THE CHARGE OF MURDER AT WREXHAM.|1865-03-25|The North Wales Chronicle and Advertiser for the Principality - Welsh Newspapers Online
Hide Articles List

3 articles on this Page



THE CHARGE OF MURDER AT WREXHAM. Joseph Hughe*, 36, labourer, was arraigned on a charge of having, on the 10th of January, 1865, felon- iously killed and murdered one William Kendrick. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Melntyre prosecuted, and Mr. Swetenham de. fended. The learned counsel for the prosecution said Gentle- men of the jury,—The prisoner Joseph Hughes stands charged before you to-day with the wilful murder of William Keudrick. I think it will pretty clearly ap- pear from the evidence that the prisoner at the bar caused the death of Wm. Kendrick. Mr. McIntyre then briefly stated the case in accordance with the evi- dence hereinafter inserted. In conclusion, he said- It may be said this case .mly amounts to manslaughter; upon that point you will be directed by my lord; and having heard the depositions of the deceased, it will be for you to say whether the prisoner is guilty or not guilty of murder. George Price was the first witness sworn. He de- posed-I am a baker living at Wrexham. I knew Wm. Kendrick who is now dead. lie was 21 years of age. I was standing with him in Bridge-street in Wrexham on the night of the 10th of January, near Mr. Parry's shop, exactly half-past 10 within a minute. Prisoner came up close to us. He spoke to me and asked where he could get lodgings. I told him in Brook-street. He repliecl-lie knew that as well as I did. I said—"you have had your answer, why don't you go on." He was very saucy to me then. Kendrick then said—when you get a civil answer why don't you go on. He turned round to Kendrick and asked who he was. Ken- drick said he knew who the prisoner was, and if he did not go on he should make him. Prisoner then lifted up his arm aud begau squaring. Kendrick lifted up his in self-defence. They got into the middle of the street about 10 yards from where I stood. Prisoner gave him a blow on the left side of the head. Prisoner ran away: Kendrick called out to me saying he was stabbed. I took him to the King's Head. Prisoner was taken into custody that night and brought to the King's Head. Cross-examined by Mr. Swetenham—Prisoner lifted his hand to strike me first. 1 got out of the way. It was moon-light. I did not see anything in prisoner's hand when he lifted it to strike me. He spoke to me first. I perceived he was a little in drink. The lodg- ings at 13rouk-side are common lodgings. Prisoner seemed angry because I directed him there. He was very saucy to me about two minutes before Kendrick spoke to him. The blow he aimed at Kendrick struck him. Kendrick then aimed a blow at the prisoner. I cannot say whether the blow struck the prisoner. I will not undertake to say that no more blows took place between the two. I never saw the prisoner before that night. He-examined by Mr. McIntyre-I did not see more than one blow given by the prisoner. I saw many at- tempts by both parties. By the JUDGU— Kendrick was a small man. I had known Kendrick for ninc months. He was not a par- ticularly quarrelsome man. I did Dltt know of him get- ting iuto any trouble for fighting. Thomas Pugh stated—I am a police-constable sta- tioned at Wrexham. I apprehended prisoner on the 10th of January at the Swan Inn, Penybryn, about 300 or 400 yards from Bridge-street. I made a charge of stabbing Wm. Kendrick. He aaid he knew nothing about it. 1 took him to the King's Head to Wm. Ken- drick, who said the prisoner was the man who stabbed him. I searched the prisoner and found a knife in his left trousers pocket. I produce the knife, the point of which is bent. There was blood on the blade, on the prisoner's hands, and on his trousers. I examined the trousers next morning and there were signs of the blood having been washed away, but it was still there. Cross-examined—I never saw prisoner before that night. Dr. Edward Davies—I was called to Wm. Kendrick at the King's Head, on the] Oth of January last. I found him bleeding from an incised wound on the left 1 side of the head near the ear. It was about 2 inches long. I probed it, and it was J in. in depth. I visited deceased on three occasions, and saw him at the surgery once. My brother principally attended him. De- ceased died on the 11th of February. Made a post mortem examination and found that the wound had not healed, and in passing up a probe I found the wound had communicated to the brain. It passed through the articulation of the jaw and through the membrane, to the brain itself. Ou removing the skull I found the brain and its membranes very mueh congested, and on the base there was a large effusion of matter resulting from inflammation of the brain-that causing compres- sion of the brain which was the immediate cause of death. Such a knife as this would inflict the wound. Cross-examined—Wm. Kendrick lived about a ca- lendar month and a day after the wound was inflicted. I believe he walked to the surgery about 14 days after the injury. When I first saw him I did not suppose the brain was injured. If I was of opinion that the brain had been injured perhaps I should have directed him (but not necessarily) to abstain from intoxicating liquors. Deceased's father died of consumption. There was no positive evidence that deceased had a scrofulous tendency. Re-examined--The wound was the sole cause of death. Dr. John Davies (brother of last witness)—I attended deceased on the 11th of January, and continued to do so till his death. Inflammation set in on the eighth day. He got a little better after that, but inflamma- tion again returned. He died on the II th of February last. Cross-examined—He did not go out as usual to my knowledge. I did not prescribe any diet-for him. I at first told him to abstain from liquor, but exhaustion set in after that. It would have been better for him to remain in the house after the inj uiy. P.C. Pugu recalled-Was present at the proceedings before the magistrates. I heard the depositions of the deceased and prisoner had an opportunity of cross-exa- mining him. The depositions of Wm. Kendrick were read and put in evidence. His testimony almost tallied with George Price's statement. He said-" All of a sudden, and without any provocation, the prisoner gave me a blow. I made a blow at him. I do not know whether I struck him. He struck me on the temple, and I called out that I was stabbed." This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr. Swetenham proceeded amidst deep silence to ad- dress the jury'on behalf of the prisoner. He said-It is with feelings of no ordinary anxiety that I rise to ad- dress vou on behalf of this unfortunate man, who is charged with this most serious crime. But my anxiety does not arise on account of any fault in the manner in which the case has been laid before you on behalf of the prosecution. On the contrary, my learned friend has laid it before you with that clearness and modera- tion that I feel perfectly sure the prisoner will have a fair trial. My anxiety is not caused either by any fear that the case will not obtain due consideration at your hands, beeause I feel assured that the prisoner has the advantage of being tried by a body of as intellectual gentlemen as could be found in the county of Denbigh. I listened to hear from what part of the county the jury was summoned, and I noticed that several were called from the immediate neighbourhood where the prisoner comes from. I did not object to the jury coming from that direction; in fact I was glad of it. But some of you haviug come from that neighbourhood, perhaps it may not be out of place for me to beg of you to dismiss from your minds everything that you have heard or said yourselves relating to this case, so as to come to the consideration of it with perfectly unbiassed minds. I trust you will be guided solely by the evi- dence you have heard to-day, subject to the directions you will hear from my lord on the law of the matter. Gentlemen, my anxiety arises from a feeling that in the mode I have conducted the examination, I may per- haps have failed to illustrate some facts which will re- duce this serious crime to the lesser one of manslaughter. When a person is charged with unlawfully killing an- other, he may be indicted for two offences-the minor one is manslaughter, and the greater one is murder Manslaughter may be defined to be the killing of a per- son by another without any indication of malice in his mind at the time. It is said that there is no crime known to the law which so much differs in degree as the crime of manslaughter. One kind of manslaughter may be of a very lenient description—almost justifiable -for which even a day's imprisonment is sufficient. On the other hand, manslaughter may be of a most serious nature, verging closely on the crime of murder, and for that the law will inflict a very long term of penal servi- tude. It is frequently impossible to distinguish or separate murder from manslaughter; and of all cases I have heard of, this case demands most anxious consi-' deration. The crime of murder is detinelt to be- having of malice aforethought killed and destroyelt ft person." Of malice aforethought"—gentlemen, that malice may be direct malice, or malice in law. I said the crime of manslaughter differed in degrees, and was considered to differ more than any other crime; but I ask you whether the revelations of modern-history, in our times, do not shew that murder may differ in degrees almost if not quite as much as the crime of manslaughter. The public have been shocked by the unprecedented accounts of murder in the newspapers, committed under circumstances of the deepest atrocity. For manslaughter the punishment is rewarded by a day's imprisonment or a long period of penal servitude; but for murder, the only punishment is death Then, gentlemen, I apprehend you will approach this case with feelings of the greatest care, to see whether it is in any way possible, upon the evidence laid before you, to impute to the prisoner at the bar malice in fact or malice in law. We can very easily understand what is meant by malice in fact when we read of a man and his wife in London inviting a man to their house- they pretend to be kind to him afterwards the man is missing, but ultimately his skeleton is found in the same house, in the kitchen, under a table, and those who had taken his life away were eating and drinking as if there was no skeleton in the house to rise up some day in judgment against then.! That was a most diabolical murder, for which the punishment of death was most justly given. Later on did we hear of a person having affected to cherish fond friendship towards another, but in order to gain his money he gives him poison—he faithfully attends to him in his sickness, and watches his dying agonies. The poor man dies, and is found to have been poisoned by his friend There was malice aforethought" there, and an ordinary death on the scaffold was almost too good a punishment. Later again was all the world terrified by a gentleman being thrown out of a railway carriage and murdered for the sake of a paltry watch. Surely there was malice aforethought" in that case, and the rich punishment deserved was death But gentlemen, are not these very different cases to the case now under inquiry at this court. It is said that if, upon a sudden quarrel be- tween two persons, one draws his sword and stabs the other dead, he may be found guilty of murder—why, because the fight was begun under circumstances of undue advantages. But is there one tittle of evi- dence to bring the prisoner at the bar within that rule of law ? I hope, gentlemen, you will be able to bring him under another rule of law, viz., if the par- ties attack each other on equal terms, and one draws a knife in a fit of passion to stab the other fatally, it is a case of manslaughter. The evidence in this case will, I think, justify me asking you to disbelieve that this man had a knife in his hand before the fight began—he sought no undue advantage over the deceased, neither did he at the outset shew any disposition to have his blood. If the evidence warrants you to say so, he is oaly guilty of manslaughter. Kow, just let us briefly allude to the evidence. The learned Counsel read Geo. Price's evidence, and commented upon it as follows:- The prisoner was irritated by being directed to a low class of lodging houses, and he was further irritated by the words, you have got your answer, why don't you go on," and if you don't go on, 1 will make you." Price and prisoner were saucing each other for two mi- nutes. Consider that,—a drunken man at half-past ten at night being sauced for two minutes it was sufficient time to cause. hot blood to boil. The prisoner, it is said, lifted his hand to hit Price, and lie had no knife in it then. That is an all-important statement. It shews the prisoner had no knife in his hand when he first at- tacked the deceased. The learned Counsel then read the depositions of the deceased, and the evidence of the policeman. The testimony of the deceased, he remind- ed the jury, was weakened materially, inasmuch as he could not be cross-examined. The prisoner, it was stated had an opportunity of cross-examining, but a man of his class of life was incapable of doing so. It was said, also, that prisoner ran away after striking the fatal blow. If he had a mind of killing Kendrick, would he not have ran out of the country, or endeavour to hide himself. He did not do that; on the contrary, lie was found the same night within 300 or 400 yards of the spot where the fight took place Did that shew a guilty conscience ? It was evidence in favour of the pri- soner. There was a fight, and he thought it was pretty clear that it wur a fair tight in the beginning, It is not a case ( continued the learned counsel) on which much can be said on ruined hopes or blighted affections, it is a mere common vulgar drunken row,—I have hardly a topic to enlist your sympathies on behalf of the prisoner. lie is poor and friendless; the only friends he has now to protect him are you to you he appeals to judge his case fairly and impartially to you he appeals whether he had provocation—whether he did not attempt to fight fairly, and was driven in a fit of passion to do that which he is now very sorry for. It is a very long time since the county of Denbigh has been shocked by a scene of public execution, and I trust that you will by your verdict to day, save it now from such a scene. I do not wish to deter you from doing your duty; I should blush and dishonour my profession, were I to say one word to get any other verdict except that which the law and justice requires you to give. You have a duty to perform to your country, to youiselves, to the pri- soner, and to God I ask you again, although at the fear of repetition,—Is there one particle of evidence to lead you to suppose that this man originally, in the en- counter, sought the blood of the deceased ? Was it not in the moment of irritation he drew the knife. The ques- tion of character may be of considerable importance, and 1 I shall call witnesses to prove that the prisoner is not a sullen and malicious mau,—on the contrary, that he is a passionate man—easily aroused, and in a moment af- terwards very friendly. "I lie prisoner, unquestionably, has done a most wrong and wicked act, and for that he must suffer; but the question is, whether he shall suffer a long period of penal servitude, or whether he shall ex- patiate his life on the scaffold. I implore yon to give such a verdict as shall satisfy your own consciences, and as justice to this poor unfortunate man demands you to give, I trust you will be able to lay your heads on your pillows to-night with a testimony in your bosoms that you shall have done your duty to God by saying that the prisoner is guilty only of the lesser crime of manslaughter. Wm. Morris—I am half-brother to the prisoner. I have known him all my life. He is naturally a man of quiet disposition. His LORDSHIP declined to admit the question-Is his temper easily aroused ? Another witness to character was called, but did not answer to his name. His LOHDSHIP, in summing up, said it would be quite superfluous for him to say more than one word on the importance of this enquiry. On the one hand the dis- positbn of the prisoner's life, and on the other hand, the safety of society was left to the judgement of the jury. The public safety depended in a great measuro on whether or not they discharged their duty in cases of this nature. Before he would call their attention to the evidence he begged to state what he thought the law to be on the case. In the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the defence there had been long conceived and cherished malicious design to put to death. How- ever, it was not necessary, to constitute the crime of wilful murder, that there should be an intention to kill. To illustrate the point by an illustration which would be plain to them, he supposed a man was attacked by another on the highway, beaten and stabbed fatally with intention only to seriously injure him, nobody could doubt that that was a case of wilful murder. Intention to do grievous bodily harm was sufficient to bring the case within the meaning of the indictment upon which Joseph Hughes was charged. In many cases of murder the malice afore-thought" was of long standing, but it was not essential that it should be of long standing to render the act of killing a crime of murder. It was immaterial in point of law whether the "malice afore- thought" was of long or short standing. If, however, the malice in the present case did not exist before the encounter, and was caused in hot blood, by a serious blow on the part of the deceased himself, then that was not such as would sustain a charge of murder, but of manslaughter. That, he apprehended, to be the law upon the question. Therefore, the point for the jury to decide was—was the fatal blow inflictod after a serious blow by the deceased, and in hot blood-because it was not every kind of blow by the deceased that would extenuate the crime of murder and bring it down to manslaughter—it must be a serious blow. His lord- ship then minutely read his notes of the evidence, oc- casionally making comments as he proceeded. He ob- served that the first intimation of violence, or rather force, was made by the deceased, but the original ag- gressor evidently was the prisoner. Having repeated the question for the decision of the jury, he said in a solemn tone—and I am afraid I must add, that if you cannot ex- press an opinion as to the whether a serious blow was inflicted by the deceased, you must find a verdict of wilful murder. The closing sentence of his lordship's observations ci eated great sensation in court. The jury retired,—and after an absence of sixteen minutes they returned with a verdict of—MAN SLAUGHTER. His LORDSHIP said-Joseph Hughes-the jury have taken a merciful view of your case, and I am not at all sure that they have taken a right view of it. At all events, I shall assume that by the sentence I am about to pronounce upon you. If your crime be not murder, it is a very aggravated case of manslaughter. You must have taken that knife to inflict a deadly injury upon a fellow-creature under the influence of passionate feel- ings, and it is a warning to all what may be done under that momentary madness which men call auger. You are sentenced to ten year's peual servitude. NISI PRIUS. The nisi prius business was resumed after the trial of I Joseph Hughes. ACTION FOR A; ASSIULT. Elizabeth Davies v. Robert Joncs.-This was an action to recover damages for an assault. Mr. Melntyre, in- structed by Mr. James, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Morgan Lloyd and Mr. Swetenham, instructed by Mr. Griffith, for defendant. Mr. Melntyre stated that the plaintiff was aewidow residing at Tynyffynon, near Llauddoget, and defendant was a surgeon practising in Llanrwst. Defendant was sued for unlawfully entering plaintiff's house and therein assault her. Defendant pleaded not guilty to both counts—alleging in answer to the first that the dwelling- house was not the plaintiff's. Elizabeth Davies said.-I am the plaintiff in this action. I am a widow, 67 years of age. I have two sons living with me. On the night of the 1st of July, after I had gone to bed, about half past 12, I heard my son John shouting for me. I went down stairs, and found him on the floor and Mr. Jones, defendant, on the top of him-beating and thrashing him. I lifted my son up, and he ran for his life. Mr. Jones's father was also in the house. My son Edward came in, and defendant attacked him. Defendant also abused and kicked me. He injured my thigh, and I have suffered greatly from it Examined by Mr. Morgan Lloyd—I walked to Den- bigh from Llanrwst, and came from Denbigh here by train. Did not take hold of Mr. Jones. Did not scratch his face nor tear his linen. John Davies-I am plaintiff's son. Have been in the service of defendant's father, and afterwards in the jervice ot Mr. Hugties, aetenaann parcuer. un tne night in question defendant came to my mother's house. He attacked me, and I ran for my life. Left him with my mother. Heard her fall against the stairs. She afterwards complained to me of being beaten by defend- ant. Margaret Thomas stated that plaintiff had shewn her leg to her the day after the quarrel. It was then dis- coloured. Dr. Davies, of Llanrwst, testified having seen plaintiff's leg, three or four days after the 1st of July. It was very much discoloured, and presented the appearance of having been kicked. Examined by Mr. Morgan Lloyd—Did not prescribe for her. Did not see any signs of chronic tumour on her leg. Did not examine her very closely. Re-examined—I believed them to be recent in- juries. Mr. Morgan Lloyd opened the defence, and observed that he should be able to lay before the court such evi- dence as would shew that the action was brought for the purpose of getting costs and damages, and not because the old woman had any real grievance against the de- fendant. Defendant's lather and plaintiff lived. wibiiiii 60 yards to each other. Plaintiff's sons went to defend- ant's father's house at three o'clock one morning and knocked him up, making use of abusive language to- warcli him. Dr. Jones was told of this misbehaviour, and he went to remonstrate with plaintiff's sous, which gave rise to the quarrel. Dr. Jouesacied in self-defence, but did not touch the old woman. She had not re- ceived mueh injury, as tho jury might conclude from the fact that she had walked from Llanrwst to Denbigh, a distance of twenty miles, and he would adduce evi- dence to prove that she had worked in the iurrest last year. Mr. William Evan Hughes, surgeon, described the in- juries as having partially disabled the plaintiff. Tney were not of a very serious nature. Edward Davies, plaintiff's son, corroborate his rno ther's version of tue fray' and admitted 1'uai he was the tenant of T/nylfynon. The count for trespass was (hen struck out of the de- claration. Dr. Jones, examined by Mr. Swetenham, said—I am the defendant in this action. Remember Ihe night of the 1st of July, when I had occasion to go to my father's house. In returning, I saw the plaintitf standing in her night dress at her door. I asked her what she thought of the conduct of her sons in going to my father's house in the middle of the night to attack him. She replied that she could not stop them. Presently the son Ed- ward marie his appearance In the road. Did not see John at all. When Edward saw me, he turned to go to the house. I caught hold of him by the shoulder. He struggled and took hold of the frame of the door. The old woman and Edward pulled me into the house. Edward immediately attacked me, and assaulted me as much as lie possibly could. The old woman also scratched my face with one hand, and held me by the throat with the other. (Laughter.) She tore my shirt and waistcoat. I called to my father to take her away from me. He did so. I swear that I did not touch her. Examined by Mr. Melntyre—Edward bad hold of the door; the old woman was pulling him in, and [ was pulling him out. That is what I call being pulled into the house. (Laughter.) I struggled with Edward, but I do not believe that I .struck him. John Jones (defendant's father) corroborated his son's evidence. Margaret Thomas deposed—I have known plaintiff for more than 14 years.. Remember seeing her on the 2nd of July. She shewed her leg to mo. It was black and blue. I observed that I had seen it so three years ago. She had Deen accustomed to shew her leg at Capel Garmon for the purpose of getting alms. It was affect- ed with rheumatism. I saw her in the evening of the 2nd July carrying coal on her shoulders. Faamined-Canuot say whether the discolouration had been caused recently. I can only say that her leg was black and blue three years ago. Arthur Davies, farmer, stated that plaintiff worked for him at the last harvest. Cross-examined—It was the corn harvest, in Septem- ber. I do not think she was with me more than a week. Mr. Morgan Lloyd commented upon the evidence, and remarked that this was not the first time for the plain- tiff to try to obtain money by means of the rheumatic leg, for she had been at Capel Garmon exhibiting it three years ago with a vietv of receiving alms. Air. McIntyre made an eloquent appeal to the jury on behalf of the plaintiff, who, he (said, had been wan- tonly treated by Dr. Jones. The bruises were on her leg; that fact could not be denied. How came they there ? It was absurd to suppose that they were of three years' standing. His LORDSHIP summed up, apparently in favour of plaintiff. The jury had to decide which of the parties told the truth. If Dr. Jones's story was true he was the most forbearing man in Wales, for he would have the court to believe that he was the victim of all, and nobody's assailant. If the j ury should find a verdict for the plaintiff, he directed them not to allow ignominous damages, but such a moderate sum as would satisfy the justice of the case which, he was of opinion, might have been heard at an ihferior court. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, 92. ACTION FOR TRESPASS AND DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. Edward Thomas v. Rev. John Jones and P. S. Hum- phreys, Llangwm.—A special jury case. Mr. Morgan Lloyd and Mr. Coxon, instructed by Mr. Hughes, Corwen, appeared for plaintiff; Mr. Melntyre, instructed by Mr. Parry Jones, Denbigh, for the Kev. J. Jones; Mr. Swetenham and Mr. Talbot Smith, in- structed by Mr. Louis, Ruthin, for P.S. Humphreys. Mr. Coxon having read the pleadings, Mr. Morgan Lloyd stated that the plaintiff was a boot maker, carrying on busiuesi at Llangwm; the defen- dant, the Rev. J. Jones, was the rector of Llangwm, and a magistrate in that district; and defendant, Hum- phreys, was a police-sergeant in the same place. In the second count the jury had heard a charge of having ma- liciously, and without reasonable and probable cause issued and caused to be issued a warrant to search the plaintiff's house, and he was sorry to say that as regards both defendants, but particularly the .defendant Mr. Jones, there were grounds for supposing that the war- rant was not issued in the regular and legal course of business. Au eumity had been in the mind of Mr. .Jones against the plaintiff, and he had shewn it before this event. The plaintiff, who was the son of the parish clerk, used to go invariably to church, but on one acca- sion he was induced by curiosity to go and listen to a great luminary in one of the dissenting chapels. In consequence of that Mr. Jones called him to account, and asked him why he went to hear "those sectarians." Mr. Jones was in the habit of calling his communicants together—so far imitating the Dissenters-and on the next Sunday evening after the plaintiff had been at the chapel, he called a special meeting of the members, at which he read one or two canons against heretics, applied no doubt to the plaintiff, who was present. The following day (Monday morning) Mr. Jones saw the plaintiff, and said he would rather see him come out of a public-house drunk, or out of a brothel, than out of a Dissenting chapel. Plain- tiff afterwards left the church and joined a Dissenting body, and ever since Mr. Jones had persecuted him. He (the learned counsel) was happy to say that this bigotry was a solitary instance, or one at all events of a small minority, amongst the clergy of the Established Church. It was essential in this country that the Dis- senters and the Church of England should go together in harmony and good-will—the interest of one was the interest of the other. He had been obliged to bring this forward, because the jury would be unable without it to understand the case. Sometime after, the plaintiff was employed to watch game on the Garthmeilio estate, but owing to Mr. Jones having charged him with being a poacher he was discharged from his situation. In the month of June last, a farmer's house called Ystrad Bach, belonging to Mr. David Owen, was bioken into, and three pairs of boots and a piece of butter were stolen therefrom. Defendant Humphreys heard of the robbery, and made enquiries about it of Mr. Owen. Although Mr. Owen did not tell him he suspected the plaintiff (who had always borne a good character), he laid an information against him before the Rev. Mr. Jones, and upon that information a warrant was issued to search his house. On his way to the house, Humphreys informed a person that he was going to search Edward Thomas' house on suspicion of having committed a robbery at Ystrad Back, before he knew what would be the result. Plaintiff offered no resistance, but said, "You shall search my house if you search other houses, as well, so as not to throw a slur on my charac- ter." Humphreys insisted upon searching it, without even producing his warrant, and he searched no other house. None of the burglarious articles were found in plaintiff's bouse, and after the search was over Hum- phreys said, "I thought I should find nothing." Plaintiff asked Humphreys who told him to search his house, but he would not tell. Plaintiff, knowing where his enemy was, added "the people at the the Rectory." The origin of the suspicion was no doubt in the mind of Mr. Jones. It was a great injury to a man to have his house searched under suspicion of having committed robbery, and however false the suspicion was, his enemies would always upbraid him about it. The plaintiff, he strongly submitted, was entitled to a verdict in this action. Edwd. Thomas was then examined at great length by Counsel on each side, and his evidence did not differ in substance from the statement of Mr. Morgan Lloyd. [The Court adjourned at five o'clock till next day.] On Tuesday, Plaintiffs wife corroborated her hus- band's evidence regarding the search made by Hum- phreys. David Owen, of Ystrad Bach, was then examined. He stated that three pairs of shoes, and three pieces of but- ter were stolen out of his bakehouse in the month of June last. Saw Humphreys before plaintiff's house was searched, but did not say that he suspected the plain- tiff had stolen the goods. Said that the lock of the bakehouse had been on a pinfold at one time, and no- body knew how to open it except plaintiff's family. Plaintiffs grandfather had made a false key to open it when on the pinfold, to release his donkeys. The defence placed great reliance on David Owen's statement respecting the plaintiff's family being the only family who could open the lock. This, in fact, was the ground of suspicion upon which Humphreys acted; and Humphreys, at a further stage of the case, swore that David Owen had positively told him he suspected Ed- ward Thomas. Tlios Jones, farmer, stated that Humphreys had told him that he was going to search plaintiffs house, and warned him not to tell anybody. Other witnesses were examined to shew that plaintiff's business was injured in consequence of his house being searched. Mr. Melntyre proceeded to address the jury for Mr. Jones. There was no evidence to prove that he had taken action in the matter further than signing the warrant upon information laid before him on oath by Humphreys, and he was perfectly justified in doing so. A discussion now followed by the learned counsel on both sides on the points of law connected with the case, all of which by the ruling of the Judge were reserved for decision at the Court of Exchequer. His LOHDSHIP thereupon informed the jury that the questions regarding the reasonable and probable cause of suspicion," and the legality of the course adopted in issuing and executing the warrant were not questions for their deliberation. Mr. Melntyre made an able defence on behalf of Mr. Jones, denouncing the idea of imputing malice to him against plaintiff,haviug always befriended his family, and his father was still employed by him as parish clerk. The allegation respecting the retirement of plaintiff from the church (more than three years ago) was so paltry that he would not even put Mr. Jones in the witness-box to contradict it. William Pritt, Esq., foreman of the jury, here said that the jury had made up their minds that there was no malice proved on the part of Mr. Jones. Mr. Swetenhafn called police sergeant Humphreys to prove that he had searched the house by the leave and license of plaintiff." lIe had offered to search another house, but plaintiff agreed that he should not do so, on condition that the search of his house should be kept private. M r. M. Lloyd replied to the case for the defence, and maintained that malice on the part of Mr. Jones had been clearly proved, and as he had not thought proper to contradict plaintiff's evidence, it was true that he did say I should rather see you come out of a public house drunk or out of brothel, than out of a Sectarian place of worship." The JrmoE in summing up remarked that it was very much to be regretted that the Rev. Mr. Jones should have made use of the expressions iuputed to him, and he (his lordship) was quite sure that upon calm considera- tion he would be the first to regret it. It behoved him and all others to speak respectfully of all Christian deno- minations for they all belonged to the same Holy Faith, which had done more for the reformation of the "world than any other means. All Christian sects had. he be- lieved, the same light from heaven, shining as it were through glasses of different colours. The only points for their consideration were:—Did Humphreys search the house uy permission of plaintiff? 2.- Was there malic" on the part of Mr. Jones in issuing the warrant ? 3.—Supposingthe points of law were decidedin plaintiff's favour, what amount of damages would they allow ? Answer—1. Yea. 2. No. 3. One farthing. The JUDGE said he hoped the verdict of the jury would be an end to the casj.

pisedtaMOU-s. --=-