Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

19 articles on this Page

USK. )

News
Cite
Share

USK. ) PETTY SESSIONS, THURSDAY. I Before H. HUMPHREYS, Esq. (chairman), R. W. RICHARDS, Esq., HAROLD A. WILLIAMS, Esq., and H. A. ADDIS, Esq. POACHING CASBS. I Reginald Sawtell, a youth, of Pentwyn Farm, pleaded not guilty to a charge of trespassing in pursuit of game on land in the occupation of his father, at Gwehelog, on the 4th November.— Thomas Mayes, game keeper, gave evidence as to seeing defendant with two others on the land, hunt- ing with dogs. Defendant ran away on seeing him. —Sawtell denied that he ran away from the keeper, and stated that he was after his father's horses.- His brother, Joseph, denied that his brother was poaching.—The lather said he sent the boy around the farm, and urged that even if he bad a rabbit, he was entitled to it.—The Bench ordered defendant to pay costs (6s.)—Mr Sawtell: Well, can't that boy go on the ground again ?-The Magistrates' Clerk You had better see a solicitor about that.—Mr Sawtell: That's too expensive. (Laughter.) [Mr R. W. Rickards did not adjudicate in this case.] George Jones, labourer, was summoned for tres- passing in pursuit of game on laud in the occupation of illiss Pask, at Llangeview, on the 28th November. Mr L. E. Webb appeared to prosecute.-Charies Maddocks, gamekeeper, gave evidence as to seeing defendant on the ground carrying a gun, and accom- panied by his boy. There was game on the land.- Defendant said he had permission to shoot there when he liked by the late Mrs Pask.-In the result the Beuch adjourned the case for a fortnight, so that Mr Waddington's right of shooting over the land might be proved by Miss Pask, the present occupier. THE VALUE OF A GOOD CHARACTER. I Edwin Moses, corrugator, of New Inn, on bail, was charged with stealing a spaniel dog, value 30s, the property of Willi&w Russell, at Usk, oa Nov. 24th. Mr L. E. Webb defended. William Russell, of the Cardiff Arms, Usk, stated that he reported to the police that the dog was missing on the evening of the day in question. A football team visited his house to change that day, but the match—with Hippy's team," he believed- did not come off. The animal produced was the one ne 1031, and which he saw again on the Monday following. Cross-examined, witness said be missed the dog when the footballers left, about 8 o'clock. He did not recognise defendant as being amongst them, nor could he say whether or not he was in his house. They had been about the streets, and he dared say, were a bit merry." Frank Prothero stated that on Saturday night ho was outside the Cardiff Arms and saw a young fellow take up the dog in his arms and put it in the brake. He could not say that the defendant was the man. Cross-examined, witness said there were a good few people about. The young man was under the influence of drink. No one was in the brake when the dog was put in; it was put under the seat. The man said he gave E2 for the dog. It was about eight p.m. William Wysome identified defendant as the one who took the dog out of the house aud put it into the brake. Defendant went back into the house, and about a quarter-of-an-hour after-8.15-the brake went. Cross-examined; Defendant was a little bit booze V." P.C. James Wilson, Pontypool, stated that about 9.20 p.m. on November 14th, in company with P.C. Hatherall, he stopped a brake near Pontypool Road. and found the defendant in it, with the dog tied round the neck with a necktie, one end being tied to defendant's finger. Defendant tried to throw the animal over the side of the brake when he saw him. Witness asked defendant whose dog it was, and he replied that it was his, and used bad language. Witness told him that he should charge him with stealing it. Witness replied I didn't steal the dog; it was given to me." He pointed out a boy in the brake as the one who had given it to him, but on being confronted with him, he said it was not that boy, but another—he didn't know who he was. Defendant had no necktie on. Cross-examined: Defendant was the worse for drink there were several there so. All the others denied any knowledge of the dog. P.C. Hutherall corroborated, and added that when brought up at Usk on the Monday he pleaded guilty. By Mr. Webb: He simply said "Guilty." He did not say that he was under the influence of drink, and that he knew nothing about it. Mr. Webb then addressed the Bench. He said it was a Very sau thin^ tu find a young man starting out in life charged Witn atl offence, and that offence one of larceny. A conviction have the most serious effect upon his future, and W the reason why he had advised him to plead 0 Guilty" to the charge, because he had hoped that I he might justly argue from the evidence that there was no felonious intent on his part in taking the dog. Personally, he felt convinced, having regard to the defendant's antecedents and character, that, under ordinary circumstances, he would be the last person in the world to take the dog away. There Was to have been a football match at Usk that day, but only one of the Usk team turned up, and after some practice oft tha ground the visitors came back to the Cardiff ÀJffill!1, and were loitering about the town for a considerable time, and no doubt defendant, sot the worse for drink. He (Mr. Webb' Ftnew that drunkenness could be no excuse fo; an offence —the magistrates had to guard the public as well as the individual cheiracter-but,ne would ask them to consider testimonials as t, the excellent character of defendant from Msor Ellis Williams and defen- dant's Sergt-Hajor (he was in the Volunteer: Artillery, and had undergone three months' training at Aldershot), from the Rev. G. Cook (rector of Mamhilad), the Works Manager (Alfred Baldwin and Co.), and the Rev. Albert A. Williams (ractor of Panteg). He asked the Bench to take the most merciful view they possibly could of the case. They might impose any conditions upon him that they chose, but he appealed to them not to register against him a conviction which Would be disastrous to his future. His parents had always been able to hold their heads up and had served their employers well, and they must suffer if the son suffered. Defendant pleaded that he had no intention of stealing the dog. After a short retirement of the Bench, the Chair- man, addressing Moses, said they had decided to treat him with that leniency which the law allowed them in the case of first offenders. A conviction would not be recorded against him, but he would have to pay the costs of the case. He warned him to ba careful of the drink and of his actions in the future. I SCHOOL CASES. In dealing with the following cases (in whish Attendance Officer Wallace gave the necessary particulars), the Chairman said that in the past costs had been remitted in first charges, but in the future the practice of the Court would be altered, and costs would 'he charged defendants. Mary Lewis, Usk order made for the attendance of her child, whose attendance record was 34 out of 63 possible times. Excuse Child delicate. Edward Jones, Usk attendances, 25 out of 63 order made. Excuse Mother ill. Job White, Llangibby 08 out of 88; order made. John Calf, Gwehelog 38 out of 79 order made. Excuse: Impassable.roads in winter and truancy. William Nicholl,. Usk; two cases 59 out of 79 and 39 nut of 63. Fined 5s. in one case, and order made in'the other. •

Advertising

.CRUELTY TO CHILDREN. I

Advertising

PONTYPOOL. I

Advertising

Standing Joint Committee.

Advertising

- Markets.

'TO CURE A COLD IN ONE DAY.…

Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener.

Advertising

I I STOCK MARKETS.

ABERGAVENNY. I

NEWPORT,I

Advertising

Advertising

[No title]

Advertising