The Pembrokeshire Herald and General Advertiser

LOYALTY IN THE BOMBAY PRESIDENCY. (From the Bombay Times.) The Bombay and the Madras sepoys are true to their salt and act like Bahadoors,' not a symptom of disaffec- tion having been manifested in the ranks of either. In this presidency, we have had touching proof of the loyalty of the sepoys. The station of Nusseerabad in Rajpootana, having been garrisoned by two regiments of Bengal In- fantry, through the drain upon our forces for Persia, the only troops there belonging to our army were two hundred and fifty men of the let Lancers. The Benga- lees soon showed sympathy with the mutineers of Delhi, and after a vain attempt to seduce our Lancers to join them, openly mutinied on the 28th ult. Our gallant fellows charged them repeatedly, although the rebels had got possession of the guns of the station and out- numbered them eight to one. The odds were, however, too lone, and the Lancers were compelled finally to retreat upon Ajmere, thereby securing the safety of the important arsenal at that station. The mutineers having marched in the direction of Delhi, our troops finally returned to, and have re-occupied, Nusseerabad. Colonel Penney, Major Spottiswoode, and Cornet Newberry, ot the Lancers, fell in the attack; and Captain E. A. Hard, and Lieutenant F.A. E. Loch are amongst the wounded. A 'BRIEF AUTHORITY.' (From a letter.) JUNE 4.-Some two nights ago we made a dour to the village of Kliyr, where a Rao had possessed himself of the place, and was defying British athority. We fell upon the village (after travelling all night) at about 8 a.m., surrounded it, and one party entered and asked the Rao to surrender. He at first refused; hut, on heing threatened and told that his stronghold should he burst open, he opened the doors, and was immediately taker. prisoner with 13 of his adherents. The little army he had assembled had dispersed early in the morning, not expecting we would have been there so soon. We walked by the side of the prisoner from the place where he was taken to a mangoe tope out of the village, where he was to be tried. We reached it in half an hour, where he was tried and hung for rebellion. The following is a complete list of the regiments which have either mutinied or disbanded. 19th Regiment Native Infantry.-Disbanded at Barrack- pore, April 3. 7th Regiment Oude Irregulars.-Mutinied at Lucnow, May 1. 34th Regiment Native Infantry.-Seven companies muti- nied at Lucknow, May 5. 3rd Regiment Light Cavalry.—Mutinied at Meerut, May 1). 11th Regiment Native Ipfantry.—Mutinied at Meerut, May 10. 20th Regiment Native Infantry.-Mutinied at Meerut, May 10. 38th Regiment Native Infantry.—Mutinied at Delhi, May 11. 54th Regiment Native Infantry.-Mutinied at Delhi, May 11. 74th Regiment Native Infantry.-Mutinied at Delhi, May 11. 3rd Company 7th Battalion Artillery.-Mutinied at Delhi, May 11. Sappers and Miners.—About half the corps mutined at Meerut, May 13. 45th Regiment Native Infantry.—Mutinied at Ferozepore. 57th Regiment Native Infantry. Mutinied at Ferozepore. 9th Regiment Native Infantry.-Mutinied at Allygurh. 5th Regiment Native Infantry.—Mutined at Umballah. 60th Regiment Native Infantrj.—Mutinied at Umballah. 55th Regiment Native Infantry.—Mutinied at Murdann. 44th Regiment Native Infantry.—Muninied at Agra, May 31. 67th Regiment Native Infantry.—Mutinied at Agra, May 31. 3rd Regiment Native Infantry. —Mutinied at Phillour, May 26. 7th Regiment Light Cavalry.-Mutinied at Lucknow (rwo troops), May 3;). 13th Regiment Native Infantry (part only).—Mutinied at Lucknow, May 30. 48th Regiment Native Infantry.—Mutinied at Lucknow, May 30. 71st Regiment Native Infantry.—Mutinied at Lucknow, May 3o 15th Regiment Native Infantry.—Mutinied at Nusseer- abad. 30th Regiment Native Infantry —Mutinied at Nusseer- abad. 72nd Regiment Native Infantry.—Mutinied at Neemuch. 24th Reg-meut Native Infantry. —Disarmed at Peohawur, May 22. 27th Regiment Native Infantry. —Disarmed at Peshawur May 22. 51st Regiment Native Infantry. Disarmed at Peshawur, 5th Regiment Light Cavalry.—Disarmed at Peshawur, May 22. 16th Regiment Native Infantry. -Disarmed at Meean Meer. 26th Regiment Native Infantry.- Disarmed at Meean Meer 49th Regiment Native Infantry.—Disarmed at Meean Meer.

It is universally known that the leaves of all plants are inhued with their richest juices in the early spring; tea, gatheied at that juncture yields incomparably more strength than ttie last or autumn crop; yet the Chinese, with the concurrence of merchants, have long passed off these browii flavourless autumn leaves at high rates by covering the good and the bad with the same colour; this is done to increase the profit; hut, as it is a loss to the consumer and an injury to the article, it should be dis- continued. Green tea, not 'faced with the bluish pow- der is dull olive; when this and the black are from the spring crop, and in a pure uncoloured state the flavour is delicious, as found by using Horniman s pure tea, adver- tised with list of local agents in this paper. Holloway's Pills have been placed by the common con- sent of Mankind at thehcad .t' internal remedies. To say that in warm climates they save 'thousands upon thousands of person annually from falling a sacrifice to dyspepsia, dysentry, diarrhoea, constipation, Jliver com- plaint., general debility, remittent fever etc., is simply to relate a fact attt sted by cruwds of witnesses. No suf- t rtr lion »coibuti< aiiections tia« ever to expe- rience relief from them, and they are guaranteed to cute chaonicdispai-ea of the internal organs which have pre- viously baffied the skill of the mo& successful practi- tioners.

ELECTION PETITIONS. On Wednesday Mr. E. C. Egerton reported from the select committee appointed to inquire into the merits of the petition against the return for the last election for the city of Oxford— 1. That Charles Neate, Esq, was not duly elected to serve in the present Parliament in the last election for the city of Oxford, and that the said Charles Neate Esq, was a void election. 2. That the said Charles Neate, Esq, by his agents, committed bribery at the said election. 3. That it was proved before the committee that 198 persons were employed by Mr. Ncate's committee as pol- ling clerks and messengeas, 1.52 of whom voted for Mr. Neate. and that they subsequently received from his agents payments of sumsvarying from £1 to 2s. 6d. which sum was paid under pretence of remuneration to messen- gers and runners; and, although it was not proved be- fore the committee that these payments to the voters were the primary motives for* deciding their votes, yet it appeared to the coir.mittee that in many case no ade- quate services were performed for those payments. 4. That it appeared to the committee that the aforesaid acts of bribery were committed without tLe knowledge or consent of the said Charles Neate, Esq. 5. That it was preved that treating to some extent was carried on at the last eleetien forthe city, but. it was nut proved to be carried on by the order or authority of the said Charles Neate, Esq, The committee thought it right to add that they were not of opinion that the issue of a new writ for the city of Oxford ought to be suspended. Mr. G. A. Hamilton reported from the committee ap- pointed to inquire into the petition against the last Maid- stone election, that they found Mr. A. B. Hope and Cap- tain Scott were duly elected. The committee also repor- ted that the evidence given before them was unsatiitae- tory and contradictory, and although no sufficient proof has been given of the cnrrupt prrctiees at the last election the committee thought it necessary to state that a" sum of £3,500 was paid in 1847 for the expense of one can- didate, although there was no contest upon that occa- sion. On Thursday Mr. Hutt appeared at the bar and repor- ted that the committee appointed to investigate the char- ges contained in a petition of certain electors, complain- ing of an undue election and return for the borough of Bury. He had also to inform the house that the com- mittee had agreed to the following resolution :— That it has been proved by uniform evidence tba the late election for the borough of Bury was conducted with unusual sobriety and order; and that although in the courseof some practices of a illegal complexion resorted to by partisans of the sitting member, nothing was adduced to show to the committee nor had ihey any reason to be- lieve, that such practices were in any way authorised by the sitting member. The same day Mr. Sholefield, chairman of the Mayo election committee brought up a special report, stating that certain persons named therein, in consequence of their having given evidence in favour of Colonel Higgins before the committee, had been attacked and one of them seriously injured by a mob. Mr. Walpole called atten- tion to this report, and suggested that it was right for the house to consider whether the matter should be left where it was without some inquiry. Mr. J. D. Fitzger- ald said, in consequence of the production of these letters before the committee, it had been ascertained by a tele- graphie communication that an outrage had been commit, ted, that two persons had been beaten severly, and that nine persons charged as participators in the outrage were in custody. He hoped to bo in Dublin the next day, and anticipated no difficulty in placing these parties on their trial at the approaching assizes. In the mean- time any interference on the part of the house might be productive of great inconvenience, The petitions for Lanark, Lymington, Athlone, Sand- wiclj, Chatham, and Sligo have been withdrawn. The colourable employment of voters as messengers figures also as a feature in the Bury St. Edmund's case, which was opened on Thursday. The petition, however, presented by Mr. Oakes, the unsucessful candidate, against Mr. J. A. Hardcastle, who came in second on the poll, rarl Jermyn being the other sitting member, charges bribery and treating to a great extent. At the election in 1852 the same parties appeared in reverse positions, Mr. Hardcastle petitioning against the return of Mr. Oakes, but failing to unseat him. Mr Hardcastle is a Liberal, and supported by the Dissenting interests; Mr Oakes a Conservative. The chief witness called for the petition was one James, a shoemaker, who deposed that having asked one of the gentlemen canvassing with Hard- castle for employment as a messenger, he had obtained it. Clark, the hall-keeper at the Guildhall, he stated, gave him 5s. first of all to spend at the Cross Keys, as he wanted the landlord's vote. Witness spent 8s. and had the 3s. refunded. On another day he had 5s. to spend at a public-house kept by one Feek: he treated six or seven voters out of the money, and then asked them to vote for Hardcastle. The landlord, Feek, plumped for Hardcastle. At another public-house the same thing was done. At the payment of the messengers, the wit- ness added, he refused £ 1, stating that his services were worth more, and Clark afterwards gave him privately £.5. Mr Hardcastle, the sitting member, was examined on Monday, when he denied the agency of the man Clark, and stated distinctly that he gave no orders for refresh- ments. He gave £ 1 to a woman, a sister of one Robins, who voted for him, on her situation being made known to him by James William Clarke, but this was purely an act of charity, and before giving her the money he ascer- tained that soe was not the wife of a voter.' The case is adjourned. Mr. Beresford Hope was examined in the case in which he is defendant, on Wednesday. He stated that he agreed to stand for Maidstone, on the express understanding that he should be answerable only for the legal expenses of the return: He stayed at the Mitre Hotel during the election, and was very cautious in his conduct, never offering as much as a glass of wine or a cup of tea to any person, not even to his colleague. Captain Scott, who was a voter of the borough. On one occasion Mrs. Hope asked a gentleman to take a cup of tea, and he reprimanded her; he told her she had done wrong. He declared that up to the time of the election he was not aware that such a person as Mr. Marley existed. He had every reason to believe from what he had seen during the election, that it was as pure an election as had ever taken pelac. The number of voters who appeared by the books made up the evening before the election to have promised their votes to him, corresponded within four with the number he actually polled. On cross-examination by Mr. Phinn, Mr. Hope said there was no contest in 1847, but after the election he sent JE3,500 to the borough to defray the expenses of the election. (Laughter.) The Chairman intimated that the hon. gentleman was not bound to answer all the questions of the learned counsel unless he pleased. In answnr to further questions by Mr. Phinn, Mr. Hope said that a gentleman had called upon him in town upon the subject, to whom he had handed notes for the amount. He understood that to be the cost of the elec- tion. He did not inquire in what manner the money had been expended. He believed a large portion of it went in charity. Accounts had been rendered. Money bad been distributed to poor freemen, at the Christmas chari- ties, and to hospitals, and expended in the purchase of meat for the plor. In 18.52 he retired from the repre- sensation of the borough in consequence of his vote in reference to the bill for the legalisation of marriage with a deceased wife's sister. He was given to understand that in consequence of the unpopularity of that vote his re election would be extremely difficult. Between 1855 and 1857 he had sent money to Maidstone for charity and other purposes. Last Chrismas he sent about £300. He thought that although he had ceased to represent the town, it was proper that he should contribute to its charities, as he resided in the neighbourhood. He was not a contributor to the funds of the Constitutional Society. In fact, he left the application of the sums he contributed to charities very much to Mr. Randall. On re-examination, he said it was distinctly understood at the last election that an end should be put to the old system. It was only upon that understanding that he consented to come forward. The Bath inquiry (into the return of Mr. Tite) is a case of scrutiny only. Votes are being struck off 01) both sides. At the close of Monday's sitting Mr. Tite was in a minority of one. Galway is the only case in which the good old-fashioned bribery is stated to have prevailed. Here, according to the petitioners, two ebctors of the town, the supporters of Mr. O'Flaherty were obtained by donations of from £2 to JE5, handed to each through a hole in the wall, at the house of a baker named Oliver. On Monday the committee brought their labours to a conclusion, by rep >rtin £ to the house that Mr. Flaherty had b<*en guilty of bribery through his agents, and that bribery and trenting had preva led ex- tensivelv through the last two elections. On Friday the Lambeth committee was opened. Th petition in this important case proceed from certain plec. tors, who charge wr. Koupell with bribery and treating; but the seat was not claimed for Mr. Wilkinson, the df- feated candidate. There is a strong array of counsel Vr. Edwin Jiimes, Mr. Sergeant BallantinH, and Mr Atkinson for the petition; Mr. Slade, Mr. Phinn, and Mr. Johnson for the defence. Mr. James, in his statement of the cuse alleged that, there had been a most lavish expenditure of money by Mr. Koupell, who was a stranger to the po- litical arena, but had a long purse at his command he shiuld sho,v. he said, that publicans had been bribed by colourable engagements of their houses, and that there were from S00 to 3.")0 paid canvassers, and 200 paid corn mittee men. This committee would have to decide for the first time whether the payment of canvassers in this way ere npt a brea h of the new act. Numerous public. house" were opened as commitfe-rooms—often two or three close together in the s ime street. On Monday, Joseph 'Prendre, a witness, was reported to the house for contempt of the Speaker's warrant, and handed over accordingly to the custody flf the Serjeant-at-Arms, who has orders to bring him up day by day bel0,e the committee as he is wanted. Various witnesses ivere called canvassers who had had 7s. (id a day and chairmen of committees who had had l.js.and 10s. a day. The evidence of Mr Truman, one of Mr. Koupell'* agc ts shows that a great deal of mon y was spent. He s.iid— He had signed cheques in conjunction with the trea- surer. On the Hith of March he signed It cheque for £ t .Oon. on the 20th one fÙr .£ I ,OUO, on the 27th one for £1,272. and on the 2nd of April one f0r ill ,400, making, with an entry of cash drawn from the b;mk on the 6th of April, a fOlal of £.U;2: of IlIch there was a small ba- lance remaining ut the end of the election. He signed forty-four or forty-five pay-sheets, but could not tell the t umber of public-houses or beer shops which had beer l eugaged as pi .carding houses. There might have been a dozen, but he certainly had not paid fifty. Not a single committee-man was paid as a committee-man. Thev were only paid as canvassers. Some of the forty four hlnse" were houses of call, where there was a respectable ntan as clerk to receive the canvassers and pay the money. THE MAYO ELECTION. This committee re-assembled at one o'clock on Tuesday but with closed doors, to consider their report. At twenty minutes to four o'clock the parties were called in, when the Chairman said that the committee had agreed to the following resolutions:— 1. TIJat George Henry Moore, Esq., by his agents, was guilty of undue influence at the last election for the county of Mayo 2. That George Henry Moore, Esq., is not duly elected to serve in the present parliament for the county of Mayo. 3. That the election, so tar as regards the return of the said George Henry Moore, is a void election. 4. That undue influence and spiritual intimidation prevailed to a considerable extent at the last election for the county of Mayx 5. That in the exercise of such undue influence and spiritual intimidation the Rev. Peter Conway and the Rev. Luke Ryan were so prominently active that the committee deem it their duty specially to report their conduct to the House, in order that such steps may be taken as may seem to the House to be proper and ne- nessary. li That it does not appear to the committee that the said George Henry Moore, Esq.. was personally cognisant of or sanctioned the said undue influence and spiritual intimidation. it was stated in tne room, after this decision, that under the :56th section of the Corrupt Practices Act, Mr. Moore is disqualified from ottering himself again as a audidate in the present parliament.

We have received a communication from an old cor- respondent, urging, that as the Post Office authorities have determined on transmitting the mails for the south or Ireland by thesteainers plying between Milford Haven and vVaterford, permission should be obtained for them to land at Hobb's Point. We entirely agree with this sug- gestion, saving in the one particular that what our cor- respondent would seek as a privilege, we think ounht to he claimed as a right. The pier at flobb's Point was constructed at the public cost—and a v^ry heavy item the expense was—for the express purpose of affording accomodation to the Irish Mails, and now that spirited individuals have undertaken thcirre conveyance at a com- paratively easy contract—the cost during'the latter part of the time when Government conveyed the mails was £ 30,<t00 ayear—it is but tair, even asfar'as Messrs. Ford and Jackson are concerned, if there were no other considera- tion, that they should be allowed every possible accomo- dation. But there is another very important considera- tion to be taken into account, and that is, the incon- venience to which passengers are exposed by not being permitted access to the pier. This inconvenience is most harassing; in the case of delicate females it is distressing, and no Government department ought to subject the community to such disadvantage. Nor is there, as we learn from the letter of our correspondent, the slightest reason for such measures. His remarks on this point are conclusive. There is no national property there to be in- jured or purloined. The coal, the only store at that depot is securely protected. Why, then, these harassing prohibitions? It appears to us as if there were one law for the rich and another for the poor; for while the pri- vate carriage of the wealthy is allowed to drive on to the pier, the public vehicle of the humbler classes is debarred that privilege. Surely Sir Charles Wood and the yallant old admirals and gallant lay lords by whom he is assisted, will never sanction such seclusive arrangements." Purely not, say we, and our counsel is that the men of Pembrokeshire should, through their worthy and influ- ential representatives, exert their utmost endeavours to abolish such an envious system of monopoly. But the arguments supplied above do not constitute the only grounds on which a memorial might be submitted for free access to Hobbs' Point. The pier is the onlv place of access to the water when the tide is low, and being shut up at night men of business who frequently cannot complete their arrangements until a late hour, have then no means of crossing the haven. This is a great drawback to the mereantle interests of Pater and will be a legitimate plea in any memorial presented to the authorities. Then again the accommodation af- forded by the Railway for the conveyance of timber and other stores to the Dockyard, and the offer by private individuals to run a steam-boat across the haven for the convenience of passengers -instead of the small boats now used, and so often dangerous, are further points fairly urgable in favour of the desired accommodation. And for this reason, that when a railway company and private individuals combine, as it were, for the public convenience and good, Government should not be found wanting in that reciprocity of effort with- out which every other endeavour is a nullity. We never yet heard any valid argument for refusing "the approach of the public to Hobbs' Point by a steamer. All that Sir Charles Wood had to say when the right of public access to the pier was asked to be formally con- ferred was, Qh, we don't want the public there at all; the Admiralty may require the premises, and if we give the public a formal right of access, it may be a bar to the operations of the Government hereafter.' Thus to this pier, for which the public paid, they have no access as a 'right,' and all because Sir Charles Wood is of opinion that at some time-perhaps twenty, fifty, or a hundred years hence the Government may itself want the pier. In the meantime they don't want it for any purpose, no one can predict the time when they will, but because it is within the range of human possibility that they may, therefore the public are not to use the pier, and it is to stand an inutile mass of stone. We trust how- ever that our representatives will urge the matter strongly, first to the Admiralty from deference to their position, and should they pooh-pooh it—as Sir Charles Wood is too fond of doing in the case of grievances- then in Parliament, which will in all probability accord to the public the boon it asks and is entitled to ask for. -+--

The Great Brahmin confederacy in the Bengal Army has declared itself openly against the Government,' says the Bombay Times, and, by the process of mutiny, dis- bandment, and disarming, between twenty and 'thirty thousand soldiers of the empire have vanished from the ranks of the army in the last month From these few words the mind may in some measure realize the fearful state of defection into which the Bengal Army has fallen and none, however great their faith in British valour and British power, can wholly divest their minds of appre- hension while they read it. But though this one general and graphic sentence, penned as it was by an eminent and reliable man, may give a very fair idea of the exist- ing state of things in India, it will still be interesting, and perhaps may be advisable, as serving to allay fears which may not be wholly justified-that accounts should be perused which go more into detail. Such particulars then may be found in full on a reference to the Indian intelligence which we publish in another column, but as this may possibly be too diffuse for s;,me of our readers we purpose giving a brief summary here. The state of affairs at the despatch of the last mail was this—30 re<ri- ments of Bengalcse troops had either mutinied or dis- banded A portion oi these troops held Delhi, where they had slaughtered every European who came in their way, and finally set up a king who in turn was unable to maintain tranquillity. The city of Delhi was the head quarters of the rebels, who were repairing to it from all the disaffected parts of the empire, and it was also the point to which the European troops and such as remained faithful to us were converging, with a view to bombard it. These troops had been already twice attacked bv those within the walls, but the enemy suffered on both occasions an inglorious repulse and were obliged to retire to the eity, with the.lllss of a great many men and guns. The attack on Delhi was only temporarily delayed, and was expected, owing to the unfortified nature of the walls. to prove completely successful. The mutiny among the native troops was entirely confined to the Bengalese. Those in the Punjaub Peshawur, and in the Madras?Bom- bay, and Calcutta 1 residencies continued true to us and had given in many instances touching proofs of their loyalty. In some cases this had met with its reward in the way of promotion, &c., from the Governor General, who ac cording to all accounts, had.acted with the most praise- worthy discretion throughout. General Anson was dead. and Sir Patrick Grant was appointed his successor. Such is an epitome of the latest news from India, and if there be a dark there is also a bright side to it. If there be disaffection in one of our Presidencies that is coun- terbalanced by the conspicuous loyalty of the native troops in the other Presidencies, and bv the devotion of the inhabitants throughout the whole country who have again and again assured the Governor General of their sympathy with our authority and rule Nor is this the only matter for satisfaction. General Anson s departure from the scene, as the Bombay Times observes-while regretting of course the cause which led to it-was so far politically opportune that it enabled the Governor-General to send for Sir Patrick Grant to act as provisional Commander-in-Chief. General Anson was undoubtedly a very worthy man, and was probabiv not deficient in bravery, but his appointment was understood to have been caused rather from familv connection than from any superior aptness for India command. General Anson, on the contrary, seemed made for the position. 'A better man, or one more fit for the crisis,' remarks Dr. Buist, 'could not be found. His whole military career has been in India, and he is thoroughly acquainted not only with the native charactcr, but with the working of the system of the Indian army.' Let it be remem- bered,' says the Sim, that General Grant is in the Com- pany s service-that he was recently appointed (the first i istance of the kind—absolutely the first instance of the ,(lnd-witI1 reference to any but a Queen's officer) Com- mander of the Forces at ivia(Irig-and that he was Yiscount (then Sir Hugh) Gou^h's Quartermaster- General throughout the two memorable campaigns of the Punjaub. As a 'temporary' appoin ment, nothing in truth, we conceive, could have been better judged than this one of General Patrick Grant as Commander-in- Chief tern., namely, until the Governor-General and the Councils at Calcutta could communicate with the magnates at Leadenhall-street and the Horse Guards, and, above all, of course, wiih the Imperial Government.' This opinion we entirely endorse, and look upon the appoint- ment as an act reflecting the highest credit, on the judg- ment Hud penetration of Lord Canning. That nobleman found hiinuelf surrounded by a council on whom he couid not rely, and he irisely resolved to act with complete individual independence. The good effect of the appoint- ment he made w.s soon perceptible. It had, as we learn from a good source, not only revived the hopes of the civilians, but re-animated anew the resolve and energy of the soldiery. In fact we look upon it as the beginning of the end. Tb. mutiny in India will in all probability be short lived in consequence. Delhi, as we have said, is the point to which all the rebels arc drawing,—that city is to be attacked by Grant, andmustnottheinevitabledefeat of those who traitorously hold it act as a great moral check throughout India ? Men who fight in opposition to authority do so with fear and trembling; a small defeat appals them. A riotous mob is, we know, easily dismissed by half a dozen soldiers, and a rebel Indian army will be as easily put to flight by a small band who fight in the Queen's name. On this who are yet faith- ful to us we may rely. Men who have fought on our side will be encouraged by a good conscience, and ani- mated to continue by a sense of right and the hope of re- ward. Those who are secretly inclined to disaffection will every day see what a losing game it is to tnke up opposition to law and order, and will probably wisely resolve to remain quiet. In fact the chances are that before Sir Colin Campbell, who has been nominated to the chief command, arrives in India, the crisis will be past. But should it not, we augur tae most favourable results from his appointment. Great as the reputation of Sir Patrick Grant may be, there will still attach to any emissary from the Imperial Government an eclat which may be productive of the best results. Sir Colin Camp- bell goes out with a great name and a great renown, and while this must exercise an important moral influence on the rebels, Sir Colin will have the additional advantage of all the assistance which Sir Patrick Grant's experience will afford. In fact Sir Patrick, though nominally super- seded, will still be the moving power. By an early mail then we may hope to hear encouraging news.

PEMBROKESHIRE SUMMER ASSIZES. The commission for these Assizes was opened at the Shire-Hall, on Wednesday afternoon, by the Hon. Sir R. B. Crowder Knt., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's Court of Commen Pleas, who arrived from Pantglas, the seat of David Jones Esq. M.P., by the 1 30 p.m. train. His Lordship was not met at the Railway Station, but, by his desire, at the Judges Lodgings, from whence, entering the High Sheriff's Carriage, and accompanied by the High Sheriff, the Sheriff's Chaplain, and the usual retinue of javelinmen, he proceeded to the Shire Hall. The ceremony of opening the commission having con- cluded, his Lordship re-entered the Sheriff's carriage and was conveyed to St. Mary's Church, where the Assize Sermon was preached by the Rev. C. Bowen of Fishguard, who selected his text from Psalms cxix 130 The Court sat for the trial of prisoners on Thursday morning at 10 o'clock. The calendar was unusually light, containing the names of two prisoners only, one of whom was charged with cutting and wounding with intent, the other with burglary. Both the prisioners were described as imperfectly instructed. The compar- ative absence of crime in this county is certainly a mat- ter for congratulation' and some interesting remarks in connection with the calendar will be found in the Judge's charge as reported below. Thejname of the magistrates for the county were called and immediately afterwards the following gentlemen were constituted as COUNTY ORAXD JURY Viscount Emlyn, Foreman, John Colby Esq., John Bowen Allen Esq., John Evans Esq., William Gwynne Esq., James Higgon Esq., J. P. Jones, Esq., John Leach Esq., Lewis Mathias Esq., James Owen Esq., R. I. Phillips Esq., W. A. C. Philipps Esq., Nicholas Rocb Esq., G. R. Rees Esq., William Reed Esq., Adrian Stokes Esq.. Thomas Josiah Hedgewood Esq., R. D. Ackland Esq., Richard Carrow Esq., J. B. Summers Esq., Summers Harford Esq. The names of the magistrates for the Borough were then called over (two or three answering) and subse- quently the following gentlemen were sworn as THE BOROUGH GRAND INQUEST Thomas Skone, Alfred Beynon, James Bevan jun., John Eminent, Phillip Ellis. George Green, J. B. Henly, George James, William Lewis, William Llewellyn, John Madocks, T. D. Meyler, Robert Morris. T. R. Owen, R. B. Pratt, James Phillips, George Palmer, Thomas Rowlands. Alfred Stannard, Joseph Thomas, Thomas Williams, Esqrs. The proclamation against vice, &c., having been read, his Lordship addressed the Grand Inquests as follows:- GENTLEMEN OF THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY or PEMBROKE,—It will not be necessary for me tc detain you more than a very few minutes in addressing you upon the present occasion, for on looking at the calendar before me I am happy to be enabled to state that it is of the very lightest description, and that there are only two cases which will be brought before you when you retire in the discharge of your duty. And upon this occasion very few, or no observations in fact, can arise, inasmuch as in the discharge of your duties as grand jurors you must have had cases of this description frequently before you. but I may say that though there are only two cases they are not of themselves of a very light character. On the contrary, one of them is a case of stabbing with intent to do grievous bodily harm—a crime which is of a very serious description, and one which, where a con- viction takes place is generally punished with severity. The other is a case of offence against property—an offence which is not to be treated lightly, though as a burglary this particular case does not seem of an aggra- vated character. 'Now I have been favoured with a calendar of the last summer assizes, and when I compare it with the present there is certainly a great diminution of criminality, because I find that in the calendar of the summer of 1856 there were ten persons who ^ere tried and several, though not all, were convicted. And among them there were two or three cases in which the charges were of a very serious character, but in those cases the parties seem to have been acquitted. But I find that at the last Spring Assizes there were two cast's 8imilar to those now to be brought before you, and two convictions —one for unlawfully stabbing, and the other for bur- glary, and the prisoners are now undergoing the sentence then imposed. It is difficult therefore to form a judgment as to the state of crime, whether progres- sive or in a state of decrease in this county, but looking at it generally I think your county may be congratulated on the very small degree of crime, judging by the com- mitments and convictions. I have before me a return lately made to both houses of Parliament by command of her Majesty, entitled Judicial St itisties,' in which there is very valuable information as to the state of crime in the country, and when I turn to the county in which I have the honour to address you, I find that during the year 1856 there were only 54 persons committed either to the assizes or the quarter sessions. This does not include sum- mary convieti ns, but it is satisfactory to observe in this list, in which crimes are classed in six divisions, begin- ning with violence to the person and property, that of these 54 prisoners there is but one conviction for offences against the person, and that for a common assault; no case of stabbing, manslaughter, or graver case of attacks against the person. With respect to offences against property there is no instance of sheep or cattle stealing, and only one of horse stealing, and indeed, looking at Pembrokeshire compared with other counties, it does appear that Pembrokeshire stands very high. But there is another means of comparison which is most satisfac- factory. In this same very valuable blue-book an ac- count is given of the relative criminality of different counties regard being had to the population. The propor- tion has been calculated on the census of 1851, and gives the results of the different counties, and the proportion of criminals to the rest of the population. And I had the disagreeable duty of informing the Grand jury in Gla- morganshire that that county stood on the bad eminence of being only the seventh from the top of the list of the counties in England and Wales in proportion of criminals, whereas I am happy to inform you that Pembrokeshire stands only eight from the bottom, and instead of the criminals being 1 to 176 of the population, as in Glamor- ganshire, the proportion in Pembrokeshire is 1 to 581. I don't know that upon the particular cases before you it is necessary to make a single remark, but there is a matter that, though I am am addressing many probably belong- ing to the legislature, I think it is highly proper to bring before you as a Grand Jury. An act so recently passed that it received the Royal assent on the 26th of June and came into operation on the 4th of July, an act of great importance in the criminal administration of justice in this country, and entitled An Act to substitute in certain cases other punishments in lieu of transportation.' His Lordsbip then went over the various points in the Act, but as his observations on this subject in another part of the circuit have already been extensively published, we think it may suffice if we give now the purport of what he said rather than in detail. He showed how the act in question abolished transportation altogether, substituting penal servitude, the terms of which were made to cor- respond with those of transportation—pointed out that four years of penal servitude were substituted for seven of transportation, and so on, and that the act gave power to pass sentence of penal servitude of shorter duration than the former minimum term, viz., for not less than three instead of four years, and explained that by one provi- sion in the act convicts were liable to be removed from this country to a penal colony, there to be dealt with in all respects as if sentenced to transportation. His Lord- ship next pointed out that in the earlier stages of penal servitude all convicts were to be dealt with alike, being subjected to separate imprisonment for eight or nine months, then to be removed to one of the penal colonies created under the 5th, Geo. IV,, there to be employed on public works. A certain number would afterwards be selected for removal to a penal colony, the selection being made, as far as possible, from those whose sentences were not less than seven years. Half the original sentence would have to be undergone before removal to a colony where, by good conduct, theconvicts would become eligible for tickets-of-leave, and this being followed by a course of good conduct they would be permitted to return to this country. The period of employment on public works would vary from five-sixths to two-thirds of the sentence. With respect to cases of penal servitude for life they would have to be dealt with according to the special circumstances of the case. The convicts would, however be subjected to not less than eight years of imprisonment and labour on the public works of this country, and when removed to a colony would obtain no remission in less than twelve years. While transportation, therefore continued his Lordship, would be abolished it should be known that the executive Government would reserve the power of removing convicts to a colony. This, how- ever, did not at present apply to female convicts, there being no colony open to their reception. In conclusion his Lordship said,—' I have detained you thus long in mentioning what I thought should be generally known, and that is mv excuse for occupying your time. You will now retire to the discharge of your very easy duties, which you will soon accomplish.' His Lordship then turned to the Borough Grand Jury and congratulated them upon having, in fact, nothing to do.' They would be discharged at once on the under- standing that they would be re-summoned if any bill needed to be presented for their consideration—an event which he h"ped would not occur. The two Grand Juries then retired, and that for the County shortly afterwards returned into Court having found a 'Bill.' A petty jury was then empanelled, and the Court proceeded with the TRIALS OF PRISONERS. Peter O'Brien, 23, soldier, was arraigned on an indict- ment charging him with burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Evans, at the Borough of Pembroke, on the 13th ofAprit, 1857, and stealing one blanket and boa, the property of the said Win. Evans. Mr H. Allen conducted the prosecution— the prisoner was undefended. Wm. Evans: I am a shoemaker living at Pembroke- Dock.—On the night of the 13th of April I went to bed about 10 o'clock, having previously secured all the doors and windows. My wife awoke me about half-past 12 o'clock, being alarmed by a noise, and proceeding down stairs with a candle, I met a soldier about four or five stairs from the bottom. I asked him what he wanted, and how he came there? He made no answer, but knocked the candle out of my hand, and we were in darkness. I took hold of him and got him down, and after a further struggle I got him into the yard and locked him in the fowl-house. I then dressed and called assistance, and took the prisoner out of the yard into the house. I saw my wife's boa picked up in the yard. The blanket was in the room that! had been broken into. In the first struggle I had taken the man's medal and cap, and these I gave to the police. While going for the police I had left the man in charge of some persons from the Albion, whom I called to assist me. I found that a pane of glass in one of the windows had been broken and the sash lifted up. This was of the street window. Great force must have been used to open the window. I gave the man in custody at the time of the breaking. Cross-examined: I did not open the kitchen door—it was open. I did not bring you in from the street I did not see you break the window or steal anything. Mary Evans: I am the prosecutor's wife. I awoke my husband on the night in question, and he went down stairs. The boa produced is mine it was in the bureau of the room broken into on that night when I went to bed. Thomas Owen- I was fetched to the house of the pro- secutor whose front room I found in disorder. I found the boa produced and gave it to the police. The pri- soner was in the yard when I found it. Jeremiah jM'Carthy, a constable stationed at Pem- broke, deposed to going to the prosecutor's house on the night in question, where he saw the prisoner incus- tody, saw a blanket and a coat lying on the floor of the front room, and received a boa handed him from Mr. EVHIIS.—Witness also received a medal from Mr Evans. Prisoner: Did you not say when I was committed for trial that prosecutor said he had left a robber in bis house? Witness—Very likely I did. Prisoner—Then how I could be in the house when I was locked in the fowl pen ? (Laughter,) Richard Dickenson, a sergeant in the 51st, identified the medal as belonging to the prisoner. It was a medal for services in India. Mrs. Evans here identified the blanket, which she said was in a bureau when she and her husband went to bed. Mr. Evans also identified the coat, which had been left on the edge of a table. Prisoner said he had nothing to offer in defence. He had never been in a court before, and did not now wish to occupy his Lordship's time. His Lordship pointed out that the prisoner was caught in the act of burglary and never lost sight of, but con- fined at once, so there could be no doutt he was the man, there being nobody else there. With regard to the property it was quite enough to constitute a theft that a person remove any property, even an inch, with a felonious intent. Sergeant Dickenson said the prisoner had a bad cha- raetes as a soldier. He was addicted to drunkenness, was notorious for absence from duty, and had been con- victed before courts-martial for attempted thefts. His Lordship—How comes he to wear the medal? Witness — It was granted for bravery in the field, my Lord. His Lordship (to the prisoner)—You have been con- victed on the clearest testimony of having broken into the prosectiior s house, with intent to steal the property of the occupiers. You were, fortunately for the ends of justice, detected while attempting to go upstairs, and thereby prevented taking away any property. It is greatly to be regretted that a man who wears a medal such as that upon your breast, given for services in the field, should have brought yourself by your misconduct into your present position. There is no excuse for a man in a regiment breaking into a house to commit theft, but I understand your character is one of drunkenness— that leads to the expenditure of money, and for the pur- pose of getting the means of becoming drunk you have been led into crime. It is necessary that a severe sen- tence should be passed, because breaking and entering is an offence of a very serious character. The sentence of the court is, that you be imprisoned for eighteen months with hard labour. Joseph Stephens, 15, ship-carpenter, was chareed with wounding Benjamin Dawes, at the parish of Stainfon, with a knife, on the 16th of March, with intent to maim him. Mr. De Rutzen conducted the prosecution. Mr. Reynolds acted as interpreter. Benjamin Davies —I live at Pill. On the 16th March I was at Milford, where I met the prisoner- Mary Bey- non and Margaret Beynon were with him. I said nothing to the prisoner at the time, but subsequently on overtaking him near Pill, I said Mary is my sweetheart,' and added a request that the prisoner would leave us, as I wanted Vary to myself. Prisoner wanted me to turn back, but I said I was on my way home. We quari<e!led, and sprang at each other, and both tell. On rising I was stabbed in the left groin. I moved to .the side of the hedge, and prisoner coming to tne pulled me by the hair to the ground. When I was on the ground the sceond time, my clothes were cut behind with a knife. I felt Ît- I could not see what the prisoner had in his hand, it was too dark. When I got up I went home. I afterwards found there was hJold in my trousers' pocket. There was no one near us when we hila a struggle on the ground. Cross-examined bv the prisoner —[ did not knock you down. I did not fall ou you we fell together. Elizabeth Hughes.—I live in Pill, next door to Ben- jammDavies. On the night in question I saw him; he was vomiting. I took up his jacket which was cut up the back (proouced) I saw his shirt also, which had a good led ot blood on it. Cr ■examined—I have had the clothes in charge. «e.vn°n—1 live at Pill. I recollect the night of the loth March. I was at Milford walking with Joseph .Stephens. We walked to Pill Lane. Benjamin Davies ai'd his brother met us. My sister Margaret WHS with us. Davies told Stephens to go bark the other told him lie might go back, and a quarrel ensued. They struck each other and struguled on the ground. I heard nothing said about sweetheart. My sister picked up their caps. Cross examined hy the prisoner—I did not see the pro- secutor knock vuu down. Margaret Beynon and the prosecutor's brother were called, but gave iso important evidence. Richard Byers, a surgeon, deposed I wall called in to attend the prosecutor, and found a wound on his left side above the f<roin It was an incised wound, an inch and a half long, and was half an inch deep, and I thought it dangerous at the time. It must have been caused by some sharp instrument, which had gotie through the trou sers and shirt. For three days there was inflammation, which I wns apprehensive might have caused death, but at the expiration of that time it subsided, and now there is no danger. The prisoner's statement was here put in. It was to the effect that when he was in company with two girls the prosecutor used aggravating language to him, and ordered him to leave the girls. He would not comply, on which the prosecutor rushed up and struck him, knocking him down. He, prisoner, had a knife in his hand, with which he had been pairing his nails, and he supposed that, as be fell, the blade must have entered the prosecutors side, but he, prisoner, was not aware of the aC I » the following day. He put the knife in his pocket when he rose from the first struggle. His Lordsnip summed up, putting three alternatives to the jury if they were of opinion it was an accident they would acquit the prisoner-ifthey thought that the circumstances justified the conclusion that the knife was used but not with intent to do bodily barm, they might find the prisoner guilty of unlawfully wounding-if. however, they believed, after bearing the evidence, that the charge in the indictment was sustained, then they would find the prisoner guilty of the more serious charge. witness Margaret Beynon being re-called, said she did not remember seeing the prisoner paring his nails with a knife when he was walking with her and her sister. Two witnesses were called to character. Wm. Lewis, a blacksmith, said he had known the prisoner three years, and and he was harmless, inoffensive, and 'quiet as a lamb.' Mr. Evans, the prosecutor in the previous case, also gave the prisoner the character of being a quiet bad known him 16 years he said, ter ) rt^8^P he's only 15 years old. (Laugh- Witness Well, I have known him from his infancy, and he has always been quiet and harmless, and a regu- lar attendant at Sunday school when in this country. He was away in America three years. One of the jurymen here called out that he thought the jury should find that the wound was caused by ae cident. 3 His Lordship: It is what the jury think, not what you wish or may choose hastily to think. The jury then retired, and after an absence of a quar- er of an hour returned into court with a verdict of -N ot guilty.' Lo?d 6 °f thC 1 8UPP0Se We Sre ac(luitted now my His Lordship Oh, yes, you're discharged. (A laugh ) You, prisoner I must caution as to how you use a knife m future. The jury have founrl tho* ti • r J ,c *ouna that this was an acci- dent. I hope it was so. This concl.uded the criminal busiuess, and the court proeeeded wIth the following cause. TIT nr ir SPECIAi' JURV CASE. Mary Wdliams, executrix, t, John Morgan missorv r,, A r1nU6D,'lul< in respect of a joint pro- ioint doonm f t thr™ I O U 's-one of them b.ing a inneared f ?'• £ v»ns. Q.C.,and Mr. Hughes, Snted hT £ 8 P amUff' ar>d the defendant was repre- TTnulil y 1Urovea> .Q-C-, and Mr. Giffard. Mr. were th i pleadings. The defendant's pleas a* t tu did not make the note, was never indebted *1 I^lon^y lent, and thirdly that he had paid the ° e of the cl lm. 1 he leading facts of the case are in themseives succinct-but the matter was to a considera- ble extent embarrassed by the introduction of several notes and I.O.U.'s other than those really in dispute and we therefore propose to confine our report to a con- secutive narrative of the real points at issue, feeling our readers will necessarily more appreciate the reporj put in that form. The facts then which transpire during the trial were these. The husband of the plain- tiff was one Mr. Arthur Williams, who resided at Nar- berth, where, together with other oceupations-at oJ2Ø time that of a shopkeeper, at another that of postmaster -he carried on business as a money lender and bill dis- counter to a considerable extent, and it was in capacity that he came to have business transactions wit the defendant, and it was out of those transactions that the present claim, founded on documents alleged to have been found by Mr. William's widow after his death) was brought. The documents in respect of which the defendant was now sued, were as follows:—A promis- sory note, bearing date Jan. 5, 1854, being a bill at tw'<J months for £ 23 5s., and signed by the defendant an one Henry George, the latter as principal the surety or bail. An I.O.U. dated July 31st, 1854, to* £ 25 5s. 3d., signed by the defendant; an I.O.U. dated June 2nd, 1855, for £ 135, signed John Morgan and J0^11 David and an I.O.U. dated December 11, 1855, £ 2S5, signed '.John Morgan.' With regard to the of these documents—the promissory note—the plaint1 could give no further account of it than it was foun, among her husband's papers, and bore the signature 0 John Morgan, to which she swore as defendant's writi°(?' For the defence it was not pretended that the signature was not valid, indeed it was admitted to be, but Mr. contended that the amount had been already paid W Henry George, one of the parties to the note. That person was accordingly called, when he deposed t0 having paid Arthur Williams the amount of the 1.0. in two instalments—a receipt for one of which, v'?' £ 14 15s he produced, and alleged tnat he had mislal<1 the other. Simultaneously with this piece of evidc"^ a letter was handed in, in the handwriting of the plaint' • soliciting payment of the balance of the note, and as tni bore a date antecedent to the period at which deposed to paving the second instalment, the Judge sujj gested that there was evidence of payment of £ ^3 and to this view counsel for plaintiff assented. 1, respect to the second item, the I.O.U. for £ 25 5s. 3d-' the validity of the signature 'John Morgan' was n° disputed, the only question therefore was as to whet' e it had been paid. On this point the plaintiff could no other evidence than that the document being in possession was presumptive of non-payment, and indet' the reply to this demand was merely of a general natu^» the defendant, while admitting the genuineness of t document, producing ro receipt nor accounting f°r non-production, but only deposing that he had P^1 Arthur Williams all he ever owed him.' —The third do«u* ment, an alleged joint I.O.U. bv the defendant and °n, John David, for the sum of £ 135, formed the subject ° interesting and curious enquiry. The plaintiff dep"j' to finding it among her husband's papers, and swore t'ng the signiture to it of John Morgan, was in the handw'tj^j. of the defendant. One of her daughters made a allegation, while Mr Job Griffiths, one of the re'*eV1u,j officers at Xarberth, Mr. John Thomas, a farmer, had known the defendant 40 years, and Mr. J°seL Collins, an auctioneer, also swore that they believed in signature of John Morgan' to this document to be the defendant's writing. For the defence, WItnesses nd called to disprove these opinions:—David Morgan 8 Wm. Morgan, the brother and nephew of the defend8 Thos. John and Richard Gibbv, the two latter swore that they believed the signature not to be the defendant-they all thought it like his, but what better, and described what they considered to difference in the making of ene of the capital letterSt did not assert that the character of the writing ferent from that of John Morgan's usual writing. with regard to John David, the person alleged to have a party to the note, the plaintiff, who had once des(:rl his appearance to William Morgan, could not » tell who he was, while defendant denied stoutly ,0 he had ever borrowed £ 135 with any Job David, a° .P<J learned^ Counsel for the defcnce ingeniously uj that eitner the plaintiff was not likely to get some from this John David, and so forged the name of Morgan to the note, or this John David had BO ence at all, and his name was merely added to ready forged signature of John Morgan to give appearance of genuiness and authenticity. ThuS matter stood with regard to this item of £ 135, jed should be remarked, that, though the defendant with the greatest positiveness that he had borrowed money, he shrunk from denying the truth of his biØl ture to the note, and all that could be wrung after repeated questions of Is that your handwrit1" was, 'I never borrowed the money:' and Mr. i«jjt suggested that this was an evasion, that the defeD was taking refuge under a safe general denial) astutely avoided committing himself to an assertion* ,jJJ< consequence of which he knew might be serious to' With regard to the last document, the I. 0. U. for y signed John Morgan,' the defence was that the .0 ture was not a valid one, and on this point the s\' was strangely conflicting. In the first place direct denee as to its authenticity was produced. The swore that on the day named in the document the dant went to her husband, and asked for a loan of ±;fj: it was granted to him, counted out to him by and her daughter, Mrs. Baker, in whose hand-^fl bie the body of the document was, and she saw him signature to the 1. O. U. Mrs. Baker gave equally fact phatic direct evidence of the transaction, alleging 111 that she, too, heard the defendant ask for the moneV'i him get it (for she counted it as well as her mother}) saw him put his signature to the I. O. U., in acknowledged the receipt of the sum. To this 0( of a direct character—only weakened by the inabihj? the mother or daughter to speak to the particular gaJ% notes of which the money was composed, or the tbeY on which any of the notes were drawn, a fact accounted for by the heavy pressure of business at their office on a fair day—was added some c by testimony ot an important character. It was Pr°Ttjj of two witnesses that on this particular day, the^lj 0fl9 December, the defendant, when asked to < go bail' f°0f» Williams to the plaintiff's husband inrespect of Jo purchased by him, declined, saying, he was too aee. £ tct Mr. Williams's books:' it was proved that at j,i cb period of the same day—subsequent to the time at he was alleged to have borrowed the £ 285,—he to become Williams's surety, and went with him to & marloee, the plaintiff's residence, for that purposu;.et1' that Mrs. Williams declined to accept him as ^#4 to have anything to do with him, in fact, as «e ijo' plenty from them already to-day and this was a to tb8 sion, as was contended by the plaintiff's counsel, 1 ¡ø heavy sum defendant had already borrowed on that addition tothisevidence, direct and collateral, of a vo°^ ^$0 transaction on the llthofDecember, andtheevidence0 of mother and daughter as to the validity of the signal jo John Morgan to the document, the same testimony. Morgan s hand-writing was produced as was offered1 matter of the £ 135,-Job Griffiths, Jo^n Thoffla8' „d- Joseph Collms swearing that in their belief the D writing was that of John Morgan. For the deI David Morgan, William Morgan, Thomas Jobn» fl.ur« Richard Gihby deposed that in their belief the was not in John Morgan's hand-writing, while fendant himself denied that he had ever borrowed but, as in the previous case, would not positively e$U though he put on his spectacles to look at the docu"* gj< that the signature was his hand-writing. FIve °haod' times Mr. Evans put the question—' Is that YOIlÍ nefet writing.' 'I don't know,' was the answer; borrowed the money.' The defence did not, h<> jjs' solely rely on these denials, but called to their aio ,jj)t t'nctcircumstance. Wm. Morgan, it wassaid, aod Ie oCc^' of fact he made a similar averment himself, on 011 Incle ø sion asked the plaintiff for a list of his 11 tb8 I. O. U.'s. on which occasion he was shewn all sa GrOve, one for £ 285. This, it was suggested by Mr. shewed that the document for £ 285 had been factured subsequently to that, but this inference by the assertion, supported bv the evidence of the p and one of her daughters, that Wm. Morgan 4* asked for a list of documents in which his unCa0 liable jointly with other people, and that of c°U|is t °l I. O. U., though shewn him, was not put in the documents of another character, and which 1 distinctly asked for. A further point was also a in favour of the defendant. Wm. Morgan a his evidence was pretty well corroborated by Roberts, that on one occasion when he had c £ )I,ie Ji' with Mrs. Williams about a debt for which bis become security to Arthur Williams (the decease J,I« asked her if she had any further demand a8ftl?g tfl' uncle, and she replied, I have one more, ^oil" and in reply to further qu-stions, said that the a tb« was from £ 19 to £ 20 or £ 25. This conversati plaintiff admitted in part, but denied using that's all,' and said that the talk had reference the small debts due from the defendant to her b 1 t and about which Wm. Morgan had requested to IjJrged formed first, before entering on the subject of t ase, ones. These were the principal facts of the ca.jinci'15 with these as a foundation, Mr Grove, after in*V 9t a case in which the plaintiff had sent in a claim been satisfied, referred to proceedings which 9 commenced and abandoned, and to the readine g which, throughout this case, she had sworn t^h tP fendant's handwriting, while she had spoken 0f^ greatest degree of hesitancy as to the hand ted daughters and husband, which she might be exp^s9 ifi know better; suggested what he termed tb0 £ e consistencies of the case-the amounts said to 0 g¡:ao o! borrowed, the manner in which they had bee" 1 without question or security—commented on th j tP the sum of £ 285 not being put in the list; ^oJD ggeJ^y fact of a similarity in the various signatures by a that in point of fact forgeries were always 8Sefof0 1/j like, and that the difference in the instances & court were just the sort likely to arise in a forge ^>f(bc I Grove concluded by confidently appealing f°r 8tj0p tP.^ Mr Evans, on the other hand, repudiated the D°bicb the facts elicited justified the conclusion at w j Grove bed arrived that there had been foV^ynCe °f (,{ jury, and urged that the straightforward evid'B°baeljcf plaintiff and her daughters, but above all the a jjgti a denial by the defendant himself in positive an terms of the signHture, justified the jury in r &S > verdict for the plaintiff. With regard to tbe> he contended that as defendant had produce ^g gU nor accounted for its non-production there cient evidence to satisfy reasonable men of1 y io9tf y His Lordship, wnrningthejury against being le j f°r%jed cient induction to the conclusion that perjury regia thO had been committed, summed up, especi^ ■and t0^' ft the £28.5, deci Jedly in favour of the plaintin, was 0o j jury that with espect to the £ 25 5s 3d, there general denial the value of which they retui'°e The jury, af'jr a short absence from cour verdict for the defendant. itbdra<'I1W The remaining causes on the list were V that the business of the Assizes terwin^ted 0 night.