• Newport Chartists Vol.24, p.42

  • Use stars to collect & save items A vector image of star to represent action to save this item   Login to save this item
  • Download (non-commercial use only)

Content can be downloaded for non-commercial purposes, such as for personal use or in educational resources.
For commercial purposes please contact the copyright holder directly.
Read more about the The Creative Archive Licence.

Image 1:Download link to the full resolution of image number 1
full resolution of image 1
Image 2:Download link to the full resolution of image number 2
full resolution of image 2
Image 3:Download link to the full resolution of image number 3
full resolution of image 3
Image 4:Download link to the full resolution of image number 4
full resolution of image 4


Page 1:
[top right] Page 42 Document No 777

2nd January 1840

Lent Mr Maule ^ copy of enclosed Letter, Mr Maule
called upon me at the Beaufort Arms [Monmouth]
said I have had your letter and ... /now?/
come to be scolded I said I was placed
in an unpleasant position between
the Grand Jury pressing for the Bills
and the magistrates requiring me
to proceed with the Bills and that
I wished to know the intentions of
the Crown upon the subject. He said
upon referring to the cases that
he did not think a case could be
supported ag - st Thomas Davies No 5
or Jno Lewis Llewellin No 20 &
that as regards Wm Davies whatever
may be done in his case not to
prefer any Bill pending
the present Trials but estreat his
Recognizances for the present I replied
that such a course would not

Page 2:
be satisfactory to the magistrates
who were determined to prosecute if
the Crown did not and that as
a means of getting over the difficulty
I proposed seeing Wrightman with
the papers & taking his opinion
upon the 2 Cases which Mr Maule
assented to and I took Copy Dep[osition]s:
ag-st Thomas Davies No 5 and
a Newspaper report of the Exam-ons
before the magistrates of Jno Lewis
Llewellin No 20 with addl Evidence
of George Essex , John Parry and
Keziah Harris . Mr W[r]ightman[?]
subsequently saw me with Mr
Maule and stated he did not
see what offence Thos Davies No 5

Page 3:
could be indicted for and that the
case agst J[n]o Llewellyn No 20 was
so far back that the attorney Genl
would not prosecute I replied
the magistrates required proceedings
to be taken ags-t both but
particularly Llewellin who I
considered a case of Sedition ags-t
& that I sh[oul]d[?] see the magistrates
I did see the magistrates and they
requested me to look carefully into
the Evidence & to see them tomorrow

[at foot]
1 Jany 1839 Preferred Bill ag-st John Partridge
for Conspiracy and Riot and upon the Bill being
Deld into Court Mr Maule exclaimed ag-st it
most vehemently & stated there was no case and that the
attorney would not prosecute

Page 4:

Comments (0)

You must be logged in to leave a comment