100 years ago: Housing problems making the headlines

Newport housing

There is a great shortage of housing accommodation at Newport. There are also habitable houses vacant. With out doubt if the owners would let them they would be taken, and one or two families at least would be accommodated. But there is no power to compel a private individual to let a house.

If it is regarded as worth while, the municipality can compulsorily acquire a house to convert it into tenements; but if it is not worth while to go to that trouble and expense the owner may refuse to let the house while he holds out for the big selling price which he thinks he has a right to demand when he sells a house with vacant possession.

Every day as men pass into the town on their way to business they see a vacant house. They hear it stated that a family have applied for it, and that the owner will not let it, but is prepared to sell at a figure which is regarded as too high. In the meantime the owner stands out for his own price and the house stands vacant.

This one, the writer said, was built about 14 years ago, and then sold for £240.

About three months ago it was sold privately for £450; it has been untenanted since, and recently it was put up for auction and withdrawn at £590.

If these facts are correct, what are we to say?

MORE NEWS:

• Newport Staffordshire bull terrier owner allowed to keep dogs after neighbour savaged
• Mad Dog Brewing Co. craft brewery shuts up shop for final time
• Disgraced boxing champion Justyn Hugh jailed for stalking

Milk churns order

Llantarnam man fined

William A. Stark, of Llantarnam, was summoned at Newport for using a milk churn contrary to the Milk (Use of Churns) Order. 1919, on the 11th inst. Mr L H Hornby prosecuted, and Mr F Chas. Jones defended.

Mr Hornby stated that the defendant had been purchasing milk from Mr Harding’s dairy at Chepstow.

When he creased to have milk he was requested to return any churns belonging to the Chepstow Dairy. Nothing was done, and another letter was sent, in reply to which Mr Stark promised to see if he had any of the Chepstow churns, and if so, to send them on.

On February 5 one churn had come back, and Mr Stark said he had none belonging to the Chepstow Dairy.

He promised to make further investigations and see if there were any churns in the ice-house which did not belong to him. It was subsequently found that he had one of the Chepstow churns on one of his carts.

Mr Jones said that the matter was simple enough. At the time when Mr Stark said he had none of the Chepstow churns, he thought he had none.

He promised to investigate, and did so, and on the second occasion found that there was a churn in the ice-house. That was on February 10, and it was on the 11th, when it was on its way back to the Chepstow Dairy, that it was found on his cart empty. The charge was not one of using someone else’s churn, but of having someone else’s churn in their possession. A fine of £5 was imposed.