Papurau Newydd Cymru

Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru

Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

26 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

CARNARVONSHIRE SPRING QUARTER…

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

CARNARVONSHIRE SPRING QUARTER I SESSIONS. The Carnarvonshire Spring Quarter Sessions were held on Thursday last in the spacious new County Hall, when the following magistrates were present:—Right Honble. Lord Newborough, chairman Honble. Colonel Pennant, M.P.; Wm. Bulkeley Hughes, Esq., Plas Coch Captain T. Ll. D. Junes Parry, Madryu Park Rev. St. George Armstrong Williams, Cefn, Llaugybi; Owen Evans, Esq., Ty'nyeoed, Pwllheli; C. J. Sampson, Esq., Carnarvon; John Millington, Esq., jun., Bryutir- ion and William Floyd Chapman, Esq., of Llan- dudno. The Court having been opened in the usual manner, the following gentleman wera sworn on THE OB AND JURY. Mr Jam6 Roeg. Newspaper Pro prietor, foreman John EvaDi schoolmaster, Uxb'utse?qMro Ellis Jones, brazier, C.istle Ditch John Jackson, fanner, Cocksidia H. Jonathan, halter, Higlk-itreut Lewis Lewis, gentleman, Quellyn Thouias Jones, tailor and draper, Castle-square T. Price Jones, innkeeper, Hich-street Owen .Jones, draper, Castle-equare W. P. Williams, druggist Bridge street Peter Ellis, draper, PooUtr^et E. Humphreys, Royal Hotel J. W. Stepheus, genuetnan, Uxbridge-squnre In addressing the Grand Jury, the Chairman said--It is not to by expected that, the Assizes being so recently held, there sh mid be mi iv criminals fur tM; and he was luppy t,) "ay that nni> ouj easy remained for the pro- secution. H > should, therefore, dismiss them, as there was nothing for them to do. Mr. K. i>. Williams—Not so, my Lord, there is—there are some bills to be laid beiore them. The Chairman —Well, very well; you know what un- siness is t be done better them I do. The Grand Jury then retired to their room. NEW MAGISTRATE. Wiii. Floyd Chapman, Escl., then presented him.,elf,am1 took the customary oaths as a magistrate tor the coun- ty, which were administered by Mr. Poole, Clerk of the Peace. ÎIIr. Chapman then took his seat upon the Bench. THE ALLEGED RAVISHING CASK AT CAUNWKVON. The Chairman made some enquiries I-elttive to the man, John J ones, who had been committed to prison to await his trial at the recent Assizes. Mr. W. Bulkeley Hughes said ho understood the mail had been committed to await his trial at the next As- sizes. Mr. Lu D. Williams—The Judge did give the oruer, but he had no power to commit him to prison, only for the time, he held his commission. Mr. Williams, magistrates' clerk, informed the Court that the man was still in prison. Mr. Bulkeley, Hughes said he had received a letter, in which several respectable parties uttered to become bail for him. AIr. J. Williams remarked that by tho orders of the Judge the man was ordered to be kept in gaol until a ju-itice of the peace went bail for him, and the girl was produced. Mr. Bulkeley Hughes—But the liberty of the subject is very dear to us all, do you think (addressing Air. R. D. Williams) that the man can be legally kept in pri- sou for that time ? Mr. It. D. Williams-If you will come to my office, sir, I will answer the question. It is it legal question, and my friend here, Siv. Powell, was engaged for the defence. Mr. Powell denied having anything to do with the case in one way or another. Mr. R. D. Williams again expressed his opinion that the Judge had no power to commit him to prison longer than the time he held his commission. He expected the man would have been set at liberty on the evening the Judge left the town. The Gaoler was then sent to fetch the order from the Judge, which empowered him to detain the man in prison. On his return it was handed to the Chairman, and was an order from the Judge, written by his clerk, Mr. Cromptou. and directed that he be kept in prison till he was bailed hy a justice uf the peace, and the missing girl, the prosecutrix, was produced. Mr. It. D. Wiliituis-I dout think either the Judge or Mr. Crompton had any authoritv to do so. Mr. Bulkeley Hughes—What is to be done, then ? Mr. R. D. Williams-There is no charge against the man. Mr. Bulkeley Hughes-But the depositions taken in the case are still in existence. Mr. Williams-True. The subject then dropped, without anything being decided upon. THE BEDDGELERT AND TRESUDOC ROAD. The Grand Jury having returned into court, the fore- man, Mr. Rees, said they had returned a true bill against the parishes of Ynysoynhaiarn, Penmorfa, Llau- fihangel-y-Pennaut, and Beddgelert, as evidence had been produced before them which proved that the high- way road running through those parishes (that is be- tween Beddgelert and Treiuadoc) was in a bad state of repair, and also that in places it was dangerous. The Chairman asked why they had not proceeded against the Trustees ? Mr. R. D. Williams replied that the Trustees could only be reached through the parishes. The parishioners would have to be proceeded against in the first instance, and then they had their legal remedy against the Trustees. A process against the several parishes named was then grauted. COUNTY BILLS. Mr. Powell, Mr. Poole, the Clerk of the Peace, and others, then presented various bills due on the county, which, after being examined, were ordered to be paid. Several of them had been received very late-utily that morning in fact. APPEAL CASE. In this case, the Messrs. Raines, Lupton, and Compa- ny, owners and lessees of the Pentregwyd,lel and Pen- monrhos limestone qiiarriei, were the appellants and the Overseers of thb parish of Llysfaeu, in the Vale of Llanrwst, were the respondents. The appeal was against the amount of a rate assessed upon them to the relief of the poor, and which they maintained was more than the actual value of the pro- perty warranted. Mr. H Griffith, Llanrwst, appeared for the appellants, and Mr. Powell, Air. R. D. Williams, and Mr. W. Jones, (Conway) for the respondents. Mr. Gritlith briefly stated the particulars of the case. On the yth of January a poor-rate was assessed of Is. in the pound, by the overseers of the parish of Llysfaeu and another upon the 3rd of March last—the first of which the appellants had paid, under protest. Their grounds of objection against the rates then assessed were, that they exceeded in amount the rates previously levied upon them, and also the rateable value of the farm owned by them, 'and the two quarries, was too much, as the property was over-rated. There was ano- ther reason which rendered the rate, as far as the appel- lants were concerned, altogether an invalid one. In the assessments of January and March, the two quarries alluded to were rated as one property whereas, in fact, the appellants were the owners of the Pentregwyddel quarry, but they were only the lessees of that of Pen- monrhos, which they had leased from the Crown. Be- sides, there were other parties who had an interest in one quarry, in addition to the appellants, the books and accounts of each being kept quite separate. Now, the law required that in a case of that kind the assessments on each should be rated separately; for in case of any dispute arising as to the amount of rate levied, how could the value be ascertained when they were lumped together ? Mr. Griffith then quoted from Lumley and other authorities, as to the law on the point, which he maintained was plain and explicit; and for this reason alone he maintained that the rate was illegal, and ought to be quashed, as the assessment was neither just in equity nor legal in law. He would also inform their Worships that the notice of appeal sent by him to the re- spondents had been admitted, and there was no occasion, therefore, to prove the notice. I,, Air. Pnwell replied that it was for the appellants to shew that the rate was bad in law. He should be ena- bled to prove that the rate was properly assessed, and the proof of itd being bad in law rested with Mr. Grif- Mr. Griffith then went on to say that the gross rent of the two quarries was X400, and the rateable value was set down at A:300, which at Is. in the pound amounted to just .£1; The appellants owned, as well as occupied, the Pentregwyddel quarry whilst they only held the other under a lease conjointly with others. One pro- perty was therefore freehold, and the other leasehold, and it was against the law to rate them together as one property. That, he thought, would be clear to every- one. Up to the 1st of January they had not been so rated, for until then the larger quarry was rated at kloo, and that of Penmonrhos Mr. It )>. Williams explained that this was the first rating under the new assessment committee; and there was nothing at all to shew to them that the appellants were the owners of one quarry, and merely the lessees of the other. There was nothing in the books which ahewed that, neither had Nlr. Griffith stated that in his notice of appeal. Mr. Griffith said he should go upon the third objec- tion in the notice, namely,—that the quarries should have beeu separately rated. He then referred to ano- ther legal case, which he maintained bore precisely on the point, and which case he stated to the Court. Mr. Powell observed that, up to that point, all that the advocate for the appellants had done was to make Assertions that the rate was an illegal and an udjuat one but he had brought no witnesses to shew its injustice. He expected that the Messrs. ttaines and Lupt In would I have been called to give evidence on the subject, and to prove to the Court that they were over-rated. But no- thing of the kind had been attempted; and the only objection raised against the rate was merely a technical one, in order to burk the enquiry altogether as it regaid- ed the merits of the case. Mr. Griffith replied that he was quite prepared to go into evidence to prove that one property was free- hold and the other leasehold and if he could prove that, it was clear the rating upon each ought tJ have been a separate rating, and as they were not, the rate was invalid in law. Mr. Griffith then called Mr. Raines, who deposed as follows—I am one of the appellants in this case. I, Mr. lupton, and Mr. Nesia, with others, work the Pentregwyddel and Penmonrhos limestone quarries, which are situate iti the parish of Llysfaen. On the 20th of J Line, 1815, we obtained a lease of the land of Miss Catherine Lloyd. (Lease pro- duced and examined.) We have worked the quarry now for 30 (?) years, the rent of which, originally, was E130. Sometime after this, the North Western Railway Com- pany wanted a part of the laud for their convenience and after they had taken it, the rent was reduced to £111 per annum. I have been connected with this quarry now for a long time, and if I was called upon to let it to a tenant, I should say that fl30 a year would be a fair gross rent for it. We also, with Mr. Pennington, work the Penmonrhos quarry, for which we paid rent to the Crowu-first, tlO, afterwanls J:20, and now £30. The sttiie parties do not work both quarries—they are in fact separated altogether. I think X30 a year is a fair rent for this latter quarry. In answer to the Chairman—That is, a dead rent. The royalty varies, sometimes being under and sometimes over the rent we pay for it. Witness o)iitiii tied We were previously rated for the Pentregwyddel quarry at £ 100. I occupy the farm of Pentregwyddel, which comprises 93 acres, for which we pay £86 a year, gross rent. This was more than it was worth when we first entered upon it. Cross.examinell by Mr. Powell-IVP. trade under the name of Kaines, Lupton, and Co." I did make a return to the Income Tax of the net profits derived from the Pentregwyddel quarry but I object to state what it was. unless ordered to do so by the Court. I did not think I should be called upon to answer such a question, as the Income-tax officers are bound to secrecy, in such matters. The Court having decided that he had better answer the question, Witness continued—I cannot say that the return gave £ 1,511 as net profit, but it may have been about that amount. I was not before the Assessment Committee at Conway, but Mr. Lupton was. He then went on to explain that the profits did not accrue from the quarry in question, but from the ma- chines in Wiilness, Lancashire, to crush the stone. It was the mill there, and not the quarry, which created the profits. Some sparring then took place between Mr. Powell and Mr. Griffith as to whether Mr. Raines should state how and in what way the profits stated in the Returns to be derived from the quarry were really made, and as to other somewhat irrelevant matters, when Mr. Powell desired Mr. Griffith to go to the point, as a matter of fairness to the appellants themselves, the As- sessment Committee, as the question affected not only the parish of Llysfaen, but the entire county. If he was prepared to prove that the quarry was over- rated, let him do so, as that would certainly be the best plan. Mr. Griffith insisted that he had a right to prove that the two quarries ought to have been separately assessed. The farm, too, was included in the objection, as it was assessed to 120 acres, where it consisted of only 93 acres. Mr. Raines next stated that the mills in Lancashire were supplied with stone from these quarries, and it de- pended upon what they charged for their stone ar-,1 Pentregwyddel whether the mills gave any profit or not. Mr. Lupton was next called upon to give evidence. He said—I am one of the appellants in this case. On the 7th of November last f attended an Assessment Committee at Conway for the purpose of objecting to the valuation lists upon which the assessments were based. That meeting was adjoured for a fortnight, and I attend- ed the adjourned meeting also, when the Committee agreed to reduce the assessment of the farm, which they admitted had been over-rated. Mr. Powell here stated that an over-charge for seven acres had been discovered, and it had therefore been ad- mitted. Witness continued-Yes, Sir, it was admitted, but the assessment has not been reduced. Mr. Powell.-But we are quite willing to reduce it. Mr. Griffith-But in the rate-book the farm is rated to 120 acres, whilst the farm is really only 93 acres so that the difference is not 7 acres, but 27 acres, and this amount was charged in the rate passed on the 5th of Ja- nuary, although they had admitted the error in No- vember last, and therefore the appellants had paid the rate under protest. Mr. R. D. illiains then produced the rate-book to shew that the reduction had really been made in the last as- sessment. Mr. Griffith--Yes but the amount was not reduced, and the assessment value was put down at zell2 in- stead of at L79, as had been agreed upon by the Com- mittee. The advocates having cavilled a little as to this mat- ter, Mr. Lupton continued—As the reduction promised was not made, I paid under protest. Another demand was made on the :!rd of March, on the same basis as the previous ones. I think jE130 a year as rent for the Pentregwyddel quarry would be a fair and just rent, something pretty much like what is paid for similar quarries in the same neighbourhood. I also consider ze 30 a year a fair rent for the other quarry. It was not worked for years after we leased it, and it was only gone on with to prevent opposition. By Mr. Powell-As to the Income-tax Returns, we put down £ 1,494, as profits from the Pentregwyddel quarry alone. In the former are employed about sixty men; iu.the Penmonrhos quarry some 17 or 18, and sometimes double that number, according t,) the demand for the stone. The last rate was paid by myself, the re- ceipt being sent to me to Liverpool, through post, by Mr. Hughes, solicitor, Conway. Our carts have not the name of the firm upon them, but the nameof the quarry at which they are used. We trade as two companies, and have separate invoices and separate interests. We have no objections to make to the rate merely on account of names. By Mr. Griffith-The invoices of the two quarries are always made out separately. Mr. Templeton, who stated that he had been the agent to the two quarries for six years, then gave evidence, which, as far as it went, was precisely similar to that given by the other witnesses. Mr. Powell then addressed the Court for the respond- ents, and observed that he never knew a case supported by weaker evidence. The Assessment Committees had done their work so well and so satisfactorily, that through- out the entire county the only persons who had appealed were the Messrs. Raines and Lupton—no other persons had raised any objections at all. Now, if their present application were successful, it would cause great incon- venience to the parish authorities, and it would bring discredit upon the Assessment Committee itself. The parish officers would have to make up the deficiency, and the poor people would have to wait for their money, and a great deal of confusion would be caused. Now, what was the reason of their objection ? They were rated for two quarries, one of which, by returns fur- nished by themselves, brought in a nett profit of £ 1,494 a year, which quarries were only rated at X300. Now, would any farmer, or any other person, who could clear, nett, £ 1,494, think himself unjustly dealt with if the property which produced that profit was only put down at E 300, as rateable value ? No one could say so. Then, as to the positive value of the property-what evidence was produced to shew what it was ? Why, that of the two ownersof the property inquestion, and their agent, and of course they all agreed to a nicety in their estimate of its value Why was there not brought forward some im- partial person to give his opinion on the matter, rather than the owners of the property and their agent ? Mr. Powell then proceeded to state the rule adopted by the Assessment Committee in settling the rateable value of property, by which rule, he said, the two quarries in question, judging by the returns, should be £598, or by another calculation, it would be over jC400 at the very least. What, then, had they justly to complain of, and where was the injustice ? In order to avoid paying any rate at all, they had insisted upon a technical objection; but he was glad to say-that power was now lodged in the Bench to amend" any new technical objection, and when there was no positive injustice in the case, and he begged of their Worships to do so in that instance, as it would prevent a great deal of inconvenience, as no party would suffer any wrong. As to the rating of the farm they were quite willing to amend that, and to re- duce the rateable value from zCI12 to £ 79, and the acres from 120 to 93. As the witnesses which had been called on behalf of the appellants had in reality proved the case against themselves, he would not trouble the Court by calling any witnesses, but there were some present who could speak to the fair valuation of the pro- perty in question. After a good deal of desultory discussion, the sub- stance of which was but a variation of the points already disputed, The Chairman said the Bench had decided to reduce the rateable value of the farm to 1:79; whilst thitt as- sessed on the two quarries should remain as it was at 4,?300. Mr. Griffith asked the Bench if they would grant him a case on the point which he lad raised, in reference to the separate rating of the two quarries. This application was objected to by Mr. Powell and Mr. R. D. Williams. After some consultation amongst themselves, The Chairman said they were willing to grant a case if Mr. Griffith wished it. The Chairman and Colonel Pennant then suggested that the parties should try to come to terms amongst themselves, to save the trouble and expense of going to Chancery; and the appellants said they were quite will- ing to do so. Ultimately, the matter ended by a case being granted Mr. Griffith then applied for costs, which, he said, he thought, he was entitled to. Mr. R. D. Williams strongly opposed the application, adding that, in his opinion, they it were who ought to have costs, and not Mr. Griffith. The Bench, however, decided not to grant any costs to either side. CHIEF CONSTABLES REPOBT. The following is the report presented by T. P. n. Ellis, Esq., Chief Constable, to he Magistrate" :— Iy Lur,1 and Gentlemen-I have the honour to sub- mitt to the Court, first, that the money earned by the police during the quarter ending December the 31st, 1S64, amount, to P46 I Is. Id made up and audited as under—Carnarvon, £13 8s. Od.; Bangor, £ 8 19s. 9d.; Nevin, £ 6 10s. 3d.; and Portnitcloc, L6 2s. Id. Second- ly, no changes of stations have taken place during the quarter, except the removal of sergeant G. Roberts from ISottwnog to Tremadoc, during the continuance of the railway works in that neighbourhood. Thirdly, through- out the quarter, the force has been short of men, owing to the want of a small reserve, as already reported to the Court. Fourthly, complaint has been made relative to the state of the cells at the lock-up house at Nevin, as it regards confinement of prisoners. They are damp, too small, and quite unfit in any weather. I have the honour to be, My Lord and gentlemen, Your obedient servant, T. P. W. ELLIS, Chief Constable. After some discussion, it was agreed that a site for a new lock-up should be be purchased for L:50, on land belonging to Captain Jones Parry, of Madryn. Solicitors in Court—Messrs. Powell, It. D. Williams, W. Huxhes (Conway), H Griffith (Llanrwst), W. Jones (Conway), and J. Williams, Magistrates' Clerk, (Carnarvon).

.FLINTSHIRE QUARTER SESSIONS.

I MERIONETHSHIRE QUARTER SESSIONS.…

[No title]

BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH. I

THE RUSSIAN PESTILENCE. -I

miitpcri;tl i'wUmuettt.I

[No title]

1-.Ikilfpiu uttm!JtUCt.

REVIEW OF THE BRITISH CORX…

LIVERPOOL CORN EXCHANGE.-TcE\D.IY,

[No title]

ICHESTER MARKET—SATRNOW.

LOXDON HOP.MARKET.—MONDAY

! LONDON SEED MARKET- MONDAY.

LIVERPOOL WOOL MARKET —SATBRD.IT.

LONDON HAY MARKET.—SATURDAY.

BIRMINGHAM HAY & STRAW MARRKT.—TUESDXX.

LONDON TALLOW MARKET.-Mofmy.

BIRMINGHAM CATTLE MARKET~TUESD\T.

METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET—MONDAY.

ICARNARVONSHIRE AND ANGLESEY"…

I VALE OF CLWYD RAILWAY.-

I LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN…

[No title]

Advertising