was compelled to insti- tute proceedings for the purpose of making an example.—Defendant admitted being in the field, and was fined 10s., or 7 days imprison- ment. AVOIDING A DISTRESS. George Cambridge and Thomas Jones were summoned by Mr G. Williams, Blaenavon, for unlawfully removing their goods in order to avoid a distress for arrears of rent. Jones dis- puted part of amount claimed,but complainant stated that he left the house nine weeks ago, and, as he had not given up possession of the key, he claimed rent for that period, as the house had not been tenanted since.—Cambridge plead- ed that he was not in a position to pay, as he had been ill and unable to work.—The case against Jones was adjourned for a week to see if an arrangement could not be arrived at; and Cambridge was ordered to pay the amount due by instalments of Is per week, with the ex- penses. DESERTING A WIFE. David Thomas, who did not appear, was sum- moned for leaving his wife and family charge- able to the common fund of the Pontypool Union.—The magistrates' Clerk stated that he had received a letter from the defendant, in which he did not give the wife a very good character.—It appeared that defendant had tip to a recent period allowed his wife 6a a week, and the Bench now made an order upon him for the weekly payment of a similar sum. If he disobeyed the order, he would be brought there and committed. THE LICENSING ACT. Samuel Pitchford and Jane Pitch ford, his wife, were summoned for being on licensed pre- mises during illegal hours.—P.c. Saunders stated that on the previous Friday week he went to the Crown Inn, Garndiffaith, at 11.55 at night, and found the two defendants there. On the table were two pint jugs, but there was no beer in them.—The defence was that the female defendant had for the past twelve years assisted the landlady on a Friday in preparing for the Saturday's ordinary, and her husband had called to escort her home.—Both denied having had anything to drink. The Chairman said it was illegal for them to be on the premises at such a time. and they must pay a fine of 10s each. ,t)RUNK ON LICENSED PREMISES. <J jn-noo, Awn Wamer, Francis Fid, nnd JSlewitt, were summoned for being drunk Daf/nsed premises.—Sergt. Young stated that Alfren^ayi the 12th inst., his attention was called on jj/oe Bull Inn, George-street, and on entering QO-I6 house he found the defendants there in a state of intoxication. There was singing going on at the time.—In answer to the defendants, witness said they were not noisy, but simply drunk.—Defendant Warner: It is bad neigh- bours who have done it out of spite to the land- lord.—P.c. Williams having corroborated the Sergeant, the Bench inflicted a fine of 5s each. DRUNK AND RIOTOUS. John Williams pleaded guilty to being drunk and riotous, at Llanvrechva Upper, and was fined 10s.—P.c. Ford proved the case. Christopher Morgan, who did not appear, was mulcted in a like penalty for a similar offence, Sergt. Basham proving the case. A BAD BEGINNING. Mary Harper, a girl, was charged with ob- taining a currant loaf, value Is 8d, the property of William Provis, under false pretences.—Pro- secutor is a shopkeeper at Abersychan, and on the previous Saturday prisoner went to him and asked for a loaf in the name of Mrs Probert, with whom she had been a servant. He sup- plied her with one, but subsequently discovered that she bad no authority to ask for one in the name of Mrs Probert.—The latter was called, and said she never instructed the prisoner to fetch a currant loaf for her.—P.c. Saunders said the girl bore anything but a good character. Her parents could do nothing with her, and when they procured a situation for her she ran away.—The Chairman said it was a pity to see a girl so young giving herself up to such habits. The Magistrates felt that they would not be doing their duty unless they sent her to prison for 14 days hard labour. THE CHARGE OF STEALING SIXPENCE. William Palmer, nailuiaker, of Pontypool, was charged (on remand) with stealing six- pence, the property of Thomas Morgan, Coedy- gric.-Defetida,it went into an inn at Abersy- chan, and asked for change for sixpence. The landlord had not sufficient coppers, and prose- cutor, who was present, said he had, and gave defendant change. As soon as he had received it he ran away.—The landlord of the house stated that he subsequently returned and offered threepence, but he detained him until a con- stable came.—Defendant said a woman had given him sixpence to change, and he had to return her threepence. That was how the mis- take arose, and he had had something to drink, which confused him.—The Bench said they did not think there was any felonious intent, and would take a favourable view of the case. Hoping that it would act as a warning to him not to indulge in such foolish freaks again, he would be discharged. A COMMON NUISANCE. Charles Griffiths was charged with obstruct- ing the public footpaths on the previous Suuday afternoon, atgarndiff aith.-P.c, Saunders proved the case, and stated that ho had many com- plaints made to him respecting men assembling in numbers and insulting ladies as they passed on their way to church. Respectable people had to walk in the centro of the road to pass by them. Defendant was admonished, and fined 5s. THE EDUCATION ACT. Robert Davies, John Williams, Louisa Waite, Joseph Williams, William Thomas, and Charles Watkins, were summoned at the instance of the School Attendance Committee for the parish of Goytrey, for Dot sending their children to school in accordance with the requirements of the Education Act.—The usual orders for attend- ance were made, the Chairuiau remarking that people seemed to take a wrong view of the Act. It was intended to be a benefit to the people, and it undoubtedly was. The ratepayers had no pleasure in paying two millions a year to educate the people, and parents did not recog- nise the wrong they were doing their children by keeping them away from school.

[No title]




Family Notices








[No title]