The Welshman

CARMARTHEXSIIIUH SPRIXG ASSIZES. I (Concluded from our last. J I SPECIAL JURY CASE. I T/tomas v. Fredericks.— This was tried before the following special jurors \V. G. Hughes, Glancothy, J. B. Davies, Myrtle Hill, T. Lewis, Gilvach, J. T. Alcock, Mount Hill, W. P. Lewisl Velindre, H. Jones. Cynhordv, Henrv Lewis, Hendre, C. W. Neviil, Llanelly, W. 11. Shield, Llan- dawke, J. Rogers, St. Clears, D. Faivchild, Laugharne, T. Wood, do., Esqrs. Messrs. Chilton, Q. C. and Wilson appeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs. E. V. Williams and Came for the defendant. Mr. Wilson in opening the pleadings stated that Rees Goring Thomas was the plaintiff and Frederick Fredericks defendant. The declaration stated that on the 4th of January 1843, plaintiff agreed in writing to let to defendant a house at Llanon, and a field which he had lately occupied, and also to let the right of sporting over his grounds, and the Keeper's Lodge, for the sum of 152 10s. per annum. Defendant was to pay all taxes, and repair all the buildings except the roof thereof; he was also to pay the hired gamekeepers, ar.d for the damages done by the game to the crops of Mr. Thomas's tenants. The amount of the damages was to be ascertained by two persons, one to be chosen by each party, and an umpire to be chosen by them. The declaration further alleged that in consideration of plaintiff promising to perfect his agreement, the defendant promised to perfect his, and took possession of the premises accordingly. John Edwards, one of Mr. Tho- mas's tenants, had seven farms, and on these farms the game was preserved by Mr. Fredericks. The damage done to these farms by the game during the two years was estimated at £ 160 12s 6d. for the first year, and E183 7s. for the second year. Although the two years had elapsed and defendant had notice to appoint a referee, and although William Moodie was appointed referee on behalf of plaintiff, defendant had not appointed his referee according to the terms of his agreement, nei- ther had he given satisfaction for the damage done to the tenant's crops. After the damage had been done, and a reasonable time bad elapsed for the defendant to choose a party as referee, Moodie proceeded to ascertain the damage sustained, no referee being present for the defendant. To this declaration defendant had pleaded ten pleas. First that there had been no agreement. 2ndly that there had been no damage done. 3dly. That he had no no- tice of the damage. 4thly. That if he had notice, it was not within a reasonable time. 5thly. That he had not been requested to choose an indifferent person to value the damage. 6thly. That if he had been requested to choose an indifferent person he had not been requested within a reasonable time. 7thly. That notice of a re- feree being appointed by plaintiff had not been given him. Sthly. That if such notice had been g iven, it was not within a reasonable time. 9thly. That he had not been requested by Edwards to name a person to meet Moodie and, 10thly, that Moodie had not ascertained the amount of damage. Mr. Chilton proceeded to state the case to the jury. He appeared for Mr. Rees Goring Thomas, a magistrate for the county, and a gentleman of the highest respec- tability. Mr. Fredericks was a magistrate for Glamor- ganshire, and he was at a loss to conceive on what ground that gentleman resisted this claim. The agree- ment in question operated from Lady day 1843 to Lady day 184.5. Mr. Thomas had been living for some years in Llanon, and contrived to bring his estate in that neighbourhood into what was called a "fine head of game." He left Llanon to reside at Llysnewydd, leaving Mr. Edwards to superintend his estate. Mr. Edwards he regretted was too ill to attend that day. Mr. Fre- dericks wanted to sport over Mr. Thomas's territory, and so entered into the agreement. He thought that defendant had had his money's worth. His battues had been terrific, and he had killed an amazing quantity of game. Of course, it was necessary that this game in order to die with becoming decency should live well, and consequently the tenant's crops suffered. But Mr. Fredericks was to pay for anything incidental to the pre- servation of the game. It seemed, however, that though the defendant was a quick shot, he was not a good accountant, and that though the plaintiff had long tried to get him to book yet he could not do it. In August, 1844, the damage that had been done by the game was visible to every eye. Mr. Fredericks took Basset, Mr. Thomas's gamekeeper, into his service, and about that time Basset requested defendant to send one of his own keepers to see the damage that had been committed. After a time, however, defendant would not send any person to value the damage done, and so plaintiff had it valued. The valuer put the amount for the first year at £163, and for the second year at £180. Mr. Fredericks sent a man to look at the crops, and he said £40 was sufficient to cover the loss. Defendant had killed rabbits innumerable; in one year no less than 1000 had been sold by him, while three couples a week were sent to his house for family use. In fact, Mr. Fredericks must have lived upon rabbit and curry, although it was before the Duke of Norfolk's memorable saying. Even now plaintiff was, however, anxious to settle the case by arbitration, aud would do so if de- fendant was willing. Evidence to prove the plaintiffs case was then adduced. It consisted of a correspondence between Edwards, (the tenant), Mr. Jeffries, (Mr. Thomas's solicitor), and Mr. Fredericks, the latter having offered the sum of £40 as compensation for the damage done in 1843. It was proved that t he farm consisted of 300 acres including woodland, and that the value of the land was from £ 1. to £ 1. 5s. per acre. One witness swore that out of 14 acres of turnips, ten were destroyed by the game in some fields the corn had been eaten down level with the ground by the rabbits. Basset, the head keeper, proved that in one season he trapped and sold 1,000 rabbits, and that every week 3 couples were sent to Dyflryn, defendant's seat. Mr. V. Williams for the defendant argued that the declaration had been altogether misconceived. It ap- peared to insist upon an obligation under which the defendant assumed to have laid the plaintiff by reason of his having granted to him the right of sporting. That could only be done by deed, and in proof he cited the case of Bird and Higginson. It seemed to him that that objection was fatal to the whole declaration. There was another question, which was that it was not necessary to consider here whether the agreement that the sum to which the damages amounted should be as- sessed by arbitration. Could it not be settled elsewhere by the agreement. The declaration treated the a&ir as an arbitration or valuation not according to the teras of the agreement, because it was necessary to have two referees and an umpire. But the pleader had apparently made up his mind to get over this argument because the notice had been given, and Moodie was appointed to value. In consequence of plaintiff's neglecting to give notice of Moodie's appointment he should have given notice of all Moodie's sittings. There was no evidence to support the issues joined, and which were all pleaded in bar of the action. His Lordship said he should put it to the jury whe- ther notice had been given to the defendant to send a valuer at all then whether it was within a reasonable time as to Moodie then as to the amount of damages. There was no evidence on any other matters, and he should first take the jury's opinion on these points, and then decide how that opinion affected the different issues. Mr. V. Williams proceeded to address the jury for the defendant. He contended that it was clear Mr. R. G. Thomas was not the real plaintiff, and that he had no interest in the case at all. Edwards, the tenant, sent the letter claiming compensation. Then Mr Jeffries sent a letter stating that he was requested by Edwards to claim compensation. Yet in order to bring this action against the defendant, it must be brought within the scope of the agreement, and therefore It was brought in Mr. Thomas's name. But the case did not rest there. It appears that Mr. Thomas, as the landlord of Edwards, was bound, and had agreed with him to compensate him for all damage done by the game which was preserved on his farm. The consequence was, that whatever sum Edwards made out, as the amount of damage done by defendant, Mr. Thomas would have to pay Edwards the same. Mr. Thomas had, therefore, no interest in the action, because whether their verdict was for £ 1,000 or for one shilling, that sum would merely have to be paid by defendant to plaintiff, who again would hand it over to Edwards. From the facts of the case it appeared that up to April, 1843, the game was preserved for Mr. Thomas in like manner as it was afterwards for Mr. Fredericks. The same animals were therefore on the property when the term commenced, and it was not likely they would be more wanton if they knew they were to be shot by defendant, than they would be if they were to be shot by plaintiff. As soon, however, as it became known in the neighbourhood that Mr. Frede- ricks was to pay for all the damage done to Edwards's farm by the game, the neighbours said What a lucky fellow Edwards is to have all his crops paid for." And Edwards seemed to think so himself, for in August, 1843, long before a gun had been fired on the estate, he set about proving that damage had been done, and called in Williams and Davies to prove the value. lie (Mr. W.) could well imagine the scene that ensued on their proceeding to assess the damages. One would say to the other See here, the rabbits have eaten this." The other would say, "Look where the hares have been; put down so much." Go it Williams, squeeze the squire! Hit him again, he's got no friends." (Loud laughter.) This scene having been gone through to the infinite satisfaction of Edwards and his friends, the damage was set down at £ 163 for that year. But, continued the learned counsel, there is a physiological difficulty to be got over. The hares were not tall enough to reach the ears of corn, and it was therefore impossible that they had eaten them. (Laughter.) The solution of this difficulty had formed a mat- ter of great interest among his learned friends around that table, one of whom had suggested that some such plan was pursued as the one he now pro- duced. (Here Mr. Williams, amidst shouts of laughter from all parts of the court, held up a pen-and-ink sketch of an ear of corn with one hare upon another's back endeavouring to reach it.) This was the only plan he could imagine to be the one adopted, and one might fancy the hares saying to one another, Come lend us a back my good fellow." (Loud Laughter.) Mr. Chilton here jestingly observed, that if Mr. Williams produced such documents as the one he had just shown, there would be some danger of a reply on Abe part of the plaintiff. (Laughter.) Mr. Williams continued ext year the same ope- ration was performed, and the Squire had another squeeze. It was said that 1.000 rabbits had been sold in one year. Why, this was an actual benefit to the farm. How could the tenant complain if defendant sheared his farm of so many rabbits yearly. Why he was as beneficially employed as a rat-catcher would be. (Laughter.) But these hares and rabbits were extra- ordinary animals, and must have had good appetites. In short they must have been as the poet says "of most prodigious stomach; as hungry as the sea and could digest as much." (Laughter.) In 2 years it appeared there had been killed 100 pheasants, and 300 hares, and it was strange that after this slaughter sufficient were left to do damage to the amount of E243. If this principle were carried out, the estate, consisting of 2200 acres would fetch somewhere about £1900, as compensation for all the tenants. Thus the hares would cost between £3 and E I each. Now,nobody had a greater respect for Wales than he (Mr. W.) had, but with all his admiration of the country, he could not help saying that it was a country not over celebrated for its game preserves. Look at Norfolk, where many a day's shooting produced more killed" than a whole year on the Llanon Estate. And in Norfolk the game is preserved in earnest. There the vermin are exterminated as well as the poachers kept off, and the pheasants are fed upon expen- sive meat. If Mr. Edwards claimed E183 a year for the damage done on his farm, what would the tenants in Norfolk require. It could not be supposed that the Welsh breed of rabbits was of a more voracious dis- position than the English. Though by the bye, every one had heard of the celebrity of Welsh rabbits, yet these were more of a passive than an active sense—more to be eaten than to eat. (Laughter.) Yet even supposing the rabbits to be in reality more voracious, the large amount of damage charged against them was extraordinary. This, however, was not a trivial ques- tion, for if it was to be understood that Edwards succeeded in his enormous claim, there would be a capital crop of causes at the next Assizes, since all the Welsh farmers would immediately bring actions for the damage done to their farms by game. Mr. Williams proceeded to argue that notice of arbitration had not been given in reasonable time, and that the examination which took place in Sept. 181.5, into the damage done by game in 1843, was a mere farce. Hir lordship in summing up, left a number of ques- tions to the jury, which were answered as follows Whether the notices in 1813 and 1814 were given within a reasonable time after the damage was done.— The jury answered—" yes." Whether the defendant was requested to name an indifferent person to ascer- tain the damage done in 1843 and 1844. Answer Yes." Whether such requests were made within a reasonable time.—Answer Yes." What was the amount of damage in 1843 and 1844. Answer.—In 1843 the damage done by rabbits and game was £ 60; and in 1S44 Eli. Whether notice of the nomination of Moodies was given to defendant within a reasonable time.-Answer No." Attorney for plaintiff, Mr. Jeffries for defendant, Mr. Coke, Neath. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE AND I SEDUCTION. Oicens v. Williams, Clerk.-In this case Margaret Owens, of Lampeter, was the plaintiff, and the Rev. William Williams, defendant. The damages were laid at £1000. Messrs. V. Williams and Richards appeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs. Chilton, Q.C., and Wilson, for defendant. Mr. Richards opened the pleadings and said that in this case the plaintiff averred that in consideration of the defendant having promised to marry her she had remained unmarried, and that a reasonable time had elapsed to allow him to fulfil his promise. The defen- dant had pleaded that he did not make the promise. Mr. E. V. Williams addressed the jury for the plain- tiff, who he observed, was the daughter of a person in a humble but respectable station of life, being a farmer and master carrier, near Lampeter. The defendant was ,lan d xA lio lives with iiis a clergyman of the Church of England, who lives with his brother at Llanfair, near Lampeter, a distance of about 5 miles from the plaintiff's house. Plaintiff's mother died about five years ago, and since then the family had been superintended by her eldest sister, Mary Owens. The plaintiff had three sisters and two brothers, and as was not unusual in this part of the country with the children of even respectable families, two of the daughters were sent into service. When the plaintiff was 17 years of age, she went as a servant to Mr. Davies, a respectable tradesman, in Lampeter. She continued there two years, and then entered the service of Mr. Thomas, a surgeon, of Lampeter, where she con- tinued until 1843. She was then engaged by defen- dant's brother, and had the complete superintendence of his house, keeping the keys and managing the sales of farm produce. The establishment of defendant's brother consisted of himself, his brother, (the defendant) 2 female servants, and one male servant. The plaintiff, unfortunately for herself, was a girl of considerable per- sonal attractions, and was now 24 years of age, having consequently been 20 years old when her acquaintance with defendant commenced, he being then 27 years old. Soon after the plaintiff had entered the defendant's brother's service, who was also a clergyman, defendant commenced paying attentions to her. He was then only in deacon's orders not having been ordained long enough to entitle him to priest's orders. He paid plaintiff the attentions of a lover, and in the spring of 1844 she unfortunately became pregnant by him. Upon being made acquainted with this fact, defendant instead of being annoyed thereat, expressed great pleasure and delight. He said he would marry plaintiff but not at that time, as the circumstance of his marrying a girl who had been pregnant before marriage, might prove an impediment to his obtaining priest's orders. He proposed that she should take lodg- ings and stay in them until after her confinement, he undertaking to pay all the expenses. Shortly after he was made acquainted with plaintiff's condition he saw her sister Marv, and made her aware of the fact. She was of course extremely shocked at the intelligence, whereupon in order to alleviate her grief defendant told her that he and plaintiff were already married in the sight of God, and that what took place in the Church was a mere ceremony. If there was a doctrine in the world (observed the Learned Counsel) that had produced mischief it was that insidious doctrine which held that marriage was a mere form and that a mutual pledge was quite as good. In the whole history of seductions or departures from chastity no doctrine was so frequently dangerous or so often effectual for the purpose of inducing females to forsake their chastity, as the doctrine to which he had alluded. Could it be won- dered at that such insidious language, addressed to her by a clergyman, had the effect of causing her virtue to fail against such powerful temptation. On the 5th of Oct. 1844, therefore, she was brought to bed of a male ille- gitimate child at her father's house. On that occasion defendant was remarkably kind and attentive, and ap- peared to have taken as much pleasure in the birth of the child as if it had been born in the bonds of wed- lock. He expressed great love and tenderness to plain- tiff, and brought her a number of Welsh verses, of which he (Mr. Williams) produced the following copy — Margaret anwyl, paid gofidio, Daw amser gwell na hvna. etto, Pan y byddot ti a minnau, "in eithaysgafn ein calonau. Llawcr gwaith bu'm yn gofidio, Ac yn dwysedd ocheneidio, Am i mi fod yn ofieryn, I'th ofidio di, fy narling. 'R unig daliad 'rwyn fwriadu, F' anwyl gariad roddi i chwi, I'wch d'vddanu a'ch cysuro. Wedi roddi 'nghyd ein dwylo. Llawer noswaith methais gvsgu, Hanner f amser, f anwyl Begqi, Waith fy mod yn drwm fy nghalon, With feddwl am dy fawr wasgfeuon. Pawb sy'n peri i ti flinder, Gofid meddwl a gorthrymder Mi ddymunwn i'r rhai hynny, Yw mynwesau gacl ei talu. Pawb sy'n gas i ti, f' anwylyd, Mae'n ei arcs etto flinfyd, Gwae, gorthrymder, a hir dristwch, Ynghyd a dirfawr edifeirweh. Pawb sydd yn dy fwyn gysuro, Mi ddymnnwn hawddfyd iddo, A hyfrydwch a phleserau Mi ochr hyn a thraw i angau. F' unig bleser i rwyn gwirio, Uwch law pob beth yw'th gysuro Gan hynnv cwyd i fyrm'th galon, A bydd etto'n llawen ddigon. Marg'red, Marg'red, Marg'red, Marg'red, Ynof fi y gwnest ymddiried, Ymddirieda ronin etto, Nid hir iawn rhaid it' ofidio. Wi th ddibeni mi ofvna, I ti ycll'ydig gwestiwn yma, A wnlietli achos i ti, Mewn un graddau beidio a'i gredu ? Os na ddo Marg'ret, paid gofidio, Na gwrando a'r ffol eiriau etto Ond ysgornia bob dywediadau, Gan ci eyfrif yn gelwyddau. The following is a free translation of the above :— Dearest Margaret, be not grieved, better times than these will come again, when you and myself shall be quite light-hearted. Many times have I sorrowed and groaned heavily, be- cause I had been the instrument to grieve you, my darling. The only recompence I intend my dear love to give you, is to comfort and cherish you after having united our hands. Many a night have I failed to sleep half my time, my dear Peggy, because I was heavy hearted by thinking of thy great anguish. All who cause thee any pain, distress of mind and grief, my wish is that they be paid in their own minds. For all who behave unkindly to thee, my dear, yet remains misfortune, woe, anguish, and long sorrow, with very great repentance. All who warmly comfort thee, I would wish prosperity to, and jovs and pleasures this side and after death. My only pleasure, I protest above everything, is to comfort thee therefore, raise up thy heart and be again full merry. I Marg'ret. Marg'ret, Marg'ret, Marg'ret, in me thou hast put thy trust; trust again for a while; thou shall not very long grieve. In conclusion, I will ask thee this little question:— Has thy William given thee any cause in any degree not to believe him. If he has not, Margaret, do not grieve nor listen again to foolish words, but condemn reports by treating them as untruths. The Learned Counsel continued by observing that he had told the jury that the plaintiff was a young woman of considerable personal attractions she was also a person of good abilities, but they were not sufficiently cultivated to make her suitable for clergyman's wife. It was therefore arranged that she should go to school at Aberystwith and in order to correspond with her without the knowledge of her school-mistress's it was agreed that he should write to her as her cousin, although she was in point of fact no relation whatever. fle then wrote to her the folloiving letter My dear Cousin,—Nothing but the sight of you and talking to you face to face can be a greater pleasure and amusement to me than writing to you. It is very pleasing to me that I am able to make it known to you that all your relatives arc in health, especially your most dear love Thomas James Williams. It will not be long before I will come to pay you a visit. All your friends are well; those who are in this neigh- bourhood make much enquiry about you, and also desire to be remembered to you a thousand times. All who speak to me about you give you extraordinary praise by commending you more and more, and stating many good qualities you possess, while I listen to them (and with reason,) greatly delighted to hear my relatives praised particularly you my dearest cousin, Margaret. I can never make known half my affection towards you were I to write a year, I and your sweetheart intend shortly to pay a visit to you, I would have come already had it not been for a particular reason which I will make known to you when I come to Aberystwith to see you, but possibly you know, or at least suspect what the reason is that I have not come before this. Indeed my dear Margaret it is mv inability to come. There is no necessity that you should fear or grieve for anything were there anything, yes the least thing to occur I would make it known to you immediately, if that your mind may be at rest. Dear Cousin, neither evil nor good shall happen to my knowledge, which shall not be known to you. I do hope for the sake of your dear lover that you do not make any acquaintance in the way of love with any one, because that would be the perfect breaking of the heart of your dearest. He had drank rather too much some night lately, and this is what he said—Oh my dearest little Margaret I will do everything which you may ask me. Put something about my head; no body but you shall put it, my dearest, I will never go there again. My most dear Cousin, I do not flatter you in the least particular, buttell the truth honestly and conscientiously; were I in the habit of uttering deceitful words, and to flatter sometimes by writing, I could never have the heart to do that by writing to you of all people in the world. You know yourself that no body has to know my whole mind except you. Be quiet where you are when you wish to come home to pay a visit, I will bring a chaise to fetch you. I remain, my dearest Cousin, Your most affectionate, for ever; W." I am sure to come to Aberystwith one of these first days, and stay with you until you have had near enough of my society. January 1, 184-5, It would be seen (continued Mr. Williams) that in the course of his letters he frequently alluded to Thomas James Williams." This was the child, who had been christened by his name at his urgent request. The child of course had been left behind upon her proceed- ing to school. The second letter was as follows January 13th, 184-5. My dear Cousin,—Words cannot explain my grief in consequence of my not answering your kind and affec- tionate letters before now, but my dear, I hope you will believe it was not my fault in the least, yet I am ex- tremely sorry you were kept so loug in suspense, my dear Margaret, nothing can be more vexing or trouble- some to me than hearing you are troubled, I sincerely hope and trust these letters will release you from all your troubles. I have written my first letter this thirteen days ago, but I did not know your direction or else I would have written to you this long time. It was yesterday, (that is last Sunday, the Pith of this month,) the day you hoped to hear from me I received your two letters. The little widow gave them to me when I was coining home from Llancrwys, then you see my dear it was not my fauit. I began to write this as soon as I came home. It was the little widow's fault altogether, and no one else, she has been very unkind, she has had your last letter on Friday last, your brother Thomas has taken it up to her, he (your brother) has taken great trouble to come so far, but the little widow saw it too far to come so far as our house, but as for the other letter it is with her long before that; a little sly and unkind woman she is, I shall never trust a pennyworth to her from this time forth; you and I would do much more than that for her, but T will remember her again, she may depend upon it. I told her I was very angry with her, you would not, 1 said to her, have been more than half an hour from home. Then she said, making a little tone, I could not have come from Mary fach, she is so unwell she said, or else I would do much more than that for the sake of you both, but the truth is she might have found some way to send your letters down if she did try, but she did not. Dai Joseph was mariied last Saturday, his father did not go to his marriage, nor William his brother neither Jack Josy, (Betty Josy's father) died last Saturday night from the cholic. Now I must soon conclude my dear, I am exceedingly happy and proud to tell you the dear little darling Tom is very well, and possesses exceeding good health, he will come to see you soon. I am coining to Aberystwith next week, unless something very particular will happen; but I shall write to you before that again, I hope you are well, comfortable, and contented; I am in good health. I have sealed my other letter before I wrote this, and would have sent it to you if I knew your address excuse it for being a Welsh one. All your friends are well. Believe me, my dear, Yours for ever, W." Another letter was to the following effect:- January 21st, 184-5. J My most affectionate Cousin,-With feelings of gra- titude and pleasure, I heartily embrace this pleasing opportunity of writing to you, and informing you that I am at present in good health, and sincerely hope you are the same, all your relations and friends possess good health I have had last week a little pain in my eye and left side, but I am happy to say I am quite recovered. Mr. Lloyd, (the Bettws') eyes are very bad, little Mary the little widow's daughter is gradually getting worse every day, I do not believe she will live long, yet she may certainly, but every sign tells me she will not everything about here is much the same. David Shinkin and little Mary have quarrelled; Thomas Shinkin is still after Peggy-y-felin, he runs little Betty down shockingly Twm Salw, and Nani are courting in style, now you know who I mean (I should have said Nanny Sly); Hannah the daughter of Llanfair, is courting with some man from Llanddewi, perhaps you know him, he is the son of some poor man of that village, he has been for some past time in America, he came back lately, and Lady Walter was courtiug him at Oblin fair, and people say he has been with her some nights after the fair the whole night at Llanfair, and I do not wonder if he has been, the little girl must have some one, and most of the Cornish have left, and I believe she has no sweetheart now except some one like that stranger that comes for a turn and off, and she you know has been used to court so many at a time, no wonder if she is willing to court with some kind of one; but I shall not waste your time, nor trouble you to read more of such nonsense. I am exceedingly sorry I could not come to Aberystwith to see you as I have promised, but I trust you will believe and forgive me my dear cousin, when I tell you that it was impossible for me to come, I had most particular businesses to attend to that could not be omitted, that could not be left undone even for a day. There was a funeral at Llangybi and Llanfair, on the same day; now, my dear, I know you will pardon me for not coming to see you before this, when I shall see you, and have the pleasure to talk to you face to facc, then I shall let you know every particular thing, and I faithfully promise to you that I shall come soà;, yes my most affectionate cousin I M?t?y attest that I shall so surely come as I am alive if I shall have health and strength, and I assure you nothing can give me half as much pleasure as coming to see you, as I really believe that I have more love and regard to you than all my cousins, though I love the rest of my cousins as well as any man does there is no one in the whole world that I would do more for than yourself. I hope I have said enough about my sincerity towards you. The old boy and myself are coming to Aberystwith soon to measure his work, we expect to hear from his work- men every day that is one reason why I have not come up before now, but that is not the most. I shall tell you the other reasons when I shall next see you and talk with you. I cannot possibly conclude without saying that your dear love Tom James Williams, Esq., is doing well, he is getting fat and begins to grow red, I suppose lie drinks hard, you will not be able to know him when you'll see him next, he becomes a big old gentleman like his papa. I shall write you a long letter soon again. Believe me to remain, Your ever affectionate Cousin, W." Mr. Williams here observed that it would probably strike the jury that it was not only degrading to the de- fendant to have written such a letter as that, but it was also to a certain extent degrading to plaintiff in having received it. It was not, however, for defendant to reproach her with that. If she was degraded, it did not become the mouth of him, a clergyman of the Church of Eng- land, to utter a reproach against her. It would be re- marked, that notwithstanding the affectionate tone used in these letters, they ended in promises. Defendant did not come to Aberystwith. Plaintiff then began to feel anxious, and in her solicitude about the absence of her betrothed husband, she actually set off on foot, and walked 26 miles in the middle of February to the spot where she expected to find him. On her return to her father's house she received the following letters February 1st, 184-5. Dear Margaret,—Endeavour to send two or three lines to me to-day if you can without occasioning very much inconvenience to yourself so that I may know what time you intend going back to Aberystwith. I will be sure to come there myself shortly, my dearest, do not return while the present weather lasis, were it not that people would make all the noise and babbling in con- sequence, I would come with you every step. Beware dear, that you do not walk back as you did home. If the money you have should be too little to pay for your carriage back, ask the loan of so much of one of your sisters, I will repay them the first opportunity I have. I entreat you not to be so foolish as to walk so far again. Dear Margaret, let me know also whether you heard from your cousin who is in Aberystwith, and whether she had those things you wrote for. If your cousin has not received them, send information to me by the first opportunity you get, so that I may be able to inquire about them. There are no thanks to them to give information about them, if the man of Tregaron has posted them at Lampeter, the post master at Lampeter is bound to account for it. Before I conclude my dear, I must sincerely beg of you to let me know how is dear little Tom, is he doing well, my best respects to all your relations without naming any of them. Accept my best love yourself. Believe me, as ever, Your affectionate, William." Dear Margaret, do not shew this to any body I beg of thee. February 3d, 1845. My dear Margaret,—I intended paying the little widow for taking a letter down to you last Monday, and I would have sent it also had I not failed to see her ei-lier by going or returning from Llancrwys. I would have called upon her had not Mary of Lwestybedw, and several others with her been at the side of the door as I passed; I disliked going in while such an old jade as that was looking at me. I saw the little widow on Saturday evening, she said she would take a letter to you purposely on Monday, I said I would be much obliged to her for doing so, but that I intended coming down myself in the beginning of the week. The old boy talked of going home at that time. Lord Lisburne had written to him that he wanted to see him, but he failed to go because he was obliged to go to the mill. I said to the little widow on Saturday that I should like to see her on Sunday; I was walking very slowly on going, and coughing also as loud as I could, to see whether I could in any manner make her hear. The little widow said that she was glad that you went home when you did, because Margaret went ill that night; I think to send this down to morrow. I will pay the little widow for taking it that it may not be necessary that you should pay. I do hope with feelings of love that you are well, and that dear Tom is also well in like manner as I am. I will come to see you as soon as I have an opportunity. Dear Margaret, do not fret for anything, everything will yet come right before long. It is quite as vexatious to me that I am unable to give a turn to see you as it is to you, be that as much as it may. Remember me a thousand times to each one of your friends without naming any one, and receive my best love. I am, yours, William." February 8th, 1845. My dear Margaret,—I am very sorry to hear that you have been unwell, but with feelings of tender love, I heartily hope you have recovered from your illness and are quite as well as ever. My dear I did not receive your kind and affectionate letter till to-day, that is Saturday. John Blaenpant gave it to me this morning, about eleven o'clock I hope you will go back as soon as you can, I beg of you to go for your own sake, do not mind my love what people do say and talk you know well enough but that people cannot but say this way to day and another way to morrow, therefore I trust you will scorn what they say, and believe what I say as I do what you say. I intend to be at Aberystwith on Monday next, or Monday week, I shall go without fail if you will go back before that, but unless you will not go back, I shall not go. I could not have come down yesterday, that is the Saint Silen fair day, because I was obliged to go to Llancrwys, or else I would have come down. I am very sorry I could not come, but if I knew you were unwell, nothing could have prevented my coming; excuse my bad writing in great haste, hoping you and Tom are well. I remain, Yours sincerely, for ever, Wm. Williams." It was impossible to doubt (continued the learned coun- sel) that up to the close of that correspondence, defend- ant entertained a strong affection for the plaintiff and had fully resolved to keep his promise and marry her. On the 8th of March, 1845, however, the child to whom he alludes in his letters, and of whom he appears to have been passionately fond, became ill and died. On that occasion defendant professed to be so much attached to the child that he insisted upon writing and actually did write the inscription for the coffin plate. He wished the family to go into mourning, and in short, if he had been the legitimate father of the child he could not possibly express more affection or grief. Shortly after- wards, however, he discontinued his visits at plaintiff's father's house and went to Llanfair where he shut him- self up from every one. For what reason this singular conduct was pursued was unintelligible. Whether he had got into the hands of parties who told him that since the child was dead there could be no chance of its being affiliated to him, and that therefore he had better discontinue the connexion, was not known. This affair was a singular instance of the danger of the doctrine to which he had before alluded; that of saying that a marriage in the sight of God was as good as in the Church. When once a couple are legally married and know that the step they have taken is for better or for worse, they may be perhaps disappointed in each other's temper, their hopes might have been too richly gilded, but they would reflect upon their relative situations and feel the tie imposed upon them. That which had begun in ardent love would probably then end in warm affection and mutual respect. But when a man who has pledged his love as it is technically called in the sight of God" wishes to be absolved from his vow, the devils puts into his head numerous incentives to induce him to forego his promise, and to break the volun- tary bonds by which he had been bound. These were the short facts of the case, and he was at a loss to know what defence would be set up. The only question for the jury to decide would be the amount of damages to be awarded. He was not there to ask them to pass a censure upon the conduct of the defendant. He had no right nor had the plaintiff any right or wish to punish the defendant. That was left for another tribunal. All he asked was that they would consider the misery that plaintiff had already sustained through the defendant's conduct, aid the miserable recollections that would attend her through life. No money could compensate her for these sufferings; but this might be done. By their verdict the jury might give a fund to provide her with a future livelihood so as to prevent her remaining a burden on her family throughout her life. The fair test was this :-what was the difference between the condition of the plaintiff now, and what it would have been if defendant had kept his promise ? She would, under the latter hypothesis, have been the wife of a Clergyman of the Church of England, and as it might reasonably be supposed the lightness of his early days would pass away and vanish with the light-heartedne"4 of youth, and then (although his letters were not exactly such as could be expected from a deacon) he would have probably succeeded in his profession, and there would be no reason to doubt but that he would become a beneficed clergyman. She would then rank with the ladies of the land, and be altogether in one of the most enviable stations of life that it ever fell to the lot of woman to possess. What was now her position ? She had gone back to her father's house a disgraced woman. It was known that she had had an illegitimate child, for the fact of her having been pregnant by a Clergy- man must get noised abroad, and she must therefore remain in her father's house a wretched and disgraced woman. The only compensation to be had was in their finding such a verdict as would be an alleviation of some of the miseries she had undergone. The following witnesses were then called :— Mary Owens, sister to plaintiff, I live with my father at Troedyrhiw, near Lampeter. He is a farmer and master carrier. The family consists of ten, there are 4 daughters. There was not sufficient employment for us at home, and plaintiff and another sister went to ser- vice. I remained at home. My sister, the plaintiff, remained at Mr. Samuel Davies's two years. She then went into service with Dr. Thomas, and remained there three years. That was in 1843. She then went to Llanfair, to the brother of defendant, the Rev Morgan Williams. That is about 4 or 5 miles from my father's house. She entered Mr. Williams's service as house- maid, having another servant under her. There were also other servants. Defendant is a clergyman, of the Church of England. He lived with his brother, who is also a clergyman. My sister had the sole management of the house and establishment. She used to dispose of the farm produce, and account for it to Mr. Morgan Williams. I do not know where my sister slept. Defen- dant was in the habit of visiting my father's house frequently. I remember in Aug. 1844. defendant came to Lampeter clerical meeting. He passed by my father's house, and requested me to accompany him to the Church, and I did so. On our way, we had a conver- sation respecting my sister. He had hinted some time before that he was paying his addresses to plaintiff, but it was on this occasion he told me so. He said that he had taken a fancy to my sister the first night he saw her, and if he ever had a wife she was the person that would be his wife. I said I did not know how that might be. Defendant said it would be so. I told him not to make a fool of my sister. He said that it would not be making a fool of my sister but of himself, and that he was coming along the road with me, but his heart was along with plaintiff. He said that two women told his fortune, and the instant he saw my sister coming into the parlour, he knew her at once to be the wife they had told him of. I desired him to hold his tongue. He said that I was not to say anything against his courting my sister, since if he should take a wife my sister would be the woman. On the Saturday following, he came again to my father's house, and gave a shilling to my youngest sister to go and buy some wire for a cap. My sister fetched the wire. He then wished me to accompany him on the road home. On the way he was talking about my sister the whole time. I asked him why my sister sent him to get the wire. He said there was no person fitter to get it than he was, because if he took a wife my sister should be the person. He said he was in haste to go home to my sister, because he was in love with her, and could not bear to be away from her. He said he would come down in the course of a week again. I told him not to ruin my sister, otherwise she should never come back to my father's house. He said he would not ruin her, as she was his wife. In about a week's time I saw him on his way from Llandewy where he had been preaching. I had a conversation with him in the parlour. He came in when we were all in the parlour. He said nothing when others were in the parlour, but when they were all gone but one, he began crying, and asked me not to be against my having his sister. He then said that she was his wife. He said he only wanted half a year's time, and he would marry her if the earth was to open about him. I asked him if he had been preaching on Sunday and he said he had. I asked him the text. He said that after my sister had had something to say to him, he had been more enlightened to preach. I asked him if he had read the ten commandments. He said he had. I told him he had broken the greatest of them. He said he had not, and added that a marriage of persons was in the sight of men, but his marriage was in the sight of God. He said it was hell upon earth if he was not telling the truth, and that he should be struck like Lot's wife into a column of salt. He said the reason he did not marry then was because he expected to have Llandewy lhing. He said that a Church marriage was nothing at all, but that he had no right to say so being a clergyman. That night he told me my sister was in the family way. He said that if he should have Llandewy Church, he would take Voilallt for him and my sister to live in. He said he would not wait longer than six months, whether he had the second ordination or not. Defendant asked me if Margaret should come back to her father's house. I said I knew father would not permit her to come there till they were married. He then said if she should not be allowed he was perfectly ready to marry her then, but that she saw the reason for not marrying as well as he did, but that if she should not come down he would marry im- mediately whether he had the church or not. About a week after defendant asked me if I had asked per- mission for Margaret to return to my father's house. I said I was afraid. Defendant said he was willing to take a room at Aberystwith, at his aunt's house, but Margaret had refused to go there. I saw my sister shortly after this. She appeared in the family way. This was at Llanfair. I saw defendant a week after- wards at my father's house. He commenced crying, and saying Margaret would not go anywhere but to her father's house. I went to fetch my sister home. De- fendant followed me to the widow's house and home. My brother went to fetch her clothes, from thence and got some of them, but defendant kept some, saying he would keep them until they married. Defendant came twice a week to my father's. On one occasion he said he was going to Aberystwith to buy some wedding clothes. He told me not to grudge any- thing for Margaret's confinement, that he would pay every expense, and that she was to send for a doctor if she was ill. The child was born on the 25th of Oct., 1814. Defendant came to the bedroom to see my sister. I was present, and he began crying and asking why he had not been sent for when she was taken ill. He said to Margaret that she must be good-hearted, and he.would marry her as soon as she got well. He returned and repeated the same words. Some time after my sister went to Aberystwith to school. Defendant sent another sister of mine to agree for her place at Aberystwith. Mr. Chilton After this evidence I can't dispute the promise of marriage. Re-examined The child died. Defendant wished us to go into mourning for it. I saw the inscription on the coffin. Defendant wrote it. It was Thomas James Williams." I remember defendant bringing some Welsh verses with him, which he read to my sister and me. He left them with my sister. Cross-examined I cannot read. My sister could not at that time and that was the reason she was sent to school at Aberystwith. My sister is 25 years old now. She was 23 then. Defendant is about a year older. The place where I live is 22 miles from here. I have no relations in this town. Daniel Jones I am a postman living between Lam- peter and Tregaron, and was so in January, 184-5. In the course of passed near the house of defen- dant. He gaTOPfae two letters. Both of them were directed in-the same way as the one produced. Before I put them in the post I made a remark to the post- master. I put them in the post. This bears the Lam- peter post mark, and is directed to Miss Margaret Owens. John Havard Jones :—I am clerk to Mr. Simons, attorney for plaintiff. I saw Mr. Williams, defendant, at the time. I served him with a notice to produce. I had these papers (producing defendant's letters) with me, and asked him if they were in his handwriting. He said they were of no use as they did not bear his signature. I said you can't deny them because your signature is to them. I took the letters out of my pocket and said that they were the letters plaintiff had given me, and they bore his signature. He laughed and said they were. He saw the letters. I put my initials to them on my return. There were four letters and an envelope that I showed him. He said that he did not think he had put his name to them as he had been told by persons who had seen them with plaintiff that his name was not signed to them. Mr. V. Williams after some discussion said that he should not press this evidence. His Lordship thought Mr. Williams exercised a sound discretion. The evidence as to the handwriting would not help the case at all. Mr. Chilton for defendant assured the jury that he never rose with feelings of greater anxiety and pain or with a more awful sense of his own responsibility than at that moment. He then proceeded to argue at great length and with much astuteness that the defendant had not a farthing in the world, and, that he was merely in deacon's orders. There had been but one witness, the plaintiff's sister. He should take no advantage of that, neither should he call upon the jury to disbelieve her. God forbid that he should add misery to a family that had already suffered too much. If the Rev. William Williams called on him to ask the jury to disbelieve the sister of the girl by whom he had had a child he would tell him that he came to the wrong man. Mr. Chilton then proceeded to admit the promise and its breach, but he contended that the plaintiff had lost nothing by not having been married to a parson who was always crying. She was by no means a young woman of great abilities, being neither able to read nor write, and not at all fitted for the wife of a clergyman. He implored the jury no to give an outrageous verdict, which would encouragel speculations in actions of this kind. After some further observations in mitigation of damages, Mr. Chilton contended that if the jury -gave a large amount of damages they would irrevocably ruin defendant's pros- pects in life, and immure him in a gaol for an unlimited period, since he had no means from which to pay even the costs of this suit. He hoped it was not too great a liberty to ask the jury to look back at their younger days. Had none of them ever met an alluring but illiterate girl, and had not they sometimes forgotten their duty to God and their neighbour. If all were free from recollections of this description, let him that was without sin cast the first stone, but even then he prayed them to temper jus- tice with mercy. His Lordship summed up at considerable length, di- recting the attention of the jury to the principal points of the case, and requesting them, in calculating the amount of compensation to be awarded, to take into consideration the plaintiff's situation in life. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, damages ONE HUNDRED POUNDS. r Attorney for plaintiff, Mr. W. Simons for defendant, lifes,Tm. -Morman and Evans. Pendry v. Jones, Esq.—This was an action of trover, tried before a Special Jury of the Borough of Carmar- then. Messrs. Chilton and V. Williams appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wilson for the defendant. It ap- peared that the plaintiff, Elizabeth Pendry, was a young woman managing a farm on her own account, and her goods were improperly (as she alleged) seized by the sheriff, D. Jones, Esq., who was not the real defendant, that party being Mr. James Thomas, Solicitor, Llandilo. The plaintiff is the daughter of David Pendry, who ap- plied to Mr. James Thomas for the loan of some money on a bill of sale of his goods. Mr. Thomas declined on the ground that the goods were not worth the amount he required. The goods were then about to be sold, and David Pendry would have been ruined, when his daughter, the plaintiff, who was entitled to an undivided moiety of property under her grandmother's will, mort- gaged it and purchased her father's goods. She then took the farm herself, and continued in the manage- ment of it until the Sheriff seized goods for Mr. Thomas, to the amount of £88. 3s. 8d. For the defence it was contended that the sale of the goods to the daughter was merely a colourable transac- tion, and that at the time they were seized they were in reality the old man's property. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages E88. This ended the business of the Assizes, and on Saturday his Lordship took his departure for Brecon.