Glamorganshire Summer Assizes.'.|1845-07-19|The Cardiff and Merthyr Guardian Glamorgan Monmouth and Brecon Gazette - Welsh Newspapers Online
Hide Articles List

9 articles on this Page


[No title]






Family Notices

Glamorganshire Summer Assizes.'.


'nines, scams of coal, fire clay, to the northward of the vein &nd all iron, iron stone, in or under the mine demised, The d frndant was, by the terms of the lease, fully empowered to work the mine, and was also required to work it to the best advantage for the landlord. After some remarks relative to injuries or inconveniences experienced by Sir Robert Price in consequence of the defend- ant's mode of proceeding, and which remarks were nearly lniudible, Sir Thomas Wilde said that in the lease there was a covenant on the put of the lessee to repair, amend, and prc- Sorve in a lit state the mine—that he should work coal, clay. '> in ;L proper and workmanlike manner in the usual and •>0<t manner—i;i the most productive manner; and that account "Hould be rendered as to the amount of coal, See., worked and wrought to the surface-that proper and sufficient pillars to sup- port the roof of the mine be left and maintained —and othl-r Covenants to the effect that in managing the colliery due care IIhollJll be observed to protect the interests of the landlord. It Was also sUpukited that the defendant should not work near to *n.v old or former workings, so as to avoid injuring the works by causing outbursts of water or otherwise. By another covenant it was stipulated that map" or drawings of the workings should e furnished to the landlord, for the purpose of enabling him to Perceive how and in what direction the works were progressing. I hll foregoing were the material facts of the lease. The noble plaintiff complained in the declaration—First, that lr. Malius, or those under him, independently of the question of rout, did not work and prosecute the colliery in a proper and a. workmanlike manner, so as to get the coal out of the respec- tive veins in the usm), and best, and most productive mode, ^cording to the terms of the lease; that, in fact, he (the defendant) had prosecuted the working of the colliery in a care- *'ss» negligent, and unskilful manner. Secondly it was complained, that in so working he did not cave sufficient pillars to support the roof from under which the '■•lal, &<•,) b;id been worked. Thirdly it was complained, that he did not secure the roof by ffoper timber, according to the express provisions of the lease. ^ext it was complained, that his working had been carried, n°t only near to, but actually into the old or former workings, that by means of his having (lone so, the present workings J^eame liable to be flooded, and that the water had been let "Uo a particular part; and in the general words of the covenant, that he had worked the mine negligently, injudiciously, and in aQ unworkmanlike manner. The poiats of complaint were, therefore, those which had been stated and first—That the defendant had worked so near *° 'he old or former workings as to have let in the water. He \sjr Thomas Wilde) had mentioned to the jury that various "uits had taken place between the parties —that Mr. Matins had Alined to work the mine in consequence, he alleged, of injuries Sustained by him by the made of proceeding adopted by Sir Robert Price. Shortly after the lease to work the iron, iron stone, &c., had been granted to Sir Robert Price, he (Mr. Malins) complained that he (Sir Robert) had improperly worked over j"s portion of the property, and which was included in his ed*P and that the injury sustained by the mine was the result of the working of Sir Robert Price, and not his (Mr. Malins's). consequence of his having withheld the rent, and of having rili,de the complaint just named, an investigation was instituted "y Sir Robert Price and the landlord, the result of which was "lat both were persuaded that no well-founded ground of com- print by Mr. Malins existed but that the whole mischief arose «rom the improper mode of working which had been pursued by those who acted for Mr. Malins. Maps of the workings »ere called for in the course of the investigation, the examina- *>oa of which fully confirmed the impression which they enter- tained— namely, that the mischief complained of was occasioned y 1\Ir. Malins himself. was now complained that Mr. Malins had worked unskil- and that large quantities of coal were left in the pit which °ught to have been got out, but which now could not be got out Without incurring great expense. The details would be stated u"y by witnesses; but he (Sir Thomas Wilde) had stated the —namely, that vast quantities of coal which ought to have J*611 worked and got out had been left to remain, and were now j 0,1—at least could not now be got out except by incurring Breat increased expense. As Mr, Malins was not inclined to *°rk the mine, it was not likely that that coal would be got Put, because his successor would not find it worth his while to *nour the expense of working it, neither would it be reasonable 0 expect that any one would in the present state of the works, oisequently, as the coal could not be worked, the landlord's 'oyalty was entirely lost. *as then urged that the manner in which the mine had Worked by Mr. Malins was objectionable; that the mine, beyond all doubt, had a considerable quantity of water in it. Tliete was a certain level in the property called the Water heel Level," which was intended to receive the crop water, or ater from the surface. There was a water wheel there, which Perfectly competent to clear the mine. If that level had in a proper state it would not have required steam power, ?r *ny other power, to clear it, except this water wheel; but, y reason of the mode of working underneath that level, the Water flowed into the deep parts of the mine, and the wheel no longer able to clear it: they must have steam power, anu that steam power must be kept in constant exercise to clear Water which, formerly, was kept clear by means of the wheel alone. The defendant, or those under him, had improperly cut .^eper into the mine near to the former or the old men's work- .°5S. so as to render the mine liable to be flooded; and, in one c II anee, the mine had been inundated. He believed no excuse «uld be offered for cutting into or near to the old workings, "e defendant denied that he had so cut into or near to them, covenant of hi* lease required that he should maintain proper sufficient pillars for the support of the roof. It was now *°«nplained that he had so diminished them as to render them 'onger proper and sufficient supports for the roof. That the I" tar* were inSufiiciont seemed to be manifested by the fact *t the roof had fallen in, which circumstance would be stated n evi„encp, an(j ;il<0 tjlat t[ie m;ne had thereby been reduced to dangerous and improper state and that if Mr. Malins thought o leave the mine, it would be impossible for another lessee to e and work it, but at a much increased expense. ba: gam, with regard to the parts of the mine which ought to j been secured with timber, he (Sir Thomas Wilde) was n»irij £ tcd that they were not properly secured. That the mine was now in a very improper state was agreed on all hand* Mr. Malins having left the work. Mr. Malins complaine(j of the quantity of water in the mine: the question for the jury's decision was whether the presence of that water not to be attributed to his mode of working. The plaintiff 'n this case asserted that: the defendant denied it, and asserted "at the wafer was caused by the works of the other lessee, Sir X'^rt who worked by patching. Thomas Wilde then explained what working by patching Was. and then added that Mr. Malins held that the water which I'&n, into the mine fell through fissures in the ground or rocks, Which fissures were caused by the mode of working adopted by oir Robert Price. Accordingly, Mr. Malins had brought his action against the Earl of Dunraven on account of the workings of his lessee, and for which he held the landlord responsible, and *i«o against Sir Robert Price, the lessee. When the landlord i"v^ tenant were thus attacked it became necessary to see where u<- Ia>ut really lay, and that was the object of the present action. **e (Sir Thomas) was instructed that the water could not have raa into the mine from the patching, which was a most usual and a workmanlike mode of proceeding. He was instructed that the nature of the soil was such as to render it impervious t') water, and, therefore, out of the question to suppose that water oould penetrate through it and get into the mine. "if Thomas Wilde then briefly enumerated the points in dis- pute, the principal of which was/whether the mine was reduced 0 its present ttate by the workings of Sir Robert Price or the forking., of Mr. ilalins. Mr. Malins, being supported by a Joiut-stock purse, bad brought action after action, and charged »>r Robert Price with having been the cause of the injuries com- £ taiaed of. The jury would have to determine that. The works Ut'r« low in such a state that unless it were possible by legal ta compel Mr. Malins to resume the working, no other °nant would do so, as it was absolutely nocessary to incur very Great outlay previous to putting the mine in a lit state for being *orked, so that the prospect of no ultimate advantage would orm a sufficient inducement to any fresh tenant to proceed with Works damaged as they now were. After a few further observations, which were simply a reitera- l0* of what he had previously stated, Sir Thomas Wilde sat own, and the examination of witnesses was immediately pro- *eed<»d with. Monday only four witnesses were examined, although the court sat ten hours. The evidence appeared to show that in working the mine* the defendant not only did not work them according to the terms prescribed in the covenants of his lease, but also that they were worked in an unminerlike, injudicious, and careless manner." Each of the witnesses were subjected to most severe and searching cross-examination, but their evi- I seemed to us to be but little shaken. They were each <all«*| upon, after stating facts, to deduce inferences from those |q say "whether, from what they had observed, they state if the mine had been worked properly or otherwise." Tnejr. withal exception, were of opinion that the works had been carried m in an improper manner, and gave their reasons for arriving at t!tt conclusion. A full report of this day's evi- 4oneP would entirely aeeu}>y the columns of the Guardian and, therefore, as it was merely » matter of dry detail, and had con- stant reference to map', plans, or sections, we deem it unne- cessary to occupy our columns by giyhig more than the above Very brief summary. The court rose at quarter past seven, TUKSDAY. IIi. lordship entered the hall punctually at nine. The names of the special jurors having been called over, his lordship, turning to Sir Thomas Wilde, said-" Are there no °op<M Of arranging matters amicably between the parties?" Mr. Coekburn said—■" We have done every thing, my lord, with that view. We aro even ready now to do one of two things — namely, either to buy tWf plaintiff's or Sir Robert Price's interest i J? mine, or to .soil ttoe*B our interest at any reasonable price." o'r Thos. Wilde said — Wecagnot discuss the matter in public. Besides, it is of no us<e talking S.n the manner you do after you have put us to thounaiida and thovs?.t>ds of pounds expense in P*««ecuting this matter." Mr, Coekburo O.Wil sa'd—" Well, we either take your interest or sejl yoy oyrs." The learned jfudge then interposed and said—" YowmusJ not discusit matters in jnublie, "l he counsel on both sides then "laid their heads together;" after the lapse of about ten minutes, the examination of wilBe&geg was rosjuned. ne whole of this day was occupied in hearing the statements ,evcn witnesses only. After describing the state of things in the colliery to be very bad. ttity all, we believe, gave it as their opinion that thf. inine had been ffiduced to its present state by V M '"j"1'0113 «wde of working$4oyte<J by the defendant. any of them said, that in passing into the vwioiis levels, the foulness of the air put their candles out." This exMtf>ijsipn was >ery happily used by Mr. Coekburn in the course of the Chilton was addressing an argument to the judge as to the of certain portions of the evidence, and in doing sp Melted once or twiCI' his attention having been called from > je #fc»tter under consideration by *ome interruptionlien Mr. CucJjbum rose and said, My friend's candles are gone ojjt j" »nd, Uirniit}^to Mr. Chilton, said, Strike a light, strike a light." kuws 0|f;la,u £ tuier followed this sally, in which the learned judge ioiw,,t he&rtiity; bllt the proceedings generally were of the most Liregoin- tediews «afore. The Court rose At halL-past eight, having sat eleven hours and A half. K WEDNESDAY. The learned judge entered the tiaij #jt nine o'clock. I "Jrbe first witness examined was Air. Vostt-r, mineral engineer, "bo" tte understand, is a gentleman of the first jsminence in his S>rufe-««in. Ilis evidence went to show that sufficient carp had bQex. taken in driving the engine pit level in the$iyt in- in securing the ends of the pillars left for tlvs support of the Oiaaf, .v.'hjeh had, consequently, given way. In other in- stances the e.«Uwj had been injudiciously worked, and the loss to the tandimfi \VMtM. consequently, be great. He entered upon .a calculation of and stated that they amounted to a "tYery considerable sum—snarly two thousand pounds. In the course of the £ oi;siMM>n, Professor Buckland, of the ^'KSversity of Oxford, was examined. He stated most positively at <5*6 bottoms of the patches opcn&d by Fir Robert Price, were *'nt Jwj-itujs to water,— and that they well and efficiently divined. Ttey were principally below the stx$t# of the Great ribwr vain, ifjj}, consequently, water cou'd riot go to,71 them tO that vein. Qfiter witnesses examined, whose evidence went to show *mine bad been ltntroperlv worked by Mr. Malins. -n- Wilde then put yj various documents, by one of flii (n*1 -appeared, that the defend&ut had formerly claimed (000 rdamagss for alleged injurit'* tP by the work- g f This concluded the plaintiff s case and at a quarter past two o'clock the court adj lurned for two hours, at the expiration of which time, Mr. Cockburn commenced his reply amidst the most profound silence in a very crowded court. After a few general observa- tions, he said that whatever doubt might rest on the main facts of the case, there could be none as to the character of the action and the motives from which it arose. His learned friend, Sir Thomas Wilde, had, in his opening, told them of certain chan- cery proceeding against Sir Robert Price that Mr. Malins had brought actions against Lord Dunraven and against Sir Robert Price, who worked mines adjoining those worked by Mr. Malins and that in order to settle those proceedings, the plaintiff took the initiative, an:l commenced this action. The proceedings were, therefore, rather extraordinary. He (Mr. Coekburn) would put the matter hypotheticatty to the jury. Here was a party [Mr. Malins] got a lease of the coal, and another [Sir Robert Price] of the iron—both lessees of the same landlord, the Earl of Dunraven. Mr. Malins found that his colliery was threatened with the most serious danger in con- sequence of the proceedings of his neighbour, who had the iron, lie instituted Chancery proceedings for the purpose of averting from himself the danger which he thought impending over him. Those Chancery proceedings led, as they sometimes did, to the trial of cert lin issue", which the judge deemed necessary for the proper investigation of the matter. Those proceedings are pending, and in the midst of which the catastrophe is unfortu- nately realised which wis anticipated. Mr. Malins said then— I gave you warning; 1 have cautioned you of the consequences which were likely to result from the course of proceeding which you adopted: you would not take the warning, and the conse- quence is disaster and destruction to me and I now call upon you to make me compensation for the injury caused by your course of conduct." And Mr. Malins said to his landlord, the Earl of Dunraven—" I called on yon again and again to inter- pose I hold you responsible for the injury I have sustained, because you were bound, under the terms of our lease, to act in a certain manner; and conceiving myself to be injured, I will try to gain redress by that course which is open to every Englishman to pursue They combine not to meet this action of Mr. Malins; not to defend themselves not to say to this individual—" You are in error; you are charging us with that which is really the result of your own proceedings;"—instead of doing that-of adopting that course which would have been a perfectly legitimate one, they turn round and say — We will bring an action against you. Having allowed you to remain unmolested for nine years, 1, the landlord, having all that time the right to inspect the mine -to direct you to repair when rep iir was necessary ;—having suffered nine years in the course of your working to proceed, to which hitherto I have not raised a single objection, now, because you bring this action against me I will go into the depths of your colIiery- bring all the mineral surveyors I can find to examine it :—if one single flaw in your proceeding* can be detected, I will bring my action against you—I run a race with you-take care to get in first by entering my action tlrst-I know only one action affecting us can be tried at the A-sizes-I will bring down the most eminent barrister in the British dominions, who has succeeded in obtain- ing more verdicts than any man living-l take a verdict, and if even only one shilling damages be awarded to me, the costs of trying the action will crush you and destroy you; and then we, the Earl of Dunraven and Sir Robert Price, shall get rid of your action, and hear no more of you." That, said Mr. Cockburn, is the simple and the real origin of this action opened bj my learned friend, with the addition of one single fact, which will serve to give you a proper notice of the whole matter. Mr. Coekburn then said that the action was brought in the month of November but the plaintiff's agents did not go down into the mine till the 7th of January—the mine was not exa- mined till that date, and. therefore, until the workings had been investigated they did not know that they had one single well- founded ground of complaint, and they could not have known that their action would have been supported by one single iota of evidence it was a mere speculative action brought on by the chancery suit. The evidence which they had succeeded in pre- paring was such that there actually was not a tenant in the county against whom his landlord might not bring a similar action, and support it by similar testimony and, therefore, it was most cruel and harsh treatment of Mr. Malins. He (Mr. Coekburn) had nothing to say against Lord Dunraven. His lordship had been misled. II* had unadvisedly lent himself to aid the purposes of Sir Robert Price. His lordship was only the nominal plaintiff in this action. No one could for a moment doubt but that Sir Robert Price was the true plaintiff. He it was who was involved in litigation with Mr. Matins Mr. Malins said to him—" Sir Robert Price, you are the cause of my col- liery being destroyed." Sir Robert Price said-1' No I am not, you are yourself the cause"—and that was the issue the jury were to try—namely, whether the injury to the colliery was caused by Mr. Malins or by Sir Robert Price. In meeting the charge made against him by a direct denial, Sir Robert Price was, possibly, perfectly justified; but it was unjust, harsh, and most oppressive that, in order to determine that question between Sir Robert Price and Mr. Malins, to anticipate it—to prevent Mr. Malins attaining justice—to bring Lord Dunraven into the field for the purpose of finding matter of complaint against Mr. Malins which had slept for years, and not for the purpose of vindicating Lord Dunraven's rights, but for the purpose of enabling Sir Robert Price to fight the battle with Mr. Malins on another man's ground-fi.rhting it with all the advantage which he derives from being on the vantage ground of fighting under the banners of the landlord. That was not the sort of action which a jury composed of gentlemen of Glamor- ganshire would be disposed favourably to view. He (Mr. Cockburn) wouid have been prepared to meet the case upon its merits, but he was not prepared to meet such collateral issues as had been introduced. Sir Thomas Wilde had referred to chan- cery suits—had insinuated that Mr. Malins was a man prone to embark in suits of this kind, with the view of exciting prejudice in the minds of the jury against him. Ue ( j,ir. Coekburn) could not help calling to mind that proverb which said that those who lived in glass houses should not throw stones—a proverb which was particularly applicable to Sir Robert Price's position, who sought to avoid the consequences which his conduct had occa- sioned by throwing on Mr. Malins burdens which neither morally or legally he ought to bear. The learned counsel then proceeded to call the jury's attention to the breaches of covenant as stated in the declaration. The first to which he would advert was that which required that the colliery should be worked in a workmanlike, judicious, and most productive manner, lie thought it would be found in the sequel that a considerable portion of the matters to which their attention had been directed had nothing whatever to do with this particular covenant; and if it would be so found he trusted the jury would give it their due consideration, as this was entirely a speculative action; an action in which they should not allow the plaintiff, or whoever brought the action in his name, to travel one jot out of the record. The next alleged breach of covenant to which he would advert was, that the defendant should leave and maintain proper and sufficient pillars to support and maintain the roof, and should also by sufficient timbering and arching maintain the roof of the said colliery, &c. See., except such parts as would in due course of working become exhausted, useless, and the working discontinued. Un that the planum alleged that the e'efendant did not leave and maintain proper pillars to support and maintain the works, &e., by reason of which omission a large quantity of coal was left unworked, and the colliery lendsred useless. Another plea alleged that the timbering and arching were in- sufficient; and another was that he had wilfully and negligently worked near the old or former workings, so as to injure the colliery by inundating it, by bringing down the water contained in the old workings. Previous to commencing his remarks upon these several points of complaint, Mr. Cockburn regretted that Sir Thomas Wild's opening had been so very meagre, that it had presented such a general and vague notion of what the plaintiff really had to bring before the jury. He would shew the jury that again and again during the investigation the plaintiff s counsel had shifted the ground on which they rested. His learned friend who possessed the most extraordinary powers -who invariably got up his cases with the most laboured diligence -had in his opening given them the mere shadow of an outline—had merely read the various statements of breaches of covenant contained in the declaration;—that Mr. Malins had made bad levels in one r"I case had made bad arching in another, without atall adverting to the real point in dispute, but dismissing it with a few words. Such an opening shewed that his learned friend even at the last moment hardly knew what to rely upon, <1UU IllS opening remarKS singularly harmonized with the character of the proceedings from beginning to end, shewing how speculative had been the action:—how shadowy and unsubstantial the ground of com- plaint, which was left to be developed in the course of the proceedings —to be fixed by the various witnesses who had been scraped together from Bangor, from the Forest of Dean, from Leicestershire, from Derbyshire, and from Heaven knew where or by what means. (Laughter). Mr. Foster and another gentleman had laid their heads together—had put together figures which it seems were to place the plaintiff 's claim to com- pensation in some tangible shape —the whole was admirably in keeping ;-the manner in which the action had been brought—• the motives which were too palpable to escape observation—the object which it was intended to serve—and the fact that not a single thing was done towards inspecting the mine until the action was brought, shewed the nature of the case. If the case could be maintained on the part of the plaintiff, there was not a single tenant in the county who was safe from similar attacks from his landlord. It was said that the consequence of the mode of working adopted by Mr. Malins was, that a quantity of coal which could have been worked had been lost to the lessee, and so lost to the landlord. Spyeral of the witnesses had laboured excessively to show that tho loss sustained by the landlord, by coal having been left which ought to have bp en \yorked, was very consider- been left which ought to have bp en iyorked, was very consider- able, while others had treated such losses as iqgqnsiderable-of no moment, but had placed much weight on other losses. The result of the whole was that. he thought, thoy had failed in giving the jury any appreciable amount in the shape of dama- ges, and for the best of all reasons -namety, the landlord had no ground of complaint until the tenant's lease had expired. One witness said Mr. Malins had not carried the level as a dead level" [straight], and, therefore, it was quite clear it could not be worked there was a loss to the landlord —it was not miner- like'; but the question was, was the landlord necessarily dama- ged by the proceedings of the tenant ? Could not the tenant, ^i £ hln the twelve years which his lease had to run, work this mine elea,- If he did, and the landlord got the royalty, it was clear the landlord had no right to complain. All he wanted was that the coal should be lyorkpd out, and that he should get the galeage. If, then, within the twelve year; Mr. Malins worked out the piece of coal, which, to the present moment, might be conceded for the purposes of argument, had been left behind, the landlord could have no pretence for alleging that he had sustained the least fraction of damages in consequence of that coal being so left behind. Until Mr. Malins's term expired, or until it had so nearly closed as to leave no time to enable biiu to work it clear, the'landlord had no right to complain. Wjtty regard to the additional expense of working tile coal so left behind, yip of fhe witnesses (Mr. Cadman). who was a practical man, estimated it af a penny a ton. Mr. tester, a mineral engineer, estimated it at tw opence per ton. The r ellow of H)e RoyaJ Geological Sqcjety magnified it tq threepence per ton: and if tiwy had asH,ed Dr. Bucki^nd, he youl$have put it sixpence in a moment, (Laughter.) He could not he.cxpected to look at that under sixpence which Cadman and Habakkuk had viewed at a penny, (Renewed laughter-) The prjee raised in proportion to the eminence of thp witness, and a fellow of all the learned societies in the universe might reasonably estimate that at sixpence which poor Habakkuk estimated at a penny. (Great laughter.) However, placing the views of theorists aside, he hoped the jury would look at the matter as practical men. Mr. Cockburn then referred fully to the position of the works -the depth of the several pits, &c.—and the depth to which it Va* possible for the most skilful miner to penetrate, which, he said/ jj-af comparatively limited, and strongly contended that, viewed fairiy, '§ £ ?■• Malins's mode of working a mine or colliery, which, when 4emis.e4 tq aim ha'l been opened, was the best that could have been adopted wvfcr tJje circumstances. i.icit- vviri advantages and disadvantages attending ail mode?. It was said that Mr. Malins's manner of working by slopes was unjj'orkman- like; but the jury knew that in this county it was a mode sivelv practised, and, in particular circumstances, was pcrfectlj eligible and advantageous. Besides, whether the mode was or was not advantageous, the result of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff was, beyond all controversy or doubt, that the loss would fall on the tenant; and, therefore, the landlord had no cauifi of complaint until the expiration of the lease. He most confidently »nt;('ipated their verdict would be in Mr. Malms s favour, although the witnesses swelled the damages as high as their soroewh&t' (tlaitiv would permit. (Laughter.) The next point to which he would advert was the sta-e o: (lie water-wheel level. It was alleged that the level had been suffered to become ruinous and useless ;-that Mr. Malins did not leave and maintain pillars to support the roof. It was urged that th« level had been rendered useless as a road and as a drain. it be supposed (hat a tenant was bound to maintain the roof after he had discontinued workina ? It hail been conceded that a party might take away the pillars as soon as the coal in the works was exhausted. The learned counsel then entered very minutely into the evidence adduced in sup- port of this ground of complaint, and contended that" it was ridiculous and most monstrous to complain of the level beins: required as a road." Wilh rpgard to its beingrequired for a drain -to its having been rendered totally unfit for the purposes of draining, he said the evidence upon that point was far from being clear or conclusive; and a so that discrepancies existed In the statements of the witnesses. For example, Mr. Cad- man, a mineral ag;ent, who had surveyed the works said, the water-wheel level had been made for a horse road, and that it had been spoiled, llowells, a working collier, a m»n who was there when the level was originally formed said it was never intended for a horse road. With reference to what had been urged of its not being a sufficient drain, Mr. Coekburn said the mineral agents who had been exa nined gave the most conflicting opinions; and then proceeded in a strain of the greatest humour and raillery to notice the various methods which he fancied had been used to gather such a vast number of mineral agents together, who were all in the pay of Sir Robert Price, and whose business it was not merely to survey, but to survey for the purposcs of the case. Who would find a man receiving five guineas a day that would not be biassed towards the party who paid him ? Such a man would be no ordinary phenomenon. (Laughter). A man who embarked in a cause as those mineral agents did, was very liable to have his judgment waipcd. He knew that if he told Sir Robert Price —Mv opinion of this matter is that you are wrong and :\1r, Malins is right," his pay from that moment would cease; his services would he no longer required, and so he viewed the matter as it were through the wrong end of the telescope -making what was large appear small and then by taking the oilier end making what was small appear largo—just for the purposes of the case ;-not perjuring himself but simply exaggerating circumstances. (Laughter). They stated that the water-wheel was amply sufficient for the purposes of drainage, and tliata steam-engine was required in consequence of the. injudicious mode of working. Howell, the unsophisti- cated Welshman said thq water-wheel was never sufficient. He then enteed at great length upon arguments with the view of shewing that the wa'er-whecl level never could be the means of draining the workings, because it was situated above many of them. In order to make it an effectual drain, it was necessary that it should be below the old workings if then it was not below them, the plaintiff's whole argument tumbled to the ground. Howell, the Welshman said-" When we made the wa'er-wheel level we drove into aporiion of the old men's works—into what was manifestly a stall." There must, then, have been woiks below, as a stall necessarily implied a heading. All those old workings connected with each other, and the consequence would be that the water-wheel level never could be the means of drainage. It mi^ht assist to some exten', but never could he an effectual drain. Its efficiency as a drain had not been diminished by Mr. Malins. Who would the jury, or who won!.1 any landlord like best as a tenant, the man who drained partially by means of a water wh, el, or the man who at once boldly looked the difficulty in the face and had rccoiuse to steam ? Steam-engine power was manifpstly superior to water-wheel power. It was then a most harsh, a most cruel thi::g, to turn round upon a tenant after allowing him to work for ten or twelve years, simply because the landlord wished to assist another tenant. There was no covenant in the lease which obliged Mr. Malins to keep up the drain he was only bound to keep up the pillars he was bound to work the mine in a workmanlike manner, which was simply a question of jlldgment-of opinion. The jury, he hoped, would not surrender their judgment into the hands of an interested and biassed body of mineral agents. He again reminded the jury that this was not in reality an action brought by Lord Dunraven but by Sir Robert Price. Who had engaged all the witnesses? Sir Robert Price or his agqnts. With regird to the steam-engine pit, they had it by the testimony of Cadman and his crew (laughter) that the pillars had been robbed and the stuff silently taken awav. Mr. Foster, a man of considerable eminence, said the piilars had not been robbed at all; but that from having originally been insufficiently protected they gradually became reduced to the dimensions they were at present. Messrs. Cadman and Habakkuk said the pillais had been robbed Mr. Foster said they had not been roLbe< Howell, the Welshman, said the pillars had been timbered from one end to the other. No man could guard against accidents; and the injury to the pit was c'used by accident, as the water rushed in and did the whole, remaining there two months. It softened the clay-lessetied its tenacity, and thereby r; ndered it less efficient in supporting the pillars. The day gave way. The pillars then gave way and with the pillars the roof gave way. Down came the colliery but it was most unjust to atcribe the injury to Mr. Malins's proceedings. With regard to what ought to have been done to avert those consequences the witnesses differed widely. One said-" Timber ouelit to have been put at the top another, timber at the bOllom;" another, "timbering was not wanted, you should have arched and another, "yonr arches were too weak: you should have arched a little stronger." They had all grossly exaggerated the injury but neither of them had proved that the injury could not be restored within twelve years and if Mr. Malins did restore all-render all perfect-of what had his landlord to complain? If Mr Malins had erred in judg- ment, it was most unjust, most oppressive to subject him to the payment of those costs which must be ruinous if given against him. The landlord had, from time to time, power to inspect how the mine was worked but he did not do so he lay by for 9 years, and then when some extraneous question arose he came down upon the tenant without one single word of cotiiplaint-with, ut any notice to repair. He brought this action against Mr. Malins, which prevented the action being tried on its merits. If, under such (ircums ances, tenants were to have actions brought against them when their leases had 12 years to run, not a single tenant would dare to invest his capital in mining speculations, which must, of course, prove ruinous, as he would be at any moment at the mercy of the landlord, whose agents, from Habakkuk up to Professor liuckiand, had had unlimited access to the mine. Therefore, he called upon the jury, composed of the gentlemen of Gla- morgan, to stand in the breach between this attempt on the part of the landlord against the tenant. Mr. Coekburn again adverted to the water-wheel level, for the purpose of showing that it could not have proved an effecmal drain. With regard to the charge of working too near the old men's workings, and of having thereby "drowned the pit," he contended that, by the evidence of Howell, it ap- peared that they had tapped one old work, and found the water in it to be inconsiderable. The water which inundated the mine, he argued, could not have come from the old men's workings. Besides, Mr. Malins did not lay down the level. It was formed by M'.CoHier; and Lord Dunraven let it to Mr. Malins exacllyas Mr. Collier left it. Lord Dunraven must then have been aware of the state of the level when he let it to Mr. Malins. What then could the jury think of the conduct of those who used, or rather abused, Lord Dunraven s name in making hiin turn round on the tenant. It was, prac- tically, Lord Dunraven's level, who had let it to Mr. Malms as it existed. It was the person who oiiginally demised the level was answerable, and not the existing tenant. Again, with regard to the charge of having worked too near the old woikiogs, one of the witnesses, Mr. Stuart, said—" If you want to drain your mine effectually, the best thing you can do is to tap your old works," that is, to let the water down. No two of those mineral surveyors, who had been scraped together from heaven knew where, agreed on those matters of opinion. The learned counsel then reviewed considerable portions of the evidence, the relevancy of which to the question at issue he much questioned and then proceeded to notice the evi- dence given by that great leviathan of geology, Dr. Buckland (laughter), who knew much more about the formation of the world than Moses himself did (renewed I ughter), and knew more of what went on in the bowels of the earth than he did of what went on in his own bowels. (Immense laughter.) While he gave his evidence Mr. Gockbutn actually fancied he (Mr. C.) was some 20 or 30 years younger, and was listening 10 a leclllre in one of th" schools of the university. ( Laugh- ter ) The audience ought to have paid a shilling a piece towards the costs of the action for the learned professor's lec- ture. They all ought, certainty, 10 contribute so much bccause, except to grace this cause with his name, of what use was it to examine the learned gentleman, if it were not to gratify the audience. Of cotiise Dr. Buckland would maintain the Bridgwater Treatise. He had made a theory like the French philosopher, he had constructed a system; and there- fore, of course, he could not contradict himself, and he would not allow anybody else to contradict him, (Laugh'er.) He maintained the Bridgwater Treatise in all its puijty. (Laugh- ter.) Moses might be wrong; but the Bridgwater Treatise WaS right. (Loud laughter.) He (Mr. C.) hoped the jury would not give a verdict simply to keep up the Bridgwater 'I realise. If they gave damages, he hoped they would be nominal da- mages. The learned counsel then reiterated many of his for- mer arguments and statements, and concluded by calling on the jury in the names of all the tenants in the county, to stand by Mr. Malins, whose lease would not expire for 12 years, and to protect him against the proceedings which had been taken against him to gratify the feelings of another. Mr. Coekburn spoke for three hours. His lordship sunjmed qp the evidence, reading only some of the most important passages, and then left the whole for the decision of the jury. He spoke fcr one hour and twenty minutes. At half-past eight the jury retired; and at half-past ten re-entered the court and gave their VERDICT IN FAVOUR OR THE PLAINTIFF DAMAGES ONE FARTHING. This verdict will throw the costs of the action upon the defendant; but we are informed, on what we consider the very best authority, that the majority of the gentlemen of the jury did not contemplate such a result when they returned their verdict. Attorneys for the plaintiff, Mr. Smith, London, and Mr. Morgan, Btidgefid; for the defendant, Mr. White, London, On Thursday morning his lordship left for Carmarthen. Sir Thomas Wilde and Mr. Cockburn, left the court shortly after the judge had concluded his summing up, and were speedily on their way to town. Several of the minetal agents have received notices that their attendance will be required at the next Glamorgan- shire Assizes, to give evidence on behalf of Sir Robert. Price, in the action brought against him by Mr. Malins, and which action, for want of time, could not be tried at I thesp iVssi^es.