Hide Articles List

13 articles on this Page

I CARMARTHENSHIRE SPECIAL…

News
Cite
Share

CARMARTHENSHIRE SPECIAL JURY LIST. I I To the Editor of the Welshman. I 8m -The extraordinary communication made to you on this subject by Mr. George Thomas, and which ap- peared in your last paper, calls from nie a few observa- lions which I shlI thank you to insert in your next number, for the purwose of justifying and explaining my own conduct and that of Mr. Harries, as well as the part which Mr. Shackel) has been led to sustain in the affair. Mr. Thomas has applied to himself all the cliarges contained in the Petition presented by me at the Quar- ter Sessions, the greatest portion of which appeared in the Welshman of the 9th instant it will, however, be perceived on reference to the document, that I did not take upon myself to say who the party was who had so grossly corrupted the Jury List, and that the Petition only asserted that it had been done by the acting De- puty Sheriff, these charges Mr. Thomas in his letter de- signates as "of a very grave character," & I fully coin- cide with him in that opinion. The Trial by Jury, the foundation of our liberty and the boast of Englishmen, is a privilege that every member of the community has a right to enjoy in the purely strict manner pointed out hy law, and I envy not the man who would tamper with or pervert that important privilege. The seriousness and enormity of the offence being thus agreed upon both by Mr. Thomas and myself, one might expect that he would apply himself with earnest- ness to refute so grave a charge, and which he himself calls the libellous report," if it were as he says "utterly false;" but not a single attempt does he mike by way of contradiction. Read his epistle from the be- ginning to the end, and its total substance is merely this, that the Petition was not read or presented at Llandilo an assertion which 1 will undertake to shew to be utterly false and untrue. Now to the proof- Mr. Thomas to avoid meeting the real and only ques- tion in the affair (the truth or falsehood of the Petition) makes use of a letter from Mr. Sliacke)), by which he endeavours to brand Mr. Harries with falsehood, the contents of that letter did not a little surprise me, although it does not in the slightest degree support the aljei;aiion which Mr. Thomas has endeavoured to found upon it, and I find upon enquiry from Mr. Shackell, that he wrote that letter at the request of Mr. Thomas, and upon his assurance" that the petition had np"e.. been presented at the Quarter Sessious." Upon which re- presentation Mr. Shackell naturally feeling very indig- nant that the insertion bad been made, without any further inquiry, and not suspecting Mr. Thomas would so positively state that which was incorrect, he on the impulse of the moment wrote the letter alluded to, and the letter itself bears ample evidence of the hasty man- I ner in which it was written. Mr. Shackell says in that letter that he had been "duped and made the instru- ment of a disgraceful deception," and undoubtedly so he was, but not by the person that lie then considered to have done so-not by Mr. Harries! but I assert without fear of contradiction, that it was hy Mr. Thomas he was duped and by no one else; after this, caimer moments came over Mr. Shackell, and reflection suc- ceeded the impulse of the instant, and he began to think for himself, and very properly determined to as- certain beyond all doubt whether Mr. Harries had im- posed upon him or not, and I only regret that he did not do so in the first instance. Accordingly Mr. Shackell wrote to Mr. Pugh, our worthy Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, to request the favor of informing him what really did take place with reference to the petition, Mr. Pugh with his usual condescension returned an answer- "THAT THE PETITION WAS PRESENTED," and that the Petition was accompanied by an application that the Petitioner and her Attorney be permitted to inspect the Jury Lists in the custody of the Clerk of the Peace, and that the Clerk of the Peace be directed to make an affidavit thereupon. The Court said they could not order the Clerk of the Peace to do what he was not bound to do by the Jury Act, 0 Geo. 4, which was imperative on him, but that as it was a very important subject affecting the foundation of the administration of justice, the Clerk of the Peace would doubtless afford every facility for the investigation that the law required. Mr. Hall said that after intimation of the opinion of the court, the object of his application was answered, and I he would not press it further." I need hardly say that after this communication from the Chairman, Mr. Shackell could easily determine who it was that had duped and practiced deception upon him," and conceiving that he had in the heat of the moment, and upon misrepresentation, done injustice to Mr. Harries, by writing the letter to Mr. Thomas already referred to, he did that which every honourable man ought to do, oil finding himself in error-he wrote to Mr. Harries to the following effect:â 1 wrote the letter to Mr. Thomas in consequence of information I received from him, but I find now that although he informed me the Petition was NOT pre- sented, the Chairman tells me IT WAS, and that on en- quiry of Mr. Lloyd Hall, he tells me that he opened the principal statements of the Petition and read its prayer. I was not at Llandilo myself, and am therefore dependent on the reports of others. I would not have written the letter to Mr. Thomas, had I known all the facts. I wrote it in great haste, and under feelings excited by the imputation that I was an instrument to further unworthy proceedings." The Chairman having incidentally referred to Mr. Hall it may be as well to insert here the indorsement made by him on the Petition immediately after it had been pre- sented, and the following is a copy The Court intimated that every facility should be afforded for the investigation, and Mr. Thomas under- took to abandon the special jury list, and have a fresh jury struck for the Assizes." E. C. LL. HALL. 2nd July, 1847. Now I would appeal to any reasonable and impartial mind whether any doubt can be entertained of the fact that the petition was presented and for all necessary purposes read at the Quaster Sessions, and if so what becomes of Mr. Thomas's assertions to the contrary, and what is his present position with regard to them ? Mr. Thomas may yet attempt to insist that the peti- tion was not" read" as he seems to lay a good deal of gtre;-s on that word, but it must not be forgotten that he himself introduces that allegation, no one else has ever said that it was read. The Welshman, of the 9th inst., does not state so, Mr. Harries did not tell Mr. Shackell that it was read, neither doe* he latter say that he did, and Mr. Thomas has edged i.t that word, evidently, for the purpose of hating something to granple with, in fact he has made that assertion in order to have something which he thought he might contradict. Whether the Petition was wholly or partly read I care not. M r. Hall presented it a copy of it had previously been duly sent to the Chairman. A copy had likewise been deli- vered to Mr. Thomas some days before the Quarter Sessions, so that tie was not taken by surprise, nor was the application made in a clandestine manner, thus he had every opportunity of shewing the fallacy of the statements in the Petition if they had been untrue. The petition it will be remembered detailed that my client, Mrs. Williams, had a cause which came on for trial at the last Spring Assizes, in which Mr. George Thomas was the attorney against her, that he was the acting Under Sheriff for the county of Carmarthen, that she moved for a Special Jury to try the cause, and that she was so dissatisfied with the Jury selected for that purpose that she ultimately abandoned them, and the defendant insisted on trying that cause by that Jury, that the cause came on for trial and the Jury could not agree upon a vet diet. T'lat subsequently it bad been discovered that the Special Jury list had been impi operly -nade out, between 40 and o0 names, most of whom respectable gentlemen in the county, who were qualified to be and ought to have been by law upon the list having been omitted out of it altogether. That about 35 mme's of persons who were not qualified to be Special Jurors had been impro- perly inserted in the List. And that the description of the qualification of many others whose names did appear in the Jurors Book had been so altered as to give them an apparent qualification on the Jury List, the conse- quences of such conduct may be better understood when it is known that there are only 74 persons qualified to serve as Special Jurois for the whole county. These are the charges which Mr. Thomas was called upon to answer, and he had every opportunity of doing so if he had any explanation to make. Mr. Thomas admits himself and in which admission I fully acqtiiese that the charges are of grave and serious character," and cast upon the guilty party a most serious reflection and one would naturally expect that instead of merely dealing with a collateral question of no importance he would have given some proof in lefntaiiou of them besides merely his own assertion, which I think I have successfully shewn to be of no value. Was it at all difficult to disprove the Petition if (let,i Is were untfue ? I answer no, it was the easiest tiling imaginable if such had been the case, the truth or falsehood of the Petition would at once appear by the production of the Special Jury List and the Jurors Book, both of which were and still are in the possession of the Deputy Sheriff, then how did Mr. Thomas meet those" calumnies" as he chooses to call them, did he produce any evidence to refute them ? No suc; thing thing, and will any person believe for one instant that if the charges were untrue, Nlr. Tho.-iias would not have pvailed hi",splf of the mode already pointed out of disproving them, whieh he might have done with s., much facility,and the very fact of his not doing so she ⢠> clearly that it was impossible to give them any con- tradiction. I ha\e examined carefully the Special Jury List deli- vered to me by Mr. Thomas with the jurors book in the custody of the Clerk of the Peace, a copy of which is in the possession of the Deputy Sheriff, and from which lie is by law required to make out the Jury Lists, and I can assert positively that every statement contained in the Petition is literally and substantially true, and that the Special Jury List made out for the Spring Assize, wr-s a foul corruption in support of which I need only refer to the List and the Book (hath public documents) and in tlte possession of Mr. Thomas himself, and although Mr. Thomas dares to say that the charges are false and slanderous, his own conduct bears ample testimonv of their truth he consented to the prayer of the Petition that the Special Jury List should be abandoned and a new one made out all of which has been done, and the new List was used for the purpose of this cause at the lastAssizes, need I ask, if the old List was genuine, why abandon it for a new one ? Mr. Thomas knowing that the truth must ultimately prevail is not satisfied to rest his defence on the denial of the veracity of the Petition, but he attempts to throw the blame upon Mr. Trail, and for that purpose makes use of an affidavit sworn to by that gentleman. It will be perceived that Mr. Thomas shifts the res- ponsibiiity to Mr. Trail, and what does he say ? He transmmits it to Mr Goode if any remonstrance should be made to the latter on the subject, I should not be surprised at being next referred to Sir James Coi kburu himself,. But do these evasive excuses atone or compensate for, or even in the slightest degree pfll- late the offence? Admit that Mr. Goode made out the list, I would every whit as soon Mr. Thomas had done so him.-elf provided it WPS made out as the statute directs. i y complaint is, not that. the list was made 0111 by any pellicular individual, but that it was improperly made out and corrupted. To say tilat Mr. Trail had any thing whatever to do with the Special Jury list must be incorrect, and the list itself beat-s sufficient evidence of it, there being names in it who do not appear in the jurors book, and therefore Mr. Trail being a stranger could not have known that there were such persons iu exigence. And again Mr. Trail in that part of his affirhnt which Mr. George Thomas has thought proper to suppress lets out a secret which taken in connection with the former part of the same document appears to me very like a little contrndie'ion aud inconsistency, however, your readers shall judge for themselves, his statement, is as follows:â" That the variation between the Special Jury List and the Jurors Book arose in conse- quence of the variance which this deponent has recently discoveied to exist ii-, the Special Jurors List which was handed over to this deponent by Philip Griffith Jones, the preceding Under Sheriff." How can this be true if he and Mr. Goode selected the Jury as stated before ? in that case they could not have adopted Mr. Jones's list, l,ut iaki:i;; 'lie last excuse to be the c, rrect one. Mr. Jones to whom I have spoken on the subject assuies me tuat the list delivered by him was a corrcct one, and made out according to the statute, however, the- production of that document would settle ttiis point. Here it will be perceived, Mr. Tiai! on oath admits that the Special Jury List was at variance with the book, the Petition says the same thing, but still Mr. George Thomas says it is "false atid slanderous." I leave your readers to judge for themselves who is in the right. Assuming for an instant for the sake of argument that the Special Jury List was made okit I)v an impartial person, and that the omissions and alterations which I I complain of were the relIlt of accident or produced in the exercise of the discretion and judgment to which it tia,d been stib,iiitt.d-tlien I would expect that the errors would tell b >th ways, as well as for my client as against her, but after examining and atializing the list carefully I find that the omissions and insertions in my opinion all tend in effect to the same side, and I there- fore cannot attribute it to mere accident, and this view is supported by the fact that while the names of some of the most respectable gentlemen in the county who were totally unconnected with the cause referred to, are omitted from the List, yet several persons in close conTlexian with Mr. Thomas and his client, and who had no qualification according to the Act of 6 Geo. IV. c. 50 had been improperly put on the List, and whose names I am quite prepared to furnish. I have now laid before-you all the facts relative to the unphas.int affair as they have transpired fiom the commencement, it has been my aim to do so fairly without any admixture of my own opinion or senti- ments, I have drawn no inferrence nor attributed im- proper motives to any one, I have detailed the plain facts as they occurred with the single desire that all should be disclosed and nothing suppressed, so that your readers may judge of the transaction for themselves, I have done in it nothing but what I considered to be i my du'y both to the interest of my client and the justification of my own conduct. As to the personal insinuations which Mr. TL:11ft: has thought proper in the exercise of his refined ias'e to apply to me aud Mr. Harries, I will not follow his example by retaliating, and s'iall only say that abt!se is no argument in his favor, and that weak indeed must be the cause which has nothing else for its support but vindictiveness. Apologizing Mr. Editor to yourself and the public for occupying so large a space in your valuable columns, I remain Sir, Yours obediently, THOMAS PARRY. Quay-street, Carmarthen, July 21, 1847.

CARDIGANSHIRE ASSIZES. I

CARMARTHEN CORN RETURNS. I

Family Notices

fSHIPPING INTELLIGENCE.j

Advertising

TO THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORS…

TO THE ELECTORS OF THE COUNTY…

TO THE ELECTORS OF THE COUNTY…

TO TIIE INDEPENDENT ELECTORS…

TO THE GENTLEMEN, CLERGY,…

TO THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORS…

Advertising