Hide Articles List

15 articles on this Page

Advertising

[No title]

MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCE OF…

.........................-…

News
Cite
Share

-I CARMARTHENSHIRE ASSIZES. (Continued from last week.) On Friday morning the Court sat at ten o'clock, for the purpose of proceeding with the civil business. The first cause set down for hearing was POWELL AGAINST DAVIES. His lordship, addressing Mr. Giffard, who appeared for the defendant, said an injunction had been sent down from the Court of Chancery to stay proceedin gs in this cause, and the counsel for the plaintiff seemed disposed to withdraw the case for the present if the other side consented. He thought it would be better if the other side agreed to a withdrawal. Mr. Giffard said, although, as a rule, he did not think they should be guided by telegraphic messages, which might be sent by any person and for any pur- pose still, as he appeared for the defendant on the present occasion, he had less hesitation in assenting to a withdrawal. He would therefore act upon his lord- ship's suggestion. The case was then withdrawn. JENKINS AGAINST THOMAS. The hearing of this case had been looked forward to with much interest, and the hall was well filled at an early hour by an anxious audience. Mr. Grove and Mr. Bowen appeared for the plaintiff, instructed by Messrs Jones and Barker. The defen- dant (or defendants, for there were two) was represented by Mr. Giffard and Mr. Hughes; attorney, Mr. Mans- field, of Swansea. The following gentlemen were sworn as special jurors: E. M. Davies, Esq., Upland; J. A. Timmins, Esq., Penymorfa; A. H. Jones, Esq., Penrallt, Llangeler; â. Prosser, Esq., Rhosmaen, Llandilo F. L. Ll. Phi- lipps, Esq., Hafodneddyn â. Malyn, Esq., Abergwilly; T. Elliott, Esq., Dolhaidd; G. Shakspeare, Esq., Llan- stephan; and A. Bedford, Esq., Ant's Hill, Laugharne. Mr. Bowen opened the pleadings by stating that the plaintiff charged the defendant with having spoken, in the Welsh language, certain words calculated to injure his (the plaintiff's) character. Mr. Grove saidâThe plaintiff in the action was' the vicar of Mydrim, in this county, and the defendant was a farmer living in the same parish. The plaintiff charged the defendant with having made certain state- ments about him calculated to injure his character, which statements were nothing more nor less than gross slander. The statements said to have been made by the defendant charged the plaintiff with having com- mitted adultery with the wife of his (the plaintiff's) servant. Those statements having reached the ears of Mr. Jenkins, he made inquiries as to their origin, and was referred to the defendant Thomas Thomas, and John Harries, the defendant in another action. The plaintiff at once brought the matter before the public and determined to find out whether such statements had really been made, and expressed his wish that inquiry should be instituted, and that the public should ascer- tain whether there was the slightest ground for such statements. He lost no time, for on the 31st of May his solicitors wrote a letter to the defendant, in which they charged him with having made certain statements, and asked him for his authority. In a fortnight afterwards Mr. Thomas's solicitor sent a letter to the solicitors for the plaintiff, in which he said that he had circulated no scandalous report, and referred them to Mr Harries, of Bwlch. Mr Harries was then written to, and he sends a far more satisfactory reply than the defendant Thomas. Harries denied having ever said anything tending to damage the character of the plaintiff. Seeing how mat- ters turned, Mr. Jenkins thought it necessary to have a full denial on oath. He therefore came forward this day and challenged the parties to repeat those state- ments, or even to cast the slightest aspersion on his character. The defendants had said the words imputed to them had never been uttered by them, and Mr. Giffard had said the defendants were prepared to come forward and swear they never did say anything against the moral character of Mr. Tenkins. The plaintiff, therefore, asked them to come and make a denial in open court, n it for the purpose of getting damages, but in order to publicly remove the slur which had been cast upon his character, which was of far more value to him than any pecuniary compensation a jury might award. And there was another consideration: the character of a respectable woman was at stake. Mr. Jenkins, thpre- fore, holding the position he did, was bound to take these proceedings. Thomas Thomas examined by Mr. Giffard: I am the defendant in this action. The words in the declaration were read to me. I never used those words, nor any- thing like them. I never said anything disrespectfully of Mr. Jenkins. John Harries examined I am the defendant in another action. The words in the declaration were read to me. I never made use of those words, nor any words of the kind. His Lordship-The defendants having come forward and made a public denial of the statements imputed to them, I do not see what more the plaintiff requires. A Juror was then withdrawn by consent in Jenkins v. Thomas, leaving each party to pay his own costs and the plaintiff withdrew the record in Jenkins v. Harries, each party also bearing his own costs in that action. The business of the Assizes then terminated, about eleven o'clock, the court having sat about an hour only.

[No title]

.... ''.... "''' THE MARRIAGE…

? I "I'll'I'll.111,? ....…

ECCLESIASTICAL INTELLIGENCE.

RAILWAYS. ii RAIL"\V A YS.

[No title]

| AMERICA.

[No title]

Advertising

Family Notices

SHIPPING INTELLIGENCE.