Hide Articles List

8 articles on this Page

^lainorgaiislilre Summer Assizes.


^lainorgaiislilre Summer Assizes. nua!e 1 '\Ss'?es f°r ^ie county of Glamorgan com- of T f ^"ar(q'1^'ori l'!e evening of Tuesday last, the the'(^]8,f!^f;ernoon the sheriff's ordinary took place at observ'ri ^nns Hotel, upon which occasion we KenM I'ressnt most of the magistrates and leading take'0?12" f'a's en!^ ^ie county- The chair was the .High-SheriiF, Robert Savours, Esq., and J>hpri4^e"C'iU^r ^am Lewis, Esq., the Under- û lrna: cred'j-6 ((l'nner was p'acci' uj)on the table in the most and ji st-v^e > an(l after the cloth had been removed Drot 16 ,usua^ ^°yal and constitutional toasts had been couf0 a,id duly received, tlie High-sherift' and frc ^an^' ^tended by the javelin-men, trumpeters, ^Proceeded to meet the learned Judge, Sir Thos. <ind â¢Inari' entered the town at about five o'clock, cot ln?In.ed',ately proceeded to theTovvn-hall, where the thp1 oiSS'on was °Pened and read by Mr. Vaughan, adi Assize; after which, the Court was (Journed to eleven o'clock, Wednesday morning. WEDNESDAY. she °'c^och this day, the learned judge, high- Cli jar'd retinue attended divine service at St. John's i l°h. The service was read in a very solemn and an^ressive manner by the Rev. W. Leigh Morgan; ch 1 ⢠ass'ze sermon was preached by the sheriff's 13 ]Uln' l'le Rev. Thomas Kdmondes, from Romans tlip r'3'' verse 4â" for he is the minister of God to afi-6-1 £ 00c^ 'h011 d° ^Ult which is evil, be is 1 'ie heareth not the sword in vain for he minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." 0 & After divine service, the learned judge, high-sheriff, c: Proceeded to the hall, where the business of the sstzes was immediately entered upon. The following Magistrates answered to their names :â Km^ 'SCount Adire, M.l'. Robert Oliver Jones, Esq. Hit-v" n*4' K"<1' "William Meyriek, Esq. j, "assett.of ISonvilstone, J. Bruce Pryce, Esq. T] v'" Robert Savours, Esq. Rol°maS ^ouker, Esq. Ilcnrv Thomas, Esq. \V <u n0toIcr' 'I- i Turberville, Esq. Ho 1 ,Uin' Es<l- Chas' C" Williams, Esq. Juh 11 Fotlu>rS'u» Esq. Rev. Arthur Dene J,,li 1 ,Esq. ]tev. James Evans ltu), t ,,nilVay. Esq. Rev. E. W. Richards 'Klt I' raneis Jeuner, Esq, A P CORONERS. It ;>rtson, Esq. William Davies, Esq. Koeee, Esq. j William Morgan, Esq. THE GRAND JUItY. The VISCOUNT ADAHE, M.l' Foreman. Hi oT" ^00^or> Esq. John Hewitt, Esq. n l" basset, Esq., of K. F. Jenner, Esq. Hi ,<au{)re R. O. Jones, Esq. Kol T l!«s<'tt, Esq. Wm. Meyriek, Esq. W.w ot(,|pr, Esq. Whitlosk Nicholl. Esq. Evan°n "1?n' Ks'1" J" ,>>nK'(' l>r.v,'< Esq. Itnui *vid< Esq. Henry Thomas, Esq. Ju'm i'i Foth"Si", Esq. J. 1'. Turberville, Esq. 11, Hl°rmfra.V. Ksq, c. C.Williams, Esq. r,, â¢' IIollier, Esq. the lea'i US>h Pre'iniinaries having been duly discharged, His 1 Judge charged the gentlemen of the grand jury, happy 0K"SIJip commenced by stating that he was exceedingly 'abours ° 'rom the lightness of the calendar, that their The cale°rf present occasion would be exceedingly small, from jjjuj ar 0!llled for hardly any observation or comment dutipS Prey'l»us to their proceeding to the discharge of their Remark 'S' ca<0 °' any importance which called for any cbar^f.j *;is that of a man named Nathaniel Williams, who was one of thW,tU "le manslaughter of one David Havard. It was °ccurren "â¢* Casps w'iicli, unfortunately, were not of infrequent Prisoner ° 'l'1 couutr.v- I11 instance it appeared that the c°isidei-' i*i us the driver of some kind of vehicle, had used an<l. unf'rt C care'essness in proceeding with it along the road, overthrow Una'°'y> °ame in contact with the deceased, who was Tlie fact. ant^ rcce'v t>d such injuries as occasioned his death, tioi, (Jj- Were plain and straightforward, and involved no ques- grarul i, lntri('acy and his lordship apprehended that the the Cas'(,Ur-N ^Vould find not the slightest difficulty in disposing of U'lii,.}, r," aHios who had the care and management of vehicles lessness (?Ceot'e<l along public roads, and who exhibited care- resuiis r> such management, were amenable to the law for ^^slauT ''y thi'ir conduct. There was another case of Who wa8,t°r na"l,y> that of a man named James Roberts, feloni'S C'lar"e<l with having, at the parish of Llanguieke, I)avid K t an<l slain a person of the christian name of depositi whose surname is unknown." It appeared, from the leuce to nS' the prisoner used a considerable degree of vio- iri t)(e anls the deceased, who was a young man in his service, depo3itWheating liiin. There could be no doubt, by the most v'°\lS' "l(' prisoner had beaten the deceased in the â¢sion vi-10 ('"t. m<l'»ner, and the question for the grand jury's deei- 'ieceastl the prisoner thereby occasion the death of the T°ceiy" ^he young man, it appeared, died immediately after he (de'n° "1P heating; but there were reasons for supposing that state 0aS(?(^ had, by great intemperance, reduced his body to a jn- ^'hich it was highly susceptible of injury, and in which ,)r ,1La ''iliicted by personal or other violence were likely to Wi 1'' the most dangerous consequences and from which it t],. uPPear that the deceased's death was rather accelerated a'1 directly caused, by the prisoner: -but still, a who M';IS guil!\ of accelerating the death iHj^ther by unlawful means was liable to be ClVu ^or the act, and to be punished upon conviction, tiwi t'"? ^e<'ease<l had rendered himself, by intoxica- *}ii«h hla11)y of Thore wasi another case to H< °r* 'l' would advert-namely, that of a man named ciouslv \S' ° WaS <'haro,,(l with having feloniously and mali- ul>on tV^ ;ln'l wounded one John Morris, by striking him 1'odilv eaC* w'th a poker, and with intent to do him some frttm ,vl'; .?"⢠Thl* evidence would be fully detailed to them, ther or ° ''l'U' ^ran(^ jl,r> ) would have to determine whe- llam y0' the prisoner was guilty of the crime imputed to him vouredV '⢠having feloniously and maliciously endea- pi-osecntor" Ct SOme °r'"vous bodily harm on the person of the riaturo then addressed a few observations of a general » a ter which the grand jury retired. JI. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. N%I.IS cliar Ell.Jtinieq Roberts, aged 2S, hawker, the lCM^'r having, at the parish of Llanguicke, oti 8on Qf',0 fU!le liSt. feloniously killed and slain a per- is i, 1 Christian name of David, but whose surname 1S "nknown. addr* Carne, who conducted tlie prosecution, nature f "j8 â¢'Ur)'' eallin^ tlleir to the serious to enter"' investigation upon which they were about case « l'-aVd the" brietI.v st:l,ecl 'he leading facts of the evir)1'1 w'" 'je f°u"d fully detailed in our report of jw'ce K.ive" bdow- in the ^vans examined :âI live in a small cottage, prisoner n1S r0f Uan?uic.ke* 0,1 the ")th of June, the him at rh-lue 'or lodgings. No one was with *he neon|a tl,me* asked for lodgings for himself and Was one ^tl were him. The person who died Save th»° i j PeoPle» and there were some women. 1 *J'uesdav'n It was on a Monday; and on â¢3'd notV*101"11111??' David Jones and the other man who the placC Uin., 1 us-^ '-The prisoner stayed with us about Aspect TV "V r morning. He seemed to Uaek. Jones, the deceased, and the other man 'era, fin f^C0 l'!at on the Friday he went to look for t lern, finding that the3- did not return. He returned the him. B I)1" '° us am' brought David Jones back with traeted t° en:ele(^ our house. My attention was at- Person 11oise- I sa^ the prisoner beating the Alien in th [David, or David Jones]. They were *f.ntel °^US" °r coult-ya,d before the house. *[ pre- beating deceased. He then jumped at J kielk ,Lpase-') and beat liis back against the wall, and â¢low6' l" about his side and chest. David was silting iielipj1^ ⢠''nie 0,1 the threshold of the door. lie was 2"an KI0lei,t'.v Avi'h a sort of a ruiniitig kick as prisoner â told n* and ran on and kicked the deceased. I to mVL-S°V^r 10 be or else I would get people there and HlV/wi' Hu s:l'd Bring as many as yon like, *vas will le,n a»d you." He t!ien beat a girl that wife »J, ⢠a,ui wl'0 was named Belse). 1 and my the worst l''e llcuse as we feaied that we should get because^ °r i l'i'isoner said he had beaten deceased Deccn«0,ie \l, eased.) had spent his (prisoner's) property, sisent." saidâ"I'll pay you for that which I have beaten ih 8- t'10 deceased after he (prisoner) had tbeaae^ a cauS'lt hold of liiin by the back of after a Si* ^Vas entel'ino the house from them. Soon 'Wanted f came and called ine. I thought they â Was called e,lt.'ce n'e out to beat me and did not go. I "Went and a^i:'n two or three times, and ultimately I "deceased' â¢t''e I)lis?ner ancl ltie deceased. The "prisoner wnaS i i' at b'8 ^en=lh on liis back, and the afraid I h 10 head up. Prisoner saidâ" I lit." r £ j a'e *i'"t*d him, but 1 hope he is only in a 'then or aftp^^) W:is a''vu 'hen, but he did not speak "u'geon, camp*!i 1 Ue,lt <or a suigeon. Mr. Thomas, arrival ^out half an hour. Previous to â¢deceased n^°ner sa'd to me that I was to hope that 3°u mest staVdntLfii;,v 1 If' £ "'⢠T" havefikilled ,'il.n ,y°ur luck Ji V i e 1S onb' 111 a ht, much is 'the matter. "Vf6 -pv, not te" lne w'lat f xvas ,0 say of ^vith deceased".nas asked me what was the matter 3'e lilu^ 1)ol'i what I had seen done to him. I said â¢do'ie himself ll- ⢠°nC l° '"mâ"lat was afl'ai(l 'le '*ad away if ] Rt. was afraid the prisoner Would run iPrisoner in bed I* llu'h. As soon as I placed the J'eal", and a,1' We.nt to a substantial farmer residing That farmer Pl^ain!.e him with all the circumstances, ^'ated to »hpStU a P°^oer«au. I then went and P(>lieer»au wi 8n'^e".n how the thing happened. The inorjiiug, v S(-iit for at about one o'clock Saturday the Conrt TM c "^vas about id ⢠'armei s name is Evan Bevan. It 'back. ° C 0C when I saw the deceased on liis By tlie Prisonoâ¢â¢. v â¢nor I never «. 1 never ,ent me the sum of £ 2 5s., 1 cwt. â¢Â» nr« l)enni' yours. I never sold you "Works." ° ass' which I procured from the coal I remember'tW^"1'?^ « ani *'le wife of last witness, deceased came 10°° JG "^une 'he prisoner and the -atS l:Zl!,0U%) Th.^ â altogether rather he was with them and^T61" a h;nv,kt'r-,or old jags, &c Thev 1 a waggon with goods, ni8ht, and on Tuesday mo^i,^ T °il IV,0.n,>' other man, who did not return eft f T? a"d 'r pursuing their calling. I saw ?he the PurP0S« of -Friday evpnin.. n. » J deceased next 011 deceased and re'i 'i ^ti "lL'.Pnsoner went in search of Ystrad After th" 'V("h him ,he evening from deceased out ,f tl vi re u!"n.^ the prisoner drag «»em and s nv L ⢠T Cl°t1he8- 1 went out after aaw prisoner P'1'0"61" beat, deceased against the Wii|]. j head T Lr :VG ,(leceased. a k(IC,k or two towards the the boy." PT5611 said-" dear Jem, do not kill is easy for v0â n ?Tl,Saltlr uV°U, "0t' a"d a^ed-« It 'â The deceased 1 V6 hHSLdone ,ne a great loss." but he rni il i f' fault with 1 »ut ii§ could npt help it a» the fault >vni on the other. He (deceased) would pnv prisoner every half- penny as soon as lie could." My husband told prisoner to desist, or else he would send for nersons to take him. Prisoner answered-" send you for as many as you like, I'll kill you and as many as you bring with you." Prisoner then went to beat the girl named Betsey. I then went into the house at my husband's desire. Shortly after the little gnl came to call my husband out but I prevented his leaying and went out myself. The prisoner came himself afterwards, and saidâ" Good, dear Benjamin come out to assist me to rise David Jones for I think I have killed him." We went out directly and found deceased 0:1 his back on the ground. Thosewho felt him said there was life in him, but he did not speak afterwards. David Morris Thomas, surgeon, examined On Friday the Kith of June I was sent for to the house of Benja- min Evans, and got there about ten at night. I saw a young lad lying on his back in the yard. I examined his chest. He appeared to be quite warm, but on further examination I found he was perfectly dead. The body- was removed to a room in Benjamin Evans' house. On the following day I examined the body by the direction of the coroner. I merely inspected it but did not do any- thing further. On Sunday Mr. YV. P. Evans and myself made an after-death examination of the body and found on the outside a great deal of discolouration on the chest, which is common in cases of sudden death. There was 110 particular effusion. We then opened the head and found tint the brain was overloaded with blood in the vessels, and there was a considerable effusion of blood fro in the vessels under the skin; and above the left ear there was also a considerable effusion of blood. At this stage of the proceedings Mr. (Jrove rose and said â" My Lord, âAt this moment I have received a brief to defend the prisoner. I know nothing of the case whatever as I have ueel1 readmg a urief in another case." The judge said he would read over the evidence taken to Mr. Grove, which was accordingly done. The examination of Mr. D. 51. Thomas was then re- sumed :âThat effusion of blood above the left ear might have been produced by a blow or a fall. The effusion of blood on the brain might have been produced by violence to the person, or by intemperance, a fit, or any great excitement. The blood which I observed on the brain caused 4he death of the deceased. The stomach of deceased was perfectly empty. There was 110 smell of liquor there. The deceased was from 17 to 18 years of age. Cross-examined by Air. Grove A man may live some little time after intoxication and then die from its effects. I know nothing of the habits of the deceased. The state of his brain was such as would have appeared in the case of a person addicted to intemperance. There was nothing to connect the state of the brain with the marks on the external surface. It was quite as probable, or rather more probable, he might have died from the effects of in- temperance than from the blow. Re-examined: A violent blow applied to a person accustomed to intemperance would unquestionably hasten hisdenth. Mr. William Price Evans examined :âI am a surgeon and reside at Morriston in this county. On the lathof June I examined the body of a young man with the last witness, and am enabled to state that deceased died from extraordinary flow of blood on the brain. The vessels on the brain were highly congested. Those symptoms might have been caused by any violent abuse or exces- sive excitement. The deceased was a nne male subject. His stomach was empty and had no appearance of habits of intoxication. If he had used excessive exercise that day or had been exposed to violent heat, any increased excitement would have been injurious and might have caused death. C oss-examined.âThe deceased was about eighteen leal's of age. When I, cxammed the body I agreed with last witness. Death might have been caused by violence orexcitement. There was no extemal mark.. If 1 had seen the body, and had not heard any thing of the cir- cumstances, I should have considered it a case of apoplexy. There were no external marks on the head or body. T Re-examined.âUnder the skin, near the left ear there was an extravasation of blood. That was probably caused by a blow or fall. This concluded the c:;se for the prosecution. Mr. Grove declined to address the jury. inasmuch as it appeared from the medical testimony that it was very far from being made out that the deceased's death was occa- sioned by violence used towards him by the prisoner. lie admitted that it was highly probable the jury would find grounds for returning a verdict of assault. His lordship then addressed the jury, drawing their attention to the points contained in the case, and leaving it to them for decisionâwhether the offence of manslaugh- ter was made out against the prisoner,-whether he was guilty of a common assault ou!y,_or aether he was not guilty, ft was most clear that deceased's death was caused by the ruptuie of the vessels of the brain, which were gorged with blood, and which latter circumstance showed that previous to his death he could not have been in a peifcctly healthy state. The prisoner's conduct towards the deceased had been very fully described by Benjamin Evans and his wife, from whose evidence it was clear that the prisoner had conducted himself in the most violent manner towards Me deceased; but yet from the absence of all external marks to connect the injuries on the brain with the external surface, it was difficult to determine that the deceased had sustained any great per- sonal injury at the hands of the prisoner. The great question for their decision was thisâwas the prisoner guilty of manslaughter or not. That he was guilty of assaulting the deceased there appeared to be no manner of doubt or question. The jury then retired for a few minutes; and on re- entering the court, returned a verdict of-" G llilty of an assault." SentenceâTwo calendar months' imprisonment at Swansea House of Correction. Attorney for the prosecution, Mr. Charles Thos. Rees. CARDIFF. STF.AI.ING LKAD. Robert Jones, and Joseph Wriyht, were charged with stealing a piece of lead from the premises of Mr. Joseph Davies of Ciock- herbtown. Cardiff. Mr. Vaughan Williams conducted the prosecution. Mr. Wilson defended the prisoner Robert Jones. Wright was undefended. William Lewis examined I am in the employ of Mr. Edmunds who lives in Croekherbtown, Cardiff. He is a coaluierchant and has a house and grounds near the pre- misesof Mr. Joseph Davies. On Thursday last, the 3rd of July, I was in my master's field which is about 20 yards from Mr. Davis's premises. I saw the prisoner Jones between the hours of 3 and 5 put a ladder at the back of a building, at a place where the premises of Mr. Lewis join those of Mr. Davies. Wright was in conversation with Jones. They were talking to one another. I knowthemthrseycars. They were walking up the yard together. After Jones had put the laddei against the house he walked about a bit, and then went up the ladder and got upon the lead, in the gutter between the two buildings. Iwaswithinahundredyardsofthemthen. Jones then went out of my sight walking along the lead gutter. I could not see him because the building was too high. I saw him again in about a quarter of an hour on top of the house. He then went into the front of the building. I mean by "the house" the coach house and the stableâwe cat! them one house. When he was there I saw hitn drawing the lead out of tlie wall. The stable is Mr. Davies's stable. I then came nearer to the place being within 20 or 25 yards. Something struck me that they were doing mischief there, and I came to watch, lie was not long drawing the lead out of the wall in my sight. After he got it out he lapped it. togetherâclapp- ing it down with his foot. I do not know what he did withthelead. I went around the building to look for him but I saw nothing of him. During this time YVri<'ht was walking aboutâsometimes walking on the main road and sometimes in Mr. Davies's yard. He was there probably about an hour. I did not see him do anything. Jones drew tlie lead from tlie Wall of Mr. Davies's stable. I went on the roof myself that evening, and called a young man named \Vm. Davies with me. I looked at the spot where I had seen Jones, and there were marks there of part of the lead having been freshly cut off. It appeared to have been cut with a knife. Cross-examined The court in which I saw Jones is near to a public thoroughfare. The court communicates with two fields, but with no other place. Icannotsay whether there is any lead belonging to Mr. Lewis s pre- mises 1 saw none, as I was not so 'cute as to look. Hannah Fullylove examined: My husband lives in a house that adjoins a passage. Thatpassngeieadstoa court which joins Mr. Davies's premisesâhis stables. On the 3rd of this mouth I was near my house between 4 and 5 in the afternoon, and I saw the prisoner Jones corne out of the passage. He is a plasterer and tiler, and had his working clothes on. His apron was full of lead. I saw it plainly. II was lead that had been on the top of a house. It was rolled up. A person could go from the roof of Mr. Davies's premises to that passage, because they lie very low. He could go with a ladder, and Jones had a ladder. I saw it against the wall of the stable. A person could get from Mr. Davies's premises to Mr. Lewis's, and from thence to the main road. By the "premises" I mean the stable and the coach-house. Cross-examined There are nine houses in the court where I live. It was in the public passage Icadingto those houses I saw the prisoner Jones. Edward John examined I live in Union-street, Car- diff. I know the prisoner Jones, and saw him on the 3rd of July, between 4 and 5 in the afternoon. He was in Whitmore-lane. I was employed in the Gas Yard Omcesatthattime. Piisoner was going in the direction of Staurenghi's shop. He had lead upon his shoulder. Itwasthingutterieudorsheetlead. It was folded up. Stivin Staurenghi examined:âI keep a marine store shop in this town. On the afternoon of the 3rd July, I was sent for to my houseâsaw the prisoner Jones there, who had with him a piece of lead which he offered for sale. I bought it at a penny a pound. It weighed q lhs. He said h,i had picked it up where he was working that day. I gave the lead to Mr. Stockdale. Jeremiah Box Stockdale, superintendent of police, examined:âOn the 3rd of July I received information about some lead end went to Mr. Jas. Davies's premises in Croekherbtown. I got there between 5 and 0 in the eveningânearer (!. I got on the top of the roof of the premises on the following evening, and before then I had got the lead from Staurenghi. I have the lead here and now produce it. [Piece of lead produced.] Titisisthe whole that I got. These premises, coach house, and stable, adjoin the house of amannamedLewis. Mr. Sluekdale then explained the relative positions of the "premises" in a few words, thereby accomplishing a task which the first and second witness had vainly endeavoured to accomplish. Examination continued :âI observed that lead had been lately cut from the gutter. It had apparently been cut with a knife. 1 computed the lead I had with me with the lead that was left. They appeared to correspond in width and other particulars. They corresponded in general appearance. I apprehended the prisoner Jones on Thurs- day the 3rd of July. He was searched in my presence by a police officer. I saw this knife taken from his sleeve. [Knife produced.] The marks on the lead which I saw on the roof might have been made with such a knife as this. Joseph Davies examinerl :-1 have a honse, coach house, and stable, in Croekherbtown. I have heard the first witness examined. They are the premises he has beenspeakingof and arc situated in the parish of Saint John the Baptist. I never employed the prisoner and he had no business upon the roof of my house or stable at all. There is no lead Oil Mr. Lewis's houses, as I built against his houses and was obliged to form the lead gutter. This concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr. Wilson then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner Jones. He said that by the statement of the witnesses, Jones's object appeared to be to perpetrate the offence with which he stood charged in the most open and undisguised manner. He went to the place in open day âtook the ladder with him â removed the lead, and walked away in the most public manner, seemingly courting observation. The story was improbable; be- sides, might not the lead removed be the property of Mr. Lewis If it was Mr. Lewis's lead, of course, the jury- could not find the prisoner guilty of stealing the lead of Mr. Davies. The case seemed involved, to a consideiable extent, in doubt, and therefore if the jury entertained doubtstheywould give the prisoner thcbencfit of them, and return a verdiet of not guillv. In summing np, his lordship stated that he would not put Wright upon his defence, as the evidence against him was certainly very inconclusive, amounting to nothing more than a few circumstances of suspicion. The jury would therefore acquit him. The prisoner Jones was, however, placed in a very different, position, as the first witness actually saw him draw and separate the lead from the premises of the prosecutor. Those premises had been very accurately and clearly described to them by the superintendent of police, from whose description the jury might perceive that it was perfectly possible for a person to proceed as the first witness saidtheprisoncr Jones had proceeded. Hislordshipthenrccapitulatedtheevidcncc, and afterwards observed that it appeared to him that no doubt whatever could for one moment be entertained of t'le prisoner's guilt. It was a question for their determi- nation, and they would therefore give it due and serious consideration. The jury, without hesitation, found the prisoner Jones Guilty. Wright was acquitted. SentenceâThree calendar months'imprisonment, with hard labour. Attorney for the prosecution, Mr. E. P. Richards. The Court rose at half-past five. THURSDAY. The learned judge entered the Hall at nine o'clock. STEALING FIIOM TIn: PKKSON.âJames James, aged 34, labourer, and William Hudson, aged 24, puddler, were charged with having, at Merthyr Tydvil, on the 17th of June, stolen nine sovereigns, and divers pieces of silver coin to the amount of twenty-three shillings, from the person of Mr. Jcnkin Lewis. Mr. Wilson conducted the prosecution, and Mr.Vaughan Williams defended the prisoners. Mr. Wilson opened the case, stating fully the circum- stances under which the crime was committed, and then called the following witnesses. Jenkin Lewis examined: I am a dealer in oals and hay, and live at Llandovery, Carmarthenshire. On Tuesday, the 17th of June, I was at Merthyr Tydvil, and had with me £10 ]3s. or 14s. I had £9 10,. in gold, and from 23 to 24 shillings in silver. The money was in a canvass puise. On that day I went to a public-house at Pont Storehouse about 7 o'clock in the evening, and saw the two prisoners there. J drank about tvvo quaits of ale there. I had drank a pint at the Neptune, and the share of a quart at Rees J ones's public-house. When I was at Pont Storehouse the prisoners came in and sat by meâ one on each side. The name of that house is the Wellington." The money was then in my right hand trousers pocket. I recollect putting my hand in my pocket when the men were there. Before we parted it was about twelve. Ipaidforthebeerwhiehldrank, and in doing so took my other money out of my pocket. I paid 2s. 3d. from the purse, and then returned the purse andthemoneyintomypocket. The two men and I left the house together. I was quite sober at the time, I am perfectly sure. The men walked with meâJames James had my right arm and William Hudson had my left. They requested me to come down with them to James James' house to take some victuals. They asked me to accompany them to the Archway, and tiied to pull me in that direction. The Archway is a way to go down to the Cellars â a place inhabited by women of light morals and others of a similar description. I refused to go with them, and did not go further with them. James James put his hand into my right hand pocket when we were 011 the tram road, and took my purse and money. He then ran under the Arch down to the Cellars. Hudson put his hand in my other pocket, and swore, adding â The devil, there is only three halfpence in this." He then ran after James James through the arch. I ran back to the Wellington, and told the landlord. He came out in a minute, and said, "Come you, I will have your money back in a minute." I soon after saw a policeman, and told him what had happened. The money and the purse were my property. 1 have not seen them since. Cross-examined Willi the exception of a shilling or two which I had spent previous to arriving at the Wellington', my money was all in the purse. I am quite sure of it. The landlord of the Wellington' did not re- fuse to give me more beer, as I did not call for it. He told me it was late. I asked him to trust me as I wished to pay all at once. I did not say I had 110 money in my pocket. lhaddranknospiritsduringtheday. I kuew myself that improper characters resided in the cellars but I will swear that I never had my pocket picked by any person of the description to which you allude. 1 had been playing at dominoes in the course of the evening, but I did not offer to make a bet nor did I pull out my purse to make a bet. with Robert Jenkins. George Jenk 11s examined: I keep a public house at Pontstorehouse, Merthyr. It is called the 'Wellington'. On the 17th of June the prosecutor came to my house, and in the course of the evening the prisoners came in. Lewis was quite sober, and left my house between II and 12 o'clock. The prisoner and prosecutor went out together. In about a quarter of an hour Lewis came back, complained of having been robbed, but did not mention the name of any one in particular. I went with him over the tram road so far as the big arch, and there met with William Hudson. I asked Lewis-" Was it that mall robbed you 1" He gaid-" No, it was the man with the velvet coat robbed me, and I believe it was Jemmy Jemmy (James James)." He said there were four or five men besides there when he was robbed. From 6 to 10 men left my house at the same time. Cross-examined Prosecutor paid me seven or eight times for beer in the course of the eveuing. He paid for the beer drank by himself and the prisoners. There were two or three drinking together. He took the money out of his pocket. He did not draw the purse out in my sight. He had been playing at dominoes and said he would play any one in Meithyi for five pounds. I did not see him pull his purse out. He wanted more beer as he was goinsr out. Arthur Harries cxanuned. I was one of the police force at Merthyr-Tydvil. On the 17th of June I went with the prosecutor to a place between the public-house he left and the archway. He pointed out Hudson to me, and said he was with him when he was robbed. I after- wards found the other prisoner, James James, in the street. He was pointed out to me by the last witness, George Jenkins. The prosecutor said it was a man with a velvet coat robbed him, and he thought the man's name was Jemmy Jemmy. James James had a velvet coat on when I apprehended him. I took the prisoners into custody and searched James James. He had the sum of two shillings about him, but 110 purse. This concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr. Yaughan Williams, in addressing the jury, said it was invariably the rule that prosecutors should prove the offence against the prisoners, and not that prisoners should be called upon to prove their innocence. In this case, with the exception of the evidence given by the prosecutor himself, there was not a tittle of evidence against the prisoners-In fact it was wholly in their favour. Guilty menâwho had committed the crime imputed to those menâwould have immcdiatelyleftthencighbour- hood. The prisoners did not do so, but remained in the place. Besides, although the prosecutor swore he was not drunk, it was evident that he could not have been sober, having drank such a quantity of beer, and therefore was not capable of describing accurately the occurrences of the evening. He had been directly contradicted by the landloul in one or two particulars, and therefore the jury co dd not safely rely upon any thing he said, especially when the). recollected how he had spent his time i;1 Merthyr, and the company he associated with. He con- fidently anticipated a verdict of acquittal, as the prosecu- tor had failed in establishing the charge by adducing evidence that could be safely relied upon. His Lordship then summed up the evidence to the jury, who after letiring for a few minutes acquitted the prisoner. Attorney for the prosecution, Mr. Davies. Attorneys for the prisoners, Messrs. Perkins and James. MANSLAUGHTER.â N'athaniel If itlianis, aged 33, la- bourer, was charged with the manslaughter of David Havard, by driving a waggon over him. Mr. Nicholl Carne briefly addressed the jury, and then proceeded with the examination of witnesses. Charles Newcombe examined: I live near Pontmorlais biidge, at Merthyr Tydvil. Whcnwegcttottntroad, one road turns to the right and the other to the left. On Satuulay, the 14th of June, I saw two waggons approach one coming up from Merthyr, and the other coming from Dowlais. They were going at the rate of from eight to ten miles an hour. The prisoner drove the wag- gon which came from Dowlais, and William Price drove the other. PricegottotheBreconroadnrst. lIe was whipping his horses harder than Williams's was. Wil- liams s waggon overtook the waggon driven by Price and went against itâran into it. Immediately upon that, I saw a man struggling endeavouring to get out of the way of the horsesâbut the horses prevented me seeing anything farther. It was the Dowlais waggon, driven by H illiams, that knocked the man down. The waggon's off- fore wheel appeared to me to have gone over him. 1 could not see the prisoner as plainly as I could see Price. rf'V W:i £ o0ns passed me, about twelve or fourteen jards from the place where the man was knocked down, 1 observed that Williams was riding on the shafts. He had no reins. He had four horses, I fanciedâI am not quite sure as the pace was great. Pontmorlais is a trequenled part of Merthyr, being at the top of the prin- cipal street. The accident occurred 01111 Saturdayâmar- ket dayâand the town was consequently very full. It was between II and 12 o'clock. Cross-examined by Mr. Yaughan Williams: I mean to swear that I saw Nathaniel Williams .use his whip. The road is narrow where the accident, happened. The de- ceased was a very old man indeed âI dare say ninety years of age. Mr. Nicholl Carne thought tin defeased was not so old. The Judge Ah, never mind; that is very immaterial. We must not kill a man although he is ninety. (Laughter.) Anne Davies examined: I live in a cottaire near Pont- morlais Hridge, Merthyr Tydvil, j",iSt in the turn of the road. On Saturday, the 14th cf June, I saw two wag- gons near mj honse-one came from the Merthyr road, and was driven by William Piicc, and the other came from the Dowlais road, and vas driven by Nathaniel Williams. They were going ftst, and the drivers weie sitting on the shafts. I saw tlie harness of the furthest horse from me throw the old mm into the gutter. There were four horses to the waggoi, and it was the waggon driven by Nathaniel Williams Immediately after the horse threw the old man down,he right hind wheel went over him. I cannot tell whether the fore wheel went over him or not. The waggon was 'oin^ very fast, and Wil- liams was sitting upon the slaftsf The wheel of the waggon went between his legs im) Oil his right side. Mr. Ncwcombe lives near to nie. Cross-examined: The wheel if Williams's waggon was locked. He was behind Price jn the same part of the road, nearly opposite to my hou.e. Evan Evans examined: lie merely described the occurrence in different terms. In his cross-examination lie horses lookell as if they had ran away," Edward Davies, surgeon, of Merthyr Tydvil, exa- mined Or. Saturday, the 1-lth o June, I attended a man who had been driven over by t waggon. I had him removed to his house, and, up n examination, I found a contusion on the lower part o the backâa fracture of the bone of the hipâand giea extravasation of blood. The spine was not injured. Ie died within 48 hours after the accident. Those injures occasioned his death. Tliis concluded the case for th proseeutiou. Mr. Williams submitted to lordship that the evi- dence did not support the chargccontaiiied in the indict- ment. His lordship over-ruled he objection. Alr. IVilliafiis then addressed W jury, urging that it was evident that the whole wai the result of accident, and that the prisoner could not be accounted guilly ofthc serious crime of manslaughter. Mr. Thomas 13cvan, of Brc-coj, corn-merchant, who had known the prisoncr for foutccn years, gave him agood character for general steaciuess and industry; as did also Mr. Abel Jones, ofMoth- Mrs. Mary Hughes, of Dowlais; and Mr. Thomas ?a\ies. His Lordship summed up the evidence with great clearness, observing, that alGOugh the prisoner had re- ceived an excellent character, et it wasprobabie that the explanation put in all his bealf was not a correct state- ment of the facts. Venlict-" (.halty, but wetrongly recommend him to the mercy of the Court." SentenceâThree calendaraonths' imprisonment with hard labour in Cardiff llousof Correction. Attorney for the prosecuan, Mr. Russell; attorney for the prisoner, Mr. Overtoi: MALICIOUSLY WOUNDING-John Rees, aged 25, haw- ker, was charged with havii. at Merthyr Tydvil, with a certain poker, feloniously :d maliciously wounded one John Morris upon the head,vith intent to do him some bodily harm. Mr. Richards whoeonducd the prosecution addressed the jury, and then called thColIowing witnesses:â John Morris examined im a rag gatherer, and live in Merthyr 1 ydvil, near toie Iron-bridge. On Satur- day afternoon, the 7th of Jie, I remember going up to the lodging of Michael Muhy, at about seven o'tlock. The prisoner lodges with Jrphy. My sister lives nith the prisoner, but they areot married. In Murphy's house, I saw Murphy, an I woman, the prisoner, and my sister. John Bee (Iles ii with me. I went up to my sister; but the momeul went in John Rees, the prisoner, ordered me out. old him I would not go out for him, and he then rose land struck me down with a poker. He struck me acrcthc head. I had a cap oil. He struck me more than ice, as I have six or seven blows 011 my head. I recoil nothing more than having received one blow until the>xt morning, when 1 found myself in berl, in the Red >use. Cross-examined by the soner: I did not tell the landlord that when you retied to your lodgings I would be your butcher. John Beedles examined On Saturday evening, the y I ith of June, I went with Jn Morris to Michael Mur- phy's house. The momi we went in, the prisoner ordered us out. Morris lised to go by the prisoner's orders, and then walked tards his sister, but whether he meant to strike her aiot I cannot tell: he said nothing to her. 'I he paner got upâput Morris's sister behind him (prisol) -and then struck Morris upon his head with the fer. Morris reeled and fell. The blows were rep?ated \111 Morris was on the ground. I went forward to try to e him, but was lugged im- mediately by Michael Muiy and thrown out of doors. I attempted to go back ag, for I really thought they would kill him. Tlirouglne window, I saw prisoner raise the prosecutor, Mor and then strike him about his There was a gr deal of blood. Morris was tumbled out of Murphy's use, and Murphy's dog had hold of him. I was covei with blood by carrying him to his own house. He waut upon the bed, but seeing so much blood I could nwjand it, and was obliged to go away. A surgeon waeut for. I lived with Morris's t sister for three years andur months, and she left me to go to live with the prisoi. Cross-examined: Johlorris did not strike his sister. lie did not strike piisonuntil prisoner struck him with the poker, and then he ght for his life. Mr. James, surgeon, d that on the 7th of June, he saw the prosecutor Jc Morris, at the Red House, sitting on a chair. tfe plaisters on his head and was sensible. He had six imnis on bis head, l Witness described the position die wounds, and said that one was an inch and a half g and went down to the bone.] W itness could not tell \t injury the internal portion of the head had sustained.dorris, however, soon got well. This concluded the c for the crown after which the prisoner addressed thciry, stating that Beedles and Morris "owed him a gge; and that they were jealous of him." Verdict-" Guilty on assault only." Sentence Iwocalcir months' imprisonment, with hard labour, in Carditlouse of Correction. Attorney for the promion, Mr. Russell. N. PRIUS. The paper containecv<.lVe causes, of which six were special jury ones. WE A R I versus SMITH. This was an action-ought by Mr. W. A. Wearing, London, against Mr.. H. Smith, barrister-at-law, to recover the amount ( for fourteen weeks' services as editor of the f>we/»seonrnal â namely, from the 27th of May, 1S44, to the tuning 0f September. Mr. Chil- ton, Q.C., who with aughan Williams appeared for the plaintiff, rose as tl as the jury had been sworn, and saidâMy Lord, In 3 case we have agreed to take a verdict for the plaintfor the sum of fSO. I am happy to tell your lordship^ we shalt not have occasion to trouble you. A leail friend of mine is the defendant, and there was merlsome dispute as to the amount; but he, being a in:ti), has happily arran- ged this matter in manner satisfactory to all parties. Mr. Grove consents the verdict being taken for the amount I have just and I have to apply to your lordship for spe execution. The Judge: Yeryn. Take execution in a week. DOE DEM. EEPFAUT D QJRRP-JJG vt>rSi(S THE MAYOrt, A LDKUMFTS" A BCIJGESSES OF SWANSEA. Mr. Chilton, Q.C.j "Wilson appeared for the plaintiffs and MessVu^hati Wi;!iams and Grove for the defendants. ^iHhjlton opened the case in the absence of Mr. W ils awl then addressed the jury, stating that this was action of ejectment brought by John Beppart and wial)li William Jones against the mayor, aldermen, anbn).ge!Ses of Swanseaâa most portly corporation, viti-e most aptly represented by his Icame i friend,Y.uighan Will amsâfor the purpose of recovering p^ion of a piece of ground or field near the town of &,#ea, upon which ground had been built the S wansea I miry, and the II ouse of Correc- tion for this county. TheOUse of Industry (formerly known as the Bathing also stood upon the ground. He hoped and trusted t he should have but little trouble in satisfying the j that he was entitled to their verdict. The spot of grol which his clients sought to recover was a spot near t own, and formerly known as the bathing house field,"asmuch as a bathing house formerly stood in the fie; This ground had since, un- questionably, been appiiated to a variety of pubiic purposes; and he (Mr. Iton) had no doubt but that his learned friend, Mr. hams, would say a »reat deal upon the subject. Thctftd been erected upon it a House of I nd ustry, anirmary, and a House of Cor- rection. However, if th'ld belonged to his (Mr. Chil- ton's) clients, they wondill be entitled fo it whatever the corporation of Swan nay have thought proper to do. In this case several thinvere admitted on both sides. He would, in addition, w to the jury, that in the year 17()3, the burgesses of £ "sea, under their common seal, leased the spot of gro in question, winch was even now distinctly marketpon !Ui old plan as "ficld No. 10," to Sir Edwar^osel, for the term of 99 years, and for a trifling sum. that lease there was a covenant not to assign withoti-ense under the common seal. In the year 1105, a lie* to assign, which was endorsed on the lease, was obed and, in pursuance of that license, the lease w^signed on the 5th of August, 1705, to a man of tname of Habakkuk from Sir Edward Mansel. InJ month of November of the same year, the lease wssigned by llabakkuk to a man of the name of Lleweiwho died in September, 1772 leaving a widow an'1 only child, his daughter and heiress. She took so real property from him, and they found her in possmof this property. In the year 1800, lie would pro^atisfactorily, that she was in possession. From thime to her death, the corpora- tioll paid to her the' of four guineas a year, haying taken possession of ,v!ueh they had no right to do, without paying for it, they had leased it for 99 years. The fact that the ,f four guineas had been so paid was not dispute^he icceipts would be produced, as the corporation h^'d notice to produce them. At. this lady's death, slave in her will <« the bathing- house field, which sb*d by lease under the corporation of Swansea, to Anne-e for her life." During the life of Anne Price, wl^xtended from 181R to 1842, the corporation paid tor the rent, and, of course, would not have done so ui they were satisfied that she was entitled to receive rlioriey as legatee under the wil} of Miss Llewellyn. :1' the denth of Anne Pricr, the property went by her will to Marv Lewis. Vn^ie Levi; a^id Susannah Lewis. Mary Lewis di-'d before Anne' 1 nee. Anne Lewis married a person named Jones, one of tne lessors of the plaintiff, and was alive at the death of Anne Price. Susannah Lewis married Beopart. another lessor of the plaintiff. The eorporatio/i had actually paid the rent of four guineas to Jo-ios and Beppart, and had taken receipts. Their title fo the pro- perty had, therefore, been completely recognised. His (Mr. Chilton's) clients had given the corporation notice to quit, which would bo proved: aud, therefore, he could not conceive what defence would be set up. Mi. Wilson then put in various documents, which, with the admissions of marriages, deaths, &c., sup- portpd Mr. Chilton's opening. Mi. Yaughan Winiunsthen addressed the jurv, ob- serving that we lived in an acre of speculation. Everv body now speculated âDuchesses, Countesses, distin- guished silk gowns, sages, philoliophers-instca,1 of speak- ing of marriages, births, deaths, the last new novel, now nothing was heard of but railway shares and speculations -ail speculated â all were bitten with this rage for specu- lation. And this action was a speculation. The stock was only the costs of the action the prize was the union house, the infirmary, the house of correctiou, alltl other good things at Swanseaâ-(laughter) âa very pretty look out. (ivenewed laughter.) What did it signify to risk the costs of the actionâa mere fiea-bite ;-if they suc- ceeded, they had the county house of correction, the union house, and other buildings. (Laughter.) This was not a bad speculation. At first sight the prospectus had a much better appearance than even prospectuses usually have it was extremely plallsiblc-(laughter)- much moie so than was ordinarily seen in this day of prospectuses, when they were issued at the rate of one bundled at a time, lite plaintiffs had got hold of these tacts âthat a lease was granted by the corporation, which lease bad got to them, and that the coiporation paid tn them tne sum of four guineas a-yoar. Then they said- W e get four guineas a-yearâwe've got the Icase-1et us give them notice to quit, and get the property." That srjiided very well at first but "there were some queer facts connected with this action which had not been re- ferrell to by his learned friend. What became of the six shillings a-year rent which Sir Edward Mansel was to pay to the corporation ? The plaintiffs had not said that they paid that six shillings. It was verv odd. There was another odd thin! ould the corporation of Swansea and other public bodies have proceeded to build the union house, the infirmary, the house of correction, and other buildings, if they were merely tenants from year to year"? Was it in the least degree probable ? He (Mr. Williams) could not profess to ask the jury to have mercy upon the corporation if they were such fools as to act in that manner. But did it not occur to the jury that the corporation had some strong reasons for acting as they had ? Mr. Williams then enumerated the various points in Mr. Chilton's openingâsaid they were all per- fect!y trueâand then proceeded to call the attention of the jury to the six shillings a-year which Sir Edward Mansel had originally agreed to pay to the corporation, and which he and his successors had paid to the corpora- tion. In the year 1789, the person then in possession of the property granted an under lease of it to a person named Angfl, at a yearly rent of four guineas, and he < subsequently sold that under lease to the corporation and, therefore, it was as his representative they (the corporation) ] paid the plaintiffs the sum offourguineas; and paid them- sel ves the sa m of six shillings-tbe rent originally agreed to be paid by Sir Edward Mansel. He (Mr. Williams) would put in the necessary deeds, which would then account for J the whole circumstance of the corporation's present position Evidenceâdocumentary and oral-ha YÃng been given, which supported Mr. William's statementânamely, that the rent of six shillings a-year was paid to the corpora- tion, Mr. Chilton called Mr. Dalton, deputy clerk of the peace for this county, who produced a deed of Feoffment of a portion of the piece of land in question-namely, the spot upon which the county House of Correction stands. The deed was dated November, 182;). The learned judge conceived the deed was quite inope- rative. He thought the defendants had completely answered the plaintiff's case. After a brief conversation the matter was left for the jury's decision, whom Mr. Chilton then addressed. He had not proceeded far with his remarks before the judge seemed to coincide with him in opinion, and it was then arranged that a verdict should be taken for the plaintiffs, with leave for the defendants to move to enter a non-suit; -the court to draw such inferences as they may think the jury ought fo draw. Attorney for the plaintiffs, Mr. J. J. Price. Attorney for the defendants, Mr. C. B. Mansfield. SAMUEL, versus LEE. This was an action of trespass brought by a labourer named Thomas Samuel, against Edward Herbert Lee, Esq., of Dynaspowis, to recover compensation by way of damages, for having by his agents or persons employed by him, illegally turned the plaintiff out of a cottage, which lie held as Mr. Lee's tenant. Mr. Chilton, Q.C., and Mr. Vaughan Williams con- ducted the case on the plaintiff's behalf;âAttorney, Mr. Phillpotts. Mr. Evans, Q.C., and Mr. Nicholl Came, appeared on behalf of Mr. Lee. Attorney, Mr. Langley. The following is a report of the evidence taken :â Robert Thomas examined I am a carpenter, and live at Cardiff. I occasionally act as bailiff to execute law processes. On Thursday, the 8th of May, Francis Pur- nell applied to me, and at his request, I went with him to Dynaspowis, to the defendant's house, who is a magis- trate of this county. We got there about ten o'clock in the morning. Mr. Lee's bailiff came with us after we had seen Mr. Lee. His name is John Williams. We all went together to the plaintiff's house,ânamely, my- self, the constable, Francis Purnell, and John Williams. Mr. Lee said he would send his bailiff or land agent, John Williams, with us. We went to the plaintiff's house, and arrived there about half-past ten. The door was shut. He is a labourer and lives in a cottage. We called out but nobody answered. I opened the door with my finger and went in. I was followed by the others of the party. We stopped there for half an hour, and then we removed the goods after enquiring for the plaintiff and his wife. We found fire in the grate and other appearances, which led me to conclude, that persons had taken breakfast there. There were two children in the garden. We moved all the goods to the road and were assisted by- Thomas Oakey, Mr. Lee's gamekeeper. We delivered the clothes that we found in the house to the next door neighbour. After the goods were moved out, I and John Williams put a padlock on the door. By that time a cart had come and the goods were placed in it, and taken to the Star public-house. They were put up for sale the same day, but there were 110 bidders. They were then turned over fo the landlord, Mr. Lee. I afterwards went to the plaintiffs cottage, and while I was thrre his wife came. She was crying, as she could not get into the house. Samuel's children, I am told, were taken to the overseer of the parish. Cross-examined by Mr. Evans: Francis Purnell en- gaged me to go and see the goods appraised and sold. The distress had been made six days before. Re-examined Mr. Lee gave me no orders, but said his bailiff, Williams, should go along with us. This concluded the plaintiff's case. Mr. Evans then addressed the jury. He said it was one of the most trumpery actions ever brought, and done simply for the purpose of procuring costs. He would give the jury a full history of the facts of the case from which they would find that it was their duty to return a verdict in Mr. Lee's favour. He admitted that Mr. Lee or Purnell had no right to lock up the door, but it would appear that Mr. Lee gave no directions that the door should be so locked up. Mr. Evans then entered upon a detailed statement of the facts of the case, and after a speech of considerable ability called the following witnesses Francis Purnell examined On the 3rd of May last, I distrained upon the furniture of the plaintiff. I received my instructions from Mr. Langley. The amount due was £ 5 6s. lid., for rent and arrears of rent. I saw the plaintiffaud his wife there, and they told me that I should receive £ 2 all the next Saturday, and XI the week afterwards; and that I should have the house cleror in six days afterwards if I wouid leave the furniture there, and if he could not pay the money. At the end of the sixth day, I and Robert Thomas went there, but no one was in the house. I thought they had gone in pursuance of their promise. A feather-bed was missing from the house. The rest of the fnrniture was there. Witness then proceeded with his account of the pro- ceedings, which did not differ materially from that given by Robert Thomas. Healsoaddedthattheplaintiffwas a man of the most violent disposition, and had threatened to burn the premises of any one who would buy his goods. W itness said he put the padlock on the door of his own accord, and that neither Mr. Langley nor Mr. Lee gave him orders to do so. Plaintiff t:>ld witness that he (plaintiff) had broken the lock the day it had been put on. John Wiifiams, laud bailiff to Air. Lee, was examined Plaintiff agreed to pay Mr. Lee the sum of E3 for the cottage. In last May plaintiff owed £ .1 6s. lid. Witness then described the proceedings of the 8th of May, and added that the lock was put oil the door with- out Mr. Lee's orders. Mr. Chilton then most abb-addressed the jury in reply, who, after hearing his lordship's summing up, retired for some time. Upon re-entering court thev returned their verdict in favour of the plaintiffâdamages 20 shillings. His lordship refused to certify for costs. WEYMOUTH AND ANR. VERSâS THOMAS. This was an undefended action brought by the plaintiffs, Messrs. John Francis Weymouth and Fred'eriek Green â the owners of the Tymawr railway colliery and works â against Mr. William Thomas, of Neath, for money due by him to the plaintiffs for coal which lie received from them for the purpose of being sold to the public. The sum claimed was for 995 j tons of coal, which, after de- ducting ten per cent, for waste, came to £ 80 Is. lid. Yerdict for plaintiff for that amount. Counsel for plaintiff, Mr. Chilton, Q.C., and Mr. Y. Williams. FCxecution in a week. The court rose at six o'clock. ujifiiaewwy ft??;

[No title]



[No title]



Family Notices