The Brecon County Times Neath Gazette and General Advertiser for the Counties of Brecon Carmarthen Radnor Monmouth Glamorgan Cardigan Montgomery Hereford

BEAUFORT. A MAN DYING ON THE ROAD-sIDE.-On Sunday morning last, about half-past five o'clock, a man was taking a walk on what is known as the L'angunider road, and just as he crossed the railway bridge, he saw a poor man l ing down on the road side, and by his appearance he imagined he had been there some hours, and was in a dying state. He at once got some assis- tance, and removed him to the Railway Tavern, which house was nearly opposite to where he was found, He was laid down before the fire, and shortly after- wards expired. Dr. Butterfield was soon in attendance, and upon examination found that any efforts to try and produce animation would be useless, Deceased's name is Thomas Hughes, and he is supposed to be upwards of 60 years of age. Excessive drinking is conjectured to be the cause of death. Dr. Butterfield will make a post mortem examination, and full parti- culars of the inquest will appear next week. SUNDAY SCHOOL ANNIVERSARY.—On Sunday last, the anniversary of the Beaufort Hill English Wesleyan Sunday School was celebrated, when three ap propriate sermons were preached and collections made in aid of the funds of the idsi itutioa. Mr. John Fudge officiated in the morning. The Rev. Mr. Garlech, wh > has been unfit for duty for several months pastthroug-h illness, resumed his duties in the afternoon, and Mr. John Morris Protheroe preached in the evening. The services were very well attended, and in the evening a large number of people were unable to gain admit- tance. The children, under the superintendence of Mr. Edward Wilkes, acquitted themselves with credit in their recitations, &c. The choir and school children, conducted by Mr. Bishop, sang a selection of poetry and music with considerable taste, but the importation of some instruments in inexperienced hands did not improve the harmony. Upwards of 25 were realized by the collections. The children were regaled with tea and cake, and a public meeting held, on the fol- lowing day.

CRICKHOWELL. THE EARLY-CLOSING MOVElIlENT.- W e hear with pleasure that the adoption of the earlt-closing move- men- is contemplated by the tradesmen and others in this thriving little town. It is not in mmy things that Crickhowell can be accused of being "behind the times," but. we fear that hitherto, with respect to the movem-nt now on the tapis, she has been epen to that accusa'ion. Comparatively few, we hear, are opposed to the scheme, and the prejudices of these should not, in common justice, be a bar to the in- terests and welfare of the many. The public weal always demands a certain amount of private sacrifice, and from what we know of the Crickhowell public, we may safely guarantee that such a sacrifice, were it required, would be readily made but we are of opinion that very little (if any) loss would be en- tailed by the adoption of the movement. That the tradesmen of other more important and influential towns have done so without loss to themselves or in- convenience to the public, can leave little room for those in Crickhowell to demur, and when we further consider the incalculable advantages that would accrue in point of health, and the increased patronage the several institutions would receive in consequence of such adoption, that demur becomes positively culpable. The arguments in favour < f the principle of early- closing have been so frequently laid before the public that a recapitulation of them is unnecessary. We only hope that shortly we may have to report that Crickhowell has placed herself on the list of those towns that have adopted the movement. THE GAS AND WATER BILL.-In the House of Commons, on Friday last. the Crickhowell Gas and Water Bill was read a third timo and passed. CRICKHOWELL RIFLE V OLUNTEERS,- W e understand that John Mauad, Esq., of Tymawr, near Abergavenny, intends to resume the Captaincy of this able body of volunteers. Much gratification is expressed thereat.

PETTY SESSIONS, FRIDAY, MAY 24TH, before M. J. ROBERTS, Esq., and W. H. WEST, Esq. STRAYING SWIII E.Zelophiaz Llewellyn, Llangunider, was summoned by P.C. Powell for having allowed a pig, his property, to stray on the highway, on the 3rd instant. Defendant's wife pleaded guilty on behalf of her absent spouse, and the Bench, seeing it was the first offence of the kind, imposed the mitigated penalty of 1'1. and costs, amounting to 6s. 6d Richard Jenkins, Llangunider, similarly charged by P.C. Powell, was mulcted in a similar amount.-James Abraham, of Llangunider, was charged with the like offence, and fined Is. and 5s 6d costs Joshua WilliamSj of the same place, was charged with having allowed three pLs to stray on the highway, on the 3rd instant. Defendant complained that it was a hard case they should be brought up wh"n gipsies and broom sellers were allowed to graze their animals on the roadside unmolested. The Bench informed defendant that if he chose to prefer a complaint against those parties he named, they would be dealt with according to lav at the same time, it was no mitigation of his offence that o'her people broke the laws. Defendant having been previously convicted for a similar offence he was fined the full penalty, 5s and costs.

IMPORTANT FISHING CASE. At the Petty Sessions held at Clyro, on Monday, before the Rev. J. VENABLES (Chairman), H. ALLEN, and W. BASKERVILLE, Esqrs., Mr. James Williams, surgeon, and Mr. John Ateherley Jebb, both of Brecon, were charged that they or one of them, did have in their or one of their possession, an unclean or unseasonable salmon on the 9th May, at Boughrood. Mr. Gwynne James, of Hereford, appeared to prosecute on the part of the Board of Conservators of the river Wye; and Mr. D. W. J. Thomas, of Brecon, appeared on the part of the defendants. Mr. Thomas I do not wish unnecessarily to take up your worships' time, and I will therefore at once say that we do not dispute that it was an old fish. Mr. James then stated that he appeared on the part of the Conservators of the river Usk, in support of the information against the two defendants. The offence of which it was alleged they were guilty came under the 14th sec. of the 24th and 25th Vic., c. 109, which said that no person shall do any of the following acts, that is to say, have in his possession an unclean or unseasonable salmon. That was the offence with which the defendants were charged. Mr. Thomas Will you be kind enough to read the whole of the section ? Mr. James did so, the section being as follows No person shall do any of the following things, that is to say, wilfully take an unclean or unseasonable salmon, buy, sell, or expose for sale, or have in his possession an unciean or unseasonable salmon, or any part thereof; and any person acting in contravention of this section shall incur a penalty not exceeding £5 in regard to every fish taken, sold, exposed for sale, or in his possession. Mr. James then proceeded to say that his duty was simplified by the statement that it would not be denied that the fish was an unseasonable one. In this case the act was worse than it would have been on the part of ignorart persons. With regard to one of the defendants, it would be seen from the evidence that he should adduce, that he was seen at the station with the identical fish in a basket. So f,.r, therefore, as Mr. Jebb was concerned, there was no question whatever, and the only question they Would have to try was whether there was possession on the part of Mr. Williams. The penalty was imposed on each lperson -each person was fined in the full penalty and the question was whether there was a joint ownership of this fish. If he were instructed rightly, the facts were tbese.-Oi) the morning in question, Mr. Williams and Mr. Jebb were seen at the station together, having between them one rod and one basket, clearly having the appearance of one person going to fish, and the other to gHff or otherwise assist. They were seen in the course of the day-the one in the act of playing with the fish, and the other with the gaff, showing there was joint action. He could not prove that the salmon that was being played was the one in question, but they were seen playing a fiSh, and were afterwards seen with a fish, and the pre- sumption was that it was the same fish. At the station Mr. Williams carried the rod and Mr. Jebb carried the basket, and the fish was taken from Mr. Jebb. If ever ¡ there was a case of joint action between two parties, I this was one. Nothing could be more clear and dis- tinct, and if he satisfied the Bench as to the facts he had stated, they must arrive at the conclusion that both the parties were guilty of the offence they were charged with. The Conservators of the river, in bringing the case before the Bench, were discharging a public duty. They had no pleasure in inflicting fines, but they considered the defendants in the ease were the last parties who ought to have committed an offence of this kind. In carrying out a public act of that sort-an act intended to work for public go d- they must look to persons occupying a superior posi- tion in society, and if he proved his case, he should ask them to inflict an ample penalty. In this case a merely nominal penalty would be no penalty at all, and he hoped the Bench would inflict a substantial penalty to mark their sense of the act, and to deter others from committing the same offence as the de- fendants, who seemed to have been guilty of a very unjustifiable infringnnent of the Act of Parliament. The Chairman stated that although he was a Conser- vator, he believed he was not disqualified from hear. ing the case. Mr. Thomas said that by a recent Act he had power to sit. Samuel Owens was then called, and deposed I am employed under the Board of Conservators of the river Wye, as the Superindendent of the water- bailifts I was on duty on the 9th May. Mr. Thomas here saidhehadanapplicationtomaketo the Bench. He felt that the ends of justice would be strained if the two cases were heard together, and be therefore asked that they might be heard separately. The Chairman It is reported that the two were acting together. _Mr. Thomas It' is very convenient sometimes to join defendants. In this case it entirely shuts our mouths. The Chairman It appears to me as far as the case goes, that these two gentlemen went to fish together, and were fishing together. 0 Mr. Thomas They went to fish together, no doubt. The Chairman And that they actually had one rod between them. Mr. Thomas What I want to impress on your worship is that one of these gentlemen knew nothing about it whatever. Mr. James contended that if the offence had been committed, it was a joint offence. It was one fish, and not two fishes that the defendants were in posses- sion of, and it would therefore be impossible to have two defendants, or to take them separately. He cid not know that in such a case as this he should concede more than the law required him to do. Supposing they had two parties charged with the offence of stealing one article, they would not take the two cases separately to enable one to give evidence. There was only one act done, and the act was done vy A7° w-ntieS j°int]y- Either there was an offence by Mr. Williams, or there was no offence. Tha ques- tion was whether the Bench would be acting properly if they took them separately, or if they took them together. He said they would be right in taking them together, and they would be wrong to separate them. Mr. Thomas[: The reason why we wish to take them separately is because the ends of justice would be strained by taking them" together, as one of the Parties bad nothing whatever to do with it. Mr. James I will repeat the offer I have made. We have no wish to strain the case, and if Mr. Wil- liams will plead guilty, I will withdraw the summons as against Mr. Jebb. Mr. Thomas Mr. Williams is the very one who we say bad nothing to do with the offence. The Chairman I think, so far as we can gather from the statement of the case, that we ought to hear them together. ■f | Can you not then dispose of one case the other8 Suilty' and admit him as evidence against r Mr. James: It is not two cases; it is only one. The only ground upon which Mr. Thomas can stand 18 nhobectln to the jurisdiction of the magistrates, and he has showed us no grounds for such "an 0bjec- After some further discussion on this Doint the whtfes decided they must hpar the ™ses andah8eL?rD5li.eXri?8ti0n rf^en continued, and he said About eleven o'clock I Was at th' Boughrood railway station, and saw the two defen- dants there together Mr. Williams bad a fishinTrod m bis hand and was wearing his fishing trousers? Mr Jebb had a kind of flask basket with him, and James Owen, the engine driver, was standing near him Owen took the basket from Mr. Jebb I asked Owen whose fish it was, and he said it was Mr. Jebb's Mr. Jebb was near enough to hear me wh- n I saw Mr. Jebb hand the basket to Owen, the three were to- gether Owen put the basket into the carriage with Mr. Jebb I am rot certain whether Mr. Williams was in the same carriage I brought the fish out on the platform, and asked him whose fish it WilS, and he said it was his I have it here. (The salmon was produced in court, it having been "pickled.") It looked very red about the tail 1 never saw a worse fish in my life Mr. Williams' trousers were wet, as if he had been in the river. Cross-examined by Mr. Thoma, You say Mr. Williams and Mr. Jebb were at the station together ? -Yes. I wish to remind you that you are on your oath. Now, do you mean to say that you saw Mr Williams and Mr. JVbb toge'her on the pla, form ?-Yes, I oid. Was the engine driver also on the platform ?—Yes, he was. You said that the three were on the platform toge- ther is that true or untrue?—Mr. Williams was the foremost, and the others were just behind. You swear, do you, that the three were standing together on the platform?—Yes. Mr. Thomas I must say, your worships, that I am astonished at this man's evidence, and, indeed, taken quite by surprise. I would, therefore, ask you to adjourn the case. The Chairman: I do not see on what-ground you wish us to do so. Do you mean to charge this man with commitling perjury? Mr. Thomas Most decidedly I do. The Chairman Then you must indict him for perjury. As far as I know, I have never seen the man in my life before, and I only know that he is employed as a confidential person by the Board of Conservators. He states a very simple fact—that he saw Mr. Williams, Mr. Jebb, and the engine driver on the platform. Mr, Thomas That is just the point; and I deny that he tells the truth. The Chairman I think if you want to bring evi- dence to rebut his testimony, you must ask for an adjournment later. Thomas Jenkyns, station-master at Boughrood, was next called, and said I recollect the 9th May on the morning of that day the two defendants came by train to the station they arrived by the same train, from the direction of Brecon Dr. Williams had a rod, and I believe that Mr. Jebb had a basket, but I am not quite sure I cannot say for certain whether there was more than one basket. Mr. James Did they leave the station together? Mr. Thomas That is a very leading question I should prefer your asking how they left. Mr. James: I will put the question in another way. Did they leave the station together or separately? Witness Together I think they went out of the station and down the road I saw them again in the course of the day it might have been half-past 10 o'clock, or a few minutes more I saw Mr. Williams first of all in the station he had a rod with him, but I do not think that he had a bag or frail. Did you see Mr. Jebb on the second occasion ?— Yes. Where ?-I went to the other side of ihe plat- form, and when I returned I believe Mr. Jebb was coming on the four-foot way I do not think he had anything in his hand then I did not see the bag at all until it was in the possession of the engine driver, Owen. Did you see Mr. Jebb with anything in his hand ?- I think he had a gaff-hook in his hand. Had you any conversation with Mr, Williams on the subject of fishing ?-I do not think that is a fair question. That is for the magistrates to say. Had you any conversation with Mr. Williams on the subject of fishing ?-I do not think I had; I merely put him in the guard's van. What did you mean then by saying just now that you did not think it fair ?-I thought you meant in reference to private conversation I did not see the basket or frail until I saw it in the hands of the engine driver; they told me they were coming back I believe both of them told me so they said something to this effect, "Look out for us, as we intend coming back." ° The Chairman I do not think we have the time when they first of all arrived. Witness The train is due at 7.54 in the morning. Mr. James When they arrived in the morning Mr. Williams had the rod you are not sure who had the bag or frail, but you think it ..va, Mr. Jebb and the second time you believe Mr. Jebb had a gaff in his hand ?—Yes. Cross-examined by Mr. Thomas You said in your examination that you saw Mr. Jebb on the four-foot. Was that directly he came to the station ?—Yes, sir, I was on the look out. When you saw Mr. Jebb on the four-foot, did you know where Mr. Williams was ?—Yes, I had left him in the guard's van. Who came first to the station ?—Mr. Williams. I think you were on the look out for the Doctor, and beckoned him on ?—Yes, sir. At the time you beckoned him on, could you see Mr. J ebb? -No, I could not. Do you wish their worships to understand that Mr. Williams, Mr. Jebb, and Owen stood together at the station ?—Oh, no. V\ hen Mr. Jebb came to the station, did he get into the guard's van ?-No, he did not. It is not true that as they came back Mr. Jebb and Mr. Williams stood together on the platform ?--No. That you swear to ?—Most positively. Can you tell me what became of Mr. Jebb after you saw him on the platform ?-He att. mpted to get in on the wrong side of the carriages I think it was a first class carriage, and not the guard's van. You did not b>se sight of him at all till he was in the carriage ?—No, I did not: he followed me and got into she carriage. Then if it has been stated by anybody that Mr. Jebb and Mr. Williams st,lod on the platform together, it is not true ?—It is not. That you have no hesitation in saying ?-I have not. Why did you ask the Doctor to go into the guard's van ?-I thought he would like to go there and change his things. You know Owen the water-bailiff ?-I do. Did you see Mr. Williams, Mr. Jebb, and Owen standing together there ?—I do not know about after- wards. But you say you saw Mr. Jebb arrive there, and from the time he arrived till you saw him get into a carriage, were those three together ?-I had put Mr. Williams in the van. When you saw the Doctor running, how far down the road could you see ?—I could see for a consider- able distance. And I think you said Mr. Jebb was not in sight.—I did. Where were you when Mr. Jebb and Owen were talking ?-I was close at hand. After you got round to the end of the train did Mr. Jebb meet Mr. Williams at any time before you saw him in the carriage ?—No, he could not possibly meet him. Where was Mr. Williams all that time ?—In the guard's van. Re-examined by Mr. James You expected the gentlemen back, and were on the look out for them ? —Yes, I looked down the road to see for them; I could see about 150 yards down the road; Mr. Wil- liams was coming in sight just as I looked I did not. see Mr. Jebb then; I turned back directly I could not see how far Mr. Jebb was behind him I did not see either of them again till I saw them in the station; I believe I saw Mr. Williams come into the station-I am not certain. As soon as you saw Mr. Williams you took him to the guard's van ?-I followed him with his clothes. You saw Mr. Jebb on the four-foot?—Yes, I saw him try to get in on the wrong side. From the time you saw Mr. Williams to the time you saw Mr. Jebb was a very short time altogether?- Oh, very. The train was waiting, and you had other passengers to look to?-Most decidedly. Now, Mr. Jenkyns, suppose a witness to say that he saw these two gentlemen together. Would you like to sav he swore what is untrue?—I should like to be made to know what yn understand by tnat, because I tell you I saw Mr. Williams and put him in the van, and afterwards saw Mr. Jebb. Did Mr. Williams get out of the van at all?—He did not. The Chairman What carriages did they arrive in? I believe I am right in saying that it was a first-class carriage. Mr. Williams went into the guard's van to change his clothes?—Yes I suggested that, as I thought he mi^/r cT0me *Q c°ntact with other passengers. Mr. James What is the length of the platform?— It is very short. ^Did Mr. Williams go away in the guard's van?— Mr. Thomas: If anybody has said that Mr. Williams and Mr. Jebb were together on the platform or at the station, after they came back, is that true or untrue? The Chairman You have asked that question before. I do not see much good in it. He said it was untrue. The witness's evidence was then read over, and he objected to the word" station" in one place, and said he saw Mr. Jebb in the" four-foot." Tue Chairman Don't you consider the part of the four-foot on which you saw Mr. Jebb part of the station?-No, I consider the house alone. But you make use of the phrase, "The train is in the station when the train is by the platform beside the station?"—Yes When you said Mr. Jebb was in the four-foot, do you mean in the four-foot inside the station?—Yes. Joseph Owen, engine driver, deposed On the 9th May I was on the train which arrived at Boughrood between ten and eleven in the morning I had get my engine in the station when I saw Mr. Williams. outside the station in the road; I saw him come into the station, and come towards the train; I did not see where he went; I first of all saw Mr. Jebh in the road; he came into the station and got into the train when I saw Mr. Jebb coming up the road he had a bag in his hand I cannot say whether he bad anything else in his hand I cannot say wbelh, r he bad a gaff-hook or not with him I saw the tail of a fish in the bag I spoke to him and told him I should take and carry the baz to the station he said nothing to get me to do co I saw Samuel Owen on the olatform when Mr. Jebb was in the carriage I saw Owen speak to him 1 did not hear all that was said, but heard some thing about bad fish; I did not hear the reply; I delivered the fish in the train to Mr. Jebb I did not see what became of ;t afterwards as soon as Mr. Jebb had given me the fish he passed on he oily passed through the station Mr. Williams onl v passed through he came up the road a little before Mr. Jebb after I got out of the station I did not see Mr. Williams at all till we got to Three Cocks station wher. Mr. Williams first came up I believe he had some fishing- rods in his hand I cannot say positively I belie.ve Mr. Jebh had no rod I did not speak to Mr. Williams that I know of. Cross-examined by Mr. Thomas When you say you saw Mr. Williams in ihe station, you mean coming through the house?—Yes; when I first, saw him he was ten ortwelve yards through the station door. When you next saw him, where was he?—I do not know I lost sight of him then. When you last saw him, where was Mr. Jebb?- Coming up the road towards the station. How far down ?—Oh, perhaps about 100 yards, as near as I can guess. Did you see Mr. Jehb directly he came into the station, and take the fish?- Yes. Where did you carry the fish?-To the train. Towards the tail end of it ?-Yes. Did you go round to put it on the wrong side, or endeavour to get into the train any other way ?-Yes, on the right hand side. Was Mr. Jebb with you ?-No, he had gone on in front of me. On the same side that you tried to get in ?-No, on the proper side, Did Mr. Jebb try to get in on the wrong side at all? —I believe not; 1 cannot say exactly. Did you at any time see Mr. Williams and Mr. Jebb together at the station ?-No, I did not. How long were you in the station after Mr. Jebb arrived ?—About half a minute. The Chairman Your duty is to wait for a pass from the station master ?—Yes. Did you see Mr. Jebb talk to Mr. Williams at all ? —I did not. On what platform was he when Mr. Jebb arrived ? —I cannot say. Mr. James said that was his case. Mr. Thomas then addressed the Bench on behalf of the defendants. He said May it please your wor- ships-I would just observe that, although I said I wished for an adjournment, I find that my friend has called the witness I wished to summon. Your worships have heard the statements of Thomas Jenkins, who appears to be a respectable man, and I think you will believe the evidence he has given here to-day. I think you will be satisfied from his- evidence that what Samuel Owen said about seeing Mr. Jebb and Mr. Williams together cannot be a fact. Whether your worships are satisfied that he makes that statement wilfully or not, I do not know. It may be possible for a man to have seen another crossing to the platform, and to have met two or three other people, and to have a confused recollection as to whether he saw them at the same time or not. But. I do not think your worships will allow the statement to weigh one moment with you, or to influence you in your decision. I think it has been clearly prov d that Mr. Williams arrived at the station, and was put in the guard's van by the station master. After that the latter sees Mr. Jebb in the four-foot, apparently just arrived. He sees Mr. Jebb try to get into a carriage, and takes him round and puts him into a carriage, but, not where Mr. Williams was. I now come to what I consider the hardship of the case. It is that the Conservators, or their s. cretary, should have considered it necessary to couple these two gentlemen together, knowing really that they had no evidence whatever by which. they could associate Mr. Williams and the possession of this salmon and knowing also that the only person who could speak to that would be the other defendant, Mr. Jebb. I would impress on your worships that the character and respectable position of Mr. Williams and Mr. Jebb ought not to be used in that way they ought not to have their mouths shut in this way, and be unable to speak a word for themselves except through me. The Chairman: Are you going to call any wit- nesses ? Mr. Thomas I am not, your worship. I am in- structed by my friends that Mr. Jebb, while having his breakfast by the hide of the river, saw Mr. Wil- liams playing a fish, and saw him gaff it. After breakfast, Mr. Jebb goes up to the place where Mr. Williams had been and took up the gaff, and com- menced walking back to the station, along the side of the river. As was going along he saw, close to the t-dge of the river, the fish, as he thought, that Mr. Williams had been playing and gaffed. Mr. Jehb is not a fisherman, which is to be regretted, as he would at of-ce have understood the circumstances of the case. Thinking, however, it was the one Mr. Williams bad lost, he took the gaff and gaffed it out of the water. At th at time Mr. Williams was some hundreds of yards up the river fishing a catch. Mr. Jebb put the fish in the basket, took it up into the village to weigh it, and, having paid his bill, afterwards went as fast as he could to the station. He did not see Mr. Williams at all after that, and Mr. Williams did not know that he had a fish. Having gone round the station into the carriage, the keeper came and took the fish from him. Upon being asked, Mr. Jebb said the fish was his. He had no right to tell the keeper otherwise; and the keeper said so himself. He had no right to say the fish was Mr. Williams', as the latter knew nothing at all about it except that he had played it in the morning. I feel sure, therefore, that your worships will dismiss the case as far as Mr. Williams is concerned. Two of the individuals called for the prosecution deny that Mr. Williams and Mr. Jebb were together at the station, and the engine driver corroborated the statement that they came at different times. I feel sure your worships will give the case the consideration it deserves, whether the defendants are in some position of life, or poor men. In this case there is really no evidence-no legal evidence-for presumption is nothing. On the part of the prosecution it has been presumed—and I regret that the presumption has been carried so far-that Mr. Williams killed the fish. I would repeat, on behalf of Mr. Williams, that I think the Conservators,or their clerk, have used Mr. Williams very harshly indeed in the matter, as Mr. Jebb would state exactly what I have told you. The evidence you have heard to-day corroborates those statements, and I think you will have but little dcubt that Mr. Williams had nothing to do in the matter. I had for gotten to remind your worships that Mr. Jebb would also state that he did not see Mr. Williams to talk to, or to make signs to, from the time he gaffed the fish until he got out at Tnree Cocks station, which would be twenty minutes after he actually took the fish. Mr. Williams also wishes it to be understood that being up to his middle in the water, he could not distinctly see the fish until after he bad gaffed it; but from the fight he had with it, he thought it must be a new fish. When he found it was not a new fish he returned it to the water. Being a sportsman, he wished it known that he would not do such an unsportsr-oan- like act as to gaff a fish when he knew it was an old one. The magistrates retired to consider their decision, and were absent a considerable time. On their return, The Chairman said We have considered the evidence in this case, and we have also fully considered the statement which Mr. Thomas has made on behalf of the defendants and I am happy to say that we are all unanimous in the decision at which we have arrived. The decision at which we have arrived is that both the defendants must be convicted. We have put out of the question the evidence of Samuel Owens to their coming to the station together, as we think he was mistaken. We do not think, however, that he committed wilful perjury but it was shown that Mr. Williams arrived first of all, and got into the guard's van to change his clothes, and that Mr. Jebb did not. At the same time we consider that it is fully proved that these two gentlemen went out for the common purpose of fishing and Mr. Thomas, as their advocate, admits that Mr. Williams caught a fish. We consider that both Mr. Williams and Mr. Jebb have broken the law-really we hardly know why, because the fish was a very bad one-anq we fine them each £2 10s., and costs, 19s. 6d. Mr. Thomas I admit that the fish was caught, but it was returned to the water. The Chairman: We have not overlooked it the least in the world. It is an admission that the fish was caught, and a statement that it was returned to the water. We have considered the case carefully, and have come to the conclusion that the fish was there with the knowledge of both the parties. Mr. James asked the magistrates to allow costs, and the application was granted, the fine being reduced by the amount of the costs added, so as to make the total am< unt the same as before, viz.— £ 3 9s. 6d. Mr. Thomas gave notice of his intention to appeal in the case of Mr. Williams.

■BRECON COUNTY COURT. FBIDAY.—TIIOMAS FALCONER, E*q.; Judge. There were for hearing 7 adjourned cases, 4 not served last court, 99 new cases, 3 judgment sum- monses, 1 bankruptcy case, and 2 equity cases. A large number were settled out of court, and the following* were the only cases possessing public interest Jones v. Hewitson.—The plaintiff is a builder of Devynock, and the defendant a farmer of Little Hall, near Llandovery. The action wa- brought- at the last court to recover the sum of £10 16s. for building work executed on the farm. Mr. Games was for the plaintiff, and Mr. B. Bishop for the defendant. It appeared, on the last hearing of the case, that the plaintiff had executed certain works at the bidding of the defendant, hut subsequently defendant left the farm, and was succeeded by Messrs. Sharp and Hislop, and on their order he did further works, amounting to about £17. The case was adjourned to this court for the purpose of giving plaintiff an opportunity ro pro- duce his book, showing to whom the entries were made. The book in question was now handed to his Honour, and the plaintiff, on examination, said that the entries in it were made against H-wison at the time the work was done the other persons for whom he had worked were not in that part of the country at the time by advice he sued each party for the work each had ordered the defendants Sharp and Hislop had paid the whole amount due from them the sum of £10 16s. was now due to witness from the defendant, and the charges were fair and reasonable In cross-examination by Mr. Bishop, the plaintiff said he first of all put the items on paper, and then trans- ferred them to his book he had destroyed the paper, and did not keep a day book the things were made according to Mr. Ilewitson's instructions, and sent up to him he did not recollect that they were sent there before the 28th August; they were entered June 3rd the whole of the things were spnt up before he received instructions from the defendant to discontinue the work; there was no appointment with Griffiths and Williams to view the work. In re-examination, plaintiff said that he was told by defendant that he and Sharp and Hislop had made an arrangement by which they were to pay the whole amount. Plaintiff said he did not care so long as some one paid him Messrs. Sharp and Hislop never gave him an undertaking to pay him the whole amount.-This was the plaintiff's case.-Mr. Bishop then called the defendant, who stated that he agreed with Mr. Jones to do certain work for him in the year 1865 in June the farm he bad was sold to Messrs. Sharp and Hislop, and it was agreed between him and them that everything tha- was to be done was to be payable by theta he gave the order to plai.it iff to do the work in the beginning of May, and told him he should expect it to be com- pleted by the last week in May by that time how- ever, nothing was done; he told plaintiff of it re- peatedly then came the contract between himself and Sharp and Hislop, of which he told plaintiff, and that he was to do nothing except he had the order from the new tenants while witness was on the farm none of the materials were brought there plaintiff told him he had prepared them, but wimess said it would not matter, as Sharp and Hislop would want them the plan of the works was altered by them. In cross-examination, the witness said that it was an understanding between himself and the incoming tenants that they should settle with Jones.—Mr. Games And if you have to pay Mr. Jones for the amount of the work done in compHance with your orders, you would have your remedy against Sharp and Tlisiop.-D, fend nt: That is a matter of opinion. I should expect them to pay me, on the faith of their promise.—Mr. Sharp was then called, and said he was the owner of a farm in Blaenusk he bought it of Mr. Hewitson, in August; he made arrangements with Mr. Hewitson to pay for such repairs as were necessary on the farm, before be bought it, and Mr. Hewitson agreed to give JE15 towards the expenses which would be so incurred, after the repairs had been made Mr. Hewitson also desired him (witness) to choose some one or two gentlemen who would go and examine the place and see what repairs were neces- sary and what materials were on the premises, which would be of use in effecting the repairs, and to make a valuation of the farm this was accordingly done, and it was agreed that they (witness and Hewitson) would meet and see what decision they had come to, on a certain day this appointment, however, was not kept; and before he saw Mr. Hewitson again, Mr. Jones, who had made the repairs, sent them a bill for X17 10 he met his partner, Mr. Hislop, who told him that he bad rece'ved a county court summons from Mr. Jones, for payment of the amount he was in a great hurry at the time, going to the funeral of a very near friend and he told Mr. Hislop to remit £ 10, in part payment of the amount, and they would see to it again in that bill there were items which could not possibly have anything to do with what had heen done for thpm, and therefore they considered they had been overcharged.—His Honour thought it was obvious that Mr. Jones had tried to playa very ingenious part, and if he had been able to carry it out, he would have doue very yvell. Witness did not dis pute the account, but considered they were over- charged and very wisely too, as it was clear that the plaintiff had charged in witness's bill for things "hi\Jh he had also put into Mr. Hewitson's account.- His Honour therefore gave judgment for the defen- dant. James v. Price.-The plaintiff, Gordon James, agent for the South Wales Coal Company, sum- moned the defendant, James Price, for payment of X3 13s., alleged to be due for manure which he had ordered of him.—The plaintiff said that the defendant had ordered some manure of him in 1865. He sent the account to defendant, and he said he had paid the wrong person, and he would see about it; but had not done so.—Defendant said he had not received any manure from plaintiff at all. He had got his manure from Liaiiell,n.-Ed ward Thomas, haulier, said he had driven two loads from Llanellen in 1865, but not one from the South Wales Coal Company.— Receipts were produced by the defendant, which showed what manure he bad bad in that year, and these were signed by the plaintiff.—The plaintiff said he had received those accounts for another agent, who was out of the way at the time they had nothing to do with the account he claimed.—His Honour ad- journed the case for the production of further evidence. W illiams v. Vauqhan.—Mr. Games for plaintiff Mr. Plews for the defendants. In opening the case, Mr. Games stated that the defendants were two far- mer's sons in the dead of the night of the 24th of May, 1866, they broke and entered the dwelling house of the plaintiff, which was situated in the parish of Llanvillo, within the jurisdiction of the court, and there remained for several hours, until removed thence by police officers. They were brought before the magistrates at Talgarth, and committed to take their trial at the Assizes hf Id in that court in July. 1866. They pleaded guilty to the charge of forcible entry, and an order, by arrangement, was made that they should enter into their own recognizances to come up for judgment when called upon, and under- take not to interfere with the premises again, except by due course of law. Now his (Mr. Games') client was a tenant of the premises to the parish officers of Llanvillo and in cases of that, description the law did not provide a prosecutor, and there was no remedy for the costs of the prosecution for a forcible entry consequently none could be allowed for that purpose Mr. Piews My friend cannot go into that as I have had ro notice of it.—Mr. Games That is only part of my damages.—His H nour What are you going for then ?—Mr. Games said his client had had to bear the costs of the prosecution, and was put to considerable expense, annoyance, and trouble by the breaking into his house in the dead of the nij-ht, alarming and disturbing himself and wife, and necessitating the going for the police officers and to the neighbours to protect them while the men were in the house. To recover these damages the action was brought. In an action, Rogers v. Spence, it was stated by Lord Denman, that the law guarded with jealousy the peace of a man's dwelling house, and enabled him to recover substantial damages for wilful annoyance or intrusion, although no actual pecuniary damage was shown to be done either to property or to person. And the plaintiff in the case came there, and claimed substantial damages for the injury he had sustained.—His Honour What excuse was given for the forcible entry ?-Alr. Games: They said at the Assizes that their father told them to do so, as he had purchased the premises. They believed they were right in taking possession, and having done so, they thought it would be recognized. —His Honour said it had been laid down that where persons having a title to property violently attempted to get possession, they rendered themselves criminally liable to the law, but not civilly liable. He had no right to try a title and w^fcld have no right to try that case Mr. Games saia there was not even a colourable right to the title. His client was the tenant in possession and would surely have a right to recover damages when his house was broken into in this manner.—His Honour said there seemed a strong desire always when a man claimed a right, instead of exercising it fairly and openly and peaceably, as the law allowed, to do it in the dead of night. The other I day there was quite a scene in his neighbourhood (Usk) in the church. There was a dispute as to the right to a certain pew, and one of the church wardens took possession of it. The other man came in, and finding the pew occupied, went round to the rear and jumped into the pew, and took to fis icufi's"-all this while the clergyman being in the reading desk. A lady was coming up the aisle at the time, and being of a very nervous and excitable temperament, she went, into violent hysterics —Mr. Plews said the defendants in this case believed the house to be vacant. His Honour questioned whether, with the particulars Mr. Games f had filed, he could go into the question of the costs of the prosecution.—Mr. Games said he did not. think it was necessary to give further particulars if, however. the defendants thought themselves prejudiced by bis not having done so, he should be happy to give them full particulars. —After some little further conversation upon this point, the case was adjourned to the next court to allow Mr. Games to amend his particulars. William Powell v. Thomas Thomas.The parties are farmers, the plaintiff living at Blaentrengar h, Ystradfelta, and the defendant at Pwllacha, Llywel. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant carried awav one ponv mare, one two-year-old filly, and one sucking colt, his property, conve> ting them to his (defendant's) use, whereby the plaintiff sustained damages to the amount of £12. Mr. Games was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Plews appeared on the part of Mr. Jones, who had been taken ill. One of the principal witnesses was not present, and the case was accordingly adjourned to lie next court, defendant paying the costs of the day. Daniel Lewis v. David and Sarah Lewis.-This was an equity case. The plaintiff, who lives at Penypound. in the parish of Penydarren, called upon the defendant David Lewis, his brother, as the executor of 1 is father's will, to render an account of the monies which had come into his hands under that will. The evidence on both sides had been taken by the Registrar, who had found a verdict for the I-laintiff for jE42 Is. 6 '.—Mr. Plews now appeared on the part of the plaintiff, who was not satisfied with this award, and pointed out to His Honour two items, which they considered ou^ht to be added to the amount given them. Th." first item was the rent of the Crew public-house, wnch was put down at XS per annum, of which plaintiff claimed a fourth part from the 10th May, 1861, to the 15th January, 1866, a period of four years and eignt months. -At Mr. Plews' request, the evidence of the plaintiff was read over which had reference to this particular item. In this evidence, the plaintiff said he knew the public-house called Crew, in Cantreff. He had rented it for the last year at, zeS, which he thought was a fair rent. Jenkyn Meredith, his brother-in law, formerly lived in it, but he got into difficulties, and his (plaintiff's) father took possession, and bad his name put up over the door, and the license was taken out in his name. Jenkyn Meredith's evidence was also read. It stated that he had lived at the Crew for twenty years, and that when he first went there it b longed to his father- in-law and two aunts. He never paid red to his father in-law or to anyone else. In cross-examination he said he had got into difficulties, andiiisfather-iii- law took possession. His name bad been up for 17 or 18 years.—Mr. Pl-ws then urged upon His Honour that. they were entitled to the moiety of the rents for some years previous to that arrangement be! ween the testator and Meredith, and al: hough Meredith lived there the father was the occupier. If, however, he allowed his son-in-law to live in premises to which he was entitled to only a moiety of the rent, that was no reason why his estate should not be charged with the other moiety This moiety ought to have been charged against the estate of the testator.—Mr. Bishop con- tended that the plaintiff was perfectly aware of the transaction that took place. His Honour would see from the evidence that Daniel Lewis was pat out in life by the tes'ator, and was given a large qumti y of sheep and cattle" hich were placed on this farm of Penypound on his marriage. David Leovis was left to slave at home for his father, and was the party who had brought toge'her the, httle stock which was valued at over E200, and which Daniel Lewis was now seeking to get, from him. Mered th, on his marriage with the daughter of the testa'or. went into the house in question, and his Honour would find that the father did not claim till within the last six years, and it was a family arrangement that he should live in the house rent free VI r. Plews con- tended that there was no evidence at all to show that there was any family arrangement to this effect; he then proceeded to the second item plaintiff claiming the moiety of the rent of a facl ory and cottage, to- gether let at £5 10s. per anDum.-Tiie evidence of David Owen was read over to show the rent received, and Mr. Plews then said that the Registrar had allowed them nothing for their proportion of these ren:s, which must have been received.—Mr. B. Bishop replied that there was no evidence that the ren's were paid where were the receipts ? At the examination of the witnesses, the party to whom the property was let was brought, but the other side was afraid to examine him. Mr. Bishop then argued upon the case generally that the plaintiff was not entitled to the sums claimed, and strongly urged upon his Honour the fact that he had had his farm at the reduced rent of £35 per annum, when it had been previously let at £ 50.—Mr. Plews, in replying, expressed his surprise at the technical points raised, in reference to no receip-s being produced, and proceeded to contend that the calculation of Mr Bishop was foolish, inasmuch as the fourth of £ 15. which was the difference between the sum at which the plaintiff had the farm, and the amount at which it had been previously let, would not be the plaintiff's fourth share. The conduct of the defendant also showed that he considered the plaintiff entitle,1 to the fourth share of the Y,35 as well, as after the d-ath of the father, when the next half year's rent became due, they were not called upon to pay the full amount, but the fourth share from the time of the father's death was deducted. His Honour said he thought the items must be added to the account. Re John Beedle, beerhouse keeper, Pencelly, near Brecon. -This bankrupt came up for his last examina- tion, supported by Mr. E. C. Phillips. Mr. Dlvid Thomas, Junr., opposed the bankrupt, merely how- ever wishing for an order of possession. The land- lord had not proved his debt, and had no locus standi; no order could therefore be made on the subject. The bankrupt then passed his examination and received his final order.

ENDEAVOURING TO OBTAIN MONEY BY MENACES EXTRAORDINARY CASE. William Reed, cinder-wheeler, was charged by Isaac Arriston Lewis, manager of and partner in the Clydach sheet mills and bar-iron works, with having knowingly and feloniously delivered a certain letter to him (complainant), demanding money with menaces," on the 20th of May. Mr. James, solicitor, Merthyr, was for the prosecutor, prisoner being undeft-nded. The solicitor for the prosecution briefly stated the facts of the case, and then read the letter complained of, as follows :— 1867. Lanethly, May 20. Mr Lewas I Consider that you are A prety sort of a man for to have Doings with my wife in the way that you have you had Doings with her on November 22 1866 and on April 10 1867 and then you got her in the family-way and onles you give me 7 pounds on my hand this morning She Shall swear to you and I have a Nother letter rote to give Mrs Lewas and I will expose you to all the Contray and I will carry your Effage through 3 towns and then Burn you if you Do not give me what I ask you so help my god I will Do it for I ame not going to rare a Child for you and live a Cat and Dogs Life for Nothing you ought to be ashamed of yourself for to Do such a thing I am Williame Reed and that you will find." Mr. James continued There was not a shadow of pretence for what was there stated it was a mere fiction—the result either of a diseased imagination or pure wickedness he did not know which but hoped the former. The only question which arose was whether he delivered the letter in question knowing the contents thereof. He was not just at that moment in possession of proof that the letter was in his hand- writing but he dared say it was. Mr. James then alluded to the word "menace," and said it ap- peared to him the words used were an unmistakeable menace. Whether a menace meant something more than words he could not say; the definition given it in Johnson's dictionary was a "threat." Mr. Lewis (complainant) was then called, and deposed I know the prisoner, Reed he has been in my employ and was dismissed about the beginning of November he was then paid at 25s. per week, as an ash-wheeler he afterwards became employed under me at the quarry, at 18s. per week when he had been at work with me about a week he came to me with a note in his hand requesting me to lend him 30s. I refused. Mr. Roberts You have not got that note, have you ? Mr. Lewis No, it is probably torn up. Have you any other handwri'ing of the prisoner? Mr. Lewis No, I have not, to my knowledge. Mr. Lewis continued Prisoner delivered that letter (produced) to me in November I was then at the front gate of my house-Clydach House I opened it, and read it there and then I said to prisoner, "You ass, you walk offand pretty quickly too, or I will make you." Prisoner i hat is wrong. The Magistrates' Clerk You will have an oppor- tunity to put any question you wish, presently; so don't interrupt. Complainant continued Prisoner lowered his brows, and sail, "Will you?" I said, Yes," and made a motion to opea the gaie prisoner then turned off, saying, If ou don't give me that money this morning (referring as I understood to what was in the letter), I will very soon rig you up;" there is not the slightest pretence for the charge insinuated in that letter I went into the house after what occurred at the gate I handed the letter to Mrs. Lewis, and she was about to tear it up, when I prevented her, but not before she had torn one puce from the other I saw the prisoner soon afterwards—within a quarter of an hour afterwards he was leaning on the railings between my house and the stables; f said to him, "You walk off as quickly as you can, I won't have such a villain about my premises he made a kind of a scowl, and when he got to the road he said, I think I have as much right here as you have I said, You will find your mistake he then moved away I then went to the house and ordered my man to saddle my horse, and I overtook him as I was going by, I observed that he had a letter, which he was apparently reading he was sitting on a piece of timber by the sale-yard as I went by he sa d, evidently for my hearing, "I will take it in he afterwards called after me four or five limes, and I turned and said to him, Take it in as quickly as you can;" the charges in that letter are entirely unfounded, neither do I owe him a farthing. Defendant: When I was discharged from your "Inploy, Mr. Lewis, in November,—I was in your employ about a week,—I came down and asked you for work you couldn't give me an answer; my missis went to vour office- Defendant's wife Ask him what the money was for. Defendant: He knows what the money was for, very well. (To Mr. Lewis) On the 10th of April, my wife was going to the shop and you tapped the WINDOW of the office, and said, "Where does Reed work," did you not? C. >s!ainant: I did not. Dm you look the doorNo. The wife You did, 1\1r. Lewis. Mr. Roberts Keep quiet; all your husband has got to do is to ask questions on the evidence. Mr. Lewis: My office window does not front the way they go to the shop it fronts the mill. Defendant: You did not give her a shilling and promise her more?-No; I have refused you money, and that you know very well. When my wife came down on the 22nd of November—she callIe in the morning-you gave her 2s., didn't you '!—No money has passed between me and your wife. Defendant here said he would call his wife to prove it. Mr. Roberts Your wife may be evidence for or against in a case of debt, but in a criminal action she can't be evidence for you.-The wife: Of course, sir what belongs to a man belongs to the woman. (Laughter.) Mr. Roberts: I think it is a clear thing you are putting a price on your wife by the way you are cross-examining. Defendant: If I had had connection with his wife, I should expect to have my brains blown out the first time I met him; but the Lord forbid I should. The Clerk: I think you are trying to make your wife appear a very bad character. 1\1::r. West: Suppose for a moment it was all true, it would not alter your guilt as to the threatening letter; you would still be committed for trial. The wife: He promised me £10, but the next morning when I went down, he said, Come at 12 o'clock, I shall have more time than I have got now." Mr. West: You are doing no good, but sadly exposing your own character. Mr. Roberts: You are merely telling the whole world you are worth a certain price. Police-constable Williams deposed: I am stationed at Gilwern; I executed the warrant against defendant on Tuesday, the 21st instant, at half-past 10 o'clock at night; I read the warrant to him; he said it was all true that he had delivered the letter. Mr. Roberts You did not ask him any questions ? Officer: No, sir. He told me Mr. Lewis had tapped the window of the office and called his wife in on a certain date, which I have forgotten, and had to do with her; he said he (Mr. Lewis) had promised her;elo, and that he (prisoner) would make it a dear job for Mm.; he also told me the contents of the letter which has been read; I had not heard the letter read before; in it was men- tioned that he would burn his effigy, and that he would expose him to the public. The usual caution having been made to prisoner, he intimated his intention of reserving his defence. He was then fully com- mitted to take his trial at the assizes at Brecon.

I Mr. Michael next addressed the Committee on behalf of the Llanelly Company, submitting that under the present arrangements the acquirement of the piece of land by the Neath and Brecon Company could be of no possible use to them, as far as they were con- cerned, unless they bad to take their traffic over the swing bridges and so forth. Looking to the levels of their line, he argued that it was perfectly impossible that the Neath and Brecon Company could utilize the land, whereas if it was allowed to be taken by them it would preclude the Llanelly Company, whose line it adjoined, from acquiring it and utilizing it whenever it should be necessary for them toextend their accom- modation at the point in question. Mr. C Lawe, C.E., gave evidence corroborative of the arguments adduced by th e learned gentlemen. Mr. Glascodyne, secretary to the Llanelly Company, said that they had acquired land at very great expense on both sides of the docks. They had been in the habit of using the Oystermouth tramway for the purpose of collecting the traffic for their line. The Neath and Brecon in reality were eight- miles away from them. Believed the tramway to be vested in Mr. G. Morris, as mortgagee. Knew that several of the shareholders were now looking up their interest. By Mr. Harcourt: Considered it unadvisable that the land in question should drop into the hands of a hostile company. Would prefer it remaining in the hands of Mr. Dixon. The committee then adjourned. On Wednesday, Mr. Vernon Harcourt replied on the whole case, after which the room was cleared, when on the re admission of the public, the Chairman (the Duke of Devonshire) announced that their Lord- ship's decision was, that the preamble of the Bill was proved, as far as the triangular puce of land, the Brecon forest tramway, and the Oystermouth Railway were concerned, but not with respect to the land con- tiguous to the south dock. The propos'd capital of the company was reduced accordingly, and all parties then retired.