Welsh Journals

Search over 450 titles and 1.2 million pages

Old Brecknock Chips.' FRIDAY, AUGUST 24th. 70 SIR JOHN DAVY, OF DEFYNOCK. Having read an interesting account of Sir John Davy, of Defynock, in your two last issues, perhaps the following acrostic, writ¬ ten about fifty years ago, may not be unin¬ teresting to the readers of Old Brecknock Chips. I should add that the writer, one of the sons of ancient Defynock, died in 1843. S o fair, so bright, so high of fame, I s Sir John Davy's revered name ! B, emember thou, whose wealth is great, J ohn Davy's works to imitate. O n him behold the robe so fair, High Charity's bright sons do wear ! N o moth can this rich garb destroy, D eath never doth her pearls alloy. A nd richer still her jewels shine, V iew her in glorious light divine, Y e friend? of charity and mine. Iago ab Iago. A WELSH SQUIRE UNJUSTLY IMPRISONED FOR EIGHT YEARS. LEGAL TYRANNY TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO. THE WRONG MAN ARRESTED. The following petitions, two of them to the House of Commons and one to the House of Lords, tell an almost incredible tale of legal conspiracy and wrong-doing. The petitioner alleges that he was twice imprisoned as the wrong defendant in Chancery Court proceed¬ ings for contempt. The petitioner was Edward Games, of Cui, parish of Llanveigan, Breconshire, gent., and he avows that he was wrongfully imprisoned for another of the same name—Edward Games, of Tregare, parish of Llanfrynach, county Brecknock. The petitioner alleges that in fear of the consequences attaching for the first wrongful imprisonment, the parties implicated and the officers of the Court brought about the second and longer confinement. We cannot say whether the petitioner ever succeeded in getting out of the Fleet Prison, as we have no evidence before us to prove whether the petitions were successful or not. By the persistency with which the poor Squire of Cui petitions, we should be inclined to think he had to stay in " durance vile " all his life. In this issue we append a portion of the first petition, which very concisely gives the history of the whole transactions :— To the Honble. the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses in this Present Parlia¬ ment assembled. The Complaint and Humble Petition of Edward Games, of Cuy, gent,, against The Right honble. Simon Lord Harcourt, Baron of Stanton-Harcourt, late Lord High Chancellour of Great Britain, and Sir John Trevor, Knight, late Master of the Rolls. Sheweth,— That there being of late in the County of Brecon, of the same name, one Edward Games of Tregare, gent., and your petitioner, Games of Cuy; as also one John Watters, Esq., the Father, and John Watters, his Son, of the Town of Brecon ; and that there being two bills exhibited in the High Court of Chancery : One by Sarah Powell, Widow, and the said John Watters, the Father, Plaintiffs, against the said Games of Tregare, amongst others, Defendant—distinctly from your Petitioner, as appears by the Bill filed the 3rd of February, 1693, being a Bill for Per¬ petuating of Testimony, and that costs were given in this cause against the said Games of Tregare, for Motions made about Com¬ missions, one obtained upon Manifest Per¬ jury, and directed to other Commissioners than the Court had expressly ordered, and both for that they had been issued out and executed unknown to the Defendants. The other by John Watters, Esq., the Son, together with the said Sarah, Plaintiffs, long after his said Father's decease, against both the said Games of Tregare (in this last Bill stiled Edward Games of Tregare, Esq., for that he was by that time made Justice of the Peace) and your Petitioner, Edward Games of Cuy, Gent., among others, Defen¬ dants, as appears by the Bill filed the 21st of December, 1702, and that this Bill was for Discovery of Writings, and of a quite different Purport, and against different Parties, and not filed till nine years after the former; and being fully answered by your Petitioner, was dismissed with costs to the Defendant, and your Petitioner Games of Cuy. Vide the Order of Dismission. And your Petitioner further represents to your Honours, That there were two Commit¬ ments of your Petitioner on account of the said Cause, wherein the said Powell and Watters the Father were the Plaintiffs. But neither the said Watters the son, nor your Petitioner, a Party as aforesaid, and that the first Commitment of your Petitioner was procured by the said Watters the Son's taking advantage of his Identity with that of his Father to suggest himself to be the Plain-