Village history People Records Houses Newspapers Updates


Home About Links Contact



Hunting Appointments



Meet at 10.30

Monday, Jan. 4 … … Llanarth Court.

Thursday, Jan. 7 … … The Hendre

SUDDEN DEATH.—Mr E.D. Batt, coroner, held an inquest on Monday last, at the Horse and Jockey Inn, Llanvihangel Pontymoil, touching the death of William Jacobs, a roadman in the employ of the Panteg Local Board. On the 22nd instant, he went to work, under the instructions of Mr Joseph Goodenough, to cleanse the roads, &c., and, feeling violent pains internally, returned home. Medical aid was sent for; but Jacobs died before Dr. Williams could arrive. On examination of the body, Dr. Williams found that one of the intestines had penetrated another, and caused inflammation and death; and a verdict to that effect was returned by the jury.

Saturday March 6th, 1875


David Moseley, was charged with being the father of the illegitimate child of Sarah Ann Pritchard.- Mr. Greenway appeared for complainant, and Mr Dixon for defendant.- This was a long and wearisome case.

Mr Greenway, in stating the case, said the law required that the evidence of the mother should be corroborated in some material point by the evidence of other persons; it was very difficult to get such evidence in these cases, but here they had to deal with a virtuous girl, and he thought that her evidence and the surrounding circumstances would be sufficient to induce the bench to give credence in her behalf. He asked Mr Dixon for certain letters which he had given him notice to produce.

Mr Dixon: No, thank you.

Mr Greenway said that at the last court he said that defendant had received six letters from the girl, whereupon defendant replied that he only had five, and that he (Mr Greenway) then gave him notice to produce the five.

Mr Dixon said his client had destroyed all the letters but one- had thrown them into the fire with disgust.

Complainant deposed that she was a single woman living at the Upper Race with her father and mother; in 1873, she lived as servant at Trostrey, with Mr Moseley, grandfather of the defendant; she remained some months there, and then went into the service of Mr Jenkins at Pontrhydyrun; she made the acquaintance of defendant on the first Sunday that he visited his grandfather after she went there to live; while she was at Mr Jenkins’ defendant used to go to see her; she used to visit his mother’s house, and he used to take her home from there; on one of these occasions, on the first Sunday in April, 1873, he succeeded in seducing her, and this was repeated twice afterwards up to the last week in July; she remained in the country about four months, and then went to service in Gloucester, and while there wrote to defendant; she remained there until the end of December; finding that she was about to be confined, she wrote three letters to defendant from Gloucester, as to the paternity of the child, asking him what she was to do, as she could not return home; she returned to her mother’s house, and was confined there on the 5th of January, of a boy, of which defendant was the father; she wrote to him three other letters after she returned home, and one of these was written while she was in bed; in one of the letters she told him she must be confined at the union or his mother’s house, as she could not return home; she had no answer to either of those letters; in the last letter she asked him to meet her; after the child was born, she and her mother went to his mother’s house; his mother said that if they wanted to see David they must please go into the house; they did so, and saw him; he said they must say what they had to say before his father and mother; she told him he knew what she wanted; he replied that provided the thing had been kept quiet, he would not have minded coming to anything reasonable, but now it was all Pontnewydd works, and those --- girls from Penyrheol had come down and spread it, and it was in every one’s mouth; she then referred to the letters she had written to him, and his mother asked why he did not answer them, and he gave no reason.- In cross-examination, complainant said she would be nineteen years old next May; she was at Trostrey in August, and then our friendship commenced on the first Sunday night that he came there; nothing improper occurred at Trostrey. (Mr Dixon: Seven months and nothing improper.- Mr Greenway: That speaks for the respectability of the girl.- Mr Phillips: I think it speaks for the responsibility of both parties.) Defendant’s mother got her the place at Mr Jenkins; she used to go to defendant’s, visiting, nearly every Sunday evening, and frequently took tea there; he had paid her money. (Mr Dixon: I wonder Mr Greenway did not ask you that question.- Mr Greenway: I knew you would.) He had given her 3s. as a present, while she was at Mr Jenkins’, and she received a brooch from his sister as a birthday present; his mother gave the brooch to his sister to give complainant; she never received presents from other young men; the parents were aware that he escorted her home. (Mr Parks: Did he live with his parents I- Witness: Yes, sir. Mr Parkes: Then they must have known.) On the first Sunday in April they were coming along the road at, night, when an improper intimacy took place for the first time; it is a parish road, and people were passing to and fro; from that time till August, when she went to Gloucester, they were only so intimate twice, but she saw him perhaps twenty times when she was at his mother’s; the last week in July, he was in Mr Jenkins’ house, and there improper intimacy took place, Mr Jenkins being from home at the time; when she and her mother went to his mother’s house, the words he used were not, “If the child were mine I would do anything to keep it quiet;” the words he used were those which she has mentioned in her evidence; she and her mother did not sit nearly an hour in his mother’s house without speaking a word about the child; her mother, when they were going away, asked him if he denied being the father of the child, and he said he did; she never saw a young man named Elias Bush, or a young man called “The Fitter” from the Race; no fitter from the Race ever made her a present of a brooch; his mother gave his sister the brooch, and the sister gave it to a witness; while at Jenkins’, she knew a young man named Rowlands, who lived at the Waterloo Inn, close by; Rowlands never came to see her; she had written to her master, Mr Jenkins, about this, and this letter was the one now produced; in it she used the expression, “You remember seeing him running away from your house.” (The bench, having read the letter, said that it tended against the defendant.) Did not know any men named Wilks; near Mr Jenkins’ house there was a gate leading into a field, but never stood there with Wilks’ arm round her.- In re-examination, complainant said that defendant, on the first Sunday in April, walked with her through the fields above Mr Brew’s, but he overcame her on the road, and no one passed; she had never been improperly intimate with any other young man; she had stood at the gate with defendant many times.

Henry Pritchard, a lad, deposed that he was formerly in the employ of Mr Moseley, at Trostrey, at the same time that Sarah Ann Pritchard was there; he went there in August, 1873, and remained there about fifteen months; while there he frequently saw David Moseley and Sarah go out together, on Sunday evenings, and he did not come in till ten o’clock sometimes; had seen them by the stile for a quarter of an hour sometimes; they were side by side, as close as they could be; had known them to be along together in the back-kitchen, at Trostrey, for a considerable time, but saw nothing improper.

Ann Pritchard, wife of Wm. Pritchard, and mother of complainant, corroborated the account of what took place.

The cross-examination did not affect the testimony of these witnesses.

Mr Greenway said he would not take up the time of the court with further evidence.

Mr Dixon then, on behalf of defendant, addressed the bench, and asked them if they had any doubt in the matter to dismiss the case, as the girl could come again if she could get better evidence, but the young man could not afford to appeal.

Elizabeth Moseley, mother of the defendant, deposed that she never saw her son in company with the girl; when the girl and her mother came to her house, since the birth of the child, half-an-hour passed in conversation, without a word being said about the child, until they were going away, when the girl wished to speak with defendant outside; he told her that if she had anything to say she was to go inside; her mother said, “Yes you had no need to deny it, the child is enough like you;” defendant said, “I know nothing about it- if I am guilty of the deed of being with you, I would have come to you and tried to make some arrangement,” she said she had written him a deal of letters, and given him enough of a chance; she had given her daughter a brooch to give to the complainant on her birthday, in return for a brooch which complainant had given to witness’s daughter as a birthday gift; complainant had shown her three of four brooches, and said that one of them was given to her by a fitter from the Race, who used to go after her, and who had gone to America – in cross-examination witness said she had been as friendly with complainant as two women could be, and she never knew anything wrong about her. - To the Bench, she said she never knew that her son kept company with the girl.

William Jenkins was next called. He was an infirm old man, and Mr Phillips caused some amusement by asking if this was the single man whom Mr Dixon thought so dangerous a character. – Mr Dixon replied that he did not insinuate that, but that this witness being a bachelor, gave the girl more liberties than other people would. – The witness then deposed that while the girl lived in service at his house he never saw defendant in company with her, and had never seen him running away (referring to a passage in her letter). – In cross examination, he said he never saw her but as a good virtuous girl.

Tom Harding, a millwright, formerly working at Pontrhydyrhun, and a companion of defendant, deposed that he, almost every evening between August 1873, and August 1874, used to frequent the Waterloo Inn; he had to pass and repass Mr Jenkins, and had frequently seen the girl standing at the gate with a young man, shorter than defendant; he had his arm round her waist; saw that in the week after Good Friday, and particularly recollected that week because on Good Friday he would not go to work, and the men brought a wheelbarrow and candle and lantern to fetch him; never saw defendant with her.- In cross examination, he said he came to give his evidence voluntarily; Mrs Moseley had met him in Newport and asked him to come, but did not know what he was going to say, nor had he told any one else; sometimes at the Waterloo a pint of beer would last him three hours.

Jacob Bessell deposted that he had never seen defendant with the girl.

Defendant was then examined, and swore that he had never kept company with the girl, never was improperly intimate with her, and never used the words mentioned by complainant. He did not answer her letters, but threw them into the fire. Her mother asked him if he denied the child, and he replied “certainly I do;” she said, “You had no need to deny it, it is enough like you;” and with that he began to laugh. Here defendant’s power of remembrance failed him, and when asked what next too placed, he said to Mr Dixon, “You just draw it to my memory,” a course which Mr Greenway and the Bench objected to. Mr Greenway begged him to remember that he was upon his oath. Defendant afterwards said that the words he used were, “If the child was only mine, I should only be too glad to come and settle it quietly, and not have all this bother;” her mother said it had been kept quiet; he replied that he knew better, as it were all about Pontnewynydd the day after the child was born; he never took her home from his mother’s to Jenkins’.

Mr Greenway caused the child to be shown near the defendant, and said: It is very much like you.- Defendant: I should not wonder at that.- Mr Greenway: What do you mean by that? – Defendant said that all human beings were something like each other.- In cross-examination, he admitted that he once walked with the girl by Dr Brew’s “to show her the way” He threw all the letters into the fire the days after he received them.

Mr Parkes could not understand why defendant, if innocent, did not meet these letters with indignant denial.

In answer to Mr Phillips, defendant said he never saw the girl at tea at his mother’s.

Mr Greenway wished to call the girl to deny the imputation made by the witness Harding, but the bench did not think it necessary.

Mr Dixon then made a speech of some length, to which Mr Greenway considered a reply unnecessary.

The Bench consulted, and ordered defendant to pay 3s. a week with costs.

SATURDAY MAY 22nd 1875



TENDERS are invited for the Hauling of the Stones for repair of roads in the parish of Glascoed.- Particulars may be had by applying to Mr WILLIAM REECE, Bryn Farm, or the surveyor, HENRY WILLIAMS.

Usk, May 17th, 1875.



At Monkswood, near Usk June 15, Elizabeth daughter of the late Mr Henry Stinchcomb, aged 13 years.


LOST EIGHT SHEEP, from Gwernesney, (3 English Ewes, 2 Welsh ones, English ram and 2 lambs), the property of

MRS. ROBERTS, Hendrew, near Usk.




Before Col. BYRDE, and C.J. PARKES, Esq

CHARGE OF HOUSEBREAKING.- Andrew Brooks & John Parry were charged with breaking into the house of Richard Williams, railway guard, at Sebastopol, and stealing therefrom a silver Geneva watch. Complainant deposed that his house was broken into during his absence on Sunday evening, by some one forcing open the back door, and his watch was taken. Joseph Jennings, painter, of Pontypool, deposed that the lads lodged in his house, and on Sunday night Brooks gave him the watch and asked him to take care of it; Parry came into the house afterwards. P.S. Basham deposed that on Monday morning he went to the lodging house at Trosnant, and found defendants lying in the same bed; they said they came from Newport, along the canal bank, and Brooks said he bought the watch from Parry. Brooks now said he did not know that the watch was stolen, and that Parry told him he brought it from North Wales. Brooks also handed in a written statement. The Bench cautioned defendants that what they might say might be used in evidence against them. Parry then said he went into the house, leaving Brooks outside. Brooks said he would stay for him (Parry), but did not; he (Parry) admitted that he took the watch, and said he overtook Brooks about a quarter of a mile from the place, and exchanged the watch with him for a book, a handkerchief, three pairs of stockings, 8d in money, and a lot of ties. Brooks said that Parry, when he went into the house, said he was going to beg a piece of dry bread; when Parry overtook him, he said he brought the watch from North Wales, and his brother would half kill him if he sold it, but he must sell it to pay for his lodgings and he wanted him (Brooks) to give him his bundle for it; Parry afterwards obtained leave to sleep in the same lodgings with him (Brooks). Parry said that Brooke’s statement was correct; he came from Ruabon, and was looking for work. The Bench, taking compassion on the early age of the prisoners refrained from sending Parry for trial, and sentenced him to three months’ hard labour. Brooks was discharged, but was cautioned that he had had a very narrow escape.

 Richard Williams didn’t live in Glascoed at any point to my knowledge, but I have included this since he was the father of Emily Ada Williams (born 1871) who married William John Pitt, of Panta House then Rose Cottage (born 1859).




Before Col. Byrde, and C.J. PARKES, Esq., and E.J. PHILLIPS, Esq.

LANDLORD AND TENANT.- John Turberville was charged with assaulting William Panniers. Mr T. Watkins appeared for complainant, and asked that defendant should also be bound over to keep the peace. – Complainant deposed that he was a horse-slaughterer, and occupied one room at defendant’s house at Wain-y-claire; he went into the back-kitchen to have his tea, and defendant came in and said “Panniers, I am at home,” struck him down, and dragged him towards the pump and cistern, and there he was knocked silly by Turberville or a man named Hunt, who was there; defendant had threatened to “make complainant’s big fat head into mince-meat;” he was in bodily fear, and as soon as he was served with the summons, they were on him like a pack of hounds after a hare.- Defendant said that Panniers cohabited with a woman, and was in the habit of quarrelling with her, and he (defendant) feared there would be murder done; he interfered to protect the woman; they had been most obnoxious while in his house, and he must get rid of them.- Panniers said that his wife was in the habit of being made drunk in the house after he went to bed, and then thrust into his bedroom.- A little girl, aged 10 years, daughter of Panniers, gave evidence which agreed with that of her father.- David Morgan, farmer, of Glascoed, deposed that on Monday last defendant told him that “he did not give Panniers enough, he ought to have had some more of it.”- Turberville said that this witness had a horse of Panniers on credit. He admitted that he struck Panniers and Panniers retaliated; he had great provocation.- The Bench imposed a fine of 20s, with costs.

MAMHILAD.- The annual Harvest Thanksgiving service to return thanks for the late abundant harvest was held in the parish church, Monkswood, on Thursday, the 14th inst., when the Rev C. Cook, rector of Mamhilad, preached a most appropriate and impressive sermon to a large congregation. The prayers were read by the Rev. S.C. Baker, vicar, and the lessons by the Rev. Henry Davies, curate of the parish. The church was most tastefully decorated by Miss Louisa Roberts (the Hendrew), Miss Lizzie Evans, Miss Sarah Anne Howell. The musical portion of the service was well sustained by the choir, assisted by numerous friends from Glascoed, under the leadership of Mr J. Morgan. Mr William Wilks presided at the harmonium. The offertory amounted to £2 1s. 6d.




The annual ploughing matches were held on Llandowlas Farm, occupied by Mr Warren Evans, the hon. Secretary of the Usk Farmers’ Club, on Friday 22nd instant. The attendance was not so large as on former occasions.

To the member who shows the best couple of Fowls … … … … … … 0 10 0

To the member who shows the second best couple of Fowls … … 0 5 0

The first and second prizes in this class were awarded to Mrs Rees, Wernhere.



The annual ploughing matches and exhibition of grain, live and dressed poultry, butter, cheese, &c., took place at Abergavenny, on Thursday, under the auspices of the Abergavenny Agricultural Association.



For ploughing half-an-acre of land, within four hours, in the best and most workmanlike manner, with a flay, not less than five inches deep.

Class 1. – To a farmer or his son, farming within a radius of twenty five miles of Abergavenny, with a pair of horses without a driver- a silver cup, given by Messrs. Tucker Brothers, Abergavenny, value £5 5s, Mr Thomas Rees, son of Mr W. Rees, Bryn Farm, Glascoed; 2nd. by the Association, £1 10s, …


KICKING A LETTER CARRIER AT MAMHILAD.- Samuel Twissell was charged with assaulting John Phillips, a lad. Mr T. Watkins, for the defense, admitted the offence, but pleaded provocation. In answer to him, the boy denied that he called Mrs Twissell an old sow, threw dirt over her little girl, or put their dog in the canal. The boy deposed that Twissell accused him of insulting his wife; he denied it; and the defendant kicked him. The Bench fined defendant defendant 10s and costs, and recommended both parties to drop the ill-feeling that seemed to exist between them. Twissell said he could not pay, and he was told that if he did not he must go to gaol for seven days. The money was soon forthcoming.






The usual monthly meeting of this board was held in the Town-hall on Monday last. Present – Mr Powell (chairman), Messrs. Jones (Trevella), Marfell and Rees.

An account from Mr Jesse Davies, for the sum of £11 10s., for hauling forty yards of stone, at 5s. 9d. per yard, and a second account for the sum of £10, for repairing the road from Penylan Barn to Cwmair (Ed Note, Lower Cwmhir), to the satisfaction of the waywarden of the parish and the surveyor, was also given in.

The Clerk called attention to the fact that the tender for the haulage of the stone, for which the account had been sent in, was only 4s. 6d., and asked how it was that the extra account had been charged.

The Surveyor said the reason was that he (the surveyor) had been unable to procure the stone stipulated for in the tender, and the contractor had to collect small stone out of the quarry, which gave him a great deal more trouble in the filling.

The Clerk said, allowing this to be the case, he though the extra charge excessive; he would consider 3d, per yard quite sufficient to make up the extra trouble in the loading.

In the matter of the repairs to the road, the Surveyor said he should request the board to order the cheque to be signed for the amount (£10) and left in the Chairman’s hand until the time for payment, which would be at Christmas.

The Clerk thought this would be putting the cart before the horse; they had not received the report of those to whose satisfaction the road had to be repaired- when they had their report it would be time enough to draw out the cheque.

Mr Jones said he could fill small stone at 1d. per yard, and it would pay him very well.

The Chairman said, as a man of experience, he could tell Mr Jones that it would be almost impossible to get wages at this price; supposing he filled twenty yards a day, that would be only 1s. 8d., and he was sure Mr Jones was worth more a day than that. He (the chairman) was capable of doing quite as much work in any day as Mr Jones, and he was sure he could not do it.

The Surveyor said if a man filled fifteen yards a day it was very good work.

Mr Rees said he wished to object on behalf of the parish of Glascoed to having to pay for the fencing and repairing of the road leading from the Berthin Bridge, the said road being in the parish of Monkswood.

The Chairman said the proper course to adopt in this matter would be to notify the waywarden of Monkswood parish of his intention not to pay towards the repair of this road any longer, and then the warden would bring the matter to the board.

The outcome of these stories can be found here in the report of the next meeting.



At Hoosierville, Clay County, North America, Nov. 2, by the Rev D.F. Davis, Martin, son of William Crump, of Estavarney Farm, to Julia Emma, daughter of Thomas Marfell, Rhadyr Mill, Usk.

Included since there were some Crumps living in Glascoed in the 1810s and 20s and also the 1860s - may be a different family though!