Jenkins, Philip – 1927

Free Press Friday March 4th 1927 – Crushed To Death

Mason’s Labourer Under Fallen Wall – Inquiry at Llanover

On Friday at Llanover Mr W R Dauncey, district Coroner held an inquiry into the circumstances attending the death of Philip Jenkins 63, a mason’s labourer of Pengroesoped who was killed while engaged on a reconstruction work at the Masnochdy Cottage Llanover on the previous Tuesday. He was excavating for a foundation for extensions when a wall collapsed, buried and killed him instantly.

Mr Horace Lyne, solicitor Newport, appeared for the Llanover estate and Mr A Fotheringham H.M.I.F. for the Home Office.

Mrs Elizabeth Evans said deceased was her brother aged 63 and was a mason’s labourer employed on the Llanover estate. She last saw him alive on Monday night when he was in good health. She was not aware the he suffered from any physical affects; he was not lame and his eyesight was good. He had been a mason’s labourer for about three years. He served in the war and subsequently worked on farms.

Mary Louise Evans, niece of the deceased gave evidence of identification.

James Voyce, foreman mason on the estate said he was working with the deceased outside the wall, outside of the house Masnochdy which was being reconstructed. Jenkins and another man named Mathews were excavating for a foundation for an extension . When witness was at the end of the building he heard a shout “look out” he thought it might have been a brick inside falling, but turning round he noticed the pine end leaning outwards and shouted to the men outside to clear. Mathews also noticed this and got almost struck by falling stone. The wall was 14ft high. Jenkins made an attempt to get out of the trench but witness was doubtful whether deceased saw the danger as his back was towards the wall. He was completely buried.

While the other men were extricating Jenkins witness ran to the estate office to get aid. It seemed as if the man had been killed instantaneously. They had made an examination of the wall afterwards and found there had been nothing to indicate that it was in an unsafe condition. No support had been taken away from it, only the roof had been removed but that might have helped to hold the wall. If witness had noticed the condition of the wall earlier he would have had it removed at once.

In reply to Mr Lyne, witness said the building was an old one.

P.C. Rodwell, Llanover stated that when he was called to the scene of the accident Jenkins was still partly buried. The back of the skull was crushed in.

The Coroner returned a verdict of “Accidental Death.”

The Coroner said he was satisfied that the accident could not have been foreseen, but he hoped that when dealing with old buildings in future the foreman would make a through examination and instruct his men to that effect.

Mr H S Lyne: That will be done Sir; in fact it has been done already.

Court Leet

Court Baron or Leet

The court leet was a historical court baron (a manorial court) of England and Wales and Ireland that exercised the “view of frankpledge” (ie. the compulsory sharing of responsibility among persons connected in tithings), and its attendant police jurisdiction, which was normally restricted to the hundred courts.

Regular meetings of the court baron and the court leet were held within the manor to deal with the customs and usages. The proceedings of the court were inscribed in the rolls. Latin was used until 1733 except for the Commonwealth period (1649-1660) when they were written in English.

The court baron dealt mostly with property, particularly copyhold property which had existed as such since the middle of the 13th century, (the time when villeins started to become free men) until about 1926. Villeins became copyholders when they obtained written evidence of their right to their holding. When they left their holding they surrendered the property back to the Lord of the manor who granted admission to the new tenant. Thus copyhold was so called because the tenant held a copy of his admittance as it was inscribed in the court rolls.

The copyholder could sub-let the property. He was expected to attend the court and make payment on admission of the new tenant. In the early days the copyholder was liable to work for a certain number of days a year for the Lord. When the copyholder died a heriot of the best beast that he owned was due to the Lord but this later became commuted to a cash payment.

The heirs of the copyholder were also admitted to the property at a meeting of the court Baron.

The system of Borough-English (Ultimogeniture) prevailed where the property was passed to the youngest son with daughters as co-heirs, as opposed to Primogeniture, where it passed to the eldest son, or Gavelkind where it was split between the children.

Additionally, the court leet dealt with misdemeanours.

The Common was owned by the Lord of the Manor and the tenants were limited, or stinted, to a certain number of cattle or sheep that they were permitted to turn out onto the common.

The number of animals that a tenant had the right to turn on the common was estimated by those animals “Levant and couchant” (i.e. rising up and lying down, or were there day and night) on the tenants own land during the winter, when the grass on the common was not growing.

Rights of Common (law)

Herbage/Pasturage.

The right to graze domestic stock. Most frequently it relates to sheep and cattle, but in some cases there are grazing rights for ponies, geese, goats and ducks, while in others no stock types are specified.

Estover

A right of estover originally conferred the ability to take limbs of timber for minor works to buildings, for making farm implements and hurdles, and for fuel, or to take bracken and heather for bedding. Today it is usually limited to the taking of wood for fuel.

Tubary

The right to cut turf, or peat, for fuel on a particular area of bog.

Pannage 

the practice of releasing livestock-pigs in a forest, so that they can feed on fallen acorns, beechmast, chestnuts or other nuts.

Piscary.

The right to take fish from lakes, pond or streams.

Common in the soil.

This is the right to remove sand, gravel, stone and minerals from the soil.

Common Appendant.

The origin was probably not manorial. It was the right of the freehold tenants to depasture their commonable cattle. Commonable cattle were beasts of the plough (horses or oxen) and animals which manure the land (cows and sheep). As tilling of their tenancies was desirable, a tenant needed these animals to carry it out and perform grazing for them.

Common Appurtenant.

This applied where the occupiers of a specific house had been given a grant, or could prove long use beforehand, and so had the right to use the common. Swine, goat’s donkeys and geese were not commonable creatures but occasionally the right to graze these might be a common appurtenant

Court Leet

Manor of Pellennigg

MAN/A/2/0325

14th October 1745 – 16th Aprill 1752

Manor of Pellennigg: At a Court Leet and view of Frank pledge of our sovereign Lord the King together with The Court Baron of the Rt. Hon.ble Henry Pelham Esq., guardian appointed by the high Court of Chancery to the Rt. Hon.ble George Lord Abergavenny an infant Lord of the same Manor (unable to read) held at the dwelling house of Edward Williams. The said Manor before Theophilus Morgan, gent, Chief Steward of the same Manor and John Cooke and William Morgan, gentleman Homagers then and there present

The names of the Grand Jury then and there sworn:
William Andrew of the parish of Goytrey was sworn tenant for his lands he holds within the same parish
David Williams,  Isaac Philip,  William Jenkins
Aron Morris, Edward Jones, John Walters
William Jones,  Rosser David,  William Llewellin
Robert Williams,  John Williams
Will.m Andrew,  John Jones
Morgan Evans,  John Absolom
Roger Reynold,  Walter Jenkins
William Charles of Lanover was sworn tenant for the lands he holds within the same parish

Court Leet 2

Manor of Pellennigg: At a Court Leet and view of Frank pledge of our sovereign Lord the King together with the Court Baron of the Rt. Honble. Henry Pelham Esq., guardian appointed by the High Court Chancery to the Rt Hon.ble George Lord Abergavenny an infant Lord of the same Manor held the 25th day of Aprill 1746 at the dwelling house of Francis Morgan innkeeper situate in Goytrey within the said Manor before Theophilus Morgan gent, Chief Steward and William Jenkins and William Morgan of the same Manor gentlemen Homagers, then and there present

The names of the Grand Jury sworn and impannelled
Walter Williams – Lanover Bon: Lewis – Lanover
Samuel Watkin – Mamhilad Wm Lewis – same
Morgan Philip – of the same Rd Jenkins – same
Wm Edw.d – of the same
Henry James – of the same
Walter Evans – of the same
Wm Jones – of the same
Dd. Richard – of the same
Wm Thos – of the same
Rd. Watkin of Goytrey
Wm Griffith – of the same
Rowland Morgan – of the same
John James – Lanvair
William Prichard – same
Wm Andrew Goytrey sworn constable for the present year
Philip Edward of Lanover Upper sworn Constable in? William Reynold
Wm David sworn parish Constable for the parish of Lanvair Gildidus
Wm Jenkins Esq., sworn tenant for his estate in this Lordship

Court Leet 3

Manor of Pellennigg: At a Court Leet and view of Frank pledge of our Sovereign Lord the King together with the Court Baron of the Rt. Hon.ble Henry Pelham Esq., guardian appointed by the High Court of Chancery to the Rt. Hon.ble George Lord Abergavenny an infant Lord of the same Manor held the 16th day of October 1746 at the dwelling house of Walter Edward situate in Lanover within the said Manor before Theophilus Morgan gent, Chief Steward of the same Manor and gentlemen Homagers then and there present.

The names of the Grand Jury sworn and impannelled:
Walter Williams – Llanover
Samuel Watkins – Mamhilad
Wm Lewis – same
Richard Jenkins – same
Wm Edward – of the same
Henry James – of the same
Walter Evans – of the same
Wm Jones – of the same
David Richards – of the same
Wm Thomas – of the same
Richard Watkins – of Goytrey
Wm Griffith – of the same
Rowland Morgan – same
John James – Llanvair
Wm Pritchard – same
Thos Owen

Court Leet 4
Manor of Pellennigg – At a Court Leet and view of Frank Pledge of our sovereign Lord the King, together with the Court Baron of the Right Hon. Henry Pelham Esq., guardian appointed by the high Court of Chancery to the Rt Hon. George, Lord Abergavenny, an infant Lord of the same Manor held the 24th day of Aprill1747 at the dwelling house of Edward William, innholder situate in Mamhilad within the said Manor, before Thomas Jenkins, deputy steward of Lanvair and John Cooke and William Morgan, gentleman Homagers then and there present.

Names of the Grand Jury Impannelled
John Morgan of Goytrey
Jacob Edward of the same
Wm Jenkins of the same
William Thomas of Mamhilad
John Griffith of the same
Henry Jones of the same
Chas Jenkins of Llanover Lower
Thomas Owen of Llanover Upper
Michael Lewis of Goytrey
Thos Proger of the same
William Jones of Mamhilad

Court Leet 5
Manor of Pellennigg – At a Court Leet

Ball, James – 1927

Free Press February 18th 1927 – A Son’s Outburst

An Inquiry of a Goytrey Resident

An allegation that his father when in a dying condition had been treated in a callous way was made by Harold Ball, a Goytrey milk vendor, at the inquest at Pontypool on Tuesday on James Ball (54) of Cider Mill Cottage Goytrey.

Deceased son told the Coroner (Mr D J Treasure) that he last saw his father six days before his death which occurred on Friday last. His father suffered from chest trouble and was involved in a motor car accident about two years ago from which he always suffered afterwards.

Richard George Gosling, an electrician, Llanvair, said he was walking home on Friday about 5.30pm when he was informed by a Miss Dowell there was a man lying down groaning in a field near Goytrey Hall. He went to the field and saw the deceased lying on his back apparently in great pain, near a horse and cart. The man was unable to speak and was subsequently removed to Pontypool District Hospital.

Dr James Fleming, Pontypool, said deceased was a patient of Dr T McAllen and was last attended about two years ago after a motor accident. Witness in the presence of Dr McNeil conducted a post mortem and in his opinion death was from heart failure due to heart disease.

At this juncture the witness Ball interposed saying “Can I ask the doctor a question?”

The Coroner: You may.

Witness asked Dr Fleming if he thought that by being exposed to the cold his father’s death was hastened.

Dr Fleming replied that if deceased was exposed to the cold that was quite possible.

Ball added that he understood his father was “thrown” into a cold open lorry and taken to hospital.

The Coroner: You mustn’t say that, you were not there, and do not know if he was “thrown into” the lorry.

Ball: To jerk him six miles in a lorry in a half-dying condition was enough to cause his death. His own home was only half a mile away and he could have been taken there. It was done in such a callous way. It was a bitterly cold day.

The Coroner: I must protest against you saying it was callous.

The witness Gosling said the vehicle was a covered van. Deceased was placed on a coat and a pillow with another coat over him and was made as warm and comfortable as possible.

P.S. Davies said that Mrs Whitehead of Goytrey Hall also gave the deceased some brandy.

The Coroner (to Ball): Every care and attention was bestowed upon your father. They thought the hospital was the best place for him and I agree they did the best thing they could.

In recording a verdict in accordance with the medical evidence the Coroner added, “I appreciate your feelings, you heard what was said, every care was taken, he was given brandy, a coat and some pillows were placed under him and a coat over him, he was made as warm as possible.”

Deceased son: It’s the lorry business I am talking about. Why didn’t they take him home – only half a mile away?

The Coroner: Because they thought the best place for your father was the hospital. Speaking to the witness Gosling, the Coroner said “I quite appreciate what you did for the deceased. I don’t blame you in any way, I think you took the proper course.”

Williams, Mrs Martha – 1931

Free Press 11th August 1931 – Obituary of Mrs E Williams

The funeral took place at Mamhilad Church on Saturday of Mrs Martha Louisa Williams wife of Evan Williams Woodland Cottage Goytrey.

Mrs Williams whose death was announced in our last issue was a member of Goytrey Church and well known throughout the district. The Rev R E Seaton officiated.

Floral tributes were sent by: Husband; Mrs Elizabeth Williams and Mrs Roberts, sisters-in-law; Mr and Mrs Fred Williams and children; Mr and Mrs Callow and family; Mr and Mrs Arthur Williams and family; Nephew and Nieces; Mrs Gregory and Cyril; Mr and Mrs Rickets and family; Mrs G Williams Caeton Glas; Mr and Mrs J Owen.

Grievances at Goytre 1870

Free Press Feb. 6th 1870

GRIEVANCES AT GOYTREY

A very pretty quarrel is going on at Goytrey. The rector, the Rev. T. Evans, and some of his parishioners do not pull very well together, and last week he headed a performance which has by no means added to his popularity, judging by the number of respectable signatures appended to a document of which we have obtained a sight. The present “bone of contention” is the Penstair Lane. The general feeling in the parish seems to be that this lane is perfectly useless to the public, that it would indeed be better abolished, as in that case trespasses of sheep, etc, would be prevented, and that the parish ought not to be put to the expense of repairing it. Some years ago the same opinion prevailed, and at a parish meeting, at which the present rector presided, permission was granted to Col Byrde to put up gates so as to stop up the lane. Mr Evans, since then, for reasons best known to himself, thought proper to alter his opinion. Mr Berrington and other justices who viewed the road came to the conclusion that it was unadvisable to put the parish to the expense of repairing it. At the last meeting of the Pontypool and Usk Highway Board Mr Evans attended, and bluntly said that “the justices who viewed the road were quite incompetent to form an opinion on the subject.”   Mr Berrington on hearing this polite remark, rose to leave the room, but was persuaded by the chairman, Mr Greenhow-Relph, to remain. A memorial presented by Mr Evans was laid on the table, but was not read. A desultory conversation followed, and it was decided to adjourn the question until the March meeting. Mr Evans objected to Col. Byrde copying the names of the memorialists, saying, “I protest against it, because it is liable to abuse; I know a pressure has been brought to bear.” Col. Byrde said no one had a right to impute such motives to others; but as that remark had been made, he must say that if there had been any pressure it was brought to bear by the other side. The chairman and other gentlemen present saw no impropriety in Mr Byrde taking a copy of the names. Mr Evans was afterwards walking off with the memorial, but was requested to leave it behind, as it had now become public property. The Board had thus decided that the question ought to stand adjourned until the next meeting. Mr Evans’s zeal however would not, however, allow of such delay. On Wednesday in last week he sallied forth, at the head of ten men, whose courage had been stimulated by a little beer, and the party sawed off the gateposts of the gates which he, as chairman of the parish meeting, had allowed to be so desirable. The party are said to have returned to the rectory, and celebrated the result of their expedition. Which has reminded the neighbourhood of the rage of “Rebecca and he daughters” against turnpikes in manner befitting its importance. In less than half-an-hour Mr Jones, on of those who sided with the rector, enjoyed a specimen of the beneficial results of the overthrow of the gates, as some 60 or 70 sheep, belonging to Mr James, trespassed on his land! A paragraph was sent by someone to the Observer, triumphantly announcing that Penstair road question has been thus “summarily and finally settled.” Having heard the views of parishioners on the subject, we are inclined to think that the writer of that paragraph has “counted his chickens” a little too soon, and the last has NOT been heard of the matter. The parishioners are joining in a memorial to the Highway Board, stating that the general feeling is that the lane in question is quite useless to the public, and ought not to be retained on the books as a highway liable to be repaired at the expense of the parish; that they consider that the gates put there by Coo. Byrde, by authority of the parishioners, were a public benefit, and prevented the trespass of mountain sheep on the adjoining land, and were no hindrance to anyone who might ever want to use the said lane; that they are perfectly satisfied that no one would ever had stirred the business if they had both been incited thereto; and that they therefore hope that the gates will be maintained and that the parish may not be made to incur any fresh liability.

 

GRIEVANCES AT GOYTREY

 

Since the article, headed as above, in the preceding column, was put in type, we have received the following communications of the subject:-

To the Editor of the Pontypool Free Press.

Sir,- An article in the local papers of last week (which could have emanated but from ONE source) referring to the Penstair road, might, if unnoticed, mislead the public into the belief that his abandoned lane on the side of the mountain was REALLY some useful highway, from which some of the parishioners had removed obstructions.

The matter being thus brought to the notice of the public through the medium of the Press, as well as through the public proceedings of the Highway Board, no apology from one of the public is necessary for begging you to insert a brief statement of the FACTS of the case, for the enlightenment of you numerous readers.

The question (an insignificant one in itself) of the maintenance of the accommodation gates on either end of the road, by authority of the parish meeting, and continued by the Highway Board, was recently brought before the Board by the rector of Goytrey, to whom, either the gates, or the owner of the property along this old lane, seem to have given moral offence and he avowed to the Board that he will leave no stone unturned to get them removed.

The chairman himself inspected the road, but the surveyor had omitted to make a report on it, saying that he did not know what to say, as he had never seen any traffic on the road since he had been in office.

The past resolutions and the report of the justices who viewed the road were read at the meeting and the settlement of the question was, and in compliance with the rector’s own wishes, postponed till the next meeting, fixed to be held on the 11th March.

But what course, do you think, Mr Editor, the rector has taken in the meantime?

Repudiating and setting at naught the authority of the Highway Board, to which he had appealed on two successive Board meetings, and taking the law into his own hands, and aided by his “TEN PARISHIONERS,” viz: –

 

His farm servant

His groom

His carpenter

His carpenter’s man

His school servant

His occasional labourer

The two employees who do his hauling.

The parish clerk.

– The parish clerk’s son bringing up the rear with CAN or JAR

– Armed with tools and fortified to boot from the NANTYDERRY PUBLIC, this gallant band, under the order of the chief, marched to the mountain side, when they accomplished, unmolested, the sawing away of the posts level with the ground, and removal of the gates so obnoxious to the rev gentleman; and all the work of destruction being completed, the party, shouldering their weapons, returned to Nantyderry in triumph, for mutual congratulations on the NOBLE (?) feat they had performed.

 

And what is the consequence? The very next day, there was an inroad of mountain sheep on the lands below the road, which would have been prevented by the gates. This has been again repeated, and the long closed POUND at Penplenny has again been re-opened to receive the STRAYS, causing bitterness and angry feeling all around.

But what will the Highway Board say, Mr Editor, to this infringement of its authority, and to the rector, who by virtue of his office as a magistrate, is a member of the Board?

Will the chairman who inspected the road and was about to submit the question for decision – will he thus have his office and his posers superseded?

Will the Waywardens, the representations of the Parishes forming the Board, submit to be thus stultified by the action of one of the members of their Board, taking upon himself to act in violation of their resolutions?

 

If AUTHORITY is really rested in these Boards by the Highway Act, and if RULE and ORDER are to be maintained, their authority must be re-asserted and enforced, and such proceedings as have been enacted at Goytrey must not be suffered to recur

I remain Sir,

Yours,

VERAN

 

To the Editor of the Free Press

 

This is to give you a veritable story

Of a modern edition of an old Rector foray.

In a country parish, a parson and clerk

In a frolicsome mood feeling up to a lark,

They looked dup their cronies, to make their band “ten,”

If I tell you who they are you’ll judge of the men.

The Rector comes first, in his hat with broad brim,

His clerk “Jones,” with his son, following him;

Then “Harris,” his carpenter, joined by his mate;

And “Gough” is the tenant that lives near his gate;

His “Groom” and his “buttons come next in the roll,

Followed sharp by the laddies who carry his coal.

Banding together at Nantyderry

A taste of the beer just making them merry,

The Worshipful Leader, on mischief bent,

Gave the word “Forward,” and off they went,

Armed with picks and hatchet and axe,

“One,” “One,” they march, not fearing attacks,

For the foes they seek are wily “pests,”

Which have been to the Rector such troublesome ghosts,

Till, at length, he has taken the law in his hand,

Declaring a “gate” shall never there stand;

On this old poking lane, oh, oh, he ne’er drives

Nor ever will want to, as long as he lives,

Three gates there were along the steep,

To keep from wandering mountain sheep;

They opened with latch, so easy and fair,

That none who passed through ever cared they were there,

But the Parson may wish on Alpine mule

To tread this road to Pontypool;

“He’ll see that these mighty obstructions are gone,”

And marshals his forces for cutting them down;

Then with saw and with hatchet they go,

Unmindful of whether “Law’s” with them or no,

To destroy other’s goods may be very good fun,

But hardly fit work for a clergy “mun.”

 

SYNTAXFree Press Mar 5th 1870

 

GRIEVANCES AT GOYTREY

To the Editor of the Free Press

 

SIR – Whoever “Verax” may be, his version in your last impression is incorrect.

It gives a brief statement of facts and a birds-eye view of matters toughing Penystair road, and the gates illegally placed on it.

It is clear he is extremely sorry to have to part with these gates, which have already answered one purpose, namely, to diminish the traffic on the road that the term “abandoned lane” may be more applicable to it than when the gates were placed on it.

When a man screens himself behind a fictitious name, one naturally suspects there is some weakness in the cause he pleads. He can then abuse and ridicule with impunity. “Verax” comes forth under a mask, but forgets that abuse is not argument, assertion is not proof, and that ridicule is the weapon of small minds.

“Verax” has certainly not made veracity his study for

1 The gates were NOT put on the road “by authority of a parish meeting.”   The gates on Miss Cooke’s property were placed there by authority of the vestry, and a minute on the vestry book, showing such authority, was duly entered. But when the owner of a portion of the land along Penystair lane expressed a wish, in a parish meeting, to place gates on the lane, there was not one favourable response, and the subject was dropped. I was in the chair. Notwithstanding the ominous silence, he took the law into his own hands, put up the gates, and at a subsequent parish meeting, was, in my presence, angrily charged by a farmer with being “found of monopoly.” So far from pleading the authority of a previous parish meeting in self-justification, he made no reply whatever. There is no minute on the vestry book showing the alleged authority.

2 The gates were NOT “continued by the Highway Board,” nor is it true that the Surveyor, as “Verax” intimates, had omitted to make a report on the road on the ground that “he knew not what to say as, he never saw any traffic on it since he had been in office.” What he said was, “That as the Chairman had gone over it, he did not think he was required to make a report.”

3 The land is NOT a mountain road, but one of the roads on the hill side, leading to the road from Blaenavon on one side, and to Pontypool on the other side; viz., from the upper parts of Goytrey and Llanover.

In 1866 the vicar of Blaenavon wrote to the Highway Board, to complain of the gates which had been placed on this road, stating that this lane was a direct communication between his two small farms. Mr Pruett, a freeholder, and the late Mr William Jones, a leaseholder on the hill side, complained to the Surveyor of the same obstructions, and they were delivered by Mr Henry Williams to make their case known to the Highway Board.

I happened to be present as they were repainting my churchyard wall. Not knowing how to lay the matter in due form before the Board, they requested me to write to the Board for them. I did so. The result was, a letter from Col. Byrde (then in Ceylon) to the Chairman of the Board in which was insinuated that I was actuated in the matter by personal feeling.   This letter appeared in the Pontypool Free Press, and was replied to by me through the same medium.

After this, in January 1867, Mr Keats wrote to me, stating that Mr Frank Byrde had come to the Board to say that he “assented to the removal of the gates.”

For some time, I and others thought these obstructions were removed. At the meeting before last I had Mr Keats’s letter before the Board, and again called their attention to the grievance. I then discovered why the gates were not removed by Mr R. Byrde after all.

He had called at a subsequent meeting to ask the Board to allow the gates to remain until the return of his father from Ceylon.

The subject, therefore, of those gates has been from time to time, forced on the attention of the Highway Board. Whether it be true or not that the Board desired the gates should be removed. I know not, but the permission applied for by Mr F. Byrde for them to remain for a time, would seem to imply that fact.

But, Mr Editor, what was done when H. C. Byrde, Esq., returned? Was the grievance redressed? Were the rights of complaining and long fore-bearing landowners and tenant-farmers respected? No. Two Justices are, with a high hand, called in to view the “abandoned lane,” (and they are not invited according to the Act, by the Surveyor), for the purpose of relieving the parish, forsooth, of the heavy burden of maintaining this useful cattle thoroughfare, which, according to the parish books, only cost a few shillings for the last 20 years!!

Whether the only landowner, who seems so much to desire such a consummation, was present with the two Justices, has not yet transpired.

The report was NOT read, as “Verax” states, at the last Board meeting

Finding from such proceedings of which I was not before aware, that there was no disposition on behalf of the gentlemen who put up the gates, to respect the property of others, whose properties would be depreciated in value by practically closing up the road, I did say at the Board (and I repeat what I said) that “I shall feel it my duty to leave no stone unturned to protect the interests of others, and now my own, as a landowner.

Having bought a farm in the neighbourhood of the road in question, and on which is a mill, I admit that a regard for my own rights partly induced me to press this matter again on the attention of the Board.

It was but reasonable to try to increase facilities to get “grist” into the mill.

I, therefore, got up a memorial to the Board. It was signed by me and the parties who felt aggrieved that this road was practically lost to them. It bore the names of the Vicar of Blaenavon; Mr Turner of New Barn; Mrs Rosser of Pantglas; Mr Nicholas, of Yew Tree Farm; Mr Davis, of Goytrey Mill; Mr Charles Jones, of Carnllech; Mr Pruett, landowner; Mr Meredith, of Hendre Glyn; and others. The memorialists requested the Board to “remove the obstructions so long complained of,“ and I may add, so patiently tolerated.

Col. Byrde was present at the Board, and took down the names of the memorialists.

The subject of the memorial was at my request postponed until the next meeting as I simply wished a fuller Board, and I had not then the remotest intention as to another course of proceeding.

But, in the meantime, Mr Editor, what were the measures adopted with a view to create alarm in reference to this road question, among the heavily burdened ratepayers of this parish?

A partisan of H. C. Byrde, Esq., one of his Opposition British School Committee, takes round a memorial with a very effective tale, so as not to fail to obtain signatures, viz., that if Penystair road should not be closed as it was, the ratepayers would be compelled to widen it to the legal width, and that it would cost them £200 !!! But this tale was not sufficiently potent to serve the purpose with come. The same tale-bearer among the people, therefore, added that if the road should be opened, the Rector would compel the parishioners to spend the above sum above it!!!

This I discovered more and more when sending round a counter memorial, and I have been told this fact by the parties themselves.

Finding this determination to deny us everything in the shape of fair play, there appeared to me and to others no alternative but to take down the gate illegally put up, and never expressly sanctioned by the Board, and at once to clear the road of all the obstructions that had given to it the appearances of an “abandoned lane.”

The parties more immediately interested in the removal of these gates gave orders and were present when the work was done. But they took these steps at my suggestion, and under my protection; and I am prepared to bear the consequences of these acts, which, I maintain, are neither an offence against the law, nor an infringement of the authority of the Highway Board, and certainly never intended to be the slightest disrespect towards the Board, its Chairman, or its surveyor.

We may be told that we have too many roads in this parish. We have about 19 miles.

Were the district owned by about half-a-dozen landed proprietors, no doubt some roads could, without injustice, be closed up.

But this parish, in extent, is 3,330 acres, and there are about 40 freeholders and several leaseholders belonging to it, who being all ratepayers, are entitled to road accommodation,

And, surely, when one resident gentleman and landowner perniciously seeks practically to deprive other and smaller landowners of any kind, or any extent, of road convenience, it seems to me that his conduct is of oppression that ought to be firmly resisted.

When I purchased the farm along which the Penystair road goes for Col.. Byrde (then in Ceylon), there were such fences along that road as could, without much outlay, be made good enough, to keep “the strays” from the road.

But when he came to reside in the parish, he left the fence, in one part, to go to ruin, and in another part, upwards of 170 yards of the road fence, with a wide bank along it (so that the road could be widened about 20 feet in the clear,), were taken into his field. I do not know whether the bailiff had authority from his master to do this. “Verax” will perhaps in his next effusion, assert that the taking of this road into the field, as well as the putting up of the gates, was “by the authority of a parish meeting.”

When the fence was entirely removed what neighbouring farmer could send a flock of sheep or cattle along the road? especially when there were sheep already in the field, or on “the abandoned lane,” now rendered here invisible and fit for the inspection of the justices.

Since the farm is leased on a term of several years, the landlord has not quite the same excuse for meddling with this public highway. Let him restore the road fence which his servant, with or without his authority, removed, and let him encourage the new tenant, who gets possession in May, to make good the fences throughout.

The road in question was useful in times past.

Tradition affirms that along it were carried, on mules, stones to build some portions of the ancient castle of Raglan.

Along it came the stones to build my church, 24 years ago, and also stones to build my schoolroom.

Along it came stones to build several railway bridges, and who can tell of what essential service this road might be to the public in time to come?

Now, Mr Editor, it is clear that the whole drift of “Verax’s” communication, and especially of his peroration, is to stir up the Highway Board to a spirit of antagonism, and to believe that “rule,” “resolution.” and “authority” have been set at naught by a member of the Board. I am not aware of any resolution of the Board in reference to these gates, except the one which authorised their remaining at Mr F. Byrde’s request, until his father should return from Ceylon.

It is well known, Mr. Editor, that a Highway Board is not appointed for the purpose of allowing nuisances on Highways (and gates across roads, illegally placed, are regarded by the Act as nuisances); not for the purpose of acting in subserviency to the dictum of an interested landowner to the injury of the rights of others (which the Usk Board will never do); but for the purpose of doing impartial, even-handed justice between man and man, without any respect of persons.

For the information of Verax,” I will in conclusion, add, that gates be again placed across the Penystair road, I have reason to believe that, in accordance with justice and law, they will experience a doom precisely similar to that which befell the others. And if he will ride up to the fresh air on the hill side to clear his verifying faculty, and take a comprehensive view of all improvements there effected, he will find that the “abandoned lane,” nearly a mile in length, has been put in good order, at the sole cost of.

Mr Editor,

THE TROUBLESOME RECTOR OF GOYTREY.

P.S. Further communications on the above subject, unless they bear the writer’s name and address, will, of course, will be treated with that feeling usually called forth by anonymous letters

The vulgar lines of bad poetry beneath notice, except to remark, that the writer does not evidently know the difference between “Syntax” and Prosody.

 

 

 

Free Press, April 16, 1870

 

PENYSTAIR ROAD

 

To the Editor of the Free Press

Sir, – The public and the Editors of the County papers must be pretty well tired with the subject of the Penystair road and the futile attempts made by the Rector of Goytre to justify his acts by misrepresentations, but I must beg your indulgence for once to enlighten some of your readers respecting the statements of the rev gentleman, by way of a summary to his proceedings.

I will only refer to matters of fact, and will not take up much of your space. First of all, notice the beginning of this newspaper controversy by an announcement in the county papers by the Rector himself: – That the question of the gates had been “summararily and finally settled by ten parishioners.” Intended to convey an impression that independent parishioners had removed them, – these parishioners, it seems, being himself and his servants and labourers.

Then notice the refusal to a parishioner the right of representation to the Highway Board he claims for himself, and because Mr James., of Upper Goytrey House, takes his friends to join him in a letter, he is called by the Rector a “tale-bearer” and “Partizan”. Surely, Mr Editor, this is not very fair dealing, or fair speaking either. Mr James had surely the same right of petition as the parish clerk had to apply for signature over and over again on behalf of the Rector: and if Mr James found that the parish might be involved in a new era of law expenses, it was certainly a very natural apprehension after past experience of the heavy law experiences the Rector had been the means of leading the parish to incur the remembrance of which is still fresh in the minds of many of the poor people of Goytre, yet the expression of the views held by Mr James and his friends is termed by the Rector as “pressure.”

The question of the transport of stones does not affect the matter, as the gates were no obstruction to traffic, but if it did, there is abundant evidence adverse to the Rector’s assertions on this point.

All questions of “traffic” is well no to have had no influence whatever in this matter. It is patent to everyone who knows the facts of the case that there was no “traffic” on the road, and that it was of no real use to any one.

That the sawing away of the posts and the removal of the gates was a malicious act, originating solely in personal feeling on the part of the Rector of Goytre, is universally believed and it will be long before this belief is effaced from the minds of many now living in this parish or neighbourhood, despite all that is said and written to the contrary.

The statement put before the public that Col. Byrde with “high hand” procured two justices to view the road and make an order, at the time the gentleman was away in Ceylon, should at least clear the rev gentleman fr0m such free use of such terms as “Unscrupulous” in writing of other. Does not such a mis-statement as this cast discredit upon the whole of his version of the matter? “Ex uno disce omnes.” (One specimen is enough to judge by.) Then notice the complaint made by the Rector of unfair treatment by the chairman of the Board that he did not let him know he was going to inspect the road, in which he omitted to mention that he had changed his postal address from Pontypool to Abergavenny, which called the delay in the receipt of the chairman’s notice.

It was the Rector, in fact, who had requested the chairman to inspect the road and yet he joined Mr Bateman in his vehement attack upon him at the meeting of the 11th of March and actually denounced his visit to the road as “unauthorized and “contrary to the rights of his office” which he himself had asked the chairman to make.

The Rector’s attempts in his various letters to make it appear that 170 yards of the lane had been taken in Col. Byrde’s field, simply because the thorns and briers had been cleared away from the bank when there was no hedge, speaks for himself. It needs no comment.

If anyone is sufficiently interested to take a country walk to Goytre and see that celebrated Penystair road, he will be in a position to estimate the value of the Rectors merits (?) in his boasted championship of parish rights, which it would be far better for himself, and the parishioners, if he had let alone.

I am, sir, your obedient servant, FINIS.

The Licenses 1870

17th September 1870 – The Licenses

Col. Byrde said that the Bench had decided what course to adopt with regard to the licenses. They left it their duty to refuse to renew the licenses to persons who had been convicted twice or more during the past year, for they felt sure that the police would not have brought forward the cases without ample and full grounds for doing so.

(List of refusal)

He then came to a list of those houses which had been reported as being badly conducted, and for which licenses would be refused if conviction took place in the ensuing year.

These were:

John Bevan – Goytrey

Etc etc.

Thomas Evan Jones – From Farmer’s Boy to M.A.

Free Press July 5th 1929 – Pontypool School Teacher’s Achievement

Industrial History Research

Llanover churchAmong the results of the Post Graduate research degree examination of the University of Wales, recently announced is the name of Mr Thomas Evan Jones, M.A. “Abergwellan” Goytrey who has been awarded his M.A. in Industrial History for the successful completion of a study upon “The Development of the Industrial Revolution in Monmouthshire.”

His large and difficult work, spread over a period of three years comprised a wide specialised investigation, chiefly of the economic, industrial, commercial influences of the Revolution in the restricted area of Monmouthshire during the 19th century. He has devoted special attention to the rise and progress of the metal and mining trades in the Afon Llwyd valley particularly to the pioneer work of the Hanbury’s of Pontypool.

Operation Disturbs Studies

As his distinction is the only award of it’s kind at Cardiff University college this year, Mr Jones success is all the more outstanding, especially as his research was greatly disturbed on account of a serious operation a few months ago, it was feared that his dissertation would not be completed in time, but a rapid recovery happily just averted that misfortune.

Mr Jones is presently Master of commercial studies at Twmpath Central School Pontypool. For some time he was on the staff of Panteg Wern School Sebastopol, previous to his appointment as senior French assistant at Hatherleigh Central School Newport where his vigour as house and games master made a great effect both as teacher and colleague.

A Farmer’s Boy

He received his primary education at Goytrey Council School under the late Mr W J Croot who laid solid foundations for his scholastic career. Before entering Abergavenny Grammar School he started as a farmer’s boy, but the call of learning was greater that that of the plough and after becoming top boy of his secondary school he had several years commercial experience before proceeding on his university course at Cardiff. He is a member of the Royal Society of Teachers and a registered teacher of commercial subjects with the Pitman’s Institute.

Mr Jone’s latest achievement is a fine example of what grit and determination can accomplish in the face of great difficulties. It is his intention to develop psychological side of his subject in preparation for a higher university honour.

Mr Jones acknowledges with thanks the help he received from the files of the Free Press of Monmouthshire which he carefully perused in search of material.

1870 Free Press

February 5th

A Very Dear Rabbit

Aaron Rosser and Thomas Jenkins, two respectable looking young men pleaded guilty of trespass in pursuit of game on lands belonging to the trustees of the Pontypool Park Estate at Mamhilad.
William Paul, keeper on the estate, deposed that he saw defendants on lands at Tredomer, which was strictly reserved, they had guns and dogs and Mr Rosser shot a rabbit. He had not seen them there before.
Mr Masey, the head keeper said he had had no complaint to make against defendants before this.

Fined 20s

 February 12th

And also, all that Freehold Cottage & Garden called
Twyn-y-Rhws situate in the parish of Goytrey, aforesaid
And occupied by Mr John Griffiths, at the yearly rent of £5
For further information:
Bythway and Greenway
Solicitors
Pontypool

March 26th – Those Goytrey Roads! Those Goytrey Roads!

Mr Isaac Lewis came before the bench to make an application with reference to one of the roads of Goytrey. In our last, instead of saying that his claim on the Highway Board was for “completing” the road, it should have been “as compensation” for the road.
Mr Lewis, on being asked what application he had to make said that he wanted compensation for the ground which was taken onto the road, and which had been a portion of his farm.
Mr Watkins said this was quite another matter to that which had been before the Board.
Col. Byrde told Mr Lewis, that according to his wish, he could not take part magisterially in the hearing of the case.
Mr Lewis repeated that he wanted compensation for ground taken out of his farm for the road.
Mr Watkins said that the compensation widening a road was a matter for agreement between the surveyor and the party aggrieved.
Mr Lewis said he also applied respecting the temporary road, and the damage done to his farm by vehicles being taken in every direction, both before and behind his house.
He had been offered a portion of the money he claimed for the temporary road, but not for the other matter. He claimed £4 for the ground taken into the road and £7 for the temporary road.
Mr Watkins objected to the jurisdiction of the Bench under Jervis’s act, which provided that after 6 months action could not be maintained, and that it would become a matter for the jury.
The Board had however, offered £3 as compensation for the temporary road, and Mr Lewis had better accept that than prefer a claim in the proper quarter with regard to the other matter.
He should be sorry if the bench thought that the Board did not give Mr Lewis full value.
Mr Lewis said he had been used very badly, the worst in the parish, by vehicles going in all directions, the whole of the winter by his house.
Mr Berrington told him that the Bench had no jurisdiction, and could not help him even if they wished. They advised him to take the £3.
The Rev. T Evans pointed out to Mr Lewis that his claim was for two things, and that the Bench had no power to deal with the question of compensation for the ground taken into the road. That was a question for the jury: but he had another claim, and if both claims were satisfied he might have as much as he desired.
Mr Lewis consented to have the £3 that was offered, and try the other question elsewhere.

 April 16  PENYSTAIR ROAD

To the Editor of the Free Press

Sir, – The public and the Editors of the County papers must be pretty well tired with the subject of the Penystair road and the futile attempts made by the Rector of Goytre to justify his acts by misrepresentations, but I must beg your indulgence for once to enlighten some of your readers respecting the statements of the rev gentleman, by way of a summary to his proceedings.

I will only refer to matters of fact, and will not take up much of your space.  First of all, notice the beginning of this newspaper controversy by an announcement in the county papers by the Rector himself: – That the question of the gates had been “summararily and finally settled by ten parishioners.” Intended to convey an impression that independent parishioners had removed them, – these parishioners, it seems, being himself and his servants and labourers.

Then notice the refusal to a parishioner the right of representation to the Highway Board he claims for himself, and because Mr James, of Upper Goytrey House, takes his friends to join him in a letter, he is called by the Rector a “tale-bearer” and “Partizan”.  Surely, Mr Editor, this is not very fair dealing, or fair speaking either.  Mr James had surely the same right of petition as the parish clerk had to apply for signature over and over again on behalf of the Rector:  and if Mr James found that the parish might be involved in a new era of law expenses, it was certainly a very natural apprehension after past experience of the heavy law experiences the Rector had been the means of leading the parish to incur the remembrance of which is still fresh in the minds of many of the poor people of Goytre, yet the expression of the views held by Mr James and his friends is termed by the Rector as “pressure.”

The question of the transport of stones does not affect the matter, as the gates were no obstruction to traffic, but if it did, there is abundant evidence adverse to the Rector’s assertions on this point.

All questions of “traffic” is well known to have had no influence whatever in this matter.  It is patent to everyone who knows the facts of the case that there was no “traffic” on the road, and that it was of no real use to any one.

That the sawing away of the posts and the removal of the gates was a malicious act, originating solely in personal feeling on the part of the Rector of Goytre, is universally believed and it will be long before this belief is effaced from the minds of many now living in this parish or neighbourhood, despite all that is said and written to the contrary.

The statement put before the public that Col. Byrde with “high hand” procured two justices to view the road and make an order, at the time the gentleman was away in Ceylon, should at least clear the rev gentleman from such free use of such terms as “Unscrupulous” in writing of other.  Does not such a mis-statement as this cast discredit upon the whole of his version of the matter?  “Ex uno disce omnes.” (One specimen is enough to judge by.)  Then notice the complaint made by the Rector of unfair treatment by the chairman of the Board that he did not let him know he was going to inspect the road, in which he omitted to mention that he had changed his postal address from Pontypool to Abergavenny, which called the delay in the receipt of the chairman’s notice.

It was the Rector, in fact, who had requested the chairman to inspect the road and yet he joined Mr Bateman in his vehement attack upon him at the meeting of the 11th of March and actually denounced his visit to the road as “unauthorized” and “contrary to the rights of his office” which he himself had asked the chairman to make.

The Rector’s attempts in his various letters to make it appear that 170 yards of the lane had been taken in Col. Byrde’s field, simply because the thorns and briers had been cleared away from the bank when there was no hedge, speaks for himself.  It needs no comment.

If anyone is sufficiently interested to take a country walk to Goytre and see that celebrated Penystair road, he will be in a position to estimate the value of the Rectors merits(?) in his boasted championship of parish rights, which it would be far better for himself, and the parishioners, if he had let alone.

I am, sir, your obedient servant, FINIS.

July 9th – Found Not Stolen

Wm. Morgan of Goytrey was charged with stealing a reap-hook, the property of Charles Ferrers Edwards. He pleaded not guilty.
Mr Alexander Edwards conducted the prosecution.
John Watkins deposed that he was a labourer at the Race Farm. He left his hook by the hedge side, while he went to get some breakfast and when he returned it was missing.
P.C Henry Gardener deposed that from information he received, he went after the charcoal waggon, and overtook it about 100 yards from Mr Edwards’s gate. Prisoner was driving it. Told him that a hook was missing and that he must search the waggon. Prisoner said “well if you are going to search I did pick the hook up”
Witness found the hook concealed under the bags of charcoal at the bottom of the waggon.
Showed the hook to Mr Edwards who identified it as his property. Prisoner asked Mr Edwards to look over it, but Mr Edwards said the case was then in the hands of the police.
Defendant said that he picked the hook up on the slope of the turnpike road. He carried it some distance down the road in his hand, then seeing no one who was likely to own it, he threw it into the bed of the cart, and when he got to the wire works, told Mr John that he had picked it up.
There was no concealment about it.
Richard John deposed that he had known the prisoner for years, and had been in the habit of supplying him with charcoal at Mr Hill’s works. Witness saw the hook in the waggon and asked defendant where he got it from. Defendant said that he picked it up by the side of the ditch in Treherbert Road, and that he thought some one had been cutting grass with it; or had been sitting down and left it behind; and that he carried it in his hand some way, and then, seeing no one, threw it into his waggon.
Witness reached the sacks one by one and threw them into the waggon, that is how they came to be covered.
The bench considered there was not any felicitous intent and dismissed the case.

September 3rd.

Mr Stinchcombe, a farmer, of Monkswood, after returning from Pontypool market on Saturday last, was told that some cattle were trespassing in a field belonging to him, near Usk. He drove over to see.
On his way home again his trap came into collision with a cart near Rhadyr Mill, and he was thrown out and three of his ribs were broken. Of one the shafts of his trap was snapped off and the horse galloped away, dragging the vehicle, and was stopped near the Hendre Farm. Mr Stinchcome’s little boy, who was riding with him, retained his seat and was uninjured.

September 25th.

We have recorded that on Saturday 28th August, Mr Stinchcombe, farmer, of Monkswood, was thrown from his trap near Rhadyr Mill, and had three of his ribs broken.
On Sunday last he thought himself much better and rose and ate a hearty dinner. Some time later he fell back into his wife’s arms and expired.

September 25th.

An interesting tea and public meeting was held at Saron Baptist Chapel on the 8th inst.
A sumptuous tea was done ample justice to and was followed by lively and appropriate addresses from Mr P Williams, Pontypool College; Mr Tomkin, Abergavenny; Rev S Jones, Lanithel; Thomas Hanover; and Davies Chapel Ed;
The chair was occupied by Mr Morris, Goytrey.

Wm Morgan – Found not Stolen 1870

Found: Not Stolen – July 9th 1870

Wm. Morgan of Goytrey was charged with stealing a reap-hook, the property of Charles Ferrers Edwards. He pleaded not guilty. Mr Alexander Edwards conducted the prosecution.

John Watkins deposed that he was a labourer at the Race Farm. He left his hook by the hedge side while he went to get some breakfast when he returned it was missing. PC Henry Gardener deposed that from information he received, he went after the charcoal wagon and overtook it about 100 yards from Mr Edward’s gate. Prisoner was driving it. Told him that a hook was missing and that he must search the wagon. Prisoner said “well if you are going to search I did pick the hook up.”

Witness found the hook concealed under the bags of charcoal at the bottom of the wagon.

Showed the hook to Mr Edwards who identified it as his property. Prisoner asked Mr Edwards to look it over, but Mr Edwards said the case was then in the hands of the police.

Defendant said that he picked the hook up on the slope of the turnpike road. He carried it some distance down the road in his hand, then seeing on one who was likely to own it, he thew it onto the bed of the cart and when he got to the wire works, told Mr John that he had picked it up. There was no concealment about it.

Richard John deposed that he had known the prisoner for years and had been in the habit of supplying him with charcoal at Mr Hill’s works. Witness saw the hook in the wagon and asked defendant where he got it from. Defendant said that he picked it up by the side of a ditch in Treherbert road and that he thought someone had been cutting grass with it; or had been sitting down and left it behind; and that he carried it in his hand some way and then, seeing no one, threw it in his wagon. Witness reached the sacks one by one and threw them in the wagon, that is how they came to be covered.

The bench considered there was not any felicitous intent and dismissed the case.

Stinchcombe, Mr – 1870

Stinchcombe – 3rd September 1870

Mr Stinchcombe a farmer, of Monkswood, after returning from Pontypool market on Saturday last, was told that some cattle were trespassing in a field belonging to him, near Usk. He drove over to see. On his way home again his trap came into collision with a cart near Rhadyr Mill and he was thrown out and three of his ribs were broken. Of one of the shafts of his trap was snapped off and the horse galloped away, dragging the vehicle and was stopped near the Hendre Farm. Mr Stinchcombe’s little boy, who was riding with him, retained his seat and was uninjured.

25th September 1870

We have recorded that on Saturday 28th August, Mr Stinchcombe, farmer, of Monkswood, was thrown from his trap near Rhadyr Mill, had had three of his ribs broken. On Sunday last he thought himself much better and rose and eat a hearty dinner. Some time later he fell back into his wife’s arms and expired.