The Pembrokeshire Herald and General Advertiser

PEMBROKESHIRE SPRING ASSIZES. Tha commission for these Assizes was opened at the Shire Hall on Monday evening, before the Hon. Sir Gillery Pigott. His Lordship arrived by the express train at 6'48, and was met at the Railway Station by the High Sheriff of the County, G. R. G. Rees, Esq, of Penllwyn, in whose carriage, escorted by a detachment of police, His Lordship was conveyed to the Shire Hall. I' The Commission having been opened, the Court was ad- journed till Tuesday morning. On Tuesday, His Lord- ship attended Divine Service at Saint Mary's Church, where tfc* assize sermon was preached by the High Sheriff a Chaplain, the Rev W. D. Berrington, rector of Aolton, who seieoted for fcis text Luke c. 12, v. 47 48 that servant, which knew hia lord's will, and pre- pared not himself, neither did according to his will, .ball be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy cf stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.' His Lordship took his seat on the Bench at half past eleven o'clock. The usual formalities having been completed, the fol- lowing gentlemen were constituted a GRAND IfcQCBST FOB THE CotTVTY nv Pmimnv. -ø. E. T. Massy, Esq, (Foreman), Cottesmore R. Anderson, Eaq C. AUen, Esq, Tenby R. D. Ackland, Esq, Boulston R. H. Buckby, Esq, Begelly F. Barclaj, Elq, Tenby James Bowen, Esq, Haverfordwest T. T. Edwardes, Esq, Cleddy Lodge W; Fortune, Eaq, Leweatoa H. Leach, Esq, Conton J. L. G. P. Lewis, Esq, Henllan I. Mathias, Esq, Lamphey Court X. Peel, Esq, Denant N. A. Rocb, Esq, Paskeston W. Richards, Esq, Tenby Baron F. de Rutzen, Slebech Hall H. ttandera, Eaq, Tenby J. Lort Stokes, Esq, Scotchwell I John Stokes, Eeq, Cuffern C. C. Wells, Esq, Tenby W. Walters, Esq, Haverfordwest. The officer of the Court was about to call the names in the Commission of the Peace for the County of Haver- fordwest, when His Lordship interposed, saying: Gentlemen of the County of Haverford west. -r am informed there is no I business at present that calls for your attendance. That being so, I for my own part have a very great objection I to swearing people to do their duty properly, and to go through the form of an oath when there is no duty to be I. discharged. I take upon myself not to have you sworn, for it is taking God's namp in rain in my opinion. If ere should be any business that calls for your attend- ance before I laave the town or before the criminal business 13 disposed of, we will go through the form of •wearing you, which is a substance then, because there business for you to do. In the meantime, i beg to thftk you for your attendance, and to discharge you "Yoa will be called upon if there is any business for T" to do. proclamation against rice, profaneness and im- having been read, *8 U»rd»hip proceeded to charge the Grand Jury of Pembroke. He said Gentlemen of the will be laid before you X think as vario.« <!«**in which eleven persor.s are implicated, U' V The first upon the calendar, I am °f a most serious nature ;_h ia 'S»°« HugI. Mao LAD. J £ i •tor** ren. George Raasell on bo^ffi^jp iu I hrfL:8 of the cas0' a* o'ji [nr short and plain., .d un-* n nM wilful at your Prwotnptie -and it is *r~"t v man take? of course e of fu tbp ^nce^ that is beyond all doubt, for it took place in the presence of a great many witnesses who heard the expressions used, and saw the act done, which brings home the act of taking life very clearly indeed to the prisoner at the bar,—tbe great question will be whether under all the circumstances there was that malice prepense which the law requires to make the offence of murder; but these matters will come before the petty jury when they are called upon to deliver their verdict, and they will say whether there are circumstances in the case which makes it a case of manslaughter. Upon that point I give no opinion whatever now: I only make these pre- liminary observations in the case, for it seems to me you are called upon to find a bill for wilful murder against the prisoner, leaving him to be tried by the petty jury. With the facts of the case I need not trouble you at any length they will be laid before you, and there are none that require any observations from me. The prisoner, it seems, had been tipsy, and some other seamen had rallied him about it. The unfortunate deceased took up seme instrument and struck him on the head when he bad a knife in his hand. One of the seamen—the mate- got between them: there was a struggletoget at each other, and the accused struck the deceased and caused the fatal wound. He bad used expressions Which show be in- tended to use this knife in a deadly way, which will be pressed against him when he comes to be tried but you will not see any doubt in the way of what the bill should be. There is another case in the calendar to which I will direct your attention: It is that of a woman who is charged with endeavouring to conceal the birth of a child by secretly disposing of its dead body. As far as I am able to make myself acquainted with the facts, there has been no dead body found. If there has been I am not aware of it; but you will carefully examine the facts of the case, particularly the medical evidence. You will bear in mind it is not simply endeavouring to con- ceal the birth of a cbild, but it is endeavouring to do that in a certain way. You will see whether the evidence brings home to her the charge of secretly disposing of its dead body-for that is the gravamen—the point in the case. The facts are all clear except with rejard to that part as to what she did in the way of disposing of the dead body. The body is not found; but if it turns out it is found, you will still direct your attention as to what she did in the way of disposing of it—whether as princi- cipal or accessory—whether she acted herself, or induced others to do so. The words of the act of parliament are 'endeavouring to conceal by seci-etly disposing;' it does not stop short, and you will judge whether the evidence to be laid before you calls for a bill. Although it seems to me there may be some doubt hereafter as to what she did, there are some statements, although no acts are proved, which appear to assume that she did commit this offence. The other cases in the calendar are cases of stealing under various circnmstanoes,-all ap- parently plain cases for you to determine without requiring any assistance from me. It occurs to me, on reading your calendar, and looking at all parts of it, that there is one part of it which calls for some observa- tions. With many others 1 am one who attaches a good deal of importance to that column which speaks of the degree of instruction which prisoners are found to have bad the benefit of before they are brought into a prison and take their trial at Assizes. I find In the present calendar that the letter N appears against most of the names, which of course means, as you are aware, neither able to read or write.' There are four excep- tions, but they have the letters I Imp;' I understand that to mean 'imperfect'—that they neither read nor write so as to be able to say distinctly whether they can do one or the other: it is a very imperfect amount of instruc- tion-a very imperfect attainment they have made in the art of reading or writing. Now I dare say you will all agree with me that the idle, the ignorant, the unin- structed mind is the one in which the greatest facility is to be found for falling into every temptation. The great subject of education is now occupying, as we all know, the attention of the legislature: it is a most important subject, and it is one which I hope may be carried out nationally to the utmos: extent, so that so far as educa- tion can do it. the minds of the people may be instructed and prepared for good, and protected against temptation and falling into sin. But, gentlemen, whilst the legis- lature is hesitating, we all know time is passing and a new generation comes up, and most of the old generation passes away in a very short period-in a little more than thirty years—and we know that time is soon gone, and a very golden opportunity is thus lost to generation after generation when they pass ont of the world without having the advantages of education. I think it does call upon every man, upon every individual of the community, eachm his own sphere, to consider whether he has done his best-little though it may be-towards the great object of enlightening, by education, the minds of his fellow- men. If we have no great national system at work, there are means of putting the old village schools into a state of efficiency, if we are minded so to do, each In our several Bpheres. All of us know that at a very small expense you may teach the young to read and write, and if you please to do so, a little common cyphering; but reading ind writing enable a boy to improve himself when he becomes a man, and particularly if be has been directed In the road to religious instruction, and is able to read the Testament in his youth, there is no knowing how much good it is calculated to do. It takes possession of tiis mind for a good object, giving it a good direction before it has fallen into temptation to vices, which are ifterwards presented to him in the world. His mind gets i good direction and a good impression in its earliest and nost impressible days, and that is an object which we ;an, all of us, in our respective spheres, do something towards accomplishing, and any of us who neelect it. neglect, in my opinion, a very high and a very grave duty. I don't for a moment suggest that these matters are 'neglected in this county. I have no means of knowing how the parishes in the county of Pem- broke are provided with village schools: I say nothing about it. But I think while we are considering the manner in which the prisoners have been neglected, and the duties that devolve upon the police in bringing persons to justice, and upon witnesses in testifying to facts within their knowledge, and the duty of the judge in attributing to each offence the sentence the law awards, we should not the legs study another, the great and paramount duty which tis incumbent upon every one of us to do our best to instruct our fellow-creatures in our several localities. If we keep in view that duty-doing our best religiously, as well as in a secular sense, we should be doing as much towards getting rid of a great deal of crime as the powers of the law have ever accomplighed- and more. I make these observations to show the amount of ignorance in all the prisoners to be brought before you. I can only add that education, if more extended, will lessen our calendar?, though I am not one of those who believe it will do away with the necessity for a criminal law. No; there will still be crime, but there will be in mv opinion less crime, and where there is crime with a knowledge of better things, the offence will lie at the door of htm wbo commits it more than of those who do so in perfect ignorance, or who do so mainly upon that ground. With these observations I conclude nay address to you, asking you to have the goodness to send me down a abort bill as soon as you can find one, in order that we may the sooner proceed with the business. A true bill having been found, the Court proceeded with the trial of prisoners. ROBBERY BV A SERVANT. Mary Beynon, 16, servant, was charged with stealing 1 black cloak, I white petticoat, 1 pair of cotton stock. ings, 1 black lace veil, I black Garibaldi jacket, sundry pocket handkerchiefs and aprons, 1 brooch, 1 pair of gold earrings, 1 small box, 1 silver tb imble, 1 silver knife, 1 gold ring, I silver pin, 1 gold brooch, 1 buckle, 1 silver ring, 1 silver toothpick, and the sum of £ 1 las, together value j65, the property of Martha Miller, her mistress, at Monkton, on the 16th January, 1868. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr O. Powell prosecuted the prisoner was not defended. Martha Miller I reside at Windmill Hill, Monkton. The prisoner was engaged by me aa a servant on the 9th of December: she remained till the 16th of January. She left of her own accord. I vent from home on that day. When I returned I searched the prisoner's room. I missed a jacket, an apron, and a handkerchief. I missed other articles from my bedroom. The articles produced are they. There were some in a box in the prisoner's room. I lost a sovereign, a half sovereign, and a two-shilling piece. I have "my name on the brooch. The pocket handkerchief has my name on it. I made the Garibaldi jacket. The silver pin was given me by my mother. All the articles produced by tbe policeman are my property. I found the side door lead- ing to the room openit was keyed when I left home. The lock had been shoved back. The value of the articles is about £ 5. Cross-examined: I never sent you to steal by word or deod. I never did so on one Sunday afternoon. I never told you to take the Whipple trees off the plough I did not put them under my bed. By the Judge: I farm forty-four acres. I had the prisoner to assist me in my work. My father rented the land before me. By the prisoner: I never came home drunk, and threw the things into your apron. I was never tipsy in my life. I did not throw them into your apron, and say There— don't say I never gave you anything in my life.' P. C. David Griffiths, of the County Constabulary I apprehended t'ae prisoner at Haverfordwest in a house a: Bethany Row, on the 17th of January. The house was kept by one John Daniel. I found the articles produced here to-day in a room: the earrings were in her bands, and one ring. The rest of the jewelry was In a box. The prisoner said the things were hor own property. This was the evidence for the prosecution. His Lordship summed up the evidence. The Jury found the prisoner guilty. The prisoner was then charged with having been previously convicted of felony in August, 1867, at Pem. broke. The prisoner admitted this cbarge. His Lordship, in paaaaAff amtence, said I should cer- tainly have sent y 0, t or your youth, to penal servi- tude. You. are only 16 years of age, and 1am afraid you are in very bad hand; and anbjcct to sad tempta- t;ons. and that these offences of stealing is not the only bad part of your conduct in life. I hope you will get «*»n«e instruction and discipline where you are going, 6,44 it Wlay have effext upon you for vour good; I hope, events we will try it. If youoome here ^aiutegnal servitude will certainly be your fata. iTbeJ sentaiWeofthe Coust is that 7on be imprisoned and kept to b ,¡ V'/EA?'NO APPAHia, a'C. JVnvender, JS67, YerbEestonp about Pleuded not guilty. <eary Alien prosecuted: the prison}?^ £ -yere not Jlen, having opened the case, sailed •' Palmer whi> deposod I was married or^the '^vember. I left home, and wa:; abseut till the prisoner ."U that time waa in my So4._ back> 'in property. I iorks. The other thing* pro- duced are mine, I know the shirt by the pattern: I have another of the same pattern: I have no name on it. The stockings are home made. The female pri- soner was in my service when I returned she married on the 31st of December. On the 7th of February, I got the warrant. I went with the policeman to her house I was present when the things were found. She begged of me to forgive her. Cross-examined by the female prisoner i I lost ten pairs of stockings: one pair was on the legs of the male prisoner. I had from 15 to 20 pairs of stockings, and you left me about four pair. You were brewing for jour wedding I lent you the utensils. I did not lend knives or forks, nor brush and comb. I lost from 6 to 8 pairs of shirts. My house Was papered and painted when I was away. The things were removed for that pufpose. P. C. Wm. Rees: I went with Mr Palmer tb the pri- soners' house. I found all the things in the house with the exception of one pair of stockings; that pair was found on the legs of the prisoner Thomas James. The prisoner said she had the mug from the house with some drooee, and that she had bought the glasses. When we were coming away the woman asked Mr Palmer to for- give her. Mr Palmer, in answer to the Judge, said the prisoner handled money for him all the year, and she always be- haved honestly so far as he could tell. This was the case for the prosecution. His Lordship intimated that there was no case against the male prisoner. The female prisoner said that the things Were brought to her house among her own goods when she left Mr Palmer's service, and that she intended to fettirn them. His Lordship summed up the evidence. The Jury consulted, and found the fertiale prisoner guilty of stealing some of the articles, They found the male prisoner not guilty: and recommended the female prisoner to the mercy of the Coutt, on account of her previous pood character. Mr Allen, on behalf of the prosecutor, also joined in the reommendation to mercy made by the jury, staiing that Mr Palmer had gone bail for the prisoners when they were committed for trial at the assize. The Judge, in sentencing the prisoner, said: I am at liberty to suppose, from the verdict of the jury, that they find you guilty of stealing a very small part of this property. Mr Palmer has joined in the recommendation to mercy. He has stated that you had been trusted with money and always found honest, and it is very sad to find that you have fallen into temptation, and took things which, as you were about to be married, you thought might be useful to you. I am at liberty to pass a very slight sentence, and I hope you will be honest for the future; but don't misunderstand the leniency of the Court. The sentence of the Court is that you be im- prisoned for one month with hard labout. STEALING .M:OR KT Joseph John, 21, labourer, was indicted for stealing a purse, and the sum of £ 34, the property of Benjamin James, at Henry's Moat, on the 30th January, 1868. The prisoner pleaded tfbt guilty. Mr De Rutzen (instructed by Mr W. V. Jnmes) pro- secuted: the prisoner was not defended. Benjamin James: I am a farmer living at Vaynor. The prisoner is my nephew. He came to me last December— I can't tell the time. He remained in my house nearly a month. I had from £40 to X45 in the bouse. I kept my money in a wall near the chimney: there were X40 in the purse. The purse was in a box, and the box was placed in a hole in the wall. On Maenclochog fair day I asked the prisoner to come out of my room, as I wanted money from the purse. I took the money: the prisoner looked at me from the other room through the cracks in the door. I lost £34. I should know my money if I were to see it; I had tried every one of the pieces with a knife. 1 have examined them all. 1 believe the 29 sovereigns produced are mine. Cross-examined I did not say I should borrow JE20 to pay for a child. I told you not to go about the country like a stroller, f ou gave my daughter 2s 6d, but I told her to give It back to you because you had no money. You made the little girl take the money notwithstanding. The policeman did not ask me about the marks on the money. Mary James: I am the daughter of the last witness. The prisoner was at our house. The day after Maen- clocbog fair, I was coming in from milking about seven o'clock in the morning, when I saw the prisoner in the kitchen, getting off the table near the chimney, where my father kept his money. The prisoner was not quite dressed. He left the house that day. Cross-examined: You did not meet me outside the door and a3k me where my father was. P.C. W. Evaos, of the County Constabulary: I am stationed at Fishguard. I apprehended the prisoner at the Rose and Crown, at Millord. I found 28 sovereigns and 2 half-sovereigns, and Is 9d other moneys. Maen- clochog fair was held on the 23rd of December. Cross-examined: The money is in the same condition now as when I had it from you. It is marked. The prosecutor did not tell me it was not his money. He did not say anything about the money being marked at Milford: he did so at the Superintendent's Office at Fishguard. Benjamin James, re-called: I missed my money on Saturday week. I gave information to the police on Tuesday. Hannah Thomas: I am the wife of William Thomas, of Fishguard. I am a cousin of the prisoner. Last Thursday three weeks I went with him to Fishguard. He asked me to make a pocket in his waistcoat to keep his money. He said he had £29, By the Judge: I do not kaow what the prisoner's occupation is. This was the case for the prosecution. His Lordship summed np the evidence. •The jury found the prisoner guilty, and recommended him to mercy. His Lordship sentenced the prisonrr to imprisonment for six calendar months with hard labour. STEALING LKAD. William Brown, 19, sailor, and James Brojum, 56, sailor, were charged with stealing 8611be of lead, fixed to a building, the property of George Bowen Price Jordan, at Burton, on the 18th January, 1868. The prisoner pleaded not guilty Mr T- Allen (instructed by Mr J. C. James) prosecuted and Mr Bowen, (instructed by Mr Price) defended. Mr Allen stated the case to the jury, and called, John Eynon. who deposed: I am living at Asbdale at present: my home is at Lawrenny. I was placed at Ashdale House to look after it for Mrs Phillips, of Law- renny, to whom it belongs. The head of the dog kennel was covered with lead. After I had been there some time I missed some lead. I missed it on the 18th of January. I lost about twelve or fourteen feet at each corner: it was from 15 to 18 inches in width. I gave information to the police on the 29tb. James Sweeney I am a marine store dealer, living at Haverfordwest. On the 1st ot January I bought some lead—4llbs—of the prisoners. I entered it in my book. On the 20th the police came to me, and I showed them all the lead I bad. When the prisoners came to me, I said the lead looked rather nasty, and I did not 'like to bue it. They said the lead was all right. I asked why it was cut up. and James Brown said it was a large piece which had been taken up by a dredge, and it was cut up because it was handier to carry. Astidaie is about half a mile from Langmn, where the prisoner said he lived. I bought some lead of a man named Connor. Lput all the lead together. Cross-examined I bought 391bs of Connor. The police took away 1 cwt. 2 qrs, 11 lbs. Langum is where the oyster dredgers live. Re-examined: The police returned me some lead. P.C. Thomas Bevnon: lam stationed at Langum. I went with P.C. Williams to Asbdale on the 21st of Jan"ary. I found that a quantity of lead had been taken away. I took a piece away to compare with lead I had from Sweene). I had previously gone to Sweeney and removed some lead. I compared the piece I took from Ashdale with that I bad from Sweeney. The pieces fit exactly. After I made the comparison I ap- prehended the prisoners. All the lead is of the same kind as far as thickness goes. P.C. Williams: 1 saw the last witness take the lead off the kennel. I saw the comparison made with that taken from Sweeney. They fit exactly. Thomas Connor: I am a marine store dealer. Last December I bought lead of the prisoners twice. Both were present on one occasion, and on the other the young man was present. I did not take particular notice of the lead. All I bought of the prisoner I sold to Swoeney. Cross-examined I bought 14Ibs on one occasion, and 20lbs on another. They sold it to me in the presence of a great many people. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Bowen addressedltbe jurylin behalf of the prisoners He remarked that the quantity taken away by the police was mneh larger than that with which the prisoners were charged with stealing, and that it was impossible for any person to conclude that the piece of lead which was asserted to correspond with that found at Ashdale formed part of the 7olbs charged against the prisoners, or of the other portion which was removed by the police. His Lordship here susr^ested that Swcenpy should be recalled, and examined preference to the descriptions of the lead. Sweeney was then recalled, and in answer to his Lord- ship, said that he was unable to state whether the lead varied in thicknes, or whether that retained by the police was lighter or heavier than what he purchased of the prisoners. He could not swear as to the character of the lead. He could not say whether tho lead pur- chased hy him of Connor was ot the same character as that he bought of the prisoners. The Judge said that after the evidence of Sweeney, he did not think the case ought to so to the jury. He W18 always willing to leave a case for the jury go long as there was a question for them to decide, but he thought they should be speculating if, because a piece of lead was found which corresponded with that which was stolen they asked them to jump to the conclusion that it formed part of the 751b« charged against the prisoners. The jury, under the direction of his Lordship, then found a verdict of not guilly. His Lordship, addressing the prisoners: I recommend both of yon to be careful how you dredge for lead, tor you may be called' upon another time to give a better account of it than the jury will think you have done to- day. His Lord?hip remarked to the witness Sweeney:— Whenever you have lead of a suspicious nature, you oupht to be very careful to mark it. and not throw the lead into a large heap unless you are able to pick it out again. t t SHEEP STEALING. Cahcl Morris, 33, butcher was charged with stealing fivrt llbeep, the property of Thomas Thomas, of Henry's 'Nil'at,:On the 4th of January, 1868. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr Josifth Bees and Mr Ben T. Williams prosecuted. Mr Bowen (instructed by Mr Price) defended. lheoias Thomas examined by Mr Williams: I keep the Tufton Anns at Henry's Moat. I rent small farm there 1 bad five sheep in a field near my house, two ewtic. tliVo wethers, and one lamb. The wethers were half bred the ewes were English. One of the, ewes was grey and the other white faced. On the 3rd of January I last saw them in ihc Snld^'I missed thenr on the iJ!h. r gave information to the p.'itce. The value of the sheep was iroai es 10s. to X-9. Four sheeep had on lonchers." Henry John examined by Mr Rees Hive at Mynydd liaoh. _Oofche Cth January I.waa at Cwmcerran Moun- tain. I caft't tell what distance it is from tho prosecutor's house. When I was on the mountain I saw five strange sheep—they were large sheep. They were English sheep: two were larger than the others. The heads of some of them were grey their legs were tied. I saw the pri- soner at the same time about a quarter of a mile from the sheep. I asked him how he was he gave me a civil answer. He asked me if my father killed sheep and how meat sold at Narberth. I said meat was cheap. He said he thought that meat sold better at Cardigan than anywhere else he said they probably sold some at Narberth for gd a lb. I had seen the prisoner several times before. I was in search of a lamb for my father at that time. Cross-examined The prisoner was going towards the quarry. The prisoner used to be a butcher. Some of the sheep had grey faces-I can't tell how many. I did not observe them much. Thomas Davies, examined by Mr Williams: I live it Vronlas i it is between the Uwmoerran Mountain and the Crymmych Arms. I saw the prisoner in our fold about six weeks ago. The Crymmych Arms is on the road to Cardigan from litirbefth Road. It was after dinner when I saw the prisoner. He asked the road towards the Crymmyoh Arms; he had five sheep with him. The sheep were large. He said he was going to meet some person at the Crymmych Arms. William Thomas, examined by Mr Rees: I keep the Crymmych Arms, on the main road from Narberth Road to Cardigan. Vronlas is between my house and the mountain. The prisoner came to my house, I think, on a Wednesday, about six weeks ago. He asked for half a pint of ale until he should return from Blaenff;s. He asked for bread and cheese; he said he had no time to stay, as he had sheep, I saw him go by with five sheep. I think two of them were lafget than the others. Blaenffos is on the the way to Cardigan. This was about three o'clock in the gftefriooh. Be said he was taking the sheep to the pefson tO whom he had sold them. Croas-eiamined i Some farmers in that neighbourhood keep large sheep. Thomas George examined by Mr Wilfiatfts: I Jive at Cilgerran. I waS working on the road at Rhydwen, between Crymtiiiych and Blaentfos, when 1 met the pri- soner. It was on a Wednesday, the 8th January. The prisoner had five sheep: three were rather large, and two were smaller. The prisoner said he had come from near Wiston. The sheep were not lorichei'ed.' Daniel Luke, examined by Mr Rees: I live at Blaen- ffos, and am a weaver. I saw the prisoner at Blaenffia, on the road between Narberth road and Cardigan, He had five sheep he enquired the road towards Cardigan. The sheep were large, and very good. He asked the distance to Cardigan, and asked if he could get lodgings tit Blaenffos. The sheep seemed very much fatigued. Blaenffos is about six miles from Cardigan. William Davies, examined by Mr Williams: I keep the Half Moon Intl, in Cardigan. I saw the prisoner with five sheep t he taid he came from Solva. He asked me if I could recommend him to any one, and I recom- mended him to Mr Morgan. I was present when they were sold to Mr Morgan for £ 6 10k The largest sheep had a rope attached to its leg, but it did not act as a loncher/ The prisoner said his name was Joseph James. Thomas Morgan, examined by Mr Rees I am a butcher at Cardigan. I saw the prisoner at Cardigan on the 8th of January. He had five sheep: one Was a lamb. It was about seven o'clock. I bought them of the prisoner for it6 10s. I killed them the following day. The prisoner said he came from Solva. One of the sheep had a black face. Cross-examined: I gave a fair price for them. John Thomas, examined by Mr Williams i I am Sergeant of police stationed at Kilgerran. On the 28th of January [ apprehended the prisoner at Newcastle Emlyn. I asked him in Welsh where came from, and he said in English from London.' I was in plain clothes, and told him I was a police officer, and that he must consider himself my prisoner. I took him before Morgan, and he said he never sold him him any sheep. Morgan said he thought he had done so. I asked him if he knew John Griffiths, of Maenolocbog. He said be did, and that he had been in trouble of tbis kind often, but he always got out of it. Mr John was his lawyer, and Mr Lascelles his counsel. P.C. John Davies: I have known the prisoner for many years. He did live at Danlan, in the parish of Henry's Moat. and since then with his father. I saw the prisoner at Kilgerran Lock-up: he bad no whiskers; the last time I saw him previous to that he had whiskers. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Bowen ably addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. Hill Lordship summed up the evidence. The Jury retired, and after a brief consultation returned a verdict of guilty against the prisoner. His Lordship: Caleb Morris,-You have been found guilty of a very audacious act—that of stealing five sheep, driving them off and selling them for your own purposes. I must pass a severe sentence as an example to others. The sentence of the Court is that you be kept in penal servitude for five years. CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. Mary Harry, alias Harries, aged 23, servant, was charged with endeavouring to conceal the birth of a child of which she was delivered by secretly disposing of the dead body, at Saint David's, on the 17th of December, 1867. Mr T.R. O. Powell (instructed by Mr W. V. James) appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner pleaded guilty. His Lordship, in passing sentence, said;—Mary Harries-You have pleaded guilty to an offence which varies very much in circumstances according to the na- ture of each case. I am only at liberty to punish-and I only ought to punish-upon the circumstances which come to my knowledge in each case. The difficulty I feel in your case in awarding punishment is that I know very little about any of the circumstances, because it so happens that the body of the child which you have con- fessed yourself guilty of having secretly put away, has never been found. Therefore the most material circum- stances connected with it are unknown to us. The calendar tells me you have been in prison ever since the 6th of January. therefore you have undergone a very considerable amount of imprisonment. Yours is an offence which the Court must mark its sense of, for it is one which the law is most anxious to deter persons from committing. At the same time I cannot pass upon you a very heavy sentence under all the circumstances without possibly doing you an injustice the sentence I do pass upon you is that you be further imprisoned and kept to hard labour for two calendar months. The Court then adjourned. WEDNESDAY. The Court assembled at half-past nine o'clock. WILFUL MURDER. Hugh Mac Lan, 18, sailor, was charged with the wilful murder of George Russell, at Milford, on the 24th of February, 1867. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr T. Allen, and Mr T. R. o. Powell, (instructed by Mr J. C. James), appeared for the prosecution; and Mr Bowen (instructed by Mr Price) for the defence. Mr Powell briefly opened the case for the prosecution, and called George Neil who deposed Oulthe24th of February I was second mate on board the Tomogonops. On that day we came into the port of Milford; it was a Sunday. I was on board that evening. The deceased was an able sea- man on board. Hardy and Solly were also there. I noticed the prisoner coming across the deck: he had a knife in his hand. George Hardy called out to me that be had a knife. The prisoner said it was not me he was going to use the knife for, bijt George Russell he was going to rip his —- gutll up, and it was not the first time he had done it. Russell said Let him come I am ready for him.' He Was standing just at the main hatch. I saw prisoner aim a blow at Russell and mis- sing him. The prisoner bad the knife in his hand then. I saw Russell strike the deceased on the left temple with a belaying pin. It is a wooden instrument. Prisoner was then close to Russell. 1 went between them I was with my face towards prisoner. I told him that I would not have such conduct on board the ship he drew his knife over my left shoulder, and struck the deceased. I seized him by the wrist: be told me he would stab me too if I did not let him go. I replied he was not quali- fied to stab me too. I took the knife from him and threw it overboard. It was a sheath knife. The blade was about six inches long. The prisoner ran to the fore- castle after I lot him go. went to see for the deceased. I found him dead in the fore cabin then. I then went for Mac Lan and found hitB beneath the heel of the bow- sprit. I told him to come with me he said he knew he stabbed tbe man, and he would aa Weil be huug as die. He was sober to my recollection. Cross-examined The vessel put in at two o'clock on Sunday. I went ashore and came back about a quarter to eight. I did not see the commencement of the row. The forecastle floor is level with the deck. There was a quantity of gin and beer in the cargo. The gin was in tins: I found that two were empty. Solly and Hardy were present. Hardy is not present to-day. I Henry Caruthers Solly examined by Mr T. Allen I was a seaman on board the Tomogonops. The prsoner-was an able seaman on board the ship. On the Saturday night I noticed MacLan.^ He was drunk on Saturday night. On Sunday morning at eight o'clock. I heard words between deceased and prisoner. We told prisoner about being drunk. Russell told him the fame, and about making a fool of 1\11 hands on board. Pri-jner said wc ought not to be • oodding' him about it; he did not say anything else. That is «11 I recollect. lathing passed that I noticed during the day. The prisoner was doing his duty about the ship: we knocked off about two o'clock. We went JDto tho forecastle and had our dinner, i saw nothing of him till eight o'clock. 1 saw him coming across the fore hatch, staggering drunk. I saw nothing with him: be came close to me. Russell and Hardy were there. Russell spoke to the prisoner: he said he ought to go to bed, and not m.^ke a fool of himself and all hands on board the ship. Prisoner made an angry reply. Russell said if he wanted anything, stand out and let them have It. Kussell took his jieket off, and struck M'Lan on the none with his hand. M'Lan did not return the blow, but saiu Wait till 1 get dressed or undressed:'I coutd not tetiwhich. Prtsoner went into the forecastle and was there two or three minutes. I f-ttw him come out. I and Hardy told Russell to go aft, and he did so before M'Lan came out. I did nOt notice that lie had anything with him. He asked for Russell, calling him George. I told Russel! to go aft, because prisoner might be coming out with a knife, and he Vvas drunk and might not know what be was doing. Hardy had told deceased to go aft, and I did so after Hardy. I told deceased to go aft that a row might not be commenced. Prisoner next came up and asked Where is George?' I told him I did not know. I did not see anything with him: I don't recollect 1 said so before the Coroner at Milford Haven. 1 might have said that a few minutes afterwards Mao Lan came out with a kuife, singing out for George. Prisoner went to the starboai 3ide, singing ont for Russeii. When he was singing out, Kusse.l came up and struck him with a belaying pin over the head. t Before Russell struck him, he aaid 'Let him come on: I am ready for him.' I then taw prisoner n<n: a uiow at Russell with a knife, and miising him. The knife was down his sleeve. Russell struck him as hard as he could, and cut prisoner's head. It was after he had a blow that the prisoner aimed to strike with a knife. Neil came up. Deceased tried to strike him again, and prisoner sboved his hand out, and the knife took effect in Russell's heart. Neil was between prisoner and deceased. I heard Hardy say that Russell was stuck. I went to call the Captain. When I returned, I saw the mate over him. He would not give up the knife, and the second mate had to knock him down. After striking the blow, pri- soner kept the knife in his hand till it was taken from him, and thrown overboard. When the mate was trying to take the knife from him, the prisoner was trying to conceal it in his sleeve: that was after the blow was struck. There were no more blows struck. When I returned from calling the captain, I heard Russell was dead. The prisoner was put in irons, and came into the cabin. I heard prisoner ask Hugh Hunter whether it was he or himself had killed Russell. Hunter told pri- soner that he (Mao Lan) did it. Cross-examined After the ship came in, all were very friendly. I heard no quarrel between the prisoner and deceased before. When Russell told prisoner to go to bed, he struck him two or three times. Prisoner said wait till I get dressed or undressed,' and went into the forecastle. He came out with a belt round him. The knife was an ordinary sailor's knife, fastened to the belt. Kassell went as far as the gallery when we told him to go aft- I- saw the prisoner's head after he was struck it was cut and bleeding from the effects of the blow with the belaying pin. Russell was a much bigger man than the prisoner. Mac Lan was very drunk. When the fatal blow was given, the mate was holding the prisoner. There was a water cask behind the prisoner, and Neil in front of him. Deceased came up, and struck at him with his hand. He had put the belaying pin down. Prisoner put out the knife and it went up. Mr Allen said he was not able to prodace the witness Hardy. From letters which had been received, that witness was believed to be in China. Geo Griffiths, examined by Mr Powell: I am a sur- geon at Milford. I examined the deceased. I found a mortal wound through the heart. It had entered in frottt of the chest: The wound had been inflicted by aoitte force. Cross-exattfned s The prisoner was not before the Coronefs itfqnest. P.S. Carroll: 1 went on board the ship and appre- hended Mac Lan, about twelve o'clock at night. I told him the charge: he said nothing. He was in irons, and sober. He knew well what he was about. One of the crew, John Shera, came down, and said, Cheer up, Hugby, we will come and we will speak for you.' Pri- soner said 4 lour speaking for me will do mer no good if I am to be hanged, I shall be hanged.' Cross-examined I dotf t know why the prisoner was not produced before the CoFbaer. This was tbe case for the prosecntion. Mr Allen summed up the evidence, remarking that the main facts in the case could not be dispatsd, and that pro- bably the jury would entertain little doubt as to the verdict they must bring in. He thought fhe poin&the defence would ohiefly rely upon was that the offence was* varied from one of murder to one of a minor offence-that of man slaughter. The evidence which would be relied upon in support of that point was that the man was drunk when the affray took place. No doubt the jury had beard that drunkenness was no exouse for crime, but that was a hackneyed phrase, and to a certain extent was true, out only to a certain extent. Drunkenness was some excuse when a man had a particolsf motive or not, and juries were told that if a man, Who was charged with crime, Was drunk when be committed itl then they must not impute to him matter as they would do if he wbs sober. If the prisoner was drtink when the crime was committed the result would be he bad no motive in doing it, and then the case must become Ofie of manslrtoghter, and not of murder, because murder was IIhuÿssopposed., to have a mdHfft in it. The learned covftsel commented upon the evidence adtiuced, remarking upon the differ- ence in the testimony by the witness Sollf before the Coroner and before the Court, and asking them to consider whether he was the tfftAess of truth in reference to the prisoner's sobriety. Mr Bowen addressed the jury in titihalf of the prisoner, in an able speech, in which he complained of the obser- vations of Mr Allen, and expressed his dltfssnt from the law as laid down by the counsel for the pfoeecution. The issue w.As not only whether the prisoner was drunk or not, for there were other circumstances In the ease which were of great importanoe when the jury came to consider whether the prisoner was criminally responsible for the deplorable event which had oc- curred It bad been proved that the prisoner had received great provocation, and had been struck three times by the deceased. The learned counsel referred minutely to the evidence, which he said would satisfy the jury that the prisoner was intoxicated, and in re- ference to the evidence of Carroll who had stated that the prisoner was quite sober when apprehended, he put it to the jury whether it was not probable that a man, who had unfortunately caused the death of another and had been placed in irons, would not have recovered his sobriety four hours after the affair had occurred. His Lordship, in summing up the evidence, said that the jury would have to determine whether under all the circumstances the prisoner took the life of the deceased, and in the next place whether the circumstances indi- cated an intentional and deliberate act. The case was one of difficulty, because only two witnesses were pro- duced, and those two contradicted each other. That was unfortunate, as they were left to act upon the evi. dence of contradictory witnesses, and it was unfortunate that they had been deprived of the evidence of other wit- nesses who saw the transaction, & who being beyond the seat, could not be called before them. It was a most material point in the case whether the prisoner was drunk or sober, and on that question, one witness Solly, had consistently stated that the prisoner was staggering drunk, and the other witness Neil, who had given his evidence in a straightforward and respeotable way, bad said that in his view he was sober at the time. It would be the duty of the jury to ascertain the truth of the matter, and to say upon their view of the facts as they actually existed, whether they believed that it was an intentional and deliberate act on the part of the prisoner, or whether it was an act brought about partly by vio- lence received which threw the prisoner off his balance of judgment, and led him to commit suddenly and with- out premeditation what he would not otherwise have committed or whether he was in a state of staggering drunkenness which impaired his reason and induced him to do an act which he would not have done in his sober senses. If the jury took either of those views of the case, the crime was one of manslaughter: but if they thought he was sober when he went into the cabin and took out his knife to stab the deceased and to strike at his heart and intended to do him bodily injury, then the crime was the capital crime of murder. His Lordship reviewed the evidence, leaving for their consideration whether the crime was one of murder or one of man- slaughter. The jury retired, and after a short absencer returned into court with a verdict of manslaughter. Mr Bowen handed to his Lordship several testimonials to the character of the prisoner. His Lordship, in passing sentence, said: Hugh Mac Lan,-After a very careful consideration of the facts of your case the Jury have acquitted you of wilful murder, and have brought in a verdict of manslaughter. I have to pass sentence upon you for that offence, taking into account all the circumstances under which it was committed. That is a crime which varies more than any other in its nature: and may be almost altogether pardonable, and it may almost amount to wilful murder. In your case there were some expressions used when you brought out the knife which made me suppose you had committed some such act before; but I am happy to find that by the testimonials handed to me that there is no foundation for that, and that up to the present time you have committed no offence against the laws of your country so far as the Court is aware. I consider, however, the present case to be a very grievous one. You took that unfortpnate man's life: you may have been in a passion: you may have had too much to drink: but your mind was, in my judgment, very nearly capable of well and carefully calculating the nature of the act which you were committing. The sentence, therefore, I have to pass upon you is one of considerable severity, and that is that you bo kept in penal servitude for 20 years. < STEALING. James Thomas, 45, shoemaker, and George Tltomas, 48, shoemaker, were charged with stealing four firkins of porter, value X2 15s, the property of the Assignees of George Stone, at Saint Mary's, Tenby, between the hours of nine and ten in the night of the 20th ot Decem- ber, 1867. The prisoners pleaded not guilty. Mr Hughes proseouted: Mr Bowen (instructed by Mr Price) defended. P.C. Thomas Thomas: On the evening of December 20tb, I was standing near the Look-up door, in Saint Nicholas Lane. I heard a noise in the lane, and went out to see what was the matter. I found thre3 firkins of porter in the lane, rolled out by James Stone's door. I saw James Thomas, inside the door, rolling another cask out. George Thomas was outside, also rolling a ensk. I asked them what they were doing they said: 4 We are taking home what we have bought at the sale.' The:. been a sale that day. I took the prisoners into custody. Cross-examined: Other people were removing goods from the place after the sale. I left a man in charge of the casks. I had them put into the passage of the house. It is close to the Police Station. # Thomas Rees: I was the auctioneer at the sale at the Lamb Inn on the 20th of December. I sold no porter there. James Thomas purchased things at the sale. He bought no porter. He bought a jar and can which con- tained beer. I gave tbe beer away, and the two measures were sold as • empties.' Esan Lewis: I was employed at the Lamb Inn on the 20th December. I was in the cellar that evening between tive and six o'clock. There were four casks there at that time. I fastened the door by a beer horse leaning against the door. About balf-past nine 1 went to the cellar, The casks were removed, and were out in the street. James Jacobs was called, but be was not examined. This was the case for the prosecution. I Mr Bowen askea nis L-orasfup wnomer there was any case to go to the jury. Stone; in whom the property had been laid, had sot been called, and for anything that was knoTn io tbe contrary, he might have sold or given the articles to the prisoners. His Lordship said there was a case to go the to jury. Mr Bowen addressed the jury on the prisoner's behalf, and his Lordship summed up the evidence. The jury found the prisoners guilty. His Lordship: This is very strange cjnduet on your part, and I must say 1 can't understand what you were about. You, I suppose, thought that as these were a bankrupt's goods, you had a right to divide them among you. Tbe prisoners said that the goods were in the atreet when they came there, and they were simply removed to get at the goods they had purchased. His Lordship I am obliged to go by my own reason- ing, and I do not understand your mode of conduct. I can't reconcile it with that intention..the sentence ia | that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for three months. This concluded the criminal business. CIVIL CASES. Meyrick v Davies,— This was an action in ejectment. The plaintiff, proprietor of the Bush Estate, brought the action to recover possession of a farm called Steynton Green, in the occupation of the defendant, who is a mer- chant residing at Haverfordwest. The case was heard before a special jury, oomposed of Mr C. H. Allen, Hayston Mr C. E. Bowen, Llanstinan; Mr John Bennett, Wolfsdale; Mr C. W. Cork, Crisborougb Mr R. Carrow, Johnstone Hall; Mr R. P. Davies, Ridge- way Mr W. J. Dunn, Saint Florence; Mr S. P. Williams, Lamphey; Mr C. û. Wells, of Tenby Mr C. ql. Hayes, of Alleaion; Mr X. Peel, Denant; Mr N. A. Roch, of Paskeston. Mr H. Allen and Mr De Rutzen, (instructed by Mr Parrv), appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr Bowen and Mr Williams (instructed by Mr Price), appeared for the defendant. Mr H. Allen, in opening the case, said that the claim was made by the plaintiff, who was the owner of large estates in the neighbourhood of Pembroke, to recover some premises situated at a place called Steynton Green. He had thought from his instructions, that the case would have been an ordinary case of a landlord who had given notice to quit to a tenant; but he understood that his learned friends who defendad the action would raise some conflict of evidence. There was one particular circumstance in the case, which was that the notice to quit the farm of Steynton Green was sent by post instead of the more usual-way of delivering it personally to the tenant in possepsion. Something might be made of that by his learned friends, but if that failed, he was at a loss to discover what would be the defence to the case. There was no doubt the plaintiff was the proprietor, and there was no doubt the defendant was his tenant; and the jury would hear what the evidence was in reference to the notice to quit, about which be anticipated some conflict would arise. The learned counsel then detailed the evidence he proposed to adduce on the plaintiff's behalf, observing that it would be the duty of the jury to deoide whether the notice to quit was a proper one, and of that he thought there would be no doubt when the witnesses were called before them. Edward Tracy, examined by Mr De Rutzen, de. posed I am a clerk to the Bush estate, the property of the plaintiff. The defendant was tenant of Steynton Green. Mr Clark is the agent of the estate. He gave me a notice to serve there is a duplicate of it. It was posted between the 19th and 23rd-not later than the 23rd. I am confident it was the 23rd in my own mind. The notice produced is the duplicate. A letter was written by Mr Clark and given to me. The notice was in it. I posted the letter in the pillar post office, in Water Street. I can't say positively when I posted it, but it was not later than the 23rd. I posted it about two o'clock. The signature of Mr Clark is to the notice. The letter was addressed to Mr Whicher Davies; but I can't say how. The letter was copied: I have the letter book here. Referring to the book, I find it was addressed Mr Whicher Davies, Haverfordwest. It has no date. A few days after it was posted, I received a letter from Mr Whicher Davies. It is in his clerk's handwriting. Cross-examined by Mr Bowen: The letter I posted bears no date. I posted this letter in particular. I post a great many letters daily sometimes, and sometimes none at all. I have no memorandum on the back of the du- plicate showing when the notice was posted or that it was put in a letter. I had on several occasions to write between Mr Clarke and Mr Davies. This circular bears date 13th of June probably it was sent a fortnight after the date. I did not care when so long as they bad it before the day of paying the rent. The envelope bears date 27th of June; but you must not take that for comparison. I have commenced my 11th year in the servioe of the estate. There are negociations about a contemplated exchange of the farm. Mr Davies has had three or four notices to quit the farm. Re-examined by Mr Allen: The circular was an or- dinary circular. There are 500 or 600 of tbe circulars to be sent out, and we are not particular as to the day. I posted the letter with the notice myself. I am quite satisfied I did not post it later than the 23rd. The previous notices were given in consequence of arrears of rent. Mr George Parry examined by Mr Allen I am the at- torney in this action. I came to Haverfordwest on the 3rd of October to see the defendant. I found him at his house I delivered him another notice in reference to another matter. I went to demand the premises: he said he should not give them up. I asked him if he was A Michaelmas tenant, and he said he was. He said he had received the half-year's notice to quit, but he should not gJTe UP Pren"ses because he was entitled to a lease .Between Haverfordwest and Pembroke there are two delive "*e8 on Sunday 'here is one delivery. Cro8s-exau.n"ie<* B°w"n: Mr Davies did not, in answer to mr <1'ae8ti?D whether he had notice to quit, say he had three c.r ,our noticesjof the kind. He said nothing of the kind.. This was the case fox tbe plaintiff. Mr Bowen addressed t*» e jury in the defendant's be- half, and stated that the de,dant was prepared to deny that he received any notice to .auit' 88 asserted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's witness declared that the no- tice was inclosed in a letter which wa* 8en* y ^e duplicate of the notiee which had been ^oduced was a most singular document; for it seemed U, one °* a great many notices-not a copy of a parties. art matter, but words were struck out and alterations made » 0 ma £ 8 it apply to the particular case. The endorsement (Wn back of it had no referenee to the notice itself, hilt an." .v -1"- peared to be a memorandum made by Mr Parry for pur- poses of his own. He was not going to suggest that the signature to the notice was not in the handwriting of Mr Clark, the agent to the estate, but it was most strange that that gentleman had not been called and examined for the plaintiff, and for evidence as to the posting of the document, they had to rest upon the defective memory of Mr Traoy. The case altogether was a most remark- able one. The defendant had held the farm for some years, and when it was let to him, by a gentleman who had ceased to represent the estate, certain things were to be done, which had not been done, and it was pro- bable that the matter would be the subject of Chancery proceedings; but with that the jury had nothing what- ever to do for the sole question for* them to determine was whether the defendant had, as he was entitled to have, notice to quit on the 29th of September. The plaintiff seemed to doubt that it was sent in time, for Mr Parry, it appeared, had made a calculation to show that if the notice existed at all and was delivered a few days later, the number of days would constitute the re- gular number of lunar months. The calculation of Mr Parry was of no use whatever, for everybody knew that by the custom of the country, a Michaelmas taking could only be put an end to by a notice received on the 25th of March. He asserted that if Mr Meyrick's people in- tended to send the notice, it was never sent; and the only evidence in corroboration of their statement that it was sent to the defendant in a letter written by Mr Clark to Mr Davies, was the dooument put in in the handwriting of the defendant's clerk. But that letter commenced with the words, Your letter to hand this day,' and the date of it was the 27th of Maroh, and it contained no reference to the notice to quit. The witness Traoy believed he posted the letter of Mr Clark on the 23rd; but if that had been the case, if it had safely carried, it must have been delivered the same day to Mr Davies, for they had heard that would have been the case according to the postal arrangements. There was no doubt Mr Clark did write such a letter, because they had the machine copy of it; but the question was whether his subordinates had carried out his instructions. The letter written by defendant's clerk referred to one from Mr Clark which was received on the 27tb, and he thought it strange that the jury should be asked to infer that it referred to the letter which the witness Tracy said he believed he posted on the 23rd. It did not ap- pear that those were the only communication which passed between Mr Clark and the defendant; for he had before him a ciroular respecting rent which bore date 13th of June, and did not appear to have been posted till the 27th, as was proved by the postmarks. That fact would enable the jury to form some opinion as to the regularity with which the estate office conducted the business. Mr Parry stated that the defendant had admitted re- ceiving the notice: the defendant would tell them that he had received three or four notices to quit, and that in his conversation with Mr Parry he referred to those notioes, and that he did not tell him he had received notice to quit on the 2r>th of MaroR. If the defendant had received the notice, it was not likely he would refuse to give up the farm he would be rather inclined to negociate. If persons relied on notices to quit, they must prove the service of them, and he thought when they heard the evidence of the defendant they would be satisfied that no notice had been received by him. The learned counsel was proceeding to comment upon the form of notice, and to argue that, even supposing it had been sent, it was not valid in law, because it was not signed by Mr Clark as agent, when, His Lordship said he understood that the defence would be that no notice had been received, and observed that, if that was proved, it was not necessary to discuss whether it was valid in form or not. Mr Bowen said his case was that the notice never came to the bands of the defendant, and he should produce positive testimony to that effect. Thomas Whicher Davies, examined by Mr Williams: I am a merchant carrying on business in this town. I am a Town Councillor: at the head of the poll last time. I am tenant of the farm Steynton Green. I have never seen such a thing as a notice to qnit the farm frequent letters have passed between me and the Estate Office. I did not admit to Mr Parry that I had notice to quit. I told him that I had had two or three notices to quit, but I did not believe I had had one for two years. Cross-examined by Mr Allen: I went to pay rent before Michaelmas-day at the Estate Office. Mr Clark was there. I waS not asked if I intended to go oat pursuant to notice. I said 1 was entitled to a lease and buildings. The election of councillors was in November: I went oat and in again. I believe I was ill ii bed on Sunday, the 24th of March. Mr Mori-is %nd my son did my business. I did not know my uterk, Mr Morris, wrote the letter. I told him msny times that as I heard from Mr Clark thut they were going to seii the place, I should like to buy the place if it were sold worth the money. Mr Morris would not have replied to a uotice to quit without consulting me: it was too serious a job for him to undertake. I saw Hitchingson the road near my farm: I never told Hitchings that I would not go out as I had an agicement- 1 told him to tfell Mr Parry that it was not aDd that if I caught him there 1 should have him up. Robert Morris, examined by Mr Bowen I am clerk to Mr VVhiaher Davies. I never received a notice to quit: I wrote the letter dated dIe 27th. We have searched lor the letters referred to in ii, but can find none. Cross-examined by Mr Alleu. Mr ill: 1 i had to go up stairs to see him he was lying on the coucb. Sometimes I consulted him on business, but somelnneSf when he was too poorly, I did the business myself I don't remember there was a letter, but I conclude from the tenor of the one produced that there was a letter. I swea" that I saw no letter containing a reference to a salte of the farm. I saw no notice to quit: I should have remembered the notice if I had ever seen it. Mr Bowen briefly summed up the evidence of the defendant. Mr Allen replied, and His Lordship summed up the evidence, leaving it to the jury to find whether there was » notice to quit, and when it was received. The jury retired. After an nb-ence of some time, they came into court, and stated that they were unotblst te agree to a verdict. His Lordship remarked that he could not dischovg* them as they had not been in consultation long enough. A juror stated they could not come to a decision. His Lordship enquired if counsel on both sides could come to any arrangement. The defendant peremptorily declined to entertain any compromise, declaring that he would have 4 a fair will or lose.' His Lordship informed the jury that they must again retire and endeavour to agree to a verdict, informing them that the question which they had to decide was whether a notice to quit was received, and if so, be should ask them when it was received. Capt. Wells asked hie Lordship to allow thejnry fire, as it was very co!d in the room where tbey de- liberated. His Lordship said that he could not grant the request, observing that they were to be kept without fire or liebt, candle light oniy excepted. If there was a more com- fortable room, he was willing that they should remove to it. Capt. Wells replied that the room was sufficiently com" forfabto but it was cold because there was no fire in it. The jury again retired, and after being in consultation for a short time, returned into Court with a verdict for the defendant. Mathias v. Child.-This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover damazeq from the defendant for injury alleged to have been done by the illegal levying of a distress by the defendant on the plaintiff's goods. The case was heard before a jury composed of the fol- lowing gentlemen: Mr W. H. Shield, Mr Thomas Skone, Mr R. Anderson. Mr John James, of Trenewvdd; Mr Wood, Cilrhew; Mr Thomas Randall. Mr J. P. Jones, of Sutton Lodge; Mr W. Williams, St. David's; Mr G. W. W. Harries, Mr John Williams, Solva; Mr J. Eyre, Cinnamon Grove; and Mr W, Gwynne. Mr T. Allen and Mr De Rutzen (instructed by Mr Lascelles, of Narberth) appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr Bowen (instructed by Mr J. Price) for the defendant. Mr Allen, having stated the case to the jury, called William Mathias, who deposed: I am the plaintiff in this action. I live in a cottage on Begelly Moor. I rememher my father in possession of that cottaze: it waf part of leasehold property which he held from the PictoB Estate. My father died in 1847. After his death my mother entered into possession of the leasehold property. She remained in possession 10 years—until she died After her death, I went into possession of this cottage and have remained in possession up to this time. The pro- perty was divided between my brothers and sisters and myself. It was done by arrangement between ourselves: we had two men to do it. I paid rent to Mr Philipps, ^L0WT er °f ?he,Picton Est»te. On tbe 7th of December, 1866, I received notice of distress: it was served by Thomas Jones, a bailiff: be waa acting for Capt Child. Some days after that I remember Mr Price, the attorney, coming to me: that was on the 13th. He came there to sell the things I had. He brought the auctioneer with him. They came to my house between three and four o'clock in the afternoon. The sale took place about eight in the evening. The things were sold by auction. There were four people there. The things were sold for 30s. They were worth from £7 to XB, as second bavd things. It would cost me from jel5 to X20 to replace them. They were sold in one lot. Mr Price bought them, and they were taken away from my house by Capt. Child's cart about nine or ten o'clock. Cross-examined I was offered all the things for 26s 6d. They afterwards made me a present of the bed, bedding, and clock. I value the other things at from £ 15 toj620. 1 paid rent before Capt. Child had it. I paid rent about six years ago to the Pictou Estate. The previons yeaf there was a distress put in—in December, 1865. When that distress was put In 1 don't remember going to Begelly House with Thomas John I went up to Begelly House myself. I saw Capt. Child. I did not tell him I had come to put an end to the dispute, and tbat.I would take the place at C3 a year. Before I went to Begelly House I did not call upon Thomas John. and ask him to come up with me. John was in one room and I was in another. I did not ask Capt. Child to give me a memo- randum to show that I had taken the place from him. Griffith Price was the bailiff. I did not see him the next. day. I did not tell him I had taken the place from Capt. Child. I did not see him at all. I don't remember meeting Capt. Child about the summer of 1866, and his asking me to pay the half year's rent, and my saving it was a yearly tenancy, and I should pay at the end of the year. In December, 1866, I did not tell Thomas Jones, the bailiff, more than once that I had taken the house for £3 a year, but I would not pay him rent, because Capt. Child had no right to the house. I did not tell Morgan, the auctioneer, that I had taken the house of Capt. Child. Mr Morgan advised me to go and pay the defendant the rent like a sensible man. I said I would not because the Captain had no right to the place. I don't remember that Morgan said to me that I ought to have thought of that before I took the place. I did not say I took the place at X3 a year. and it was a mistake but it would make no difference. My wife was present. She did not say: 4 1 told him how it would be when be brought the paper; home. I did not tell those persons I had taken the place of Capt. Child at X3 a year. When John came into the- room at Begelly, I left it. Capt. Child did not say I bad taken the place at jC3 a year. Re-examined: I paid the rent to the Picton (Jasti. Estate up to six years ago. Subsequent to that time the rent was collected by Eynon, who married one of tof sisters. There was no arrangement made by lawyers., We were eight, and used to pay tbe rent to Eynon, and t to the Picton Estate. That was up to 1«52. TherO had *>een a previous distress in 1865. Eynon ceased to pnllcet ♦he rent because he took the land himself, and mfwed oa>'in» for u* My brothers and sisters are noS tb.6nh"i!» c"p' 0b".d b" "• "• n" went out, and C** "eTer agreed to go out. I wag asked U> do so by Mr Fred. Bowen: I refused. In 1864 or 1865 MY iqters went out. and Capt Child came in. The distress in Ca pwious year was signed by Griffith Price, bailiff to ihe lcton Estate. I was not there when he came. My wife 7ms at home. I had no cattle taken away from me. In ISbJ nothing was taken away. After the notice served upon <b e by tirifflth Price nothing was done. I said just now that 1.e things were sold at the sale for 30s: they were offered b^k to. me for 26* 6d, or anything I would give. I declined to bs" them back: I told Mr Prioe I would not bave ^bem* The things were taken up to Capt Child's house in bis cart. I had never agreed before December, 186<5, to be- come the tenant of Capt Child. — Mathias: I am the wife of the last witness: I recol- lect the distress being put in by Griffith Price. No one came with him. I had not seen any one from Capt* Child: no property had been taken. Capt. Child was in possession of the adjoining land. There were no cattls* on my land: there were cattle on Capt. Child's land- They were not there when the notice of distress w&P given. The next notice was received in December, ISfifr- Jones brought it: he signed it in my presence at 08" house. Capt. Child never came to my house before off after the sale. I remember Mr Morgan and Mr Price, an attornev. coming from Haverfordwest. I did not tell either Mr Morgan or Mr Price that he had taken the house from Capt. Child. I did not say to Mr Morgan that I knew how It would be when my husband brought the paper. I never spoke about it. They sold the things: Mr Price offered them to me for Id: I said I would not have them for a farthin*. Cross-examined by Mr Bowen: My husband went up to Begelly House, but I don't know who went with bhn- He did not bring a piece of paper back. I don't remem- ber Mr Morgan advising my hnsband to settle the mattery He said that Capt. Child had no right to the house. I did not tell him that I knew how it would be when be brought the paper home. He did not say it was a mis- take on his part to take the house for E3. This was the case for the plaintiff. Mv Bowen addressed the jury, stating the case 00 or-. part of the defendant. Mr T. Rule Owen, examined by Mr Bowen: I am if member of the firm of Messrs Goode and Owen. We.,11 agents to the Picton Estste. I know the premises. Cap# Child became the tenant in 1864. He paid arrears of renf amounting to JE45. We do not know the plaintiff at all. Cross-examined by Mr Allen: We never had a tenant of the plaintiff's name. Raobel Mathias's name was on the rental; and after her, the executors of Racbel Mathias up to 1864, The plaintiff's name would not appear in the books. I did not authorize the distress in 1865 to be put in: it might have been done without my knowledge. It might have been done by my partner; but I don't think it is probable it would be done without my being aware of it. I think Capt Child's name first appears in Michaelmas, 1864. His name was substituted because Capt Child told us: the arrangement was made in our office. Capt Child told us he bad made arrange- ments with'the tenants, and had becomethe tenantof the whole. I believed he acted for the whole. There were arrears of rent before he came into our office, and he en- tered into an arrangement to pay the whole of them— between t:40 and JE42 Tbat was the principal induce- ment to accept him as tenant. I don't know the aoreage of the piece held by the plaintiff. It is a very old taking. Capt Child: I am a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant of this county. I live at Begelly House. I took the pro- perty of the Pioton Estate. I remember the plaintiff coming to my house with a man named John. He said, I am come up to put an end to this turmoil, and if your Honour pleases, to take the house and garden for tg a year.' I agreed to let him have it. As he was going out be said, I If you please, sir, will you give me a bit of paper to show the bailiff, or he will sell the goods.' I gave it to him. He told me he brought John as a witness. Cross-examined: He meant the distress by I turmoil.' Mr Goode threatened me with a distress: and it may be correct that I procured the distress to be put in. I will not swear that 1 did or did not authorize it. I did in- struct Mr Lewis, the attorney, to put in the distress at Mr Goode's suggestion. The same evening-the 6th of December, the plaintiff came up to my house. The brothers and sisters gave me up the will of the mother, and I had entered into possession of the land. The pro- perty is about 11 to 11 acres. I came into possession by paying off the arrears and giving X.1 each to the persons. After I paid the money I turned my cattle into the fields., I did not offer the plaintiff a JEl. I never sent my nephew to make an offer to the plaintiff. I sent him to show the Bailiff where the plaintiff lives. I had not givt n orders to take the cattle off three days before. There are no cattle that I know of on the rest of the property. I had not arranged that the bailiff should call at my house that day: he was my solicitor's bailiff. My impression is that John was ia 'he room an the tilDe when the plaintiff took the house of The paper I gave the plaintiff was to the effect that J had taken him as a tenant. Griffith Price, examined by Mr Bowen I rem-taber serving the distress at plaintiff's house on his wife. Cruta-examtned: I was instructed to servu ihs distress at the directiou of Cap' CLiiu s solicitor. I called at bt* house bv inomas Jones, examined by Mr Bowen: I levied the dibtiew on the plaintiff's house. Be i>oid tse 148 had t? ;¡¡¡¡