The Welshman

CARMARTIIENSIIIRE ASSIZES. I -11 11.11.11,11, 1.11-1 11-11,11,?'ll"?- 'h FRIDAY. I ?"stice Shoe took his seat on the bench this ?'.°? at elven o'clock, when the business of the A.88i_68 was immediately proceeded with. ■jv6 *°U°wing magistrates for the county answered to their Sir J. J. Hamilton, Bart., The Plas; Col0 t;^tepney, The Dell; W.Morris,Esq ,M.P., Combe; J. jj Rees, Esq., Kilmaeallwyd Grismon d Philipps, ,qJ. ow Mgwi.lly; Llovd Price, Es q Castlepiggin, Capt. 1) CWmgwilly' Lloyd Price, E:;q., Castleplggm; Capt. b. "??e Edwardes, Rhydygorse; F. L. L. Philipps, Ai?f???ddin; W. G. Hughes, Esq.. Glancothy; Allen ?ulston, Esq., Dirbeton; W. Peel, Esq., Taliaris; IIQJ, 11 Lloyd, Esq., Glansevin;D. E. Jones, Esq., ?eli?d rp Robert Smith, Esq., Glanbrydan; Charles ?oyd Brunant: and J. Beynon, jun., Esq., Trewe* ?runant; and J- Beynon, jun., Esq., The arallcl Jur y for the county comprised—Col. Sir J, ??°°' Bart., W. G Hughes, Esq., J. H Rees, EG. W. R'c?, Esq., M. P. Lloyd Esq., Capt. Browne ^w Allen J. Gulston, Esq., W. Morris, Esq., p*, cx isn3Ond Philipps, Esq., D. E. Jones, Esq., Col. t,.p "ey, obe Smith, Esq., Charles Lloyd, Esq., Lloyd riceeq., t L. L. Philipps, Esq., and J. Beynon, jll, sq. Th following magistrates for the county of the ?o? ? of Carmarthen answered to their names: — J. Ah arns, Esq., mayor, W. Morris, Esq., M.P., Capt. Bro? Edwardes, Grismond Philipps, Esq., James ?Ow)? Esq., James Bagnall, Es q and El B. Jones, ?an "? Esq-, James Bagnall, Esq., and E. B. Jones, C The Grand Jury for the County of the Borough of Ca ^nhen, comprisedMr R. M. Davies, King- sC Street ;r T. H. Jenkins, Guildhall square Mr George Spu ??, King street; Mr W. Spurrell, King-street;  8trr \\7'. Davies, Nott-square; Mr D. M. Morgan, Red- Btreet Mr Morris, Nott-square; Mr G. W. White, ^in» ^reet' Mr W. Briht, Dark gate Mr John JOQes Jolue "hie -street; Mr J. N. Roberts, Dark-gate; Mr a. Smith 'ueen-street; Mr W. T. Phillips, as"s'reet; Mr James Morgan, Priory-street; Mr J, i. othero, King-street; Mr W. Jones, Quay; Mr le»' ??Mhall-square; and Mr G. A. Evans, I8' leton.t rr ce. ?UoL???? addressing the Grand Jury for the J P ^ntVv- fai(r e different forms handed down to us 11 t1sai -The different forms handed down to us ^urts d'i "??, observed at the opening of assize rt8 In Is ?ounty—were—even when, as on this °Ccasion +v, is happily little business to transact- ^ithn their ligli?,a?,e and their use. You assem? t'r s'S°ificance and their use. You Sove/embled here to evince your loyalty to your ? ?rei?n ? °? respect for Her Majesty's commission,  Yon ''???ce for those laws to which we ate for all the blessings we enjoy, and 5f t n-L-? trial by jury-and that ia really ?byth People themselves—is the great and distin- Ashing r ??? You are assembled in some sense to ?'? &nac°"°? ? the moral condition of your county, ?Qditio° Which, in a very considerable degree, ? ?Pends u ?° Yourselves-that is, upon the example 8et tothe ?*8^ ?°?V of the people, by persons in ?Perior sta?°?' ? have the pleasure to congratulate YOU t is occasion on the presbntation to me by ? Righ ?? ??S- of a calendar which is very nearly Vvi at>k. er, are only three persons, charged with j. ?ent r? ?? ?y ?''ee persons, charged with ffle r rlt ?' who are to be tried before me; ?' afte? r aklng every allowance for the business ar eYourselves in petty and quarter ?ionsY ?°°°? but say that this calendar affords "?  evid troQg evj(jp Ce °/ a very satisfactory state of things in County r- ?? themselves, I may observe t o?e of t eis rather of a more serious character ? of cases that come before you at petty 1. ? ?tar?ter caeea that come before you at petty r er s,assions-I allude to the charge of perjury. ?VerthelPSH due from me to tell you that this "?r ia ?06 speaks well of the good crder and ?l con?° al :N 't'O" Of the people of the county of Carmar- ? °- Non ° o? t the cases present to gentlemen of your t,.lii ece and experience any difficulty in the pre- fi^inarv 1-8 D(luiry experience any dimculty in the pre- '?'Qarv '°'?''y you have to make. With regard to '?Cha? ? P?ury, I may remark that you have not ?scert -?? the certain moral guilt of the prisoner, but th t it ? your duty to determine whether in yoOr OpiQiQ the evidence against the prisoner is of such a ?tura as to justify you in sending him before another JQ?y ? uch a charge. As to the other two cases, one ofth iQ he?lls a simple case of larceny, and the other is one in fc a person is charged with burglary and theft, ch a person is charged with burglary and theft, i8 not necessary for me to say one word on them. .& to the charge of perjury, alleged to have been com- I I ed before the learned Judge of the County Court, 1 ?'n ??P?y make this further remark. That is a case ? wf ? you should ask yourselves not only whether hthite ?? ?er really did make the statement attributed to him 11^' but you should ask yourselves whether at the tioj made the statement he knew it was false. I ^ith -alvvay,, made it a rule-and I think you will agree wit lrl t InkIng that is not a bad one-not to address grand jnro brt except upon the business in hand, the busi- Qe8s t b? Yae ds that briti911 ?"? here. I will therefore detain you ZioIon ger, but reqiest you to retire to your chamber 8'r ,d I- nquire into the cases to be brought before you. 11 addressirlg the Grand Jury for the County of the T, orongjj of Carcaarthen his Lordship gaid-I might  Address .r ????' ?? Lordship said—I might ?t have -8 ,a e8sed ? congratulation to you, COunt T?? addressed to the Grand Jury of the count I believe, conside ring the number of the in- habiz"tl Ofthis borough, that I perhaps ought to con- patulatQ 6Vemore than I congratulated them, uecall Be there 1S ? ? a ?°? case of dishonesty on your cal'tidar-there is no ?'°? regarding the rights of pro- Perty erto b.e brought before you. There is, indeed, one tbthPainful caRo to be submitted to you, and I request Voi 8ive it »n Z con8ideration You can YOU t 0 gi*ve it Your serious consideration You can z6adi" ly understand -S?? of the utmost importance tb at the birth of r child fn ?hv.0uld in no case be concealed; B.IadYou know ? ?? it is a very serious RSnffH ? 06 for a wornT^ to conceal the birth of her child. con ?0 resPectabl 13 It no resp,.i ?able young woman should be placed in a Court justice and ^rged that offence unless ore prett clear evidence against the accused You rs an th t r4 derst" t at 18 not sufficient that the young X? should SmeSt <. in a moment of anguish and a moment of anguish and S?. that a child Vi^d not been born, as was imputed to t?rson. But jf ^°U 80e her whole conduct, and b?t? evidence of t  ??. ?d also by the K'? 01 her ° e ^dj ical man, and also by the evi.dence of her mother that she had no serious inten- ? conceal tb?. "'?°'?°? from those interested to rlow that'he had given birth to a child-that she h.dno BerioUa intention m.? conceal it altogether from flndf about her vmnw |>think, be justified in not t?? a true bij"' On t?s other hand, if you think th at  ?ally d On the other hand, if you think thatreally did i nlvQ to conceal the circumstance that t bad eilvpn v^rth. to a child, it will be your duty to fi j6 true bil ? you do not see good grounds srt ho » u '°?s ao 't???? well that she should not be Blib* el!ted !o thA ?"?s annoyance of being tried in ODpn °urt. The ri^rUm?tances. a8 affecting the prisoner, ate jery serious as affecting the prisoner, are "iry serio?us ???..?dyou should be Batisned, iot-Mi Sn »^ y<"> "tould ]>. satisfied, St?S?? to conc?l ? ??' th?t there was a deliberate to ec)Dceal ??irth of her child. J ??'og stX ? ?, a labourer, was charged Ith having a tolen a sythe-blad, the property of John Jones ^aerblaidd d' in the Pari8h of Llanfihangel-ar- ch?' ? the !5 h? J!ln last. The prisoner ?? also ? the sa cei? Ss .t? h..ocRy?bj????t, with feloniously re- ceivi,, 9 the scrttheo kSi knowing it to have been °utb 0«enappeared for the prose- I3118trle-t-  Prothero Lewis, Llandilo. Thft "1130tier was und ^F^bero Lewis, Llandilo. thig 080 are as undefended. The circumstances in t is e are Ver simple, and may be stated in a few ?c? ? Phased ??? 10th of June last, the prose- cluurc ai escythe-blade in this town. He took it u 0tQ e that evpti1'Dg and Placed in a barn, and on the It0r t at evena ing and placed in a barn, and on the f 0lio WI]3 hur,I he missed it. Subsequently he ?-?Pansicevd tha? ?"?°'?° to prisoner's house, where the 1,,j,, Scythe was found. He identified it as his ro Perty because the name of Thomas Jones, the maker, as 8tamDpri upon it; although when before the magis- trat es had stated that he could not identify it. "hotn?g j s bad no doubt made many scythes be- aid es the one '° question. According to the evidence of ? ?itaeaa ?atned David Williams, the prisoner took a ?cythe.>)] ?,e to his shop to have his name stamped on h8 b'8 sboP t° bave his name stamped on it. Prj8o 1^ told this witness that he had purchased the ?ade atp?? ??P- A police Constable named Wm. &1sboP- A police Constable named Wm. Rjeeves found«. 0 blade at the house of the prisoner, took it t0 p 11 ?°P' accompanied by the prisoner, aacertaiifirf +v it ? not been purchased there by the Prisoner  anybody else. Prisoner was then -?en iato?.? on the charge of having stolen the ?ythe, and ? scythe and he ?^0 a somewhat novel excuse for takl n 9 it' I-Io told the policeman that the Devil ?Plagued   take the scythe, but that he (the ?'soner. not th^ TWn Was thinking to take it back to the barn. The?-? ? thinking to take it back to  b,krn, The prisoner was subsequently taken to Gaol by a police-8er|eantLd ?the way thither he con- fessed to having taken thn v, from prosecutor's barn; at the same time he said d >> 0 JdlVd ? rom prosecutor's barn at the same time b(? said he did lot care much about it for he should only gwet tw0 Years- He further remarked SfVhe ?°lictm^ a eer'^ oV stupid follow8 for not catching him before, instea?? ?P? ?lows for not small a thing as a ?ythe?Iade??? now for so prisoner guilty, and having admi' ? -'? ?d the vlcben, he was sentenced to fift^ a f°rmer con- Ment. month s Imprison- The Grand Jury of the County of tv, 6 T.00^ i^" nored the bill charging Louisa France-?h ig- fully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her 'Lh-? Bis Lordship (addressing the Grand Jury)_yI Tb au are quite right, gentlemen. There is no more business  brought before you now but, inasmuch as I shall b6 here to-morrow, and perhaps further, it is not usual to discharge you at this stage. But you need not stay in ourt. if your presence is required you will be called for. -Dat,id,Tones, a labourer, aged 27 years, was charged blth burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling- tense of Evan Evans, at Cromgwen, Llanfihangel-ar- arth d' arthand stealing therefrom three half-sovereigns, seven abilling, and fivepence, a pocket knife, and other artipi8' ? the 9th of March last. Mr ?- ?son ap- Peared f ?? prosecution, instructed by Mr George as, armartben. I Evarf VaD8' farmer, LIannhangeI-Yeroth, examined: Irememt. er the °?ht of the 19th of March. I went to bed a b on? I!eranut 9 O'clock. I was assisted to undress by the fl erva,at" aid. had three half sovereigns, and five to ??Q shillings I.1 n silver, and from four to five in copper, ? my W""WOat pocket. I had too, seven keys, also a knife and comb. Next morning the waistcoat was searched, the money, keys, knife and comb were gone, some papers were left left behind. [He identified knife comb and keys ] The keys are not in the state they were, There has been a ward broken off two of them. Cross-examined: I had the lock and key five years. They were new five years ago.. Margaret Davies examined I was servant to last witness in March last. I lived three months with him, I undressed him. I remember on the 19th March I assisted him to go to bed that day about U o'clock. I put his clothes on the post of the bed. I then went and locked and bolted all the doors of the house, the windows were all fast. I bolted the door of my masters room. I got up about 5 o'clock the following morning. The door into his room was open, and the dairy window had been broken and was hanging out, It was a zinc window. I had gone to the dairy, and found my master's clothes there, the dairy was all right, only the zinc window taken out. I took the clothes to my master to show them. I know the keys. I used to use them frequently. I know the comb and knife. By the Court: There was nothing in the clothes, but there were some papers on the ground, which had been taken from them. Cross-examined: I think my master had been doing something to the largest key, but I am not certain. They were before lost, two together, four together, and one by itself. John James, innkeeper, Llandyssil, examined I travel with the prosecutoi. He buys cattle and horses. I sleep with him occasionally when from home. I know his knife and comb. (Identified knife and comb). John Thomas, P.C., examined I was at Pencader on 19th March. On April 18th in consequence of infor- mation I went to prosecutor's house. He was not in, but I subsequently found him. I asked him if he had any objection for his house to be searched, and he said none. When we got into the house I searched him first, and found the articles produced in the state they now are. I then charged him with burglary. He said he picked up the knife on the road, that he bought the comb from a hawker and that the keys had been his for a long time. I took the whole to the prosecutor's, the keys fitted the locks in that house. The prisoner lived two miles and-a-half from the prosecutor. His Lordship having summed up the Jury brought in a verdict of Guilty, and he was sentenced to seven years penal servitude, a previous conviction having been proved against him. William Evans was charged with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury at the Llanelly County Court on the 30th ult. Mr J. Bow en for prosecutor, instructed by Mr Snead of Llanelly. Mr De Rutzen, instructed by Mr T. Davies, for prisoner. Mr B. Jones, solicitor, Llanelly I am registrar of the County Court held there. In June a Court was held at Llanelly, a plaint was pending at that Court between W. Evans and the prisoner. The claim was for Y,4, lent in 1860. The plaint was heard before the Judge, and the prisoner was sworn as evidence. At the end of the case the Judge directed him to be indicted for per- jury. Cross-examined: I was present at the time of the trial. James Lewis was interpreter. He is a fair inter- preter. I think the Judge considered the case was proved. I can't say whether a witness was examined between the then plaintiff and the prisoner. I heard Arthur Thomas and Richard Evans examined. After those witnesses were examined the plaintiff went into particulars. The Judge asked the defendant then whe- ther the particulars were true. I don't think the plain- tiff was examined after Richard Evans gave his evidence. After the Judge had given judgment he ordered the prisoner to be detained. I think the interpreter fairly interpreted to prisoner what had been said. James Lewis, interpreter to the County Court at Llanelly, examined I acted as interpreter on the 30th June last. I heard a case against the prisoner on that occasion. The plaint was for £ 4. The defendant tendered himself as a witness, and I interpreted. He denied having borrowed the X4. He denied the matter in toto. The prosecutor said that he and prisoner had a conversation in October, 1861, and that his brother, R Evans, was present. The prosecutor said that William Evans came to him in a field, in 1861, and told him that he was very sorry he could not pay the money then. I remember, too, the prosecutor saying that the defendant sent to him for assistance to carry hay, and that the prosecutor sent his brother Richard with a eart. The defendant was asked if he would like to give evidence. He was sworn, and he denied the whole. The plaintiff swore that he lent the defendant 14. He gave his evi- dence in Welsh. I translated what he said for the in- formation of the jury. Richard Evans was afterwards examined. Richard Evans was examined as to a conver- sation that took place in 1861 between the prisoner and the plaintiff. Richard Evans said that he and the plain- tiff were on the field filling manure into a cart, and that the defendant came there and said his little boy had a message from the plaintiff to him about the money Defendant said he was very sorry he could not pay them at that time but he would give him a sovereign when he would have his pension from the Club, and another sovereign in May following, and the remainder aj soon as he could. Richard was examined in Welsh, and I translated to the judge. Richard spoke of having met the prisoner in August, 1862, when he went to carry hay for him. He said that the defendant had sent a message to his brother by him to say he was sorry he had not fulfilled his promise to pay the money, By direction of the judge I called the attention of the prisoner as to what had been said. I asked defendant if what Richard said was correct. The prisoner said it was not true. He denied the conversations alto- gether. Cross-examined: I took no notes of this trial. The judge did. I don't recollect that Richard's evidence was put to the prisoner. The prisoner spoke of the transaction altogether. The prisoner's attention was directed to the evidence of Richard. Plaintiff did say that the son had the money. Defendant said the boy was 15. The defendant was not asked at the end of the case any question, for he denied everything. Wm. Evans, farmer, Llettydun: I live with my brother Richard Evans. The defendant was my brother- in-law. In 1860 the prisoner lived two miles off Llwynyreos. I remember at the end of 1860 going to see my sister, there it was November. I saw defendant when I went there. I had a talk with him. He asked me if I could lend him A4, for they had sent to fetch the rent. I said if he came to our house he should have them. He sent his son. He said his father bad sent him for the money. I sent him the money by the boy. 3 sovereigns and 20 shillings. I put it in a purse that the defendant had sent, and gave it to the boy after tying it up. Some time after I remember the boy being at our house about Michaelmas. I sent a message to his father. A short time after I remember the prisoner came to a field where I was working. Richard my brother was with me. It was in October, 1861. The prisoner came to us in the field. He told me the little boy had said he had been sent by him for the money. He said he was very sorry that he could not pay them, for he had newly bought a suit of clothes. He asked me to wait a short time, for he expected a sovereign from a club, and I should have another in May, and that I should have the other two as soon as he could after. I met the defendant once or twice after. He always said he would bring the money so soon as he could. Cross-examined Defendant was examined before my brother at the Court. I was not called again until the last. The prisoner asked me after my evidence, how could I say that, when I knew he had not had the money. I could only say that he had had it. The defendant's son was about 11, when he had the money. Richard Evans, brother of last witness, we live to- gether. I remember the son of defendant coming to Llettydun, in 1861, I saw my brother give the X4. I remember being in a field carting manure It was October, 1861. I remember the prisoner coming to the field when we were working. I had a talk about the £ 4. The prisoner asked my brother if he sent about the X4. My brother said he had sent by his son William Evans. The prisoner said he had not got the money then, for he had newly bought a suit of clothes, or he could have paid them. He said he expected a sovereign from the club, and he would bring that sovereign as soon as he got it, and that he would pay a sovereign in May, and the rest as soon as he could. I remember going with the prisoner to help him to carry hay. The prisoner told me then that he had not paid my brother, but he should have it soon. This was in 1862. Arthur Thomas I am uncle to prisoner. I have had a talk with him about some money he had with Wm. Evans. His Lordship then clearly summed up, and the jury, after retiring for a short time, brought in a verdict of Gailty," and the prisoner was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment. This completed the criminal business, and his Lord- ship proceeded with the civil business, the first case called was WILLIAMS AGAINST EVANS. I b th laintiff,:M:r Hugh This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr Hugh Williams, solicitor, as legal representative of the execu- tor of Mr John Hall, late of Llanelly, decease d to recover from the defendant, ? David Evans, grocer and mer- chant, Llanelly, the sum of £ 47 7s, alleged to be due on  of ?? ? 6d for malt purchased by Mr James am?  the late Mr John Hall, and for which amnnt ™ Evans who is an uncle of the pur- chaser, becarno ans> wbo is an uncle of the pur- used. Mr Gif ^W8r j b^e by Permitting his name to be use.. 1tr Giffard and Mr H. Allen appeard for the plamtIff, mstructed by Mr Hugh Williams in person. Mr J. N. Bowen appeared for  defendant; attorney, Mr Mansel Rees, Llanellv Tn, defendant resisted the claim, and pleaded tht it t/defendant resisted the paid a portion of it himself ?'? ??' ??°g paid a portion Of it hImself ?n? '"???mainder having been paid by his nephew toMr?T ?"on, the auctioneer, who is at present wanted but „ found. The plaintiff contended that themonevh?? ???- ? Leyshon after the defendant had bJen ™ t10°ed not to pay to any person except to -thde gplSainStiSff S. UtfiSi0 Slessrs. Wilkins, bankers and S?rete?dT dant having paid the money on his own wrong, shon?? be ordered to pay it over again. The case excited a be or deal of interest, not by reason of the amount in- volved, but because of the respectability of the parties interested. Mr G. Griffiths, clerk to the plaintiff, examined I live at Ferry Side, 13 miles from Llanelly. I went to holp to arrange the things before the sale. Mr Leyshon was there. It was the day before the sale. I went the next day to the sale. I kept a check book. I took the bid- dings down and collected the money and paid it into the bank. I have my book of the sale. This represents purchases at the sale. I saw the lots here entered sold to the defendant. Some of the lots were bought after the sale by Mr Evans. I took the bill of particulars from my book. I was present when the malt was sold to Mr Evans. It was two or three days after. I was present when Mr Isaac measured it, and Mr Evans was back and fore during that time. Isaac and myself made out the particulars of the sale. The malt was removed by Mr Evans's carts Mr H. Williams came to Llan- elly on Monday, the 7th. I went with him to the defen- dant's. He asked Mr Evans what was the balance of his purchases, the reply was about £90. Ho said he could not tell the exact amount for the malt was not measured. He said he had paid about £ 55. Mr Wil- liams told him not to pay any more to Leyshon, that he must pay it to witness or th6 bank of Messrs Wilkins. The defendant was told not to pay any more to Leyshon. Next morning I saw Mr Evans again. I had a letter with me. Mr Evans looked at the papers I had. Mr Evans said he had not had the full account of the malt, it did not matter to him whom he paid. I saw defendant again in about four days, on Saturday, with Mr Wil- liams. Mr Williams asked Mr Evans for the amount of his purchase. Evans replied he had paid Leyshon. He referred to some memorandum which I saw, the date was the third November. Mr Isaac was with us. The memorandum is a counterfoil of a cheque. Cross-examined: At the sale the malt was sold to a person named Harris in the sacks. This was on the 2nd. He not paying, it was resold on the 4th. I was not present on the resale- i entered the sum on my book from Leyshon's dictation. I never heard that Hall was the purchaser. I am Mr Williams's law clerk, and have been concerned in getting up this case. We have sub- peonaed Leyshon, but I don't know whether he is here. I last saw him on the 6th July, on Monday. I was present with Mr Williams when he called on Evans. The amount on my book as purchased by Evans was JE-54. The total is X 138 15s, of which £54 was for Evans the rest was for Hall in Evans's name. I believe on the 16th a sum of £ 36 14s 6d was paid into Wilkins's bank by Evans to the estate account. The first interview with Mr Evans was mid-day on the 7th, in his shop. I saw Evans on the 8th in the shop. William Isaac examined On the death of the late J. Hall I was directed by Messrs. Wilkins to take charge of the store and effects. They had a claim against him. I think I took possession on the 29th of August. The Messrs. Hall were in possession and I had the keys from them. Mr Hall had been buried before that. I think it may have been three weeks after I took possession before Mr Hugh Williams came. When the sale was on I was present, my clerk took notes. I superintended the measuring of the malt. After the sale I took an account of it and have it in my book. There was not a bushel measured or delivered without me looking at it. I think we finished measuring just before candle light. Cross-examined: The measurers, Thomas Rees and Thomas Davies were present as well as myself. Mr Evans was present at times. He did not stop to see it measured. His man checked the amounts. He tied up the bags. Mr Hugh Williams examined I employed Leyshon to sell Mrs Hall's goods. I remember going to Llanelly a few days after the sale; it was Monday, the 7th November. I got there between 1 and 2 o'clock. I -went straight to Mr Evans; he was in tho shop. I said I came for the balance of his account. I told him that I required him to pay me the amount: that I was not satisfied with Leyshon's conduct. He then said he had not received the full account of the malt. He gave me to understand when he received that he would pay. He said he had paid X35. He said there would be between X80 and £90 remaining. I desired him again to pay the balance to the bank or to my clerk. I saw him again on the 12th at Llanelly, when I again asked him for the balance. I could not gather from him-whether he intended paying more. I repeated my caution as to Leyshon, and then left. I saw him again on the 16th I again requested payment, when he told me he had paid part to Leyshon; he did not say how much. He said he would go over to see Leyshon on the subject. I called on him that evening. He said he had paid zC36 14s 6d to my credit at the bank. I said that was not enough, that I would require the difference, I wroe to him on the 26th of November. I had a reply from the defendant. I had an interview with the Messrs Hall before the sale, and prohibited them from inter- fering. Cross-examined: The sale was a ready-money sale. I have received an account of uncollected sums, but not of what he had received. I never was told by Leyshon that the sum in dispute had been received and paid into Wilkins's bank. Mr John Powell, managing clerk to Messrs Wilkins, at Llanelly, examined: On tie 20th of November Mr Evans called at the bank and showed me a receipt of Leyshon for a certain amount— £ 47 4s. I took notice of it, and made a memorandum of it that day. The receipt was dated the 9th November. Cross-examined On the 7th November Leyshon paid in £ 235 to the credit of this account. There was X70 10s in gold. The cheque zC54 6s formed part of the JE235. We close at 3 o'clock. This money was there- fore paid in before that time. Re-examined: The receipt was from Leyshon to Evans, for money paid. Leyshon since these transac- tions has become insolvent. For the defence, Mr David Evans, merchant, Llanelly, was examined I was at the sale of Mr Hall on the 2nd of November. His first wife was my wife's sister. The young Halls are my nephews. I bought things at his sale. I received an account in detail from Leyshon, for which I gave this cheque. I bought nothing elso. I gave my nephew permission to buy malt in my name. On Monday, the 7th, some malt was brought to my warehouse by my men. There were fifty-five sacks and one bushel. I had no interest in the malt. In the course of business the arrival of the malt would appear in my day-book. I remember Mr Hugh Williams calling upon me after the sale. I think it was the 9th. He said he called for the amount of my purchase of the malt. I said I had no account of the malt at all, and that I understood my wife had paid for part. On his leaving I sent for Hall. He came. I told him what Mr Williams had said. He and I then went to Leyshon. ] saw him he gave me a paper. I next saw Mr Hugh Williams, I think, on the following Saturday, the 12th. He called for the balance of the account. Leyshon gave me th3 paper on the 9th of the month It was not the day my carts brought the malt to the warehouse that I saw Mr Williams. That was the 7th. I believe Mr Williams did not call upon me the day that the malt was delivered. I was told by Mr Williams not to pay any money to Mr Leyshon. I believe that was on the 9th. I did not afterwards pay any money to Leyshon. I afterwards gave my cheque for £ 36 odd, for the balance of the malt account. That was after Mr Williams called upon me to pay the balance my nephew Hall. has paid me. Cross, examined by Mr Giffard: The malt was delivered to Mr Hall a month or two after it had been there. Mr Hall is not doing any business. No invoices between me and Mr Hall. I have delivered malt from my stores to Mr Hall. I have no account of the delivery and the weights. A month or two after the 9th November I delivered the malt to Mr Hall. He was at that time staying at his late father's house. I do not know where the malt went to. It was not delivered upon written orders. There is none of it in my stores now. I am a grocer and a merchant, and never deal in malt. I was present at the sale on the 2nd September. I never heard till to-day that my nephew had bought anything at the sale. I don't see why I should not have allowed him to use my name if I had known. I did not lend him any money. I don't know his income. I allowed him to buy in my name to the extent of £81. He told me he intended to pay, and I believed him. The warehouse where the malt was stored is a quarter of a mile from my shop. I did not see Griffiths in my shop on the 7th. It was on a Monday. I will not swear it was not on a Wednesday. I showed a receipt to Mr Powell on the 28th November. I cannot swear it is here. I gave it to my nephew. I think I saw it last on the 28th of No- vember. I won't swear I have seen that same receipt that I showed to Mr Powell on the 28th November, or a day or two after, when I gave it to Mr James Hall. I have a receipt now, but I cannot say it is the same. I did not hear it called for. I heard Mr Powell examined, but I did not hear the receipt called for. I never had a written notice from Mr Williams on the 12th. I saw it but it was not given to me. Re-examined: I gave the receipt I showed Mr. Powell to Mr James Hall. I never had any money transactions with Leyshon. Mr James Hall examined by Mr Bowen I am son of the late Mr John Hall. I remember the sale of my father's effects on the 2nd of November last. I attended the sale, and bought things in my own name to the amount of a pound or two. The things I purchased were chiefly empty bottles and casks. I remember there was a lot of malt purchased by me. I bought it of Leyshon, the auctioneer, at 5s 8d per bushel. Tie amount of my purchase was zC84 Is 6d. Leyshon sold it to me. I told him it was for myself, and that my uncle had allowed me to use his name. On the day I bought the malt, which was two days after the sale, I paid £ 32 to the auctioneer. I think it was all in gold. On the next day I made a further payment, by giving the auctioneer a bill of acceptance for Y,15 7s. It was a bill drawn by one Joseph Lewis, and accepted by me. I endorsed it. [The Bill was handed in]. Leyshon at that time did not give me a receipt. The malt was afterwards de- livered at my uncle's sterehouse. It has since been sold by me I remember my uncle sending for me. Ho told me a conversation he had with Mr Hugh Williams. I should think it was about the 9th of November that I went to my uncle's. I don't know that it was the day on which the malt was delivered to my uncle's stores. I then went to Leyshon, and he gave me a paper. I did not examine the paper, but handed it to my uncle. My uncle gave me back the paper about the end of November. I went to Leyshon with it again, and be gave me another paper instead. [Paper produced. ] Mr Giffard objected to the production of any paper except the original. Mr Bowen contended that it was admissible, because it was a paper given in completion of a transaction during the admitted existence of Leyshon's agency. His Lordship said he did not think it would strengthen the defendant's case. Mr Giffard said it was no evidence, not being the ori- ginal paper. Examination resumed My uncle afterwards paid £ 36 14 s 6d into Messrs Wilkins's bank on account of the malt. I have re-paid him nearly all. Cross-examinad by Mr Giffard I attended the sale of my father's effects. I bought things in my own name to the amount of a pound or two. I paid Leyshon first of all £;32 on the 4th November. That was all I had in my pocket at the time. I paid that sum on account of the malt and sacks. The bottles and casks are not paid for. They are on the premises now. I did not pay for the bottles, although I had money in my pocket to the amount of J32. I did not care much about the bottles. and nobody asked me for the money. It was a ready- money sale. I did not pay for the bottles because no- body applied to me for the money. I paid partly for the malt on the 4th November. I knew it had not been measured. I knew it was to be measured afterwards. I then paid on account all the money I had in my pocket. The auctioneer applied to me for it. I think the terms were that the malt was to be be paid for on delivery. The auctioneer asked me to give him some- thing on account. I paid him for the malt I had pur- chased in Mr Evans's name. I did not know what I had to pay altogether, because the auctioneer did not know the quantity. The purchase was completed on the 4th, but the payment was not. I had 276 bushels of barley delivered at my uncle's stores. It was an open question as to the quantity. It was understood that I was to have from two to three hundred bushels, according to the way in which the measure next turnad out. The malt was in bulk, and others purchased in bulk besides myself. I cannot say what was to be done if there was not enough for us all. I was led to understand that there was sufficient. It is usual to purchase malt in that way when the quantity is not known. My lot was to be from two to three hundred bushels, according to the quantity there. The first purchaser would get his quantity. I believe I was one of the first. Mr. Joseph Williams keeps a grocer's shop at the New Dock, Llanelly. Alexander Williams is a son of Joseph Williams. I believe the bill of acceptance was drawn on the 20th October, and accepted two or three days affter. I sold Mr Joseph Williams a chest of tea to the amount of that accep- tance. I have bought tea largely on my own account. I purchased that tea in London in August last. That chest was not in my father's house when he died. I had some chests there at that time, but not that one. I removed one chest of tea from my father's house before Mr Hugh Williams came there. I removed one in Sep- tember. I believe I did not remove anything in Aug. I removed it to a public-house on the Wern, kept by a ern, kept by a Mrs Francis. The public-house is about ten yards from my father's house. I cannot say what day I re- moved the chest there, but it was in the afternoon. I moved it there for my own security. I did not wish any other parties to have it. I was afraid of it being taken as some of my late father's effect. I think I had a jar of wine there, which I also removed. I don't think my brother removed anything else. I will not swear that he did not. I am not answerable for my brother's acts. Leyshon took the bill from me in cash. He never handed me the money, and ± handed it back to him. I did not try to discount it anywhere. It be came payable on the 23rd December, two months after date. It was paid into the bank. I was not present when the malt was measured. I trusted them to measure it themselves. Leyshon was aware that I was the real purchaser. I had no paper from Leyshon. Loyshon was no particular friend of mine. I don't know that that was the reason why he took the bill. I had known him before that transaction. He has taken an inventory of my father's furniture after my father's death. I think that was after the sale but I cannot say that it was not just before the sale. I employed him to take the inventory, but I have not paid him for it. There was no particular arrangement made. It was arranged that he was to take the inventory for nothing, if he sold the furniture. The furniture has not been sold yet. That was the only benefit he was to have for taking the inventory. He was to have two-and-a-half per cent., for selling the furniture. That was arranged before the sale. It was my father's furniture, which I claimed, under my father's settlement, for myself and sisters- I don't know that he was employed by my stepmother at the time he was taking the inventory. I will not swear that I did not know that. I think he valued the furnitute at about L300. By Mr Owen: My sisters were interested in the fur- niture. This was the whole of the evidence taken, and Mr Bowen and Mr Giffard addressed the jury at consider- able length, after which his Lordship, in a very clear and able manner, explained the chief points in the case to the jury, who retiied, and after the lapse of about half-an-hour they returned a verdict for the defendant. HARRIS AGAINST JONES. Mr Giffard and Mr Coleridge, instructed by Mr Henry de Medina, of London, for the plaintiff. Counsel for the defendant Mr J. W. Bowen and Mr DeRutzen attorney, the defendant in person. The plaintiff, Mr Cornelius Harries, who for some time occupied a farm, in this county, under Sir Robert Clayton, asked for damages from the defendant, Mr R. B. Jones, solicitor, Llanelly, for injuries sustained by him through malicious prosecution by the defendant. The following Special Jury was sworn to try the case —Mr Shakespeare, Esq., Stratford House, Llanstephan Charles Lloyd, Esq., Brunant J. A. Timmins, Esq., Penymorfa; J. Lewis Philipps, Esq: Bolahaul; W. Lewis Philipps, Esq., Clyngwyn Grismond Philipps, Esq., Cwmgwillyj Robert Smith, Esq., Glanbrydan; W. E. B. Gwyn, Esq., Plas Cwrthir. From the following evidence it will be seen that the plaintiff on leaving his farm removed some hurdles which he had placed there, and the defendant thereupon caused him to be brought before the magistrates at Llanelly on a charge of having stolen the hurdles. The magistrates, however, refused to commit the accused for trial. Sub- sequently the plaintiff was indicted on the charge at the Assizes, in this town, but the Grand Jury, after hearing the evidence, threw out the bill. In consequence of those proceedings it was now sought to establish that the plaintiff had been injured in a pecuniary sense, several persons having refused to have further transactions with him. Mr Coleridge opened the pleadings, after which Mr Giffard stated the case to the jury at great length and with much ability- Mr Vaughan, clerk of Asssize, examined by Mr Giffard I produce the recognizance of Cornelius Harries, Daniel Harries, and David Williams, for the appearance of Cornelius Harries to answer any indict- ment that might be issued against him. I don't know who preferred that indictment, unless I made inquiries. It was drawn by myself. The ordinary course is to write to me for instructions, and I draw up the indict- ment in accordance with the facts given me. That in- dictment was already drawn up and sent to me. I should say that upon this particular occasion I was not in court. I don't know who paid the expenses. This is not the usual record of the court it is the original, which I was asked to bring. I was not in court when this was presented, but it has the usual writing on the back, I; No true bill," apparently written by the foreman of the Grand Jury. The court then adjourned at twenty minutes to five o'clock, in order to allow some of the jurors to leave by the train at five. JIONDAT. I The court opened this morning at 11 o'clock. Cornelius Harries examined: I occupied a farm at Llangennech, under Sir W. Clayton, held under a lease for 21 years. I was to expend some money. I was bred and born on that farm. Besides being farmer I was a butcher at Llanelly. I averaged about £ 50 per week. In June, 1S60 I required some bank accommoda- tion. I borrowed Y,100, for which I deposited my lease as collateral security. I received a receipt for it when I received the money. The loan was renewed in 1861. I paying discount. That went-on I renewing and paying discount until February, 1863. In April, 1864, the defendant came to me, that time he was solicitor to the bank. He asked me to sign him a bill of sale to his clerk. At that time my debt had increased to L275. Mr Jones named my stock and crop, and the indenture of my lease as to be in the bill of sale. I refused. He said he would ruin me if I would not do it. He was cursing just like he used to be. He was using violent language. -In the month of October I published a sale of my stock, crop, and implements, to be hold on the 11th, 1864. On the day of sale the defendant came to the auction. He came with the county court bailiff, who came to levy an execution on the goods. I had arranged about the debt with Mr Powell before that. When the defendant and bailiff came they claimed X60. The sale was just going to begin at that time. The auc- tioneer offered to pay the amount. He offered to pay by cheque. I bear d the defendant say a cheque was no payment" The baIl then refused to take a cheque. I heard then a proposition by some others to subscribe the money among them. David Lewis was one. The do- fendant told David Lewis that it was of no use, because I owed the bunk C531 more, and if that was paid not he should stop the sale to-morrow. The sale did not go on. It was five miles from Llanolly. It was one o'clock in the afternoon when they came. The next day the sale came on, when the auctioneer paid the X61 and X3 3s the costs. The defendant was not there the second day. As soon as the money had been paid the bailiff produced another document, (read) signed by the defen- dant. The bailiff then gave this notice of distress. There was not a year's rent due, only half a year's. Next day I saw the landlord's azent, that was the 13th. The auctioneer paid the half year's rent, and received this receipt. On the evening of the 12th I sold some hurdles and rails to Mr David Lewis, farmer. He holds two farms. He is a respectable mal;. He paid me £ 1 for them. The hurdles were iron. I bought them and paid for them. I had had them ten years. I sold a gate also which I had bought previously of Mr Jenkin 1 Williams for 6s. In^Novem ber a writ of fila was issued under which my lease was sold at the instance of the bank. My lease fe.ched £ 175. The bank had issued execution, having had the lease in its possession from the first. I was at Llanelly town hall shortly after. Mr David Lewis was there on a charge of stealing the hurdles that was on the 14th of December. That charge was dismissed, and the post and rails restored to Mr Lewis. The summons was left at my house, and I appeared in pursuance of it. (Summons read). Although I received the summons I was taken into custody by a policeman. I was first brought to Mr R. B. Jones's office. It was a week after I received the summons. I did not appear to the summons, for I was away. I had been to Llandilo, and the first morning I came home I was taken into custody. I did not know until I came home that I had been summoned. I declined going in to Mr Jones's office, and stood for an hour at the door, while the policeman went in to see Mr Jones. When I appeared before the justices I was remanded until another day on the application of Mr Jones. I was bailed to reappear. They did not commit me, but I was ordered to find bail to appear against any charge that might be brought against me. I was here last assizes, in March, when the Grand Jury had the bills. I saw the engrossment of the charge with Mr Jo.ies's crerk. When the Grand Jury came in they said there was no bill againt Cornelius Harries. The Grand Jury recommended that no costs should be allowed. I have been unable to carry on my busing owing to this prov-e secution- I was put to an expense of 11;5 between assizes and Llanelly. My credit has also been affected. Cross-examined I am a bankrupt and have filed my account. I have not been discharged, neither have I protection. I was put to E- 15 expenses in defending myself at the Assize and Llanelly. I employed Mr LasceHes. Mr Mansel Rees is not my attorney now. I was recommended to Mr Henry de Medina, Primrose Hill. At the time I advertised the sale in October I owed the bank £ 272. I had a previous sale to that, under an execution of £50, at the suit of the West of England Bank. (By the Court: I sold the post and rails to Mr Lewis on the 12th October.) Which was in April 1861. 1 promised to execute a bill of sale to cover the debt due to Messrs Wilkins. I refused the defen- dant to execute the bill after I taw it. I refused because it was drawn to Mr Jones's clerk. I don't think the bill was to Cox in trust for Messrs Wilkins. I had a letter to take to the Court, showing I had arranged with Mr Powell, dated a year before, which I left with the registrar. Mr Leyshon was my auctioneer at the sale. I would have taken his cheque. The people who offered to subscribe found 950. One person offered £ 30 and another £ 20. I heard Daniel Davies examined on 14th December. I was away when a summons was left at my house. I was arrested immediately on my return. I heard the magistrates order a summons to be issued against me on the 14th December. Mr Jones wanted a warrant against me. I don't remember hear- ing the case against Lewis was adjourned to the 21st December. I know the magistrates meetings are held on Wednesday at Llanelly. The house was sold on November 11. Daniel Davies is a farmer living near me. The goods were sold to Lewis on 12th October and removed. I believe before the sale of the lease I don't remember sending planks from the cow house, nor did I remove the floor from the barn. I believe two new hurdles and gate were removed before the sale of the lease. A person named Isaac assisted to carry the hurdles. David Lewis was present when the things wa3 removed. I believe Daniel Davies was present when the gates and posts were removed. I heard Daniel Davies examined before the magistrates. At the time of the sale I owed a cattle dealer money besides the bank. I owed many people. Re examined: I never heard anything of the planks before to-day. Mr Williams, who bought the lease, nor my landlord, ever complained about our removing planks, hurdles, or the oven spoken of to-day. I sold the hurdles, &c., openly. I was a bankrupt, and was before the Registrar, who refused me protection. Mr Ben Jones, the brother of the defendant, is the Registrar of the County Court at Llanelly. David Lewis, farmer and timber merchant, Llangen- nech, examined I live near C. Harris. I remember his saie on the 11th of October. I was there. I remem- ber the defendant coming there. I remember because Mr Jones said something The sale was stopped. I remember a subscription being talked of. I remember Mr Leyshon offering his cheque. After it was refused I did not hear any one clubbing, so that the sale should go on. I was at the sale the next day. I bought some things the day after the sale two iron hurdles, at 10s each. I took them away a little while after the sale- say a month or something like that. I took them in the day time. I took them in a cart about four or five o'clock in the afternoon. The policeman and some other persons helped me. I had the loan of some threshing planks I had bought a lot of things at the sale. I think about k50 worth. After taking those things, I was charged before the magistrates with stealing them I was taken before Mr Jones to the Ship and Castle. I said if I had trespassed I did so unknowingly. He said I had done so against myself. I then went before the justices at the Town Hall. I have not had the hurdles they were at Llanelly. I had paid for them. By a Juryman: The threshing planks were loose, for the floor was flagged. Cross-examined I have not returned them. I have paid for the things I bought at the sale. I have the receipt, but did not bring it. I bought the hurdles after Mr Harris's sale. He intended to keep the place. I had the receipt the night of the sale. 1 remember the police coming to my house. They did not ask me about the planks. They asked me if I had a manger and hay- rack. 1 told the police one was there I did not know the other had gone to another farm. I was not at home at the time the lease was sold. I don't know the month in which the hurdles were removed. It may be from three weeks to a month after I bought them. I know David Davies. He was present when I took the hur- dles. There were no crowbars among the lumber I took away with the hurdles. By a Juryman: I wanted to thresh, so I wanted the planks for flail threshing. Re-examined I was to let Harris have part of the property I bought back again at the same price, if he kept the farm. Mr J. Williams, examined I did not authorise Mr R. B. Jones to issue proceedings against the plaintiff. I did not know that proceedings were taken in my name. I bought the house, but it was conveyed to my son. He eigned the conditions. Cross-examined I bid for the house, and it was knocked down to me. When the time arrived to com- plete the sale my son objected to do so, and a bill in Chancery was filed against him. John Thomas, farmer, and agent to Sir W. Clayton, plaintiff's landlord, examined I never authorised Mr Jones to take proceedings about some iron hurdles, nor for to issue distress for rent. Mr J. Powell, manager of tho bank, Llanelly, ex- amined I did not instruct Mr R. B. Jones to issue pro- ceedings against the plaintiff. I placed in his hands the bills and account. We had been expecting him to look to our interest. We had judgment against the plaintiff. He applied for time which I granted. We also held two other bills of X]OO each considerably over due, which I placed in Mr Jones's hands for recovery. The total amount of all his indebtedness was £270. I placed them in the hands of Mr Jones to protect the bank. The writ of fi fa was at our suit. Cross-examined The county court judgments were obtained in 1863, at which time I agreed to give the plaintiff time. Mr Jones was our professional adviser. In October, 1864, I heard of the sale at the plaintiff's farm. I instructed Mr Jones on hearing of the sale to put the execution in force. I asked him to go to the sale himself to protect the firm. I believe I told Mr Jones to give the bailiff notice rent was due to the land- lord. I had previously instructed Mr Jones to obtain a bill of sale from Harries on his stock and crop. We never accept bills of sale made in the name of the bankers, but always have trustees. The plaintiff still owes us a little money. Mr R. B. Jones, examined: I am the defendant in this action, and have been 14 years in business. I did not know the plaintiff personally before Mr Powell instructed me in the action against him. I had been instructed by Mr Powell to draw a bill of sale including the lease. I saw him at my office in 1863. I never said if he did not sign the bill that I would ruin him or anything to that effect. Mr Powell told me that there was to be a sale at plaintiff's. When I went to the sale Mr Loyshon offered a cheque to the county court bailiff. I had no- thing to do with it. I did not hear any one offer to subscribe to pay off' the account. I reii-ember Mr Powell putting two bills of 1100 each in my hands. It was about the time of the sale. lie told me to proceed for their recovery as fast as I could, or he thought the bank would lose its money. I issued a writ of summons, and got judgment, the actions being undefended. After judgement a fieri facias was obtained and lodged with the sheriff of Carmarthenshire who levied upon the lease belonging to the plaintiff which the bank had as deposit. The lease was sold on the 11th November, by auction. I was present. J. It. Williams bid for the lease. The purchase was to bo completed in a month. I de- sired Mr Bury, my clerk, to take down accurately Mr Davies's 'nfurmation and to take charge of the busi- He is a solicitor and attorney in my offico. I was not present at the whole of the hcaring' of the case Mr Bury had commenced. I was not present w len the search warrant was applied for. I was present when Lewis appeared under that warrant. There was no examina- tion on oath on the first occasion of the first hearing of the case against Lewis. The magistrates ordered a sum- mons to issue against Harries, returnable on the follow- ing Wednesday, and the case was adjourned for a week. I don't think I was present on the second occasion. I did not apply for a warrant against plaintiff the first time Lewis was befoie the magistrate. Harries was not brought in custody to my offico. Mr Bury had a con- versation with me after these proceedings and I instruc- ted him to prepare a case for counsel. I did notinterfere in any way in the case. The father of Mr Woodford Williams told me he heard the place was being robbed of its fixtures. This was before the case of the magis- trates. Cross-examined I was present when Mr Lewis was I brought up under the search warrant. I wont swear I that the witnesses were not examined on oath on that occasion; Lewis being charged for larceny. David Lewis was remanded to the next meeting of magistrates. He was held to bail. I can't remember whether on his own recognizances or no. I heard the plaintiff make a statement that he had sold the things to Lewis. I undertake to swear I never asked the magistrates for a warrant, nor did Mr Bury, in my presence. I will not swear I was not present when the search warrant was applied for. After I heard Harris say he had sold the things, I directed Mr Bury to go on with the pro- ceedings. When the present plaintiff was before the magistrates, I don't know that witnesses were examined on his behalf. I was told by Mr Bury that there were. I did not know what evidence they had given. Before the indictment was preferred I had not seen counsel's opinion nor the case' My direction was not on the form of the indictment' I think I was admitted on the roll in 1850. I have heard of fixtures that a tenant may remove. I did not take advice as to whether these were of that kind. The opinion and indictments are not paid for. I gave my clerk directions to get the witnesses ready for the case at the assizes. Mr J. Jennings, clerk to F. L. Brown, Esq., magi- strates' clerk at Llanelly. I produce the information against Mr David Lewis, for which the search warrant was obtained Lewis was brought up under that war- rant. I was present during the whole of the case. Lewis was charged with having the hurdles in his possession, they having lately been stolen from the custody of the sheriff Two witnesses were examined, and depositions taken. Lewis was represented by an attorney. The plaintiff in this action stated that he had sold the things to Lewis and Thomas. The defendant conducted the case against Lewis. I did not hear him apply for a warrant. A summons was afterwards issued against the present plaintiff. It was ordered to be issued at the time. Harries did not appear on the 21st. The defendant appeared on the 21st. On the 2nd of January Harries was apprehended. I was present on the 4th. Mr Bury appeared against Harries. The evidence for the prosecution was first taken; then the evidence for the defence. Two or three points of law having arisen, the magistrates declined to commit, but bound Harries to appear at the assizes, to answer any charge, in his own recognizance, and two sureties in £10 each. David Davies examined: I live near Brynchaflre, plaintifTs farm. I was at the auction of the lease of that farm, at the Engine Inn, Llangennech. I was at the plaintiff's farm after the auction-two or three days after. I saw the plaintiff there. I saw him come out of the cowhouse, carrying some poles. I also saw him, with others, bring out the threshing floor. David Davies was there. I saw the plaintiff with an iron gate; he brought it from the field to the farmyard. His brother and others were helping him. I also saw the plaintiff bring a wooden gate. David Lewis was there. I saw the plaintiff take the manger loose from the cart-house he got it loose with an iron bar. I asked him what he was going to do with it. He said he was going to keep a pony to ride. When loose he took it out. I went into the dwelling-house; he said be was going to take the oven loose. I said it was better for Williams to pay for it rather than take it loose. At that time the oven was built in. I then went to the outer kitchen, and saw where the boiler had been. Plaintiff was pulling the wall down to get the iron work out of the wall. I saw him throw it outside. There might have been ten or twelve pieces of iron. He sent for a ragman to buy them. The man's name was Donoghuc, who had not arrived when I left. I saw a cart belonging to David Lewis. I saw some wood, planks, and hurdles put on it. When they were loading I saw H. Thomas come. I heard the plaintiff say to him that he had sold a gate for 2s 6d to his wife, to raise the posts and that he should have them. He had not taken the posts when I went away. They were fixed. Thomas had risen one post before I left. They were wooden posts. I told Mr Bury, at Llanelly, what I have said here, but not alJ. Cross-examined: I mean before the magistrates. I was summoned to appear. I did not go to Mr Bury about it. Mr Reginald Bury examined I am attorney acting as clerk to Mr Jones, the defendant. On 7th December. I laid an information against D. Lewis and H. Thomas. I got the information from persons who called at the office. Daniel Davies and others. On 21st December I appeared and again on the 4th June against plaintiff. Mr Mansel Rees appeared for him. Mr Jones came in just at the close of the last meeting. I told Mr Jones what the magistrates had said. One of them said it was plain a wrong been done, but they could not commit for some points of law had been raised. He was bound over. I prepared a case and opinion was obtained with draft indictments. The property in those is alleged to be that of Woodford Williams. Cross-examined Mr Williams consented to pro- secute at the Assizes. He had objected in the first in- stance. Re-examined Up to the time I reeeived the opinion I was under the impression that the property was vested in the Sheriff. Re-examined: Mr Mansel Rees argued before the magistrates that the property had been removed under an impression of right. By the Court: Mr Woodford Williams refused to complete the purchase on the 11th December, and did not complete until February. Mr Bowen addressed the jury for the defence, and Mr Giffard having replied. His Lordship very clearly summed up; ruling the point of law that just and sufficient cause had not existed for prosecuting the plaintiff in favour of:the plaintiff, he asued them to decide whether the prosecution had been malicious, if it had then what was the amount of damages they would award. j LV erdict for plaintiff with JE30 damages.