Hide Articles List

12 articles on this Page



PEMBROKESHIRE ASSIZES. [Last week we gave as much of the report of these Assizes as our reporter was enabled to transcribe in time for the post, and we now proceed to give the re- mainder. ] THURSDAY. Before Mr. Sergeant Jones, in the grand jury-room. Ann Williams was indicted for feloniously stealing from the person of David Evans, four sovereigns and 'OUf> shilling. The prosecutor being swcrru stated that he had been Ã¥ member of a society called the King and Constitution, which had been broken up. He went to Fishguard to rcceive his share of the funds, and had been in different Rouses drinking in the course of the day. The prisoner had been in a shop with him, where she wanted him to produce his purse, tvhich he ultimately did, and the money was reckoned and ptit back in the purse into his pocket. The prisoner was afterwards seen in company with the prosecutor before leaving Fishguard. Thomas Morris, a toy 10 years of ≥ swore posi- tively to having seen the prisoner putting her hand in the prosecutor's waistcoat pocket, -and take the purse therefrom. The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Hall; but his testimony was not shaken. The learned sergeant summed up, and the jury re- turned a verdict of Guilty, She was sentenced to hard 'labour for 12 months, the first and last fortnights to be solitary. Jokk Griffiths Was charged with having feloniously "stolen'certain articles of wearing apparel, the property of John Griffiths, of Treffgarne. The prosecutor's evidence went to prove that he had left a pair of breeches and other articles in his sleeping apartment, in April last, and from that time did not hear anything of thein until this month, when he obtained a search nITraLt, and, accompanied by a con- stable, went to Leweston, and found the articles in the prisoners possession. CharUs Evans, constable, corroborated the evidence of tht prosecutor. The learned sergeant having summed up, the jury returned a verdict of Guilty. John Griffiths was again charged with having stolen certain articles of wearing apparel, the property of Thomas Thomas, of Haycastle. It appeared by the evidence that the prisoner broke into an outhouse in which the prosecutor slept, and took the key out from his trouser's pocket he then pro- ceeded to open the box and stole the articles produced, as identified by the prosecutor, and which were found in the possession of the prisoner. The constable proved finding the articles. The learned sergeant summed up the evidence, and the jury returned a verdict of Guilty. The prisoner was sentenced to one month's imprison- ment for the first offence and ten years' transportation for the second. James Lundy was indicted for an assault upon Mary Davies. The following evidence was adduced:- Mary Davies: I am wife of John Davies, of Saint Dogmells, in this county. The prisoner lodged in the same house as we did. Thomas Morris also was lodging in the same house. On May 13th he came into my room when I was going to dinner, and asked me where was my husband. I told him that he was gone to Lampeter. The prisoner told me he had something to tell me and I went to him to know what it was, when he caught hold of me and attempted to force me on the bed. I called Hannah Peters" three times. She was in the opposite room. The prisoner still pursued me, and caught hold of my neck and attempted to take up my clothes. I went into Hannah Peter's room, and he followed me and said, My dear, this is the first and last time I ever touched you." He was not too drunk to know what he was about. I have a person to sleep with me ever since, fearing he may come again. Cross-examined by Mr. Hall: My husband deals in medicine as well as stationary. We went there to live in March, and this took place in May. Never was on intimate terms with the prisoner. I never gave him a kiss on the 4tii of May. I did not play with the pri- soner. I did not put my arms round his neck. I did not tell Dorothea Thomas that I was sorry I went to a magistrate, as I went by the advice of my neighbours. I called out as loud I could to Hannah Peters. I never kissed the prisoner, or took any other liberties with him. Hannah Peters examined I live at Saint Dogmells with my uncle, in; the same house as John and Mary Davies. James Lundy lodges in the same house. 1 recollect Mrs. Davies, in May last, calling out to me. I was in t'ne backyard, and heard her three times. I went to her in about five minutes. Lundy was in the room, with his two arms about her neck. The prose- cutor came into my room, and the prisoner said some- thing in English, which I did not understand, and the prosecutrix struck him. Lundy then went up stairs, and Mary Davies to the garden. Cross-examined by Mr. Hall: Mary Davies was not surprised at my coming in, but seemed very glad. I have never seen them play together before. They did not know where I was. When I '.vent in, Lundy's hands were round the prosecutor's neck. The conversation was in English, and I do not understand that language. Mrs. Davies pushed him nearly down, in my uncle's room. I never told any person about the affair. I went to Newport before the magistrates about a month after. I never told any one that Mrs. Davies had given me three shillings for going. I know Dorothea Thomas, but never recollect saying in her presence that she did not know anything about the matter. By the Court; Dorothea and Hannah Thomas do not live with the prisoner. The learned sergeant summed up the evidence, and the jury returned a. verdict of Guilty. Sci.,teiiee-Eighteen months' hard labour. Hannah Oliver, was indicted for burglary. Mr. Richards was counsel for the prosecution the pri- soner was undefended. Samuel Wilcox examined: I live at Step Inn, in the parish of Mathry. I am a small farmer and remember the 18th of February. Remember going to bed about 9 o'clock. They had gone to bed before me. My wife and self went to bed at the same time. Saw the front door safe, fastened by a stick being put in over the latch. There is a chest of drawers in my room, in which my wife and self keep our clothes, &c. We heard a noise in the night, but did not get up. Got up as soon as it was light in the morning. Found the door had been opened, and not quite closed again. The lodgers were then ill bed. There are only two rooms in the house. round the chest of drawers broken open and the money gone. Saw the money there the night before. There was os. 2d. in the drawer, it was all taken but 1d, We also missed a shawl of my wife's out of another drawer. Anne Wilcox, wife of the last witness I know the prisoner. She lived near our house. Was in the habit of coming there often. Had been stopping there at one time for two months together. I remember the 12th of Feb. last. Remember going to bed. Know the chest of drawers. Had clothes in it. Had no shoes, but sleeves, stocking, shawl, and petticoat. Saw them the day before. The drawers were locked. Had been broken upon with a knife. The clothes were all mine and my husband's. The stockings were mine. Saw police- man Jones afterwards. Went with him to Masdorth and Lanrian. Went to Hayguard with him. Saw prisoner take the stolen articles out of a rick of thatch. They were the things I had left in the chest of drawers the night in question. By the court Saw them pulled out of the rick of thatch in the morning. George Jones, police-inspector, examined I remem- ber the 14th ot lebruary last. I went to the prosecu- tor's ,louse, and found he was robbed. I found the prisoner at St. Dogmells, near Cardigan, at her father's house. I searched her and found her with the pair of sleeves upon her arms. I brought her to Masdorth. She searched a rick of thatch, and brought forth the stolen articles from the middle of the rick. She said they had been removed to a safer place than where she had hidden them. She told me without my questioning her. I warned her that whatever she said to me would be used against her in a court ol justice. When I apprehended her I told her it was on the charge in question. She told me not to search her father's house, and she would show me where the things were. She said they were at David Thomas's, and had been stolen from old Samuel. She said she entered by raising the latch, which was not fastened. By the Court: I did not intimidate her to make any confession or acknowledgment. The articles were here produced and sworn to by the Wilcoxcs. The prisoner did not say anything in her defence which threw any light upon the suljecr. The learned sergeant summed up. and the jury returned a verdict of Guilty. SentenceâTwo years' imprisonment. FRIDAY. I Before Mr. Sergeant Jones in the Grand Jury Room. Isaac John, was charged with having feloniously wounded a horse, the property of Mrs Jane Llewellin, of W esterton, in the parish of Ludchurch. The evi- dence on behalf of the prosecution went to show that the land of the prosecutor and prisoner was adjoining that the prosecutor's horses had repeatedly trespassed upon the prisoner's land, and that he had threatened to shoot the horses that after the horse had been shot, the prisoner, in company with others, was seen in the adjoining field and that subsequently he has stated he did not know that there was shot in the I gun, and that he would pay the farrier. The counsel for the prisoner, Mr. Hall, addressed the jury for the prisoner, contending that the prisoner was not gui!tv within tbe meaning of the statute upon which the in- within the meaning of the statute did not intend injur- ing the horses, but onty '?d it to frighten them from his land. The learned sergeant snmmed up to the jury, who then returned a verdict of Guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy. Sentenced to one month's nard labour. Rosscr v. James.âThis was an action to recover the sum of EL-t Is. lOd., being the balance of a church-rate received by the defendant as church-warden of the parish of Clarbeston, for the year 1842, and claimed to be due to the plaintiff as his successor in office, for the years 184:} and 1844. The .defendant pleaded, first, that he never promised to pay the money and, secondly, that the plaintiff was not the sole church-warden of the said parish, as by him alleged. Verdict for the plaintiff, damages EIA Is. lOd. Summers v. (Jicynne.âThis was an action brought by Mr. Richard Summers, surgeon, against Mr. Thomas vTwynne, solicitor, both of Haverfordwest, to recover the aum of £ L50 and interest due on a promissory-note, dated the 16th of April, 1836, and made by defendant to Mrs. Smith, late of this town, and by her specially indorsed to the plaintiff. A conference having taken place between the counsel on both sides, it was agreed that an unconditional verdict should be entered for the pLaintiff.-Da:iiages £ 21.5. Jenkins v. Cozens'. This was an action brought to recover £ 7, alleged to be due to the plaintiff, a bailiff at Narberth, from the defendant, an attorney in Haverford- west, for work and labour. Verdict for the plaintiff for El 17s. 6d. Morse and xoije v. Tucker and others; before a special jury Messrs. Chilton, Q.C., Evans, Q.C., and V. Williams, appeared in this case for the plaintiff's and Messrs. Wilson and Richards for the defendants. Mr. V. Williams opened the pleadings. Mr. Chilton stated the case :âThis was an action brought (in pursuance of a decree of Vice-Chancellor Wigram in a cause of Morse v. Tucker now pending in chancery,) by the plaintiffs, who are the personal repre- sentatives of Morris Adams, deceased, against the defendants as the personal representatives of John Edwardes deceased, to recover damages in consequence of Morris Adams being turned out of possession, (by Mr. Wi-n. Edwardc3 Tucker), of a farm called Lower St. Dogwells, in this county, which he held under a lease for three lives, granted to him by John Owen Edwardes, Esq., on the ground that such' lease was not a due execution of the power to grant leases vested in Mr. John Owen Edwardes. The action of ejectment brought by Mr. W. E. Tucker was tried in 1833 and in 1834 the Court of Exchequer, after solemn arguments of the points reserved, pronounced a deliberate judgment that the lease was bad, whereupon Morse was turned out of the farm, and possession delivered to Mr. W. E. Tucker. An action was then commenced by the present plaintiffs against the defendants as the personal representatives of John Owen Edwardes, for compensation in damages for having been lorcioiy turned out of possession of the farm of Lower St. Dogwells, and on a former occasion the damages were assessed at the sum of E2179 but as there was no personal estate of John Owen Edwardes to satisfy those damages it was necessary to institute proceedings in chancery, for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction out of the real estates left by him, in the course of which proceedings the Vice-Chancellor had directed this action to be brought for the purpose of ascertaining, in the first place, whether or not the lease was a good one; and, in the second, what was the value of the lease and of the crops on the farm at the time of the ejectment brought; and these were the only questions which the jury would have to consider. With regard to the first there was this extraordinary circumstance, that although W. Edwardes Tucker had proved to the entire satisfaction of the Court of Ex- chequer that the lease was bad, yet Thomas Edwardes Tucker and the other executors of J. O. Edwardes, the lessor, say the lease is a good lease, and that the plaintiff's have not been evicted by any person claiming "by, from, or under" John O. Edwardes. Now he (Mr. Chilton) would show beyond all question that W. E. Tucker did claim by, from, or under John Owen Edwardes, and he would further show from the report of the ejectment case in the Exchequer that the lease was invalid on the grounds on which that court set it aside, and having done so he apprehended the jury would have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the lease was bad. As to the second question for their consideration, he would show by the testimony of Mr. Goode the amount of the damages which his clients claimed. j Mr. Wilson then addressed the jury for the defen- dants. After referring to the terms of the lease, and of the power in the settlement of 1777, and to the grounds upon which the lease was declared bad in the former action, he replied to the observations made by the learned Counsel on the other side on what he had termed the extraordinary circumstance of the defendants, now contending that the lease was good. The eject- ment was a contest between totally different persons. The defendants in this case were not Mr. Win. E. Tucker, the plaintiff in the ejectment, but Mr. Thomas Edwards Tucker, and the other executors of the late John Owen Ed wards. They have a perfect right to say We were not parties to that action, and are not to be bound by it. That action may have been decided erroneously, either in law, or in fact. We are now called upon to pay a large sum of money, but before we do so, we must be quite satisfied that the lease was null and void." With the view of obtaining compensation, the plaintiffs filed their bill in Chancery, praying that the real and personal estate of John Owen Edwards may be applied in payment of his debts, and on the hearing of that cause before the Vice Chancellor, he did not seem to be satisfied with the decision of the Court of Exchequer, in the ejectment case. He says in the decree that led to this trial, There are only two questions to try, namely, whether the lease was good, and as to the amount of damages." Now, if he had been satisfied with the decision in the former case, he would not have directed an action to try whether the lease was good or not. The learned counsel then noticed the objections taken by Mr. Chilton, to the validity of the lease, and urged a variety of arguments with the view of showing that those objections could not be sustained. His lordship took the notes of Mr. Wilson's argu- ments in favour of the validity of the lease, and said he would reserve the question as to whether the lease was good for the opinion of the Court above, but at present he felt himself bound by the case in the Exchequer to direct the jury that the lease was bad. His lordship in summing up, directed the jury that the only question for them, was, what was the value of the lease in September, 1331, and of the crops then crowing or standing on the farm ? 10 The jury in a short time, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £ 1465 los. Leave was given to move to enter a verdict for defendants, if the court should be of opinion that the lease was good. Doe on Dent of Bowen and others v. Lloyd.âSpecial Jury. This cause was made a Remanet bv consent. This concluded the business of the "Assizes. [A pressure of highly interesting matter has com- pelled us reluctantly to curtail our account of these Assizes.]




[No title]


[No title]

[No title]

[No title]