Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

9 articles on this Page

CARDIGANSHIRE SUMMER ASSIZES.I

News
Cite
Share

CARDIGANSHIRE SUMMER ASSIZES. I These Assises coram1 need at Cardigan on F6!ay last. ) Owin: to the pressure of business in the .■.djo;n:ng Connty uf Pembroke, the learned judge on the circuit, Sir Thomas Coitman, Knight, did not reach Cardigan until a quarter to nine o'clock on Saturday rnormng; b,lt the Commission was opened on the preceding evening by Mr. Serjeant Jones at 8 o'clock. 'His Lordship was escorted to the to'.vn by John Lloyd Davies, of Alltyrodin, Esq., High Sheriff for the County, and his javelin-men. Shortly after his Lordship's arrival he attended divine service at St. Mary's Church, where the prayers were read by the Rev. Gritlith Thomas, Vicar, and the Assize Sermon preached by the Rev. John Griffiths, Vicar of Llangeler, the High Sheriff's Chaplain. The Rev. Gentleman delivered a most im- pressive discourse, Immediately after divine service his lordship entered tl1e court, and proceeded in the business of the assize. The following gentlemen answered to their names as magistrates for the county. E. Powell, Esq., M.P W. O. Brigstocke, Blaenp-ant; T. Lloyd, Coedmore; J. Lewes, Llanllear Edward Henry Uoycl Williams, Gwemant Park; Augustus Aldborough Lloyd \Villi8.ms Charles Arthur Prichard, Tyilwyd; George Woolgar Griffiths, Paiitgwvn John Hughes, Alltlwyd George Bowen Jordan Jordan, Pigeonsford; George Williams Parry, L'idiarde; Thomas Richard Price, Wagner, Manoreifed James Beynon Lloyd Phillips, Mabws; David Davies, Castle Green, Cardigan, Esquires and the Rev. W. North. CORONERS.—John Howell Thomas; Richard Williams, Aberystwith, Esquires. MAYOR. — Riehard David Jenkins, Esq. The following gentlemen were called aud sworn on the grand inquest for the county :— W. E. Powell, Esq., M.P., Foreman Charles Arthur Prichard, Thomas LloyJ, George Woolgar Griffith, W. O. Brigstocke, E. Lloyd Williams, David Davies, Thomas Davies, T. R. P. Wagn>T, G. n. J. Jordan, John Lewes, Augustus Aldborough L'oyd Williams, G. Williams Parry, John Hughes, James Beynon Lloyd Philipps, and David Rowlands, M.D., Esquires. The learned judge briefly addressed them as follows:- Gentlemen of the Grand Inquest,—As far as I can collect from the depositions there are only a cases for your consideration—one is certainly of great importance, it is that of a robbery of some extent, which took place some years ago, (as far back as 1839.) The circumst rnce s are the possession of a £,50 note by the prisoner, which he endeavoured to pass off in London after such a lapse of time. If the property were of small value it would be of no consideration, but as the property is great, and if it can be identified it certainly calls for an inquiry. .Another case is that of a soldier stealing a watch, the watch it appears was found upon his person. None of the cases, however, require any lengthened remarks from me. The Grand Jury then retired to consider the bills, and after a short interval brought in a true bill against Thomas Carew Phillips, for stealing from the offices of Oliver Lloyd, Esq., at Cardigan £930 in the year 1839. There were other counts in the indictment charging the prisoner with having stolen a the company of the Bank of England, and one bag of the value of one shilling, the property of the said Oliver Lloyd. Esq. The prisoner who was rather respectably diessed, but appeared pale and emaciated, in a firm voice pleaded Not Guilty." As the robbery in question created a great sensation in the county, and as many groundless rumours were afloat respecting it, the finger of suspicion having been pointed at several, who from the result of the trial are proved innocent, we give the evidence at full length. Messrs Llovd Hall and Richards appeared for the pro- secution, and Mr. E. V Williams defended the prisoner. Mr. Ilall addressed the jury for the prosecution, and said that the prosecutor was Oliver Lloyd, Esq., well known as a highly respectable solicit0r'in Cardigan, and the prisoner was a cabinetmaker, living at St. Dogmells, and carrying on his business there. He was charged with having on the 1.5th of February, 1839 stolen a ccrtain sum of money, the property of Mr. Lloyd. The circumstances under which the robbery was perpetrated were singular. In 1839 Mr. Lloyd was having anew office prepared, and the old office which he was about to relinquish was close to the new premises there was however, no communication from the back of the old office to the new one. Since 18::9 the new office has been completed, anf" aken possession of. The old one was then gi"" At the period the crime was committed the ne" in an unfinished state, and there was an easy mode i aceess from one office to the other. In the course of July, 1839, Mr. Lloyd had received the sum of one thousand pounds, which was deposited in an iron chest in the 01(1 office. The money was principally in gold, there was also some silver and a. £50 note of the Bank of England. On the I night of the 15th of February the old office was broken into. A hole was made in the shutter by means of a centre bit, and the fastenings were broken away. The I money was kept in a kind of wooden cash box, which was ultimately for the greater security, deposited in the safe, the key of which the clerk kept, and on the present occasion it was locked up in his desk. That key was taken away and the iron safe opened. That being the state of the case. the question simply was who committed the robbery ? The way in which the case was brounht home to the prisoner is this.—The payment of the £,-)0 note stolen was stopped at the Bank of England, and for six years nothing was heard of it. In the month of January last, however, that identical note was paid into the Bank, having endorsed on it several names. It was ultimately traced to a grocer residing in Oxford Street, London. About the period in question a person who proved to be the prisoner earne to take iodgings, of a Mr. Barnett, residing at No 18, High Row, Knightsbridge, London, and on that occasion he was disguised by a pair of mustaehoes. He took the lodgings for two months, and in the course of some tranetions tendered a £ 50 note. It was given to the girl to get it changed, when it was endorsed by the person with the moustachoes with the name of David Pike. After two days he left the lodgings, and was eventually traced from London to Cardigan, where he was apprehended. Mr. Richards proceeded to call Jane LIeweltyn- I am employed by Mr. Lloyd to clean his offices; I was so employed 6 years ago in February 1839 the old office adjoins the present new offices. Mr. Lloyd's old office window looked into the yard. I remem- ber Friday evening, in the month of February, closing the office safely as usual. I recollect it was on a Fri- day, but I cannot say the day of the month. I closed the office at the usual time, 8 o'clock. [Here the Grand Jury brought in tuc bills against Edward Beattie for larceny, and John Davies for larceny. There being no other business for the Grand Jury, the learned Judge discharged them, thanking them for their senices. ] Examination of Jane Llewellyn resumed The window was fastened with two iron bars there were two iron chests in the office. I went to the office the next morning at half-past seven j the doors were locked. When I went in I saw a light coming from Mr. Lloyd's office to the other office. The middle pane of the window had been broken and the fastening drawn aside. The shutter was thrown down, and was leaning against the desk, with a hole bored in the middle of it; the hole was sufficient to put a man's arm through. By a Juror The glass of the window had been broken. Examination continued: After the window had been broken, the bars could be taken back. I observed that ail was safe the night before, but in the morning it was open. I went for Mr. Harries because it was his chest that was opened; there were two chests in the office, but Mr. Harries's only had been opened Mr. Harrie s is a clerk in the office ar.d is cashier. The brass round the keyholeof Mr. Davies's desk was broken off. I know the prisoner. I had seen him often before Mr. Lloyd's office had been broken open he appeared to be a poor man. I knew him after that time he was better off in the world than before. By the Court: It was said that prisoner was by trade a carpenter. Cross examined by Mr. V. "¡lliams :I have no ac- quaintance with the prisoner and oniy saw him and his wife together in the town occasionally. Mr. David Harries examined by Mr. Ilall:—I am a clerk in the employ of Mr. Oliver Lloyd:—I was in his employ in 1S3S and was cashier in 1839. I have kept cash in an iron chest the key of which I kept in my desk in the office, in a different room. I remember the night the office was broken open, it was on the 1.5th of Feb. 18:59. In the morning of that day I had upwards of £080 in my possession, chiefly in gold, soveteigns, half-sovereigns, crowns, half-crowns, shillings, sixpences. A portion of the money was a £,)0 Bank of England note. I had it in my posssession for two days—received it from a Mr. D. Davies, of Esgereithin. All the money was my em- ployer's, Mr. O. Lloyd's. When I left the office that evening the Bank note and other monies were left in the office in a small box, which I put in the iron chest, I had £50 in silver. I locked the chest and put the key in my own desk in another room. I locked it about one o'clock on the 15th and did not go to the iron chest that day afterwards, when I left in the evening I locked my desk, the key of the iron chest ws in it. I took the key of the desk in my pocket. I went with witness Jane Llewelly" n to the office the following clay about eight o'clock, the office was not in the same state as on the night before. The key of the iron chest was upon Mr. Lloyd's desk. My desk had been burst open. I saw the wooden box where the money was kept on Mr. Lloyd's desk near where the kev was. I do not know the number of the note. I did' not receive another note from Mr. Davies or his brother. Cross-examined by Mr. V. Williams:—The note had been cut in half before and put together. The note was not in two halves when I received it. It had been cut and pastedtogether(note produced.) The note I speak of was similar to this, except the 2 holes in it, and the corner torn. I David Lewis examined by Mr. Richards:—I reside at Llanidloes, in Montgomeryshire, and am a Draper and Grocer. I knew John Davies, the late Vicar of Llanidloes. He left in 1838 and went to Cardiganshire to live. When he lived at Llanidloes I was his agent In Dec. 1838 note to Itim. Isenthim the other half on the] Itlt January, 1839, it was a Bankof England note. I took the number of it-it was 00621, dated Manchester February, 25. 1838. I stopped payment of the note at the Bank of England at the request of Mr. Davies. I afterwards gave instruction to withdraw that stoppage. I believe this note (produced) to be the same as I sent to the Rev. Mr. Davies. Cross-examined by Mr. V. W illiams :—The way I know the note is by the correspondence of the numbers. I sent the note by post and took the number before I sent it I took it on a piece of paper I have here (produced). The whole of it is in my writing. Re-examined by Mr. Hall:—I have Mr. Davies's letters inreph'. in rep 'David Davies, Esgereithin, examined by Mr. Hall:—Wi ttiess appeared very unwell and infirm, and during his examination was accommodated with a chair. I live at Esgereithin, and am a brother of the late Mr. Davies, of Llanidloes, after he left Llanidloes he came to live at Esgereithin. In J annary, 6 years ago. I recollect my late brother receiving a £.50 cote from Mr. Jervis I saw the letter. It was I that received my late brother's letters and money as he was very infirm, I did for him. My brother is dead since. Six Fars lr.st June, my brother had 2 letters, half a note in eh. I saw both letters, there was nothing else in them. I took the £;)0 note to -Cardigan to change it with Mr. Lloyd, when I took it to ;\1r. Lloyd the nóte was entire, '11)' brother had joined jt. When I went to the office I saw Mr. Davits, Mr. Lloyd's clerk, and also Mr. David Harries. I gave the {50 to Mr Harries and he gave me change for it. Cross-examined by Mr. V. Williams -.Lyly brother had no estate, he was a clergyman, he had a guod deal of tithes from the living of Llandinam, and was 78 years Joll1l ,l(]:-an, exur:inp:! by ?lIr. Richa:'ds :-1 wa, John Morgan, exam i ned by Mr. Richards:— I was driving the r tv.il mail from c,.rui an to C.ii\i.,ii t..( n 1. January last. Ian occasional driver. 1 drove the pri- soner over to Carmarthen at that time, it was the 22d of January. The prisoner is a carpenter by trade, and lives at a place called St. Dogmells, which is a mile from this town. Wm. Geo. Barnett examined by Mr. Ha.l:—I live at 18, High Row, Knightsbridge, London. In January last, I had lodgings to let. I recollect a person then coming to my house for lodgings it was either the 28th or 29th of January (this year.) I think it was on a Tues- dLY, TInt person was the prisoner at the bar. He had r.o Inggage. He had on a great coat of a dark colour, and had a large cotton umbrella. He had also a large pair of mustaehoes, very badty put on. I could see they were false. He took lodgings for two months from the day he came. He slept at my house two nights, and remained part of three days. On the last day niv ser- vant brought down a £ 50 note. I sent her back with it; in consequence of what I told her, she brought it to me again, when he had written upon it, "Nathaniel Pike." The ink was quite wet. There was other writing on the note. There were no holes in it then. The name of Freshwater was not on it. I sent it to a pub- lican in my neighbourhood to get change. The servant brought it back, when I sent her to the prisoner with it, and to say, "that I could not get it changed." I saw the prisoner shortly afterwards I had no conversation with him about the note. I gave the prisoner my card, when he tock the lodgings. I had given my servant, Mary Clanchy, two other cards to give the prisoner. I saw the prisoner then going out—this was about three o'clock. He remained out about two hours. I saw him when he came back. I was in the garden. He said, "You are fond of gardening." I said I was." On my way down here, I have been to the town of Ross. I made enquiries for Clarence Terrace." There was no such place, nor any such a person as E. F. Pike, Esq." to be found. Cross-examined by Mr. V. Williams: Prisoner stayed at my house two nights. I saw him here last assizes. I did not see him fi-oiii the end of Januiry until the last assizes. I have no personal experience in false mustaehoes. I thought I had a good lodger but there was an impression on my mind also, that he was either a swindler, or one of the swell mob. I offered to get a E-50 note changed for him. Prisoner left my house of his own accord. By the Court:—I am convinced the prisoner is the same man. I saw him about half a dozen times. I am therefore quite sure the prisoner is the same man. Mary Chancy, examined by Mr. Hall :—I am servant to Mr. Barrett, and was so in January last. I recollect a person coming to lodge, it was the prisoner. I noticed mustaehoes, on his lips they were false ones I am sure they were so. Prisoner shortly after he came wanted a pen, ink, and paper to write some letters he wrote a letter. On the 3d day he gave me a note to take to my master, prisoner told me it was a £ 50 note. I brought it my master who could not change it. I took it back and told him (prisoner) to write his name upon it. Prisoner did so, and he then o-ave me the note. I took it again to my master, the ink was quite wet, (note produced and witness pointed to the prisoner's writing upon the back of it.) I then took it out to change but could not succeed. I gave it back to t:,e p: i-w.ner, who then we nt out, and when j he came back I saw some groceries come into the house after him, when he went away prisoner took them away with him, when he left he told me to sit up for him. Cross-examined by Mr. V. Williams —I did not see the prisoner from that time until the last assizes. Mr. James Freshwater, examined by Mr. Richards I am a grocer residing in Oxford Street, London. I saw the prisoner at my shop on the 30th of January last, on a Thursday, he came to purchase groceries 8: did so to the amount of between i: i- & E8; he paid me for them in a £ 50 note, Bank of England, he gave me a card Barnett IS High Row, Knightsbridge" the goods were sent to that address. I sent the note to my bankers, Sir Claude Scott's, to get changed. I endorsed it, this is the note (produced.) He had no mustachoes on when he came to my shop. I sent the note by my shopman; he was absent for about a quarter of an hour, during which time prisoner appeared restless and anxious to get away, the change was brought back, 4 £ 5 notes Bank of England, and .£30 in gold. I deducted the amount of my goods and gave the rest of the money to the prisoner. In 3 or 4 days afterwards some inquiries were made about the note, in consequence of which and some communication from Cardigan, I came down here in February last I saw the prisoner in a field sporting, he had a gun in his hand. I knew him to be the same man that bought the goods at my shop. I had a police officer with me and gave him in custody. Cross-examined by Mr. V. Williams :-I do a great deal of business. Prisoner was in my shop about half an hour. Witnesses Barnett and Chancy recalledPrisoner had mustachoes on when he returned. This was on the evening on which he left. He took the lodgings for ti,, ")' months at a guinea and a half per week. Prisoner had mustaehoes en all the time he was at our house. David Davies, Carmarthen :—I keep the Elephant pub- lic house in Queen-street, Carmarthen. I know the prisoner. I recollect him coming to my house on the 22d of January last. He slept at my house that night. He left at halt-past four en the following morning, the time the mail leaves for Swansea and Bristol. I had a conver- sation with prisoner. He said he was going to Swansea and Builth. I saw him afterwards on the 1st of 1 eb. on a Saturday, it was half-past 7 in the evening. It was after the Bristol mail comes in, which arrives at seven. He had nothing with him when he came but in half an hour afterwards, I saw a quantity of groceries with him & a loaf of sugar two or three fenders and a grid- iron. He said he had bought the articles very cheap. He wanted to have the coffee re-packed, as the bag had broken. I directed him to go to Mr. Needle's for another. He never returned to my house. Prisoner said he had been to Bi-istol. Cross-examined by Mr. E. V. Williams, but nothing particular was elicited. David Charles, examined by Mr. Richards :'I am occa- sionally the coachman of the Royal mail from Cardigan to Carmarthen. I drove the mail from Carmarthen to Car- digan on the 2d of February. I took the prisoner up at Carmarthen and put him down at Cardigan he had lug- gage with him, and something in a bag. Oliver LlOld, Esq., examined by Mr. Hall: I am the prosecutor in this case, and know the prisoner at the bar. I knew him some time before the robbery—he was resid- ing at a cottage on this side of St. Dogmeils he appeared to be in very indigent circumstances; I knew this from the appearance of the house and himse f. After the rob- bery there was a visible alteration of circumstances; his wife dressed in silk; and satin. About two months after the robbery he removed from the cottage. About six months after the robbery I perceived a change in his wife's dress. Cross-examined by Mr. V. Williams.—I have been a good deal from home lately myself. I have some mining speculations, and when at home I have extensive con- cerns to attend to. I stopped payment of the note im- mediately after It was stolen. This closed the case for the crown. Mr. V. Williams made a most able and ingenious de- fence on behalf of the prisoner, and the learned judge having summed up with great minuteness, the jury after a short consultation found the prisonei Guilty. The learned Judge in passing sentence, observed to the piisoner, that he had been found guilty of an offence of great enormity-property of great value had been stolen by him, and 'the cunning method he had used in dis- posing of it, proved him to be a person of great art. The greatest extent of punishment which, the law allowed would be given him (and he regretted the law did not give him power to inflict more.) The sentence of the Court was that he be transported beyond the seas for the term of seven years. Attornies for prosecution, Messrs. Lloyd and Davies, i .LN Ir. -N l. R. Jayne- I l a-er- Cardigan; for the prisoner, Mr. M. R. James, Haver- fordwest. A second court was opened in the Grand Jurv room at which Mr. Sergeant Jones presided. Edward Beattie, was arraigned for stealing a watch, and John Davies, for house-breaking; both prisoners were found Guilty. Beattie was sentence d to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour in the House of Correction at Cardigan for the space of six calendar months, and Davies for six months also. In the case of Lord Dunraven v. Malms, the great mining cause ttied at the last Glamorganshire Assizes, Mr. Grove now applied to his Lordship to certify for costs, although the damages were only a farthing. The application was resisted by Messrs. Chilton, Q. C. and V. Williams. His Lordship said that he would take time to consider whether he would certify or not. NISI PRIUS. I There were four case, set down on the trial paper, and the Court proceeded to take Jones v. Pullin and others.—Mr. Richards opened the pleadings, and Mr. V. Williams stated the case to thc jury. He regretted that the pressure of business at Haverfordwest prevented him from arriving in town until noon that day, and having since defended a prisoner, he had not been able to give that attention to his brief he could have wished. The plaintiff is a draper at Aberystwith, and the -defendants are spirit-merchants at Hereford. This was a question in the nature of a- feigned issue sent down by the Queen's Bench for the jury to try whether the goods were the goods of Jane Morgan or the plaintiffs. The learned counsel in detailing the circumstances of the case observed, that in the beginning of the present year, the widow Morgan, who kept the Horse and Jockey Inn, at Aberystwith,got into difficulties. She was at the time indebted to Mr. Jones, a maltster,and assigned over her goods to him. This arrangement soon got wind, and the rest of the creditors being much annoyed at it, considei- ing that they had as much right to the goods as Jones had; they therefore prevailed upon her to do away with the bargain with Jones, and to assign the property over to two trustees, for the benefit of the creditors generally in pursuance of this agreement an assignment was made, ,t sa'?e was d thegc)o d s oitl aiiiounted to the a sale was proclaimed, and the goods old amounted to the sum the appraiser- valued them at. The Her e& Jockey, where the widow lived, was a good public house, D. Jones took it, and kept the widow Morgan as his servant. The deed of assignment was put in and read it bore date .)th Match, 1845, and Mr. i-,divard Williams proved its execution by the parties, and deposed to his having posted a notice to the Messrs. Pullin, respecting such assignment. The widow Morgan corroborated the statement made by the learned counsel, and was sharply cross-examined by Mr. Chilton, Q.C. After her ie-examination by Mr. V. Williams, the Court rose at six o'clock, and adjourned until nine o'clock Monday morning. MONDAY. I His Lordship entered the Court precisely at 9 o'clock The case of Jones Y. Pullin and others was proccedi d with, and a number of witnes.-es were called to prove that the sate was a bona fide one, and that some of them had re-sold the goods they had purchased to the plaintiff. Mr. John Hughes, solicitor to the p!aintin, said that .N fr. John Hu,, h es, solicitur to the r),aintift''said thit Mrs. Morgan told him that David Joncs, the piaintitF, wished her to assign all her property to him. Mr. Hughes recommended an assignment of it to two trus- tees for the benefit of all the creditors. She agreed to act on this advice, and the deed of assignment was pr. pared aeccordingly. Sue named David J find & Edward Morgan trustees. The deed was an usual one. Mr. Hughe.- direc-cd letters to be written to all the creditors. None of the proceeds of the sale have yet been distributed because the book debts have not been got in. The com- mencement of this action stopped the distribution of the sale proceeds. The property was assigned on the 5th, and :o:joS was served on the 12th. On his cro?s- -xa.nination Mr. Huyhe. said that Mrs. Morgan had never mentioned th? names of Messrs. Pu.an to him. He thought David Joaes's debt amounted to £ 22. Edward Morgan, the other trustee, is in difficulties and insolvent. Re-examined :—I said that if she assigned the property to David Jones alone, it would be unfair to the other creditors. Edward Morgan was not insolvent at that time. This and other debts were the cause of his insol- vency. David Jones was selectt d because he lived directly opposite the Horse and Jockey. Messrs. Pullin live at Hereford, and the other creditors live at Liverpool and Shrewsbury. They therefore were not proper persons to select as trustees. Hugh Saunders, Sheriff's Officer:-I executed the wiits of Messrs. Pullin in the Horse and Jockey. I seized all [ could find and sold the things off. They realised £.:56. rhey were sold on the 25th of May and the follow- ing Monday. I examined the account and found it correct. I handed over the balance that was in my hands to the defendants, according to the Judge's order. The things sold on the second day fetched £ 2. We could not get purchasers for them on the first day. The ale was sold by private contract and realised £ 9. Mr. Chilton addressed the jury for the defendants, and characterised this as a wicked cause. His learned friend Mr. V. Williams had said that he believed it to be an honest case, but the jury were not to act upon Mr. W'a belief. He told them that it was one of the most knavish cases he ever remembered in a court of justice. He had better opportunities of judging than Mr. Williams had, bccall he had heard the evidence as well as read his brief. Mr. Williams had said that Mrs. David Jones was a very particular woman" but there was no evidence of that fact. The evidence was that Mrs. Jones did not like her husband to keep a public house, and what did he do then ? why" he went to fight under false colours and had another man's name put above the door. Mr. Williams had no ground for saying that she was a very particular woman." He (Mr. C.) might just as well say that she was very fond of beer, and then she would like her husband to keep a public house. There was this singular fact in the case which tended to show that fraud had been intended, because Mrs. Morgan never men- tioned the name of Messrs. Pullin, although she owed them £ 89, and although the money had been demanded before the assignment had been made. By that deed Mrs. Morgan stripped herself of everything, and David Jones had taken everything, but had never paid asingle shilling. The deed, again, had been signed by the trustees twice over, in order to swell out the names; once, in their capacity of trustees, and once as creditors. Thus all the creditors were represented in that deed by persons whose debts were under E20. I\lr. Chilton then proceeded to comment upon the absence of a creditor named John Jones, maltster, who he said could fully prove the plain- tiff's case. The day book containing copies of the letters sent to the creditors should also have been produced, and then it would be seen if Messrs. Pullin had been sent to. He asserted that they had never had notice of the assign- ment, and that it was altogether a fraudulent one. The conditions of the sale too, were singular. No creditor was to be allowed a set off for any purchase he made, nor were the goods purchased to be removed without the con- sent of the trustees. It was clear the whole thing was got up for the purpose of enabling the old woman to keep the goods together, & to enable her to carry on business and thus cheat her creditors. Why Mr. Hughes fixed upon Edward Morgan, the insolvent, he did not know, but he fixed on David Jones, because he lived just over the way," and could easily collect the book debts. Now he should like to ask what book debts a publican had ? Why did not the old woman's friends come forward to assist her to pay her debts instead of assisting her to chea t her creditors? Now instead of David Jones not keeping the public house because his wife was a "very particular woman" he had got John Hughes to take it and put his name over the door. When, therefore, Mrs. Jones came to learn this, she might be expected to turn round to him and say Oh, you base wretch, how dare you keep a public house under a false name ? How can I tell what else you keep under a false name ? How do I know that the servant whom you call Miss Jane Morgan is not Miss Prettyman in disguise." (Loud laughter.) It was a complete Caudle affair. And what a kind good soul Mr. D. Jones was. Why he takes every thing back when asked. One man had a good bargain, and vet he gives it up to Mr. David Jones. Another has a bad bargain, but good Mr. Jones takes it back. A third buys a bad baigain, and his wife gives him a curtain lecture and tells him "go back to that kind soul, Mr. David Jones, and he will take it back again." The house was clearly Mrs. Morgan's, and under all the circumstances there appeared to he no doubt the assignment was all a plan, and the auction was a mock auction. If these frauds were to be allowed to pre- vaii, it was impossible that honest tradesmen could gain a living. Two of the conditions of sale were that no ci editor should be allowed a set-off to his purchase, and that no person should remove any artides purchased without the consent of the trustees. Was it not clear, therefore, that it was all a planned thing that the old woman might be enabled to go on with the public house and set her creditors at defiance. There was no necessity for 'nlki ig about the good will of the house, because not onlv liad that gone, but the good old name of Jane Morgan, under which the house gained what good will it had, had been taken down, and that of John Hughes" substituted for it. By the bye the name of" John Hughes substituted for it. By the bye the na!neo. appeared to be almost universal at Aberystwith. ihp attorney, auctioneer, maltster, and publican were all named 'John Hughes. They had heard in sporting parlance of a cross, and he thought this action would prove one, and that it would turn out thftt on this occa- sion the Horse and Jockey had got on the wrong side of thp p, at. The learned Judge in summing up observed i that the question was whether it was a real, honest, and bOilafide assignment to trustees for the benefit of creditors. Hughes may have recommended the deed of assignment honestly enough, but had it been carried out as was intended, There should have been real purchases at the sale, and the money should have been properly divided. There was very little appearance of a bona fide sale, as the property was sold by the trustee to himself. Only 13s. fid. appeared to have been paid in money, and out of the £:)9. 13s. 3',d. which the goods should have realised, on'v that 13s. 6d. appeared to have been paid. The deed was to be signed within 28 days from the time of its being drawn up, and this would give very little oppor- tunity for the creditors wh ) resided at a distance to sign it.. He left it to the jury to say whether the goods right- fully be'ouged to David Jones or not. The jury retired for about twenty minutes, and on their return the foreman declared that their verdict was for the defendants. Attorney for the plaintiff, Messrs. John and Hugh Hughes, for defendants, Messrs. Hunhes and Roberts. John Doe all the several demises of Jenkins and Ivey v. Davies and others.—This was an action of ejectment which was tried before a Special Jury, consisting of the following gentlemen :—E. L1. Williams, Gwemant, John Hughes, Penpompren, T. R. P. Wagner, Manoreifed, T.- Hughes, J. Pringle, Newcastle, D. Davies, Cardigan, D. James, Alltllwyd, E. Lloyd, Ystrad, W. Harris, Mer- chant, and J. Evans, Morfagwyn, Esqrs. Messrs. V aug-han Williams and Richards appeared for the plaintiffs, and Messrs. Chilton, Q.C., Hall, and Wilson for the defendants. Mr. E. V. Williams addressed the jury for the plain- tiffs, and said that they were two persons in humble circumstances, Jenkins being a coker at Nantvglo iron-works, and Ivey being a glass-cutter in London. They claimed the property in right of their wives Mary and Maria, as co-heiresses of David Davies. The defendants were Samuel Davies, the tenant, and the several sub-lessees, who had no further interest than as tenants. The farm once belonged to Evan Davies, who died in 1760, having made a will by which he bequeathed it to his eldest son David. Evan had altogether 9 chil- dren, viz:—David, Esther, Mary, John, Caesar, Walter, Philip, Hannah, and Benjamin. David, the eldest son, married hhzabctn nugnes nut tract no children, lie tried in 1809, having made a will by which he gave Glandulas to his brother Caesar for life, and after his death to Csesar's son Caesar. The-n he gave it in tail to the pio- "o-env of Cæsar, if any; and if none to Walter, the fo urth on of Evaii Davies for life, and after that to Philip for his life. Then to his nephew Evan John, the only son of his sister Esther, for his life, and after his death to his nieces the daughters of Esther, Mary and Hannah. Afterwards to their issue, if any and if none, to the right heir. The plaintiffs said that they wj" re the right heirs in failure of the other limi- tations. David Davies died and the property went to Cæsar Davies; he died in November, 1818, and on his death, which took place at Ivotherhithe, Ctesar his son became entitled, and entered into possession. He was a joiner in London, and died on the 19th of I" ebruary, 1838, ivi t, liolit issue. At that time- Waiter and Philip were both dead, and the estate went to Evan John. On the 11th of October, 1842, he died and before his death, his sisters, Marv and Hannah had departed this life. All the limitations were therefore exhausted and the question then was who was the right heir?- That question the jury had to decide. The plaintifFs claimed from Walter, the fourth brother. John was dead without issue, Cifisar was dead and then came Waiter, as sons were preferred before daughters. Walter's two daughters Mary and Maria, were the wives of the two plaintiffs, and through them they claimed. The defendants said it was true that the plaintiffs would be entitled to claim as the represen- tatives of Walter, but his elder brother John left a daugh- ter through whom the defendants claimed. The plaintiffs replied True, John Davies left a daughter but she was illegitimate. If she was not legitimate then Walter's children was entitled to recover." He should call wit- nesses who would fully prove that John Davies's daughter was said in the family of John Davies to be illegitimate. He would also prove that Caesar Davies had said that she was illegitimate, and that would enable the plaintitfs to recover unless Mr. Chilton could prove her to be legi- timate. Mr. Chilton here admitted that the only question in the case was whether John Davies left a. legitimate daughter or not. Mr. Williams proceeded to put in documents, and call witnesses to prove the plaintiff's case, which they did most completely, as far as the statements of the plain- tiff's counsel went. Mr. Chilton then addressed the jury for the defend- ants, and contended that Elizabeth Stephens, the daughter of John Davies, was legitimate, as he should prove that Joan Davies was married to a person named Dillon, in St. James's Church, Bristol, iii 1701. lie should further prove that she had always been treated by Caesar Davies as his brother John's lawful daughter, and that he had left her flOO in his will. The property in 1838 went to Evan John, and he only having a life interest in it, wished to become the possessor in lee sim- ple, gave Elizabeth Stephens £ 8 )0 for the estate. He surely must have satisfied himself of her title to the re- version before he purchased it, and it was under his will the defendant claimed. A number of witnesses were called to prove defendant s case, and Mr. V. Williams having replied, his Lordship summed up, and the jury returned a verdict for the de- fendants. Attorney for the plaintiffs, Mr. Price, Abergavenny; Attorneys for defendants, Messrs. Lloyd and Davies, Cardigan. Doe on the demise of Morris v Ilorndge.—In this case a verdict was taken for the plaintiff by consent, subject to a reference. Morris v. Hon-irl.r;e.-Record withdrawn. This ended the business of the Assizes, and his Lord- ship left Cardigan en. route for 13recon on Tuesday. l

HOUSE OF LORDS, THURSDAY,…

HOUSE OF COMMONS, TULRSDAY,…

MISCELLANEOUS INTELLIGENCE.…

MR. WRAY'S REPRIMAND. I

LONDON GAZETTE.

WEEKLY CALENDAR. I

AGRICULTURE, MARKETS, &c.,

Advertising