THE COUNTY OBSERVER AND MONMOUTHSHIRE CENTRAL ADVERTISER

Saturday January 26 1867

NON PAYMENT OF CALL – The Pontypool and Usk Highway Board v The Overseers of Goytrey, for non-payment of a call made by the Board.   Our readers will remember that this case was adjourned five weeks ago for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of the Home Secretary on a point of construction of the Highway Act, raised by Mr. Llewellin for the defendants. Mr. Blount for the Highway Board, handed in the reply of the Home Secretary to the application that had been made to him, wherein he said the magistrates must decide the question. The Chairman said they would have been glad if they had been relieved of the duty of deciding a point on which two learned advocates differed; but as it was left to them they must deal with it as well as they could, and which they should do with all diffidence. What they had to do was decide the proper construction to be put on the words “no contribution to be paid by any parish at any one time in respect of highway rates shall exceed the sum of ten-pence in the pound.” It was admitted that the contribution ordered to be paid by the Overseers of Goytrey exceeded ten pence in the pound, but it was contended that as the contribution was in the precept ordered to be paid in two instalments neither of which exceeded ten pence in the pound, the limitation had not been exceeded. Now he had carefully gone through the Highway Acts and could not find any authority for dividing a contribution which had been ordered, into instalments, neither the word instalment nor its equivalent could be found in the acts connected with the payment of contributions; it might be very convenient to the overseers of a parish to be authorised to pay a contribution in instalments, and he did not mean to say that the Board had not the power of giving that convenience, but he did think that the act never intended that a contribution exceeding ten pence in the pound could be ordered and afterwards broken up into instalments so as to keep all payments within that limited sum; if so, there is nothing to prevent a contribution of 30d in the pound, the full amount in any year the board of its own power can order, and then calling on the parish to pay it in three equal instalments in three consecutive weeks or days – that is an extreme view, but if the principle of instalments contended for be good, it is as good for that view of the case, which never could be intended. After several further remarks, the Chairman said the Bench felt the more satisfied that they were putting a reasonable construction on the act because they found that the overseers are to pay the contribution out of a rate to be levied by them, if they have not money in hand to pay it. If therefore the Highway Board cannot order a contribution to be paid by any parish at any one time that exceeds ten pence in the pound, it follows that the overseers cannot make a rate that exceeds ten pence in the pound, which the Goytrey overseers would have to do to meet this call which is made on them, the overseers being only empowered to levy a rate for “the sum to be contributed by the parish,” that sum being the contribution ordered, not the instalments of that contribution, for levying a rate for which we do not find any power or authority given to them by the Highway Acts. We therefore decline making any order, and dismiss this summons. Mr Blount asked if the bench would give him a case for the opinion of the superior courts. The Bench said if they could give him a case he should have it, as they had no objection to having their opinion reviewed.

 January  26th  1867 – USK PETTY SESSIONS FRIDAY

Before G. R. Greenhow-Relph, Esq., chairman, Major Stretton, S. Churchill, and E, Lister, Esq.

THE GOYTREY GRIEVENCES – THE AGRIEVED WIN THE FIRST BATTLE

On the 5^th of the present month we published a full report (the only one which appeared in any newspaper) of a case brought before the Usk bench of Magistrates, by the Usk and Pontypool Highway Board, against Mr Thos. Jeremiah, overseer of the parish of Goytrey, for having neglected to pay to Wm. Davis, Esq., at the Bank of the Provisional Banking Corporation, Usk, the treasurer of the said Board, towards the repairs of the highways of the parish of Goytrey, and such other expenses as are chargeable by the said Board on the said parish, the sums of £140, on the days following, that is to say, the sum of £100 on the 5^th day of November, and £40 on the 17^th day of December last, in compliance with an order made by the said Board.

On the 22^nd of October last, a vestry meeting of ratepayers of the parish of Goytrey was convened for the purpose of considering what steps it was their duty to take in reference to the greatly increasing pressure upon them of road rates, caused by the unprecedented expenditure on the Star road. The ratepayers – who are, generally, small payers – had been called upon to pay, during the last three half-years, in road and poor rates, a sum amounting to a total of not less than £954 17s and that within the last twelvemonths and two days, their road rates had amounted to £322, whilst an order had again been made upon them by the Highway Board to pay, within the ensuing two months, not less than £140, making a total of £462 within the short space of fourteen months!

The rateable value of the parish of Goytrey is £2,955, and the number of ratepayers about 150. Of these about 25 are rated under £20 and over £10; and about 60 are rated under £10 and over £2. Any person possessed of common sense and reason can easily imagine how heavily and sorely such a taxation pressed upon and oppressed a large class of small agriculturalists and agricultural labourers in the parish.

The ratepayers, feeling deeply aggrieved by the unprecedented road-rates laid upon them, and by what they deemed to be a gross mis-application of their rates on the Star hill, resolved at the vestry-meeting previously alluded to, to see in what way they could get redress, be protected, or protect themselves.

A communication embodying the above facts was sent to the Usk Highway Board, but no reply having been received, a vestry meeting was called on the 1^st of November, at which it was resolved that the chairman should write to the Board of Waywardens, and offer to have the matter in dispute between the parish and the Board, in reference to the cost of the improvement of the Star Pitch, referred to the decision of the Usk Bench of Magistrates, or to the Pontypool Bench, or to the Chairman of the said Benches, provided the Board would abide by such decision as the referees arrived at; and the parish would agree to such decision as final and conclusive, as to the liability of Goytrey to the expenditure incurred; and the parish agreed that the Magistrates should decide the question in the capacity of private gentlemen, and not judicially, as magistrates, and that they were at liberty to decide the points upon their legal merits, the Waywardens appearing to view the matter in an Act of Parliament light only. The above proposal was made with the object of bring the difficulty to a peaceful solution, but without avail.

At the hearing of the case before the Usk magistrates, Mr Blount appeared for the Highway Board, and Mr Llewellin of Newport, for the overseers, and contended that the Board had no right to call for £140, as an Act stated that no call at any one time should exceed 10d. in the pound, and that calling for £140 was a little over 10d. in the pound.

The Bench reserved their decision in order that the Secretary of State should be obtained respecting the objection raised by Mr Llewellin, and the case was adjourned till, this day (Friday), when a large number of the ratepayers of Goytrey assembled in the Town Hall for the purpose of hearing the decision of the Magistrates.

Mr Blount appeared for the Highway Board, and said the Secretary of State declined giving an opinion, and handed the letter he had received from the Home Office to the Chairman, of which the following is a copy:-

Whitehall, January 11^th, 1867

Gentlemen, – I am directed by Mr Secretary Walpole to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 7^th instant, inquiring as to the interpretation of the 33^rd Section of the Highway Act, 1864, in reference to a case in which the officer of the parish had been summoned by the Usk Highway Board for non-payment of a sum pursuant to their order, and I am to state in reply the Secretary of State has no authority to decide such a point. The magistrates must act according to their own judgement subject to an appeal subject to the Courts in Westminster Hall.

I am, Gentlemen, your obedient Servant, H. Worthington.

Messrs Blount & Davis, Solicitors to the Usk and Pontypool Highway Board, Usk

3^rd November 1866 – GOYTREY AND THE HIGHWAY BOARD – HOSTILITIES IMMINENT

One of the early days in November has acquired a tolerably wide notoriety in connection with kegs of gunpowder, barrels of pitch and other inflammable and combustible materials. In the same period the calendar marks the anniversary of the battle of Inkerman. Appropriately, therefore, has next week been chosen for the firing of the first gun in the combat between the Highway Board and the parish of Goytrey. The cause of war is the refusal by Goytrey to pay £100 out of £140 demanded by the Board – the £100 being wanted for the new work on the Pontypool road. Particulars of the earlier stages of the discussion we gave the week before last. Since then the parishioners have met in vestry, and having been informed by the Waywarden that the Board had sent him a call for £140, to be paid in two instalments, – £100 in November and £40 in December, – they resolved to pay the £40, which the amount of the surveyor’s estimate for ordinary repairs, and to refuse the larger amount. This determination the Rector, as chairman, was directed to communicate to the Board. A special meeting of the latter was held at the Town Hall, Usk, on Monday last, to consider the position of affairs. The work on the road has been done under two contracts, let to Abraham Williams, a labouring man living in Goytrey. The first contract amounted to £165. The other tenders were £142, £167, £260, £281, £214 and £226, all except that at £142 including hedging.   The surveyor’s estimate for the work was £206. It was stated from the first by practical men that Williams had taken the work for too little money, and this was found to be the case. Considerable delay took place after a commencement had been made, in consequence of a misunderstanding between the Board and one of the landowners; but at length Williams went on, until he had drawn all his money upon the first contract – the work being at the same largely in arrear. As a kind of Hibernian mode of enabling him to finish the first, the Board let Williams a second contract, at £90, for an additional piece of the road. This second contract, we believe, is said to have been completed, but to finish the first a large additional outlay is required – estimates ranging between £50 and £100. The Board consider that Williams has done work enough to cover the amount paid him, but the road not being nearly finished, and in an impassable state, what was to be done? This was the problem which the Board met on Monday to solve.

Mr G. R. Greenhow-Relph, who is a member of the Board ex officio, said he understood the Board went to work on the road under an order of two magistrates that it should be widened. Now, he had been told in Pontypool, on Saturday, that one of the magistrates signing the order did not belong to the division. If that were so, then the order was illegal, and if objections were raised he thought there would be difficulty in meeting them, and in enforcing the calls made by the Baord.

The Chairman (Mr Thomas Watkins) said that the Land Clauses Consolidation Act gave the necessary power. The magistrates’ order was made some years ago, and promises were given on behalf of Goytrey that the work should be done, but it was not done.

Mr Relph considered that the road in question was what might be called an outside road, as regarded Goytrey, those neighbouring parishes to which it would be a great convenience might be reasonably asked to contribute.

Mr John Morgan, of Little Mill, said that if the Board persisted in a course of unfair treatment towards Goytrey they would embark on a sea of litigation. The parishioners were determined to resist. They would employ a solicitor, and would fight the question to the end. The only way to meet the difficulty was to do justly by Goytrey and call upon the neighbouring parishes, which were benefited by the road, to contribute pro rata.

The Chairman said that when the question came before the Board twelve months ago, a committee was appointed to consider it, and Mr Relph was on that committee.

Mr Relph: I was; but that makes no difference, if the magistrates’ order is illegal. Mr Stretton, who signed with Mr Little, was not a magistrate of the division. The fact of his occasionally acting on the division did not make him so.

The Chairman said it seemed to him that members of the Board were picking holes in their own act. They had much better consider what course they would take for completing the road, for it could not be left now as it was – they would be liable to proceedings for obstructing a public highway.

Mr John Morgan: Do that which is fair and just, and not throw the whole burden upon Goytrey.

Mr Gwatkin, Waywarden for Goytrey, said that his parish was determined to resist. They had resolved not to pay £100 called for, but the £40 only. They had paid 2s. 2d. in the pound road rates in one year.

The Chairman: You defy us, then?

Mr Gwatkin: Just so, sir.

The Chairman said he knew Llanvair would not contribute to the road.

Mr Edward Price said Kemeys would not. He had called a parish meeting to consider the matter, and the result was a unanimous refusal. Kemeys had gone to great expense in improving the road leading to the Black Bear. Having done this without assistance, he did not see why the should be called upon to help Goytrey.

Mr John Morgan: Well, if Llanvair, Kemeys, and Bettws refuse to contribute, the matter will have to be fought out.

The Chairman said Llanvair had expended £400 in making a new road from the Chain Bridge to Pantygoitre.

Mr Relph said it was a pity there should be litigation on the subject, and he again urged that Goytrey ought to be assisted.

Mr John Morgan asked by what authority the contractor obtained payment of the £100, on the first contract, before the work was two-thirds finished?

The Chairman having, in reply to a question, said that the contractor had not been required to give sureties,

Mr Morgan remarked that therefore there was the greater necessity for making advances to him.

The Chairman said that as the contract provided for a portion of the value of work done being always held in hand, it was considered the Board would have security enough. The contractor said that the Board made the first breach in the contract by stopping the work, owing to a difficulty with regard to Mr Cook’s land. If the Board would pay him for the remainder of the work by measurement, he would go on and finish it.

Mr Relph said that Col Byrde had offered to get the road widened for £100.

Mr Gwatkin: And now it will cost £600.

The Chairman said that other roads made by Colonel Byrde cost a good deal to keep in repair.

Mr Price, of Usk, said it was Mr Gwatkin’s fault that the contract was let to Williams.

Mr Gwatkin said he thought no one could be more competent than a man who could do the work himself; and the work had been done satisfactorily, only that it could not be finished for the money.

The Chairman said that there was no doubt that the contract was taken at too low a price. If Mr Gwatkin had thought it was so, he should have objected at the time.

Mr Gwatkin said that Goytrey had paid £322 for less than half the work to be done. He also stated that Mr Stretton and Mr Thompson, two magistrates, had ridiculed the outlay on the road as extravagant.

The Chairman: The £322 includes the repairs and working expenses of more than twenty miles of roads.

Mr Gwatkin: If we pay the present call, we shall have paid £290 for about half the work. In three half-years Goytrey will have paid, in poor rate and road rate, £900.

The Chairman said that some of the richest landowners in the county were ratepayers in Goytrey, and to get up such a howl as this was most disgraceful to the parish. The question now before the meeting was how was the work to be finished?

Mr John Morgan: I beg to propose that the work be suspended until some arrangement can be made to provide funds for its completion.

Mr Gwatkin: I beg to second that.

Mr Relph asked if the Chairman felt that the Board had broken the contract.

The reply, if any was made, did not reach the further end of the room.

Mr Morgan said that the contractor ought to have been paid only pro rate, according to the work done.

The Chairman said that when a disagreement arose between the contractor and the surveyor to the Board, as to the amount of work done, he (the Chairman) got two other surveyors to measure the work, and upon their certificate the work was paid.

Mr Relph: Has any money been paid the contractor without a surveyor’s certificate?

The Chairman: After the disagreement, the surveyor gave certificates at my request.

Mr Morgan: You ought not to have interfered.

The Surveyor, Mr Henry Williams, explained the first or second fortnight after the contractor began, he asked for a sum of money. He (the Surveyor) measured the work, and not finding an adequate amount done, refused his certificate. The contractor then went to Mr Watkins, who seemed to think enough work had been done for the amount of money asked for, and at Mr Watkins’s request he gave the certificate, and had continued to do so since.

The Chairman: By the agreement I was made referee, and when a dispute arose I took that which I considered the proper course.

Mr Relph said it was always desirable that the Chairman should have the support and confidence of the Board, but he could not help considering it unfortunate that the Chairman should have exercised his opinion contrary to that of the surveyor.

Mr Price, of Usk, urged that it was the duty of the Board to support the surveyor, and not allow him to be insulted. He should move that the Board have nothing further to do with the contractor, and that the surveyor finish the work.

The motion having been seconded,

Mr Morgan moved his former resolution as an amendment, and Mr Gwatkin seconded.

The Chairman said there were many parishes paying at a higher rate per mile than Goytrey.

Mr Gwatkin said it must be remembered that all the outlay in Goytrey was made upon eight or ten miles of road. The upper part of the parish got very little done for it, and the ratepayers there were very dissatisfied.

The votes were then taken, and the proposition that the surveyor carry on the work was declared to be carried by six against five

The meeting then separated.

10^th November 1866 – GOYTREY GRIEVANCES

We have received the following letter, with a request for its publication, from a parish meeting held in Goytrey on the 1^st inst. The letter was enclosed to the Clerk of the Highway Board at Usk, for the Chairman, to be laid by him before the Board at their special meeting on the 29^th ult. The letter was not brought before the Board, nor any intimation made regarding it.

CHAPTER I

SHOWS HOW THE RECTOR WRITES THE WRONG

Nantyderry House, Oct 21 1866.

Sir,- In accordance with the request of the rate-payers of Goytrey, assembled in the vestry on the 22^nd inst., I send you herewith the resolutions of the last and previous meetings, convened for considering wheat steps it is their duty to take in reference to the greatly increasing pressure upon them of road-rates, caused by the unprecedented expenditure on the Star road. And in doing so, I trust I may be excused for submitting to the Board the fact that the ratepayers – who are generally small payers, and in comparatively humble circumstances – have been called upon to pay, during the last three half-years, in road and poor rates, a sum amounting to a total of not less than £954 17s,; and that within the last twelve months and two days their road rates have amounted to £322, whilst an order is again made upon them by your Board to pay within the next two months not less than £140, making a total of £462, within the short space of fourteen months!

The rateable value of the parish of Goytrey is £2955, and the number of ratepayers about 150. of these, about 25 are rated under £20 and over £10, and about 60 are rated under £10 and over £2, The Highway Board can, therefore, imagine how heavily and sorely the above taxation presses upon and oppresses a large class of small agriculturalists and agricultural labourers in the parish.

I beg leave to add that the ratepayers, feeling deeply aggrieved by the unprecedented road-rates laid upon them, and by what they deem to be a gross misapplication of their rates on Star hill, are now resolved to see in what way they can get redress, be protected, or protect themselves.

I remain, Sir, yours obediently

Thomas Evans

Rector of Goytrey and Chairman of the Vestry.

To the Chairman of the Highway Board, Usk.

CHAPTER II

VERY LIKE A SNUB.

The ratepayers of Goytrey held a meeting on Thursday, the 1^st inst., to hear the result of the Board meeting. The Waywarden having stated that no communication from Goytrey had been brought before the Board, the Rector was desired to write to the Clerk for an explanation of the discourtesy.

CHAPTER III

GIVES THE REPLY, SHJOWING HOW THE RECTOR’S LETTER WAS “PRODUCED.”

Sir, – I have received your letter of the 2^nd inst., and sent a copy of it to the Chairman of this Board. Your letter of the 24^th and the accompanying resolutions, were communicated to the Chairman and produced at the last meeting, and remained upon the table to the close of the proceedings. The Waywarden of Goytrey, in the course of the discussion which took place [reported by us last week and by no other newspaper], stated the substance of the resolutions, but did not request them to be read. It is far from my wish or intention to be discourteous to yourself or the vestry.

I remain, Sir, your obedient servant

        KEATS

The Rev. Thomas Evans

CHAPTER IV

SUGGESTS A FEW QUERIES.

Mr Keats’ letter offers a few points worth of the consideration of the Board.

When a portion of their constituents think it necessary to write to them upon important business, ought any request that the letter be read to be required?

In a letter sufficiently “produced” before them for practical purposes “by its remaining upon the table to the close of proceedings?” Would not under the table be nearly as useful a place of deposit; or might not the paper as well be utilised in the form of pipe-lights?

The Clerk being acquitted has there been any discovery in this business?

CHAPTER V.

HOLDS OUT THE OLIVE BRANCE.

At the meeting before referred to, the Goytrey ratepayers passed the following resolution, with the object, if possible, of bring the difficulty to a pacific solution:-

Resolved, that the Chairman write to the board of Waywardens and offer to have the matter in dispute between the parish and that body, in reference to the cost of the improvement of the Star pitch, referred to the decision of the Usk Bench of Magistrates, or to the Pontypool Bench, or to the Chairman of the said Benches, provided the said Board enter a note or resolution on their minute-book to abide by such decision as the referees arrive at; and this parish agree to such decision as final and conclusive, as to the liability of Goytrey to the expenditure incurred. And that the parish agree that the magistrates shall decide the question in the capacity of private gentlemen, and not judicially, as magistrates; and that they are at liberty to decide the points upon their legal merits, the Waywardens appearing to view the matter in an Act of Parliament light only.

This proposal having been sent to the Board, with them it will then rest either to “let slip the dogs of Law” or to agree to a just compromise of a vexatious dispute.