Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

6 articles on this Page

BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS.…

News
Cite
Share

BOROUGH QUARTER SESSIONS. I The Michaelmas Quarter Sessions for the county of of the borough of Carmarthen was held at the Shire Hall on Wednesday before J. Johnes, Esq., recorder. The magistrates present are J. Lewis, Esq., mayor, J. Rowlands, Esq., J. Hughes, Esq., E. B. Jones, Esq., Commander G. Philipps, James Bagnall, Esq., D. Davies, Esq., and J. Thomas, Esq. Tho following comprised the Grand Jury :-Mr W. Davies, Guildhall-square, foreman Mr T. Bright, Guildhall-square Mr J. N. Buckley, Guildhall-square Mr G. Harries, Water-street; Mr S. Griffiths, Lammas- street Mr Recs Barrett, Union-street Mr E. H. N Davies, Union-street; Mr E. David, Mansel-street; Mr J. Davies, King-street Mr J. Jones, Quay-street Mr W. M. Evans, Lammas-street; Mr D. Lewis, King- street Mr J. D. White, Guildhall-square Mr O. Jones, Priory-street; Mr E. H. Jones, King-street. In charging the Grand Jury the learned Recorder said. It will not be necessary to detain you at any very great length of time, although at this period of the year it is the duty of those in the same position as myself to endeavoured to lay before the grand juries shortly some of those Acts of Parliament which have passed the Legislature during the last session, and which may in your case more particularly apply to this borough. And first of all I may mention to you, so far as relates to municipal matters, that an Act has been passed for amending the law with regard to the rating of occupiers in boroughs. According to the present Act, the 32nd and 33rd Vic, Chapter 41, the occupiers of any rateable hereditament let to him for a term not exceeding three months, shall be entitled to deduct the amount paid by him in respect of any poor rate from the rent due to the owner. In addition to that, in case the rateable value of any tenement does not exceed 18, the owner may enter into an agreement in writing, with the overseers, to become liable to them for the poor rates assessed in respect of such tenement, for any term not being less than one year from the date of such agreement. But then, if the owner enter into such agreement he must pay the rates whether the tenement be occupied or not. If the owner agrees to pay the rates whether the tenement be occupied or not, the Overseers may, subject to the control of the vestry, allow such owner a commission not exceeding twenty-five per cent. upon the amount of the rate, as compensation for the risk. Again, the owner of any tenement not exceeding e8 rent, may be rated to the poor rate instead of the occupier, and in that case he is to be allowed a com- mission of fifteen per cent., but if the owner consents to be rated whether the tenement be occupied or not he is to be allowed an additional fifteen per cent. But there is a penalty to be imposed. Provided the owner neglects to pay before the 5th of June in each year, all poor rates due the preceding 5th of January, he shall not be entitled to deduct or receive any commission, but will be compelled to pay in full. Then the Act goes on to state that although the occupier pays the rate and may be allowed them by the landlord, or if the owner pays the rate and is allowed a deduction by the Over- seers, such payment shall be deemed a payment of the full rate by the occupier that is, that so far as any qualification for the franchise is concerned, it shall be considered that the occupier pays the rate. There is another Act of Parliament passed, which I consider of great efficacy, for I am one of those who consider that although public-houses are extremely necessary, they are becoming far too numerous, and that a great deal of the mischief done by our criminals are to be traced to the various public houses. I do not now speak of the county of Carmarthen, or of the county of the borough of Carmarthen; I speak of the nation gene- rally. There is an amendment in the law relating to beer-houses, and under the new Act licences are not to be granted except by the certificate of the magistrates at the usual licensing meetings. There is another Act which more particularly applies to municipal corpora- tions, and by which the term of residence required as a qualification for the municipal franchise has been shortened, formerly, I need scarcely tell you, before a person could become a burgess it was necessary that there should be a residence of two years in the borough; but by this Act the term of residence is shortened to one year. Every person of full age who on the last day of July hi any year shall have occupied any house, ware- house, counting-house, shop, or other building, during the whole of the preceding twelve months, and who shall have resided during the time of such occupation within the borough or within seven miles thereof, he shall be entitled to become a burgess and member of the body corporate. But any such occupier may be entitled to be elected a councillor or alderman if he resides within fifteen miles of the borough. These are all the Acts I feel it necessary to mention to you; and now I regret to say that although it has been my usual fate at these quarter sessions to congratulate you upon having no prisoners for trial, yet to-day, I am sorry to tell you, there are two prisoners upon the calendar. One is charged with having obtained, by a certain false pretence, four pairs of boots. I scarcely think it neces- sary to say more than this, that the ground of a false pretence is based upon the fact that the person charged has obtained goods or moneys by stating that which is untrue, or stating that a circumstance has taken place when upon inquiry it is found that no such circumstance has taken place. That is a false pretence, and if a per- son obtains goods by such false pretence he is guilty. The evidence is so plain that it requires no comment at all from me. The other prisoner is charged with embezzlement --with obtaining money due to his employer without accounting for it. I may tell you what is simply meant by embezzlement. When a man is employed as clerk or servant and receives money for his master and does not account for it but devotes it to his own use, he is liable to be charged with embezzle- ment. It is not necessary that I should make any fur- ther remark. The evidence will be laid before you, and as soon as you have considered it, it will be your duty to return a true bill or no true bill. John Lewis, aged 47, writer, was charged with fraudulently embezzling on the 26th May, 1868, the sum of X5 on the 22nd October, 1858, the further sum of £ 3 2s 6d, and on the 18th of November, 1868, the further sum of C3, the property of his employer, Mr J. Howell Thomas, in the borough of Carmarthen. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr T. Davies appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Lewis Bishop for the prisoner. Mr Davies, in stating the case to the jury, merely ex- plained the nature of the evidence he intended to adduce. The prisoner had admitted receiving the money, and be really did not know what answer Mr Bishop bad to make to the charge. It would be proved beyond any doubt that the prisoner bad received the money and that when matters came to a crisis in Sep- tember last he absented himself from Mr Thomas's office without any explanation or without accounting for the money he had received. Henry Jones, examined I am a shoemaker and farmer, living at Tynewydd, in the parish of Llan- gunnor. I remember the sale at Penplas in the parish of Llangunnor. It was about two years ago I purchased a cow there, for X,8 2a Gd. Mr John Howell Thomas, the prosecutor, was the auctioneer. I paid the money in two instalments. I paid £ 5 first, on the 28th of May last year, to John Lewis, the prisoner, in Mr Thomas's office. I took a receipt for the money, from the prisoner. I paid the balance of Y,3 2s 6d on the 22nd of the following October, to the prisoner at the office. I took a receipt for that also, from the prisoner. The paper produced is the same. It contains the two receipts. The first is the receipt for X5, and the other for 43 2s 6d. Afterwards, in consequence of having received notice from the County Court, I saw the prisoner in Mr Hodge Lewis's shop in this town. He told me not to mind, as there would be no noise about it. He told me that before I spoke to him. I thought he knew that I bad had notice, but I don't know that. It was on Saturday the 11th of September, I think. It was the morning after I received the summons. I next saw the prisoner on the morning of the county court in September. I met him at the top of Quay-street. We went to the office of the County Court. He asked the clerk to take my name out of the book. This summons was produced at theoffice to the, prisoner. Case withdrawn 21, 9, 69," is in the handwriting ot prisoner. JL saw mm write n. This debt refers to Penplas sale. The prisoner gave me three shillings on that occasion, because I com- plained I had lost two days. I paid him the money on account of Mr John Howell Thomas. Cross-examined The money was made payable to Mr J. Howell Thomas. My name is Henry Jones. I answered to the summons addressed to Henry John, because the house and the amount were correct. I have been in Mr Thomas's office three or four times. I have paid him money before I always paid the money myself. My wife did not pay anything for me. I bad the receipts on twice. John Lewis did not sign his name to the first receipt. There was a stamp upon it then. After I received the notice I came to see John Lewis. I went to Mr Hodge Lewis's shop to show the receipt to a friend and the prisoner told me not to mind it. A little boy was sent to fetch the prisoner to Mr Hodge Lewis's shop. I had shown the receipt to Mr Herbert Lewis. Prisoner told me not to mind about it as he would settle the whole. He spoke about the money for which I was entered in the court. He told me that he had received the money, and would make it square. He did not say a word about the summons. I did not go to Mr J. Howell Thomas or Mr Thompson that day. I saw Mr Thompson the morning of tfce court. I then went to the County Court office, and the words case withdrawn were writen by the prisoner. Prisoner when I met him that morning asked me where I was going. I said I was come to the court. He said I was not wanted. He confessed he received the money. I never charged him before Mr J. Howell Thomas. He said he had been from home that was how the bill was sent the second time. I have paid money to Mr Thompson. I paid for one sale last April. Prisoner was present. Mr Thompson nor Mr Thomas were not present. When T pniH Mv Thooopoon ho ga?o we a receipt. I cannot say whether he entered the amoun in the book. John Beynon: I am a farmer living at Waunygwere in the parish of Llangerdeirne. I remember a sale at Towy Castle, a little over three years ago I think. I made purchases to the amount of X2 178 6d. I after- wards paid S3, that was half a crown interest. I gave the money to my father. Thomas Beynon I am a farmer living at Cwmeinon, in the parish of Llangendeirne, and father of the last witness. I received the sum of JE3 from him to pay the sale money of Towy Castle to Mr J. Howell Thomas. I paid the money to Mr Thomas's clerk, the prisoner at the bar. I paid it at Mr Thomas's office, next door to the Stamp Office. I had a receipt for the ;C3.. This re- ceipt is the same. The prisoner wrote it. I saw him do so. He handed it to me. It was a year next month I believe. I took the receipt home and my son put it on the file. Cross-examined I paid the money for my son. I did not give the receipt to my son, but I told him I had re- ceived a receipt for the money. He took it off the file in the presence of the police. I swear the prisoner wrote the receipt before me. I never had another application for the money, nor I do not believe my son did. Mr J. Howell Thomas I am an auctioneer carrying on business in Quay Street in this town. Prisoner has been in my employ as clerk. He entered my employ about five years ago, and remained in my employ untill about the 21st September last. It was his duty to re- ceive money in his capacity of clerk. I remember the first witness speaking of JE5. That was on account of Pen- plas sale, and the second sum also but the third sum of X3 was in respect of Towy Castle sale. As auctioneer I had the collection of all those sums. When the prisoner received money for me it was his duty to enter it in the sale book. This is not the original sale book of Penplas sale. It has been used in my office instead of the original sale book, which was lost or stolen on the occasion of my removing from my former offices in Dark-gate to my present offices in Quay-street. This copy was made from the book that the vendor had. I afterwards recovered the book that was lost or stolen. I have the original book here. There is no entry in the original book or the copy of any payment of X5 by Henry Jones, nor of the X3 2s Gd by Henry Jones. Prisoner had access to the copy for the purpose of making entries of monies received. As to t3 paid by Thos. Beynon for Jno. Beynon that was in respect of Towy Castle sale. I had the collection of that sale money. I have the sale book here. There is no entry here in the proper place of the sum of X3 mentioned by Thos. Beynon. Prisoner had access to that book for making such entry. Mr Thompson, my brother-in-law, assists me in my business. His offices are in the same house as mine. The prisoner was to account for all monies received either to Mr Thompson or to myself. He has never accounted to me for the £5 and 13 2s 6d received from Henry Jones, nor for the sum of £3 re- ceived from Thomas Beynon. The receipts produced are in the handwriting of the prisoner. This book is called a letter book.' The words Penplas circu- lars were written by the prisoner. Then follows a list of parties who had circulars sent to them. The first name is Henry John, Tynewydd." He is the person who has been examined to-day under the name of Henry Jones. The date following is Nov. 18th, 1868. The figure 1 means a penny postage. The entry means that a circular was sent out to Henry John that day. It indicates that these parties were defaulters and that we sent another circular requesting payment. The prisoner left my employ on the 21st September, I think. It was the day before the County Court. He had said nothing to me about leaving my service. I believe he was in the office the day of the County Court, but I did not see him. I did not see him until apprehended under a warrant jipon this charge. Cross-examined Mr Thompson told me that he had a conversation with Lewis about his leaving. I keep a a list of letters sent out. All the circulars in this page refer to Penplas. There are three other letters entered as sent out that day besides the Penplas circulars. It was somebody's duty to enter in this book all letters sent out that day. His duty was to attend sales, to write letters for me occasionally, and to receive monies oc- casionally. He was a good deal from home, and I and Mr Thompson sometimes. I used to receive monies. I or Mr Thompson received the money when we were there. I entered the money in the sale book. Mr Thompson had to do the same, and afterwards in the day book. When I was away the prisoner received monies for me, and when I returned he was to bring up the sale-book to my office to show that it had been entered, so that Mr Thompson or myself might enter it in the day book. Prisoner had nothing to do with the day book. If he received two or more sums he gave us the amount and we cast up the day book and counted the money, in one sum. He was not in the habit of putting the money in a piece of paper, with the name of parties who paid. I received some hundreds of sums of money, due for sales at which I was the auctioneer, and we had other business. I never was so busy as not to give receipts. I never found that I had omitted to enter the amount receivod, and sent out a circular for the same money. Mr Thompson sometimes gave a receipt in my name. If I were there I gave the receipt myself. This is the original book of Penplas sale. I lost the original book about the 28th or 2!)th September, 1868. I procured a duplicate about a month after- wards. The money was not due in October, 1838. Yes, it was due March, 1868, before the book was lost. I do not think any money was received before the book was lost. The mark by the entry was made by the prisoner. The addition of the sale money is in Mr Thompson's handwriting. Mr Thompson will be able to explain it. Henry Jones did not make any other purchase. I do not know whether John Harry, Lan, Llangunnor, purchased anything at Penplas sale. I do not know the man personally. These books were kept in the office gener- ally in the drawer of the table or the desk, and some- times on the desk in my room. Sometimes Mr Thomp- son had it in his room. The prisoner had a lock on his desk. I have not any particular occasion to know that prisoner's desk had a lock to it. I heard his desk was broken after he had been apprehended. He gave me an account once a week. He went from home often, and incurred expenses, and was allowed them on the following Saturday. I have got the accounts of his expenditure in a book. I am not often from home on Saturday. Mr Thompson settled with the prisoner. Mr Thompson is in partnership with me in the survey- ing business. There is nothing due to the prisoner. Mr Thompson paid him the Saturday before he left. The sale books are locked up in some tables or desks and are given out to send circulars. They were not always in the prisoner's custody. Prisoner could always find the book in office hours. It was never locked up in office hours. Mr Thompson gave them out if there first. I go the office about ten. The clerk would be there about nine. If he received any money before I went to the office he would enter them in the book when I arrived. If we went from home, the prisoner could not enter the sum in the sale book until we re- turned. I did not know that Henry Jones had paid me other sums, besides this,-CS. The orginal book of Towy Castle sale was not lost. Re-examined The prisoner was paid el a week. By Mr Bishop I believe he never received more than one week's salary at a time. Mr J. W. A. Thompson examined I am an architect and civil engineer carrying on business in the same office as Mr Thomas, the prosecutor, and am his brother in law. I occasionally assist him in his business. These receipts are in the handwriting of the prisoner. I gave the prisoner instruc- tions in April last about the money due from John Beynon, of Cwmeinon, amounting to X2 17s Cd and interest 2s 6d. I first saw this paper on the 5th April. I handed it to the prisoner on the 19th of April. I asked him to attend the court as a witness against Beynon. He stated that there was no service of sum- mons, and a fresh summons was to be issued. There is a note in his handwriting. No service, fresh sum- mons to issue for next court." I saw that entry when he returned from the court. He had this paper again in the following May, for proving the debt in the County Court. On returning from court he said the matter was settled and Beynon was to pay in two monthly instalments. There is a note to that effect in Lewis's handwriting. He had never accounted to me for the sum of X5 received from Henry Jones, or the sum of £:3 2s 6d also from Henry Jones, or the sum of jE3 from John Beynon. It was his duty to make an entry of the money received. It would be his duty to enter the sums received from Henry Jones in the Penplas sale book, and the Y,3 received from John Beynon in the Towy Castle sale book. In Novem- ber last I requested him to apply to all those persons who bad not paid for Penplas. The prisoner left Mr Thomas's employ on the 20th September last. I never saw him at Mr Thomas's office after that day. I saw hint at his house. I asked him whether he could account for the money received from Johns. He told me he had received it, and would endeavour to pay it. I asked him whether he knew there was anything due from Beynon. He told me no, he had received it. He told me he would pay in instalments, but his accounts were all abroad. Cross-examined: I have been in partnership with Mr Thomas for eight years. Lewis was a clerk to me when I required him. I have no interest in the auctioneering. I decline staling what our arrange- ments are. I have not a commission for receiving the money. I get nothing from the auctioneering business. Mr Bishop-I wish I could get a clerk to work for me for nothing. Witness-I am not a clerk, that's how it is (laughter.) I am doing a very fair business. Cannot com- plain. My name is extending a little in the county, and I go from home pretty often. I have not been able to square up every week. If Mr Thomas and myself were away, Lewis would not be able to get at the book. Prisoner would then account to the first person who arrived. Up to the end of 1867, he had a book in which he entered small sums and his expenses. It was discontinued be- cause we found it inconvenient sale for moneys. He then put down the money on strips of paper and put them round the money, and from the strips of paper I entered the amounts in the sale book. If I went from home and required money connected with the business, I might take some from the office, but I do not remember having money from the prisoner. On my examining the books on one occasion, I spoke to Lewis about having received money not handed over, and the amounts were found in his desk quite correct, and no doubt it was an oversight. The day-book is never cast up. I was frequently busy when he brought the money and I entered the money afterwards. If I did not do so I should find in casting up the book that the money did not talley with the book when I took it to the bank. I on one occasion sent out a circular after the money had been received, but that sale book was lost. I do not know whether Henry Jones has paid me any money or not. On this occasion I asked the prisoner whether he bad received any money from Henry John. The entry you refer to now is John Harry, of Llangunnock. Thomas Evans, Pensarn, paid some money into the County Court in April, 1869. There is no note made by Mr Lewis on this case, but there is on the next. I never said anything to the prisoner about the missing money before he left his employment on the 20th September. He was not told by me to attend the court. I arrived in the office about ten o'clock, but prisoner had left before I arrived. I told the prisoner on the Monday, that Henry John had his receipt for the money, and he said he had received it. Mr Thomas and myself settled up the sale moneys every Monday morning, as a rule, and sometimes more frequently. It is generally half a dozen sales. When balancing the account, we never find a surplus cash over the amount in the books, but very often find a deficiency, having expended some. Previous to this I never thought the prisoner was dishonest. Re-examined: As regards the payment of zC5 by Henry Jones. in May, 1868, the prisoner had an oppor- tunity of entering that in the book. either that day or the following. I have no interest in the business Mr Thomas carries on as auctioneer. Lewis Hughes, police-sergeant, examined I took the prisoner into custody upon a warrant which I produce. I read the charge to him, and he told me- Mr Bishop—That cannot be taken in evidence. It has been held by the judges that it cannot be received. Recorder-I think it is an every-day occurrence. Examination continued: I told him that he was not allowed to say anything, but that whatevei he said would be taken down and might be used against him at his trial. Mr Bishop said that was precisely the case of Regina versus Drew," where the statement of the pri- soner was not received as evidence. The Recorder said that had been overruled subse- quently, and the evidence taken. Mr Davies In this case the constable made the same remark. Examination continued Prisoner said, I have BO- thing to say I did receive the money and gave a re- ceipt for it." That was on Friday, the 24th September. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Bishop in addressing the jury for the prisoner, said it was not necessary for him to go through all the evidence. The receipts had been produced, and there was no doubt but that the money had been received by Lewis. But, he would remind them. that the receipt of money alone did not constitute embezzlement, which was a crime very like larceny, and consisted in frau- dulently keeping back goods or monies from the per- sens entitled to them. lie knew of no better illustra- tration of what constituted embezzlement than that given by an eminent lawyer when he said that the keeping back by any person of another person's pro- perty must be accompanied by secrecy before the charge of embezzlement could be substaniated. That was to say, that unless some secrecy could be brought into connection with the person charged, no conviction for embezzlement could follow. It must be shown that the prisoner tried to secrete the payment of the money before they could convict him. Mr Davies bad at- tempted to show by the production of the County Court summons that Lewis had attempted to conceal the fact that he had received the money from Henry Jones but when he called to mind the fact, he at once admitted it and told Jones that it was all right. He made a mistake, and as soon as be found it out he told the man that he had received the money. He did not mean to say that Mr Thompson or Mr Thomas kept these amounts which had not been accounted for, but he would call their particular attention to the way in which the accounts were kept. As they had heard, the prisoner was supposed to enter all monies received into a book when he could get it; there was no other way of entering the sums he received. He would ask, then, was it fair that a man should be brought to this court under such circumstances. It had been stated that it was five weeks after one of the sale books was lost before another book was procured, and during that time one of the sums not accounted for was received. What had they to show that he had not paid over that sum to his employer. Was it fair that two years afterwards he should be called upon to account for a sum of money received at a time when he had no book to enter it in. As regarded that sum, it surely could not be said that the prisoner should be charged with embezzlement. As regarded the other two sums, they had heard that the book had been shut up, some- times in one place, and sometimes in another, and that he had to search all uvi-r the cilice for it. Now, the prisoner was bound to have that book in which to enter the sums, when he received them, or the chances were that he would forget to enter them at all. Was it fair that a mar, should be called upon to account for twenty or thirty different sums without having a book in which to enter them. It was perfectly reasonable and perfectly possible that his memory failed him when he stated that the money was to be paid in two months for after- wards when the receipts were brought to his face he said that he bad received the money. It was then he said Yes, I must have received it." Was it possible that he could recollect this particular sum apart from the thousands of sums he had received during the five years- he had been in Mr Thomas's employ ? As to the enter- ing of Jones in the county court, the promise to with- drawn the plaint, and the nd.nission of the payment, all were open and there was nothing secret abeut the tran- saction. It had been said that the summons on Beynon was not served the first time, but there was no evidence to show that it was not. As to the statement that the money would be paid in two monthJy instalments, the immense number of actions taken by Mr Thomas and Mr Thompson during the year would account for such a mistake as that. With regard to his sending a letter to Jones applying for the money after ho had received it, that was quite consistent with perfect innocence, for had he not forgotten that he had received the sum he would have known that Jones held his receipt for them. The very fact of his applying for the money a second time was a proof that he believed he had not received it, and being under that impression relieved him from the charge of embezzlement. Mr Bishop then called Mr Edward Joseph and Mr Thomas Richards, captain of the barge, who said they had known the prisoner since his boyhood, and be lieved he had always been strictly honest. The Recorder in summing up the evidence said that if the prisoner was authorised to receive money and was to account for it in a certain manner which was agreed upon, and if he did not account for the money in a proper manner to his employer, then he was clearly guilty of embazzlement, unless they had some good reason to think that he had some claim against his em- ployer. It did not appear in this case that the prisoner had any claim against his employer, for when he was paid by Mr Thompson on the Saturday evening before he left his employment, the prisoner made no claim. Mr Thompson was not asked whether any claim was made by the prisoner, and therefore the presumption was that there was no claim. Again it was said that sometime in September, 1868, the prosecutor lost the original sale book of Penplas sale, and that a book was not kept for a month or five weeks, and that there. fore during that time the prisoner had no book in which to enter the money he received. But that could not apply to the £ o, which was received in May, 1868. The prosecutor and Mr Thompson had stated that although the sale books were frequently lucked up, the prisoner had access to them during office hours for it very rarely happened that both were away from home at the same time. At any rate, some entry should have been made if the original book was not at hand. The prisoner admitted to Mr Thomas that he had re- ceived the money and said he would do his best to pay it back in instalments—that his accounts were all abroad. It was his duty to tell them that if a clerk did not account for monies received in the usual man- ner in which he was to account for then there was primll facie evidence of embezzlement, unless it could be shown that there was some good reason why the money was not accounted for in the usual course of busi- ness. The jury retired, and after an absence of nearly half an hour returned a verdict of Not Guilty." The verdict was received with tremendous cheering in the body of the hall, the clapping of hands and stamping of feet being carried on vigorously for some seconds. The Recorder told the police that if they would bring any person before him whom they had seen applauding the verdict, he would commit him to prison. Eliza Lewis, aged 28, described as a charwoman, who has figured previously in our police courts, was charged with obtaining by false pretence four pairs of boots, the property of Mr W. 0. Morgan, boot-maker, Lower Market-street, in this town, with intent to defraud, on the 13th of August last. Mr W. Richards prosecuted, prisoner being undefended. From the evidence of Mrs Emily Morgan, wife of the prosecutor, corroborated by David Phillips, his foreman, it appeared that prisoner went to the prosecutor's shop on the day in ques- tion, and obtained four pairs of boots, in the name of Miss Fontaine, of Fountain Hall, on trial. Find- ing that none of the boots were returned, Phillips (on the following morning) saw Miss Fontaine, who said she had never sent ti e prisoner for any boots, nor had she seen the prisoner for some time. The police were then sent in search of the prisoner, who bad sold the boots-two pairs to Mrs Davies, Car- digan Arms, Water-street, who has since gone to America one pair to Mrs Shell, Goose-street and one pair to Mrs Stephens, Water-street. The boots were delivered into the custody of the police, and were identified by Mrs Morgan and Phillips.-The Recorder, in summing up the evidence, said that if a person made a statement which was not true, and in consequence of that false statement obtained goods of another person, then he is guilty of obtaining those goods by false pre- tence.-The jury almost immediately found the prisoner guilty, and she was sentenced to three months imprison- ment.-Prisorier Well done, Mr Recorder; three months is nothing. To h- with judge and jury. Hurrah Prisoner then commenced to dance and shriek and struggled violently with the warders on being removed below, where she continued to rage for some time.

CROSSWOOD AND GOGERDDAN SHOW.

NARBERTH REGISTRATION COURT.

I HAYERFORDWEST REGATTA.

[No title]

FUNERAL OF CAPT. DAVIES.