Village history People Records Houses Newspapers Updates


Home About Links Contact


Saturday January 23, 1864.


JESSE DAVIES v. WILLIAM JONES.-This action was brought by plaintiff, who resides at Glascoed, for the recovery of £7, said to be the value of two pigs purchased of the defendant, a pig dealer, and which had died. Mr. Greenway appeared for the defendant; plaintiff conducted his own case. He said: I bought six pigs of defendant in Pontypool market, on Saturday, the 21st of November. There was no writing about the agreement. The first conversation after I had seen the pigs was – I said: “I don’t like them,” when defendant replied “I’ll warrant them all right, if you like to buy them.” I bid money for them, but we missed to agree. In an hour or two afterwards, defendant agreed to sell them to me at £21 10s. I drove them home towards Glascoed, which is situate about three miles from this town, and gave them some victuals. On the following morning (Sunday), when I gave them food, two of them would not look at the trough, nor smell the victuals, and they would not eat anything, as long as they lived. One of them died in a week, and the other in a fortnight. One of them was opened by Wm. Williams, a country butcher, and neighbour of mine (Webmaster note: this is likely to be the William Williams of Lower Cwmhir - the next door farm). I was present and got gold of its liver, which was like a clot of blood, quite rotten. By Mr. Greenway: There were very few people present when we made the bargain. There was “Curley” there for one. George Farr was there some part of the time, and Jefferies was present also. They heard the bargain between us. By the Judge: They heard the warranty made. By Mr. Greenway: I paid £20 10s. for the pigs on the following Saturday, to Thomas Jefferies, who heard the bargain. At the time I paid this money I did not say anything about the pigs being bad, and did not say they were all right. The Judge: It was very odd you did not say anything to him about their being bad. Plaintiff: But I told William Jones (defendant) the same day, that two of the pigs were very bad. I told him in the market, in the morning part of the day, that there was something the matter with the pigs. By Mr. Greenway: I don’t remember seeing Wm. Farr that day. Had no conversation with Farr on the following Saturday. He did not ask me how the pigs got on. I did not say they got on very well. Jefferies was not with Jones when I saw him. I believe he was in the market. I paid the balance (10s.) after two of the pigs were dead. By the Judge: I paid him because he said that stoppages were no payments, and he would put me in the court for it. I told Jefferies about the pigs when I paid him the 10s. By Mr. Greenway: I said nothing about half-a-crown for luck. I asked Thomas Jefferies what he was going to allow for the pigs that were dead. I know there had been a disease amongst pigs for some time. Some of them died soon and some of them lingered for weeks and months. Could not tell any symptoms of the disease. Cornelius Driscoll, alias “Curley,” said: I heard the defendant warrant the pigs to the plaintiff. The latter said he did not like them, when the former replied that he would warrant them right and sound, if he would buy them. Did not see them after. By Mr. Greenway: Did not known that Jefferies and Farr were there. William Williams deposed that he opened the first pig that died, which he had seen the night before it died. Its liver was rotten. Had not seen any quite so bad before. By the Judge: Could not tell what was the cause of it. Could not tell how long it would take for a pig to arrive at that state from a state of health. Elizabeth Vaughan was called, but her evidence had merely reference for her having bought one of the living pigs of plaintiff, which was sick and had recovered. George Farr deposed to having brought the pigs from Abergavenny by train, on the morning in question, for defendant, and that they were all healthy and good feeders. By Mr. Greenway: My father wanted to buy the same pigs. Heard the bargain between plaintiff and defendant. Was present on both occasions, when the plaintiff first asked the price and when he bought them. Heard nothing about a warranty. By the Judge: I heard defendant ask plaintiff if he would buy the pigs, and did not hear him object to anything about them. Thomas Jefferies said: I was in Pontypool market, on Saturday, the 21st November. Heard the bargain made for the pigs; there was no warranty made. If ever there were pigs in the world sound, I believe those to have been sound. By the Judge: I was present when plaintiff asked the price, and when he bought them. There was nothing said about them being sound and right. By Mr. Greenway: On the following Saturday, plaintiff paid me £20 10s. on account of the pigs. I had a share in them then, but haven’t now. When he gave me the money, he said that the pigs were doing very well, and that he would get the remainder of the money on the Sowhill. I told him I couldn’t wait, as I wanted to go by the four o’clock train, and would take it next week. I saw defendant on the following week, and he said, “You must allow 5s. or half-a-crown, as the pigs have turned out unlucky.” I told him it was no business of mine whether the pigs had turned out unlucky or not. By plaintiff: I can’t tell whether you asked me where William Jones was or not. Heard nothing about the warranty. The Judge to plaintiff: You yourself say that this man was present, and must have heard the warranty. Plaintiff: There was no one present but me and William Jones. The Judge: How can you say that when you have already said that George Farr and Jefferies were present, and must have heard the warranty. William Farr: I remember seeing the pigs in question, and bidding money for them. I thought them to be sound. I don’t know that I was present when they were sold. On the following Saturday, I asked plaintiff how the pigs got on that he bought of defendant, when he said they were doing very well. By plaintiff: Don’t remember the first question you asked me. Plaintiff: Didn’t you ask if I had put William Jones in court, and that you would bet £50 he’d floor me? Witness: That was the other day. William Jones, pig dealer: I am the defendant in this action. I sold plaintiff six pigs for £21. There was nothing about a warranty, nor about the pigs being right and sound. I was not in the market on the following Saturday. I was on the Saturday fortnight, when plaintiff said-“I will not pay you the half-sovereign, unless you give me the crown for luck.” I said-“That’s only child’s play.” He never complained to me about the pigs until he got the summons. By plaintiff: You said in a fortnight that two of the pigs did not do so very well, and told other people that they did. Plaintiff: How could I tell people that the pigs were doing well, when one of them died in a week? In disposing of the case, the Judge remarked that he could not see how he could give plaintiff a judgement. Before he could do so he must be satisfied him that there had been a warranty, and supposing there had been one, that did not tell him that there had been a breach of it, because two of the pigs had died in a fortnight. Plaintiff had said that he did not like the look of the pigs, and that defendant had said he would warrant them, in which he was confirmed by the testimony of Driscoll. He also said that three other persons were present at the time, and they must have heard the warranty given, which they denied. Jefferies and George Farr appeared to have an interest in the matter, and if the evidence rested here, he would have some difficulty in the case; but it did not, for the conduct of plaintiff appeared to have been most inconsistent in paying the whole of the purchase money when the pig was just on the point of death. Having a warranty, he would be entitled to keep the money until he had seen how the pig turned out, and if defendant had sued him for the amount, he would have pleaded that he was entitled to a sound animal, and therefore would object to pay. It seemed to him (the Judge) that any person of common sense would have come to that conclusion, and his inference from plaintiff’s paying the £20, was that no warranty had been given, or that the pigs had shewn no sign of sickness. Then there was nothing to satisfy him that the seeds of disease were in the pigs at the time of purchase. Plaintiff had said something about the liver being bad, but there was nothing in that, as it might have taken only a week to produce the disease, or the pig might have been taken ill only a few minutes before it died. Plaintiff was non-suited. Attorney allowed.

Saturday January 30, 1864


OLD HICKY’S GHOST.- The gossiping portion of the inhabitants of this hamlet, have been busily employed for the last few weeks in commenting on the cause and probable results of the adventures of one of those nocturnal visitants called a ghost, which is said, now and then, to favour this locality with its presence. Those people, who assume to be better posted than their neighbours in the meaning of the signs and countersigns of these ghostly travellers, most seriously declare-and for anything we know to the contrary, as seriously believe-that the ghost in question is the spectral representation of an Irish cobbler, of dubious repute, who formerly lived in the hamlet under the familiar cognomen of “Old Hicky,” and that these visitations have been caused, as he when living prophesied they would be, by a mal-appropriation of his effects, the most valuable and cherished of which is said to be a game cock and its spurs. In contravention of this story, it is stated on equally indisputable authority, that as his conduct and antecedents were of anything but a moral or religious complexion, “Old Hicky” is in the safe custody of “Old Nicky,” and, therefore, completely prevented from “re-visiting the glimpses of the moon,” however much he might feel disposed to do so; and furthermore, that had he been permitted to dwell in a more seraphic sphere, he would not wish to come again here. We simply place these facts before our readers without offering any comment of our own, leaving them to form their own conclusions on this ghostly narrative.

WEBMASTER’S NOTE, "Old Hicky" must have been Thomas Hickey, who was an irish cobbler who died in 1863 and oddly enough was the first person to be buried at Glascoed Church graveyard, on 22/2/1863.

Saturday February 20, 1864

At the Welsh Baptist Chapel, Trosnant, Pontypool, Feb. 13, Mr. James Jones, of Garndiffaith, to Mrs. Martha Williams, of Glascoed.

Saturday March 19, 1864.

At the Hill Farm, Glascoed, Feb. 25, after a long and painful illness, borne with patience and resignation, Mr. John Morgan, aged 68 years. Deeply lamented by a numerous circle of friends and relatives.

Saturday March 19, 1864.

Monmouthshire Quarter Sessions

The Easter Sessions for this county were commenced at the Town Hall, Usk, on Monday last, when there were present on the bench: 22 persons named including the Chairman, S.R. Bosanquet, Esq, Deputy Chairman, Sir Thomas Phillips, Deputy-Chairman and Lord Llanover, Lord-Lieutenant.


The Court opened at ten o’clock, before S.R. BOSANQUET, Esq. (Chairman), Sir THOMAS PHILLIPS (Deputy Chairman), G.R. GREENHOW-RELPH, Esq., and F. McDONNELL, Esq. The following gentlemen were sworn on the


Messrs Thomas Dunn, Usk, gentleman, (foreman); Thomas Davies, Llangwm, farmer; Richard Davies, Wilcrick; Cornelius Evans, Llangwm; Henry Faulkner, Commercial Road, Newport, druggist; John Fontain, Newport, druggist; John Griffiths, Trostrey, farmer; James Gwillim, Llangwm Ucha, farmer; Francis Harris, Bettws Newydd, farmer; Thos. Hugh Hallen, Gwernesney, farmer; James Jenkins, Gwernesney, farmer; William Lodge, Bettws Newydd, farmer; Philip Phillips, Kemeys Commander, farmer; John Parker, Usk, farmer; Thomas Richards, St. Woollos, builder; Thomas Rogers, jun., Llantrissent, farmer; Thomas Rowlands, Llangwm Ucha, farmer; Thomas Turner, Llangwm Ucha, farmer; Henry Watkins, Llanbaddock, farmer; John Edward Williams, Gwernesney, farmer; Charles Coleman, Usk, farmer.

After the proclamation against vice and immorality had been read, the Learned Chairman delivered his …

Saturday April 23, 1864.


ASSAULT.-George Roberts, farmer, Glascoed, was charged with assaulting Thomas Williams, laborer, Glascoed. Defendant was ordered to pay a fine and costs amounting to 9s. 6d., or seven days’ imprisonment in default.

Saturday April 30, 1864.



Subjoined we have the pleasure of presenting our readers with a conjoined list of the Overseers, Surveyors and Guardians recently appointed to act for the parishes hereunder mentioned, for the year 1864-5. [We regret being unable to include the Division and Union of Abergavenny, in consequence of the late arrival of the manuscript; it shall be given next week.]


PARISH: Glascoed

OVERSEERS: Roger Williams, Benjamin Rees.


GUARDIANS: Jas. Jenkins.

Saturday August 13, 1864.



BAPTIST TEA MEETING.- A tea meeting was held in the Baptist Chapel, at the above place, on Thursday, August 4th, when about 400 persons sat down to tea. The public meeting commenced at seven o’clock, in the chapel yard, and was presided over by the Rev. W. Morgan, the minister of the place. Addresses were delivered by the Revs. D. Hargest, Goytrey; M. Davies, Llangibby; C. J. B. Jackson, Caerleon; and G. Cosens, Usk; and appropriate pieces were skilfully sung by the choir between the several speeches, which gave to the meeting a spirit of liveliness. The proceedings throughout apparently gave great satisfaction.

Saturday August 20, 1864.



John Harris, Mamhilad, v. Wm. Reece, Goytrey; claim £2 8s. 4d.-Judgement for £2; to pay forthwith.

Same v. George Roberts, hay dealer, Glascoed; claim £4 4s. 6d.-To pay 6s. a month.

Saturday October 8, 1864.


Abergavenny Agricultural Meeting.


For ploughing half-an-acre of land within four hours, in the best and most workmanlike manner with a flay.

For a member of the Association or his son, with a pair of horses without a driver.

1st prize, £2, Phillip Leonard; 2nd prize, £1, Richard Rees, Jun., Glascoed farm, near Usk.

Saturday November 19, 1864.

MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES.-Hannah Lewis charged her husband, William Lewis with having assaulted her on the 22nd instant at Glascoed, Mr Greenway, on behalf of complainant, remarked that as it appeared to him the parties would not be likely to live together again, and as it was undesirable to make public matters which ought to be kept private, it would be better, he thought, to make some private arrangement. Mr. Lloyd, who appeared for defendant, having acquiesced in this view of the case, the parties endeavoured to settle their grievances, but having failed to do so, the case was adjourned for that purpose.

(NOTE: I believe that the newspaper got the name wrong in this case – and that it was Philip Lewis who was the husband – considering later reports in Feb 1865 and others involving Philip and Hannah Lewis and since no couples of that name appear in other records that I have found concerning Glascoed).

LANDLORD AND TENANT.-Henry Watkins, was charged with having stolen five loads of dung manure, the property of George Roberts, of Glascoed. Mr. Greenway, who appeared for prosecutor, said that he was afraid he could not support a charge of stealing, and he therefore wished the case to be taken as one of trespass. Mr. Alexander Edwards, on behalf of defendant, said he had no objection whatever to the case being gone into in any form. It appeared that complainant occupied a small ‘holding’ of defendant, in the hamlet of Glascoed, and a written agreement was produced that had been entered into between them, that no dung or manure should be taken off the land or premises, in the face of which defendant, or his agents, had carted away five loads of dung and one load of ashes. For defendant it was contended, that complainant was under notice to quit the ‘holding’ in May next, and that the former was therefore justified in what he had done. The magistrates thought the case was one for the county court, and decided that they had no jurisdiction. The parties having changed places, George Roberts was called upon, at the instance of Henry Watkins, to show cause why he should not enter into sureties of the peace. It seemed that defendant had threatened complainant with a pitch-fork, but, on his behalf, it was shown that he had only done so when he was protecting his property. This charge was left open to await the result of the other case.

Saturday November 26, 1864.

AFFILIATION: Benjamin Reece, who was represented by Mr. Alexander Edwards, had been summoned for the support of Sarah Jones’ illegitimate child. Complainant was called by Mr. Greenway, who appeared on her behalf, and said she lived at Llanbaddock, and the defendant at Glascoed, but at the time of making the application she was residing at Pontnewynydd. The child was born on the 11th of Sept., and defendant was the father. Cross-examined-I know the defendant’s brother. Was never properly intimate with him. Know Thomas Arnold and Edwin Poole. Have not been in the habit of walking with them. Have been walking with Richard Boyce. The improper intimacy took place on the Sunday after Christmas last, and twice previously. Ann Morgan deposed that she was walking home from chapel with complainant and Martha Williams, a widow, on the Sunday evening after Christmas, when defendant came up to them. He said-“I wish you a Merry Christmas.” Complainant and “Martha the widow” stayed talking to him, and she saw him put his arms round complainant. “Martha the widow” shortly afterwards joined witness, and they went home together. Margaret Lewis deposed that she was at present in the service of Mr. Evans, draper, Pontypool, but formerly lived at Pantypudding farm. She knew the parties. Saw them very intimate on the Sunday after Christmas, in a rick-fold. They were lying down. It was between six and seven o’clock. It was a light night. I spoke to Sarah Jones. By the bench-I spoke to her after she had got up, and defendant put his hand over her mouth. Cross-examination continued-I have had a child myself, and left my place in consequence. Was not sent away because the men were always after me. I lived at Pontnewynydd for some time. Did not sleep regularly with men in Henry Williams’s hay-loft. Mr. Greenway objected to such questions being put to the witness, and if they were persisted in, he should have to advise her not to answer them, as such imputations were without the slightest foundation. Her parents had been tenants of his (Mr. G’s) for some years, and were very respectable people, and the girl herself bore a good character, or else she would not hold the respectable situation she did, and he (Mr G.) contended that Mr Edwards should not ask such questions, unless he was going to call witnesses to bear them out. Mr. Edwards said, if the bench would grant him an adjournment, he would bring witnesses to prove that she was nothing better than a common prostitute. The magistrates here interposed, and said they considered the case proved, and they should order defendant to contribute 2s. 6d. a week, and pay the expenses, including £1 for doctor’s fee.