County Observer and Monmouthshire Central Advertiser Abergavenny and Raglan Herald Usk and Pontypool Messenger and Chepstow Argus

THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS CRITICS. Now that the Parliamentary session is over, and that members of the Opposi- tion will have no further opportunity for some months to come of repeating and augmenting their cavils at Westminster, it may be well briefly to sum up their purport and point out their shallowness, especially as it is certain that during the Recess they will be repeated with more or less exaggeration in local meetings and electioneering speeches without number. The main subject of interest all through the session has, of course, been the Eastern Question in its various ramifications. When Parliament met in January, summoned before its usual time in order that Ministers might be freed from all suspicion of desiring to take any important step without the concurrence of the repre- sentatives of the people, it was necessary for the Government to decide as the course it should take in preventing Russia from over- whelming Turkey, aud so utilising its military successes as to be a source of danger to all Europe. Through several trying months, Lord Beacon sfield and his colleagues had to behave with the utmost possible caution and shrewdness, so as to preserve England from unnecessary complication in the strife, and at the same time to avert the grave dangers and the extreme degradation of absolute inaction. The Radicals were anxious that there should be such inaction, if even they did not desire that England should ingloriously follow in the wake of victorious Russia, and humbly share a portion of the spoil won by the arms of Muscovites and Cossacks. Some overzealous Conservatives, on the other hand, hoped that the rulers of the nation might be induced to rush to the defence of the Porte, and drive back the Russian armies that were pressing towards Constantinople. The Government chose the wise medium between these two extremes. Its policy throughout the entire Session has been one of dignified firmness and of preparedness for any contingency that might arise, with avoidance of everything that might lead to needless prolongation of the war, or to England's futile participation therein. With this object it sent the Mediteranean fleet into the Sea of Marmora, called out the Reserves, brought the Indian contingent to Malta, and—a more difficult though less showy task-adopted such a diplomatic attitude towards Russia and the other European Powers, as to make it plain that neither were English interests to be trifled with, nor Turkish interests to be sacrificed to the selfish aggrandizement of any other state. Thereby the nation has benefited immensely, and the England of to-day holds a more dignified position in Europe than it has done for many a year past. In that consists the grand blunder of the Whigs and Radicals, and the main cause of their venomous opposition. We will give to the more sensible and patriotic of them credit for not regretting the enhancement of English dignity itself; but one and all of them are offended that this good work should have been done by the Government, and not by the leaders of their own party. This paltry jealousy and mischievous spite are nowhere so clearly shown as in their recent opposition to Lord Beaconsfield's and Lord Salisbury's crowning exploits. The Con- vention with Turkey by which Cyprus is handed over to us, and Asia Minor placed under our protection, has called forth the most fierce resistance and the most elaborate quibbles that party spirit has ever been answerable for. The overwhelming majority obtained by the Government in the House of Commons, however, is a fair index of the whole nation's approval of it, and all the public has now to do is to shut its ears to such hollow criticisms and unsubstantial arguments as will be offered during the Recess, while the Government iõ, perforce slowly, elaborating the grand work in the service of England and humanity which it has taken in hand. During the week, along with the general strictures on the Eastern policy of the Government, we have heard a good deal about the financial arrangements growing out of it. Mr. Childers, Mr. Gladstone and others have been eloquent in their denunciation of the small supplementary Budget which the precautionary measures of the Cabinet have necessitated. Their complaints, however, scarcely merited the attention given to them by Sir Stafford Northcote and there is really very little to be said about them, though of course they will be made political capital of during the recess. But no sensible person will doubt that the Government has faced the financial difficulties before it in the best way. If we compare the war charges" of England with those of any other country in Europe during this trying year, we shall be amazed at the smallness and the judiciousness of the expenditure. Apart from all the other benefits resulting from the calling out of the Reserves, for instance, the movement has amply repaid itself, if only by showing the world that we are stronger than we generally look, and by affording the race whom we may some day have to employ in other work an opportunity of testing their continued fitness for soldiership. No one objects to the now regular autumn manoeuvres as exercises in, and exhibitions of, military capacity. The temporary employment of the Reserves has relatively been less costly and far more useful than any autumn manoeuvres could be. The third prominent complaint by the Opposition against the Government is even more unreasonable than the other two. This has been a wasted session, it is urged, as regards domestic legislation. That the Government has had to abandon some important legislative projects is quite true; and no one can regret it so much as the Ministerialists. But whose fault is this ? Surely the Opposition's. When Lord Hartington and his regular followers have been temperate, their irregular allies, whether English Radicals, Irish Home- Rulers or Scotch malcontents, have shown no mercy to the Government. The foreign business of the year has of course occupied much time in Parliament, but all the real obstruction to other work that can be connected with it has been caused by the use made of it by the Opposition to hamper the Government at every turn. And when Ministers have been most anxious to carry their projects through Parliament, they have had to face a stolid and cantankerous resistance that inevitably blocked their progress. When the Radicals taunt us, as they will certainly do, with having abandoned such important measures as the County Government Bill, the answer ready for them is that they and their friends alone are to blame. The marvel is that the Government has achieved so much good work this Session as will be recorded in the Statute Book.

USK. LOCAL MAKKSMEN.—The annual competition in connection with the Monmouthshire Volunteer Rifle Association took place on Monday and Tuesday f last at Newport. In the contest for the association prizes, Private B. Stockham won 10s. and Corporal W. Creese 5s., each with a score of 17 points. Corporal George Watkins won X3 and Corporal Creese 10s. in the competition for Lady Llanover's prizes, the former making 18 and the latter 17. The Lord Lieutenant's prizes were next shot for, and Private B. Stockham won £ 2 with 15 points and Private John Roberts XI 7s. 6d. with 14. The bronze medal of the National Rifle Association and three guineas were shot for by the ten competitors making the highest, no-jrrog.jto in tho firot tkroo contests, and out of the ten three belonged to the Usk corps, viz., Corporal Creese, Corporal Watkins, and Private B. Stockham the winner, however, was Private Greenway, of Newport. The volunteer prize contest was the last, and in this Private John Roberts won jB4, with 36 points, and Corporal Watkins 5s. with 33 points. ANNIVERSARY.—The Sunday school anniversary in connection with the Wesleyan Chapel, was held on Sunday last, when Mr. M. Hayes, of Bassalleg, preached two appropriate sermons to large con- gregations, and the oollections were exceedingly good. On Thursday, the children's annual tea took place in the chapel, after which they proceeded to the castle, where swings, racing, and other games were provided for them, and all seemed to enjoy them- selves.

CRICKET. USK V. PONTYPOOL ROAD.-A match between these clubs was played on the Island at Usk, on Saturday last. The strangers won the toss and went in, Messrs. Parry and Cowles taking the wickets against the bowling of Messrs. Jennings and Stinchcomb. One run was scored, and Cowles was bowled by Jennings. C. C. Jones put on 10, and fell to Stinchcomb Parry was run out through a smart piece of fielding on the part of Mr. Waddington. Howard, senior, made 15, and the remaining wickets collapsed, the total being 43. Messrs. Jennings and Slade then handled the willow on behalf of Usk, but when ten had been made the former was bowled. Fred Davies filled the vacancy, and a determined stand was made by the two batsmen for about an hour and a-half against no less than seven bowlers. The second wicket fell for 92. Mr. Waddington hit freely, and added 21. The innings closed for 144, and as time was called, the Usk team won the match by 101 runs. The teams and their friends then adjourned to the Castle Hotel, where they sat down to a substantial repast provided by Mr. Morgan. Score:— PONTYPOOL ROAD. E Parrv, run out 8 W R Cowles, b Jennings 1 o C Jones, b Stinchcomb 10 Howard (senior), c and b Stinchcomb 15 James, c T Davies, b Jennings I J R Court, b Stinchcomb 0 Mackurk, c F Davies, b Stinchcomb 3 A E Howard, not out 2 J Wellington, b Slade. I W D Jones, b Slade 0 H Morgan, b Stinchcomb 1 Extras l Total. 4& USK. W H Slade, c Howard, sen., b Court. 50 F. Jennings, b H Morgan 6 Fred Davies, cMaekurk, b A E Howard 24 E Waddington, b C Jones 21 T Davies. b Court 0 A Stinchcomb, I b w, b Court 2 J Boome, c A E Howard, b C Jones 2 It Roberts, c Jones, b Court 0 F H Davies, b Jones 4 H Davies, b Court 2 J Bateman, not out 3 Extras. 32 Total. 144 PETTY SESSION S.-FiilDAY. Before G. R. G. RELPH (chairman), and E. LISTER, Esqs. NON-PAYMENT OF RATES.—Mary Ann Francis was summoned for non-payment of rates.—Mr. Gardner appeared for defendant, and admitted the rate was due. -The Chairman said the Bench never issued a process for non-payment of rate without having it proved that it was made in a due form, signed, and published.- Sergeant Rowen proved service of summons,—Mr. O. Jenkins, assistant-overseer, of Usk. produced the rates, which he said were duly made, signed, and published. Mrs. Francis is rated in the December rate at £ 1 Is 10^d, and in the March rate 19s 8d. Those sums had been demanded, and she said she could not pay them, and they still remain unpaid,—The Chairman: Is there any chance of her paying, Mr. Gardner?—Mr. Gardner: I really don't know, sir. She does not pay any rent nor interest on the money. The premises now belong part to myself and part to Mr. Kynch, and neither of us derive any benefit from them. There are no effects to administer to, and no estate.—The Chairman I don't see that we have any other course, Mr. Keats, than to issue a distress. If it is no good, the overseer here will have discharged his duty and be released from any further responsibility. You will withhold it a short time.- Mr. Gardner I see no other course. ANOTHER.—Mr. John Davies, assistant-overseer of Gwehelog, applied for an order against Frederick Cross anil wife.-She was not in court, and had promised to pay by that day. — P.C. David proved service of summons.—Mr. Davies proved the case. He was rated in the November rate at 12s 51d March, 12s 5.1d; June, 15s 2id. Each rate had been demanded, and remained unpaid.-An order was made, as in the previous case, to be withheld for a week. THE LATE SURVEYOR OF THE HIGHWAY BOARD.- In the case of Henry Williams, late Surveyor to the Pontypool and Usk Highway Board, who was charged with not giving up the books and accounts of the Highway Board, Mr. Gardner said he appeared for defendant, who wa no t present.—The Chairman said Mr. Gardner's appearance would not do, as the alterna- tive was sending defendant to prison.—Mr. Gardner All I have to say is this. Mr. Williams came to me a short time before this meeting, and he requested me to ask your worships if you would giant him an indulgence until Monday and he would deliver up the bok s and accounts. -The Chairman He ought to be here. The punish- ment is to send him to prison.—Mr. Gardner I know, sir.- I can only say what I have been told to.—The Chairman Of course. I am afraid that he does not quite understand his position. If we give him days of grace now, probably we shall be treated the same manner as the Highway Board.—Mr. Lister: I think he is treating this bench with great disrespect—The Chairman: We are aware that the Highway Board does not wish to act in a feeling of harshness. He has been in the employ of the board a number of years, and they have no wish to be vindictive. You having appeared for him and said that his books and accounts shall be in the hands of Mr. Keats on Monday, we shall adjourn this meeting until this day week, and if they are not given up by I hat day, and he does not then attend, we shall issue a warrant. If he has played with his late employers we will not be played with by him or any one else. If Mr. Keats will let us know before that that he has delivered them up it will not take place.

COUNTY COURT.-SATURDAY. The County Court was held on Saturday last. The cause list contained 144 cases, the largest number we believe ever entered for one hearing since the establish- ment of the court. The greater number were, however, settled before the return day, and the following were set down for hearing on Saturday. Before H. STAFFORD GTTSTARD, Esq., Registrar. UNDEFENDED CASES. Cradock G. Watkins v Richard Evans.-Goods sold, X2 4s 0d.—10s a month. Edith Jones v Robert Jones.-Goods sold, 10s 6d.- Forthwith. Edward Jones v William Franklin.-Goods sold, zC2 12s 5d.—4s a month. Same v John Walters.—Goods sold, dSl 13s 4d.-Two monthly instalments. Same v William Smith.-Goods sold, 15s 8d.—In a month. Same v Evan Lewis.—Goods sold, £1 198.-In two months. Same v Noah Pritchard.-Goods sold, £ 5 18s lid.— 10s a month. George Mundy v William Watkins.—Goods sold, £ 2 Os 2d.—4s a month. Same v Thomas Preece.-Goods sold, 4s.—Forthwith. William James v Herbert Thomas.-Work and labour, hauling, Xi 10s.-Two monthly instalments. James Jones v J. Whitney.—Goods sold, I I 8s Od.— 5s a month. Same v Thomas Watkins.-Goods sold, L4 2s 4d.— 10s a month. Same v William Morgan.—Goods sold, zC2 14s lid.— 5s a month. Same v William Sheen.—Money lent, £ 1—5s a month. Thomas Rees v George Griffiths. -Goods sold 13s 9d. -In a mouth. Same v Michael Mitchell.—Goods sold, 14s 4d.—3s a month. Same v Jesse Madley.-Goods sold, 7s 3d.—In a month. Same v William Williams.—Goods sold, £ 1 8s 6d.- In two months. Joseph Mattick v William Watkins.—Goods sold, X4 6s 3d. —10s a month. Same v Charles Evertson.-Goods sold, X2 12s 9d.— 4s a month. Same v William Morgan.—Goods sold, 17s 2d.-5s a month. Same V Thomas Watkins.—Goods sold, 8s 6d.—In a month. Same v John Walters.-Goods sold, L18 13s 8d.- Two monthly instalments. George Sutherland v Edwin Maddocks.-Goods sold, 16s 9d.—6s forthwith, and the remainder by two instalments. Same v Thomas Preece.-Goods sold, 6s 9d.—4s a month. Same v Mrs. Phillips.—Goods sold, 10a 9d.—Is a month. Same v Michael Geary.-Goods sold, 4s.—2s a month. Same v William Nash.-Goods sold, 2s.-Forthwith. Same v William Hulett.—Goods sold, £1 18s 2d.- 4s a month. Same v Morgan Pask.-Goods sold £ 1 12s 6d.-2s a month. Same v John Jenkills.-Goods sold, 10s 6d.—4s a month. James Jones (cabinetmaker) v John Waters. -Goods sold and money paid, £ 3.—10s a mouth. Same v Thomas Dibbins.—Goods sold, £1 5s 6d.—In a month. Same v Philip Henry Powell.-Goods sold, £ 1.—In a month. Sarah Williams v William Morgan.-Rent, 19s. — 10s on the 19th inst., and the balance in a fortnight. Mary Heard v Daniel Murray.—Rent, J.3 18s 6d.—3s a month. (Before His Honour JUDGE HERBERT ) LANGLEY AND OTHERS V JONES. His Honour, in giving judgment in this case, said I am clearly of opinion that the advance of the X40 by Mrs. Morris to Jones was not a gift, either absolute or conditional, but a loan. The account which Jones gives of the transaction would alone impnrt this. and the payment of 1:1 to Thomas Langley after the death of the intestate is strongly corroborative of this view, j the payment having been made to the person who was supposed by the family to be entitled to the residue of this money under the document signed by Mrs. Morris on the day before her death. But I think that document is not a good declaration of trust, as was contended by Mr. Watkins, but an imperfect testa- mentary instrument, having no effect in consequence of its not being properly attested to satisfy the Wills Act. It wants one of the ingredients which was relied upon in the case of McFaddtn v Jenkins by V.C. Wigram. It was not assented to by the defendant Jones in the intestate's lifetime, and, therefore, it could not have been enforced against the intestate had she lived, and as it was said by Vice Chancellor Wigram, "the plaintiff must show that such trans- actions were had in the lifetime of the intestate as against him to maintain the same equity she now claims against his personal representative. Further, I think it may safely be stated that if the intestate had in his lifetime so acted as to constitute himself a trustee of the debt for the plaiutiff, that in equity would establish the claim of the plaintiff as against the administrator to his estate." But that Mrs. Morris did not bind herself or her representative is clear from Edwards v. Jones, I M. & C., 226. In that case the obligee of a bond, five days before her death, signed a memorandum endorsed on the bond, and which purported to be an assignment of the bond without consideration to a person to whom the bond was at the same time delivered. The circumstauces of the transaction did not, in the opinion of the court, constitute a donatio mortis causa, and Lord Chancellor I Cottenham held that the gift was incomplete, and that as it was without consideration the court could not give effect to it. The Lord Chancellor says If it appeared from the circumstances of the transaction that the donor really intended to make an immediate and irrevocable gift of the bonds, that would -destroy the title of the plaintiff, who claims them as a donatio mog-tis causa, a proposition which is distinctly laid down in late v Bibbert, 2 Ves., 3, where a claim to property, on the ground of its having been a donatio mot tis causa, was held to have failed, because uj o the facts disclosed it appeared to be a transaction of a present gift. Again, the rule that this court will Lot, aid a volunteer to carry into effect an imnerfecfc gift has been established by many decisions. The C:1Se of Antrobus v. Smith, 12 Ves., 59, comes nearer to the circumstances of this case than any of those referred to. There was in that case an indorsement pretty much in the same language with the preseut assign- ment, and the general doctrine there laid down by Sir William Grant is extremely applicable here. In order to brin this transaction within the rule, that if there be a[ trust created and the relation of trustee and cestui que trust once constituted, the court will execute the intention, it was argued that the defendant became a trustee for the donee. The same argument was used in Antrobus v. Smith, and it was met by Sir William Grant with this observation Mr. Crawford was no otherwise a trustee than as any man may be called so who professes to give property by an instrument incapable of giving it. He was not in form declared a trustee, nor was that mode of doing what he proposed in his contemplation. He meant a gift. He say- he assigns his property. But it was a gift not complete. The property was not transferred by the act. Could he himself have been compelled to give effect to that gift by making an assignment ? There is no case in which a party has been compelled to perfect a gift which, in the mode of making it, he has left imperfect. There is locus ptnitentice as long as it is incomplete. Every word of that judgment applies directly to the circumstances of the present case. It is impossible to distinguish the two cases, and it is equally impossible to question the doctrine there laid dowu. So I venture to say in the case before me. The instrument intended a present gift, as far as the words conveyed the intention. It was not under seal; it was made without consideration, and, therefore, not binding on the intestate. There was, therefore, a locus penitentice for the intestate, and wanting as it does the fact, which was present in Edwards v. Jones, of its having been handed to the donee, this case appears to me to be weaker than the case cited to establish a trust in favour of the intended donee, and, therefore, I must hold that the plaintiff has failed to establish his personal claim to the debt. He is, however, entitled to recover it as part of the intestate's estate vested in him as administrator de bonis non, and when paid he will hold it for distribution among those who are entitled to the intestate's personal estate.—Judgment for plaintiff for £ 19, without interest. Solicitor and one witness allowed. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. JAMES JONES V HENRY STOCKHAM, This case had been adjourned from the previous court for proof of means.—Defendant did not appear.—Plaintiff said he would not attend.—His Honour: Have you proof of his means P—Plaintiff The only proof I have is that he is doing a lot of work as a master man, and he keeps a public-house.—His Honour: That won't do. That may mean that he is only earning 5s a week.- Plaintiff I should feel obliged if your Honour would reduce the amount. I will take 10s a month.-His Honour made an order accordingly. THOMAS ARNOLD V RICHARD EVANS. —Plaintiff sued the defendant for the value of work done in threshing wheat at a former court. An order was made, but defendant had not attended to it.-His Honour com- mitted defendant to prison for ten days for not having paid, having means. The warrant to be suspended for a fortnight. GLOUCESTERSHIRE BANKING COMPANY V ROBERT ARNOLD.-Defendant had been ordered to pay £1 a month, but had not paid anything. Mr. Watkins, who appeared for plaintiffs, said he could not prove defendant's means in his absence. He should ask his Honour to fine him. -His Honour fined defendant £1 for not attending, and adjourned the case. DEFENDED CASES. JAMES PRITCHARD V E. L. BRITTON,—The summons had not been properly served, and the case was adjourned for proper service of summons. HEZEKIAH HOBBS V J. H. WILLIAMS.—Mr. Watkins for plaintiff; Mr. Gardner for defendant.—Claim X3, for cleaning a well.-Plaintiff, sworn, said I am a well-sinker, residing at Llanover. I was working at Llancayo some time ago, and was sent for while there to go to Panty Colin. I went, and there saw the defendant. He asked me about doing some work-to pull an old pump up, clean the well, and put in a new pump. He asked what I wanted for doing it. I told him jB5, and we agreed for that amount. My son was present then. He is in court now. I did not do all the work, because Williams sent a letter to Mrs. Thomas to stop us. I had opened the well, pulled the pump up, got all the old timber out, and some of the mud when I was stopped by the tenant. Y,3 is a reasonable charge for that. -His Honour: The question is. Is that a fair proportion of the S5 ?- Plaintiff: It is a fair proportion. -Cross-examined by Mr. Gardner: I consider Z3 a reasonable sum for the work. I could have done the work I did not do for £ 2 very well. The bargain was made at the pump. Mrs. Evans was not present when the bargain was made. We made the bargain before we went down the road towards the carpenter's shop. I did not tell Mrs. Evans I made a bargain at the carpenter's shop with Mr. Williams. Two of us were engaged three days and one one day. My son is 21 years of age. Mrs. Evans told me to stop, as she had had a letter from Mr. Williams, who said he never let me the job. I did stop.—William Hobbs, son of last witness, said I was engaged with my father at Panty Colin on this job. I was present when the bargain was made. It was made in the fold at Panty Colin. We were working at Llancayo, and I believe young Evans fetched us to Panty Colin. We saw Mr. Williams when we got there, and he asked father what he thought about the work. Father said he would do it. Mr. Williams asked the price, and father said 95, which he agreed to give. He was going to send a new pump. We were to pull the old pump up, clean the well, and put a new one in. We were to let him know when we wanted the pump and we did so.- Cross-examined The bargain was made in the fold. I don't know where Mrs. Evans was.—To his Honour Mrs. Thomas found the cider.-His Honour I thought it would be odd if there was no cider in it. —Mr. Watkins then called the defendant, Thomas Henry Williams, who said I am the owner of Panty Colin. I saw defendant about sinking this well. I received letters from him about sinking the well after- wards. I have left the letters at home. I received a letter from Mrs. E-raus after he had been there a day or two. I dispute that I ordered him to do the work. I wrote to you (Mr. Watkins) respecting the claim. Cross-examined by Mr. Gardner When I wrote to Mr. Watkins I said I was willing to pay £llOs for the work. I never gave him an order to do the work at a price. He offered to do it for £ o, victuals, and drink. I said I should not give it, as I had a man who would I do it for less-for £2. I refused to employ him by the carpenter's shop. I asked him to let me know if he would do the job for X-5 by the morrow's post. He did not write, and I employed someone else. When I heard he was doing the work I ordered him to be stopped, being much surprised that he was doing it. I never made any bargain. I employed Davies and Sandbrook, of Pontypool, and they did it.—Mrs. Evans, of Panty Colin, said I am the daughter of Mrs. Thomas, the tenant of the farm. I recollect Hobbs coming with Mr. Williams to our house. They went to the well and examined it. I went with them, and I heard something about the price. Hobbs asked X5 for taking up the pump and cleaning the well, and he also wanted victuals and drink from the tenant, which we refused to give. They went off, and some time after Hobbs came back and said they had agreed by the carpenter's shop. He was to have dS5, and 3s 6d for what he had done that day. He commenced the work in a few days. I wrote on behalf of Hobbs to tell Mr. Williams the depth of the well. I received a letter from Mr. Williams in reply, which I read to Hobbs. He was obliged to stop the work, as he could not clean the mud out of the well on account of the water. The men were there three days altogether -two of them three days and one one day.—Cross- examined by Mr. Watkins They got no mud out. Davies aud Sandbrook's man did not get any mud out, he did not try to. They put in a forcing pump.—That was the case.—His Honour The question really is. What is the fair value of the work done ?—Judgment for 35s. Two witnesses allowed. EDWARD JONES v NOAH PRITCHARD. — Claim £5 18s 1 Id, for groceries supplied.—Plaintiff is a grocer at Raglan, and defendant a woodcutter.—Judgment for 10s a month. JAMES GRAHAM V HENRY WILLIAMS.—Mr. Gardner for defendant.—It was stated that the plaintiff was dead. His Honour said the case could not be gone into until letters of administration were taken out.- Mr. Gardner said there was no question of the money owing, but they should like to know who to pay it to. He admitted the debt.-His Honour I will take that now, judgment to be given on production of letters of administration. JAMES JONES, DRAPER, V JAMES POWELL —Plaintiff, a draper, of Usk, sued the defendant, an innkeeper, of Gwernesney, to recover 93 8s 6d, balance of account for groceries and clothing.-Mr. Gardner said defend- ant had no means of paying. He was working as a labourer.—To pay 4s a month. JAMES JONES, BUILDER, V JAMES POWELL.—Claim £ 3 2s 6d, for goods s<>ld and money a i.-is a month. JOSEPH MATTICK V MARIA LLEW^LLIN. — Claim C6 12s 2d, for groceries, part of which had been supplied before the death of defendant's husband.— Mr. Gardner for plaintiff. -His Honour How is she liable for her husband's debts?—Mr. Gardner: She had his estate. She had some of the goods after his death.—His Honour You must take that separately. —Adjourned at request of plaiutiff SAME V DANIEL. HARRIS. Claim £ 5 10s 2d.—Defend- ant's wife produced some receipts, which were iiauded to his Honour.—His Honour said the receipts had been tampered with, and it was a dishonest defence. -To pay os a month, and solicitor allowed. SAME V JOHN MULLET.—Claim E5 6s 2d, for groceries supplied.—Adjourned for particulars. THOMAS FRANCIS V THOMAS DAY.—CMm 15s 2d. -Mr. Gardner, for defeudaut, said the claim arose previous to Day's liquidation.—Day said he had given notice to Francis by registered letter.—Adjourned on defendant paying costs of hearing and half the plaintiff's expenses. SAME V JOHN KENT.-Ctaim 10s 8d, for Welsh flannel and 21bs of yarn.—Mr Gardner for defendant. -To pay in a month. G. SUTHERLAND V JOHN CALLAHAN.-Claim 7s 6d for 2g yards of cord sold to defendant's wife. on 22nd 2 November, 1872.—Adjourned for production of book. SAME V THOMAS HOBBINS.-Claim £1 4s 3d, for drapery. Withdrawn. SAME V MICHAEL MITOHELL.-Claim 16s 3d.— Adjourned. MEYRICK JONES V WILLIAM W ATKINS.-Claim 14s, for rent.—Judgment for defendant. WILLIAM HAZELBY V THOMAS HOBBINS.—Claim 18s 3d, for boots.—Mrs Hazelby said she sold the boots to defendant's wife, who had promised payment. -.58 a mouth. JOSEPH MATTICK V FREDERICK CROSS AND WIFE,- Claim jEla 9s 5d, goods supplied —Mr Gardner for plaintiff.- After the male defendant had been examined, the case was adjourned for the production of the wife. THOMAS DAVIES V S. W. GARDNER.—Thia case was again adjourned for the production of further evidence. PONTYPOOL. SPECIAL SERVICF.s.-On Sunday last the Rev. Peter McKenzie preached two sermons in the Wesleyan Chapel to large congregations. LECTURE.—On Monday, the Rev. Peter McKenzie, of Leeds, delivered his popular lecture "Queen Esther" in the Wesleyan Chapel. The attendance was very large, and tha lecture was delivered with great force. We understand that no less than £ 1,200 has been derived from this lecture, and gave to the Wesleyan fund. INQUEST.—An inquest was held at Abersychan by E. D. Batt, Esq., on the body of William Davies, who was killed by a fall of coal in a pit at Varteg, on the 16th inst. A verdict of Accidental Death was returned. CLUB ANNIVERSARY.—On Monday the members of the United Friends club held their anniversary at the Twynffrwd Inll, where they assembled at 12 o'clock and proceeded to Pontypool, headed by the band of the Abersychan Rifle Volunteers, re- turning to Twynfi'rwd at four o'clock, where a substantial dinner was provided by Host Williams. POLICE COURT.-SATURDAY. Before Col. BYRDE and C. J. PARKES, Esq. DRUNK.-William Hole was fined 10s for being drunk and riotous on the 11th instant. ANOTHER.—Philip Thomas was fined 10s for a similar offence on the 10th August. A DRUNKARD.-Dennis Donovan was ordered to pay 10s for drunkenness on the 11th August, at Trevethin. ANOTHER.—Sarah Hone was charged with being drunk in Pontypool, on the 14th August.—P.C. Morgan proved he case.-Fined 10s., or 7 days. OBSCENE LANGUAGE.—Sarah Hone, jun., was fined 20s., or 14 days, for using obscene language on the 14th August, within the Local Government district. DOGs.-Thomas Ricketts, and David Lawrence were each fined 25s., for keeping a dog without a license, at Trevethin. TitESFAas—John Taylor, Evan Jones, and Mary Hughes were charged with committing a trespass on the property of the Blaenavon Company, by letting a "lorry" run down a bank.—P.C. 80 proved the case. — The Bench cautioned the children, and inflicted a fine of 6s each. ANOTHER.—Jeremiah Desmond and Daniel Desmond were charged widi trespassing on the property of Mr. W. B. Partridge, by cutting an ash tree.—P.C. Porter saw the defendants in a tree cutting a bough off. and was corroborated by P.C. Willmott.Defendants denied the accusation.-The Bench fined them 7s 6d each, or seven days' imprisonment. HOUSE OPKN.—Cornelius Evans, Mamhilad, was charged with keeping his house open during prohibited hours. —Defendant appeared.-P.S. Basham stated that on Sunday, the 11th August, he saw three men in the Halfway Inn, and two pints containing beer, on the engine. One of the men went in the parlour to hide. There was a little froth on the beer.-Mrs. Evans stated that she had the back door open for domestic purposes, and that the two men came to ask permission to gather nuts, and the other she had invited to dinner. -The Bench fined defendant 40s. ON LICENSED PREMISES.—Henry Rees and John Morgau were fined 5s each for being in the Halfway Inn, as mentioned in the last case. SUNDAY TRADING.-Elizabeth Turberville, of the Wain-y-clare, LianvihangelPontymoile, wassummoned for keeping her house open on Sunday, during prohibited hours.-P.C. Davies stated that on Sunday, the llth August, in company with another constable, watched this house in plain clothes. Saw a trap stop and the occupants were supplied with ginger beer. Between the hours of 9.20 and 12.30 witness saw twenty-two persons supplied with beer and cider. -Defendant: Where were you watchingP—Witness; Where I could see you.—P.C. Skyran deposed that he watched the house with the last witness. Saw the landlady bring beer out at 9.45 to a man named Hunt, who lives close by. Witness said he saw six men come to the house, one watched and five went in presently, the one that watched would go in, and another come out. Witness went to the house and said he would report what he had seen. Defendant threw the con- tents of a pint out in the sink, and put her hand in the pint.—Defendant: Where were you F-Witiiess. Not far from your house.-P.S. Basham stated that he saw about fifty men and sixty dogs on the Usk road during closing time on that morning.—The Bench fined defendant £5 and endorsed her license. TRESPASS -Elizabeth Allsop was fined 10s for a. trespass on the property of Edwin Bint, at Panteg, on the 10th instant. ASSAULT AND THREATS.—Richard Burfield was fined 40s for assaulting John W. Price, at Blaenavon on the 1st August, and was also bound in £10 to keep the peace for six months for threatening to use a knife to him. Mr. Morgan prosecuted, and Mr. Greenway defended. ASSAULT.—Ann Baker was ordered to pay 15s and costs for an assault on Lydia Upham, at Pontnewydd, on the 7th August. REFUSING TO QUIT.-Lydia Upham was ordered to pay 10s for refusing to quit the Bridgend, kept by J. D. Baker, on the 7th instant. MONDAY. Before Col. BYRDE, and C. J. PARKES, Esq. A TRAMP STEALING CABBAGE.-William Lewis was charged with stealing cabbages from the gardens of George Davies and John Carless on the 16th August, at Lianvihangel Pontymoile, and was sentenced to one months' hard labour. Before C. J. PARKES, Esq. VAGRANCY.—Henry Barnes was sent to prison for seven days for sleeping in an out-house at Pontypool, on the 17th August. NEWPORT. ON Saturday a meeting was held to consider the desirability of establishing a metal market in connection wirh the corn exchange, which has been erected as a memorial to the late Lord Trpdegar. The proposal of the conventors of the meeting was favourably received, and a committee appointed to arrange details. BOARD OF GUARDIANS.- On Saturday the guardians held their meeting at the workhouse. Mr. Woodruft presided, and there were also present