Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

8 articles on this Page



MERTHYR COUNTY COURT, (Before His Honour Judge FALCOSB R.) SALEM CHAPEL, MERTHYR TIT DFIL.- IMPORTANT JUDGMENT EQUITY, IN RESPECT OF A LEGAC Y OF £ 100, BEQUEATHED BV THE WILL OF WALTER WATKIXS DE- CEASED, (FORMERLY OF THE CANTON TIM WAREHOUSE. > Mr Frank James, for Salem Congress*) ion and Mr T} tomas "Williams, for residuary Legatees. His Honour gave judgment in this im^ a rtant case on lesday last. The evidence was gfiven at 41 le last Court. His Honour said The late Walter Watlrih s, by a codicil to his will, dated the 26th day of October. 1854, directed tA trustees named in his will, after the decao se of his wife, t(> j)-ay out of his estate and effects as shall' onsist of per- to the trustees for the time bein; of th? YVelsli esle yan Reform Chapel, about to be buini m Merthyr, e sunr of £ 100 for the benefit of the CongW gation of the tid Chs ,pel. The testator died the 22nd of No member, 18o4, >nd the will and codicil were proved the < » <J' une, 18oo. The char el contemplated was eracted in 1855, and the date °f the de wi of the foundation of the Chapel is "he 10th of April 185. 5. This deed is enrolled, and tbe de ath of the tes- tator there was no chapel such as is described ui the will, in existence i there was no trustees of the intended chapel, ^he wife'of testator., Elizabeth Watkins, died ^e4th of July 1869 The fund, namelyUhe legacy of £100, is Maimed by DiWid Davies, of Blaengwawr John Rees. George William S Richard Hams, John John, and Evan Evans of lsantvfi l°> as the present acting trustees of the Welsh' We< levari l?«f°rm Chapel mentioned in the codicil. On e "moiety of the fund is also claimed by Dinah Lewis widow David ll>ewis, William David and Annf; his And the other claimants of part of the fund are John Catkins Walter Jones, William Jones, and Thomas }Vilson Goodfellow, in right' -of Anne his wife. They allege, in their petitioi I, that there is no such sect as the Welsh Wesleyan Reformers, nor amy Welsh Wesleyan .Reform Chapel in Merthyr, nor was there at the time of the death ?.f Elizabeth Watkins. At the' outset it is important to men- ?l°n, that the bequest of mo ney by will to build a chapel v°id.—Thus in the case of B-opkinsv- Phillips, 4, L. I. K. our; George Towey, who was himself a deaf and dumb ^rson, by his will gave £ 200 to the aid of the deaf and dumb, o found a chapel for them in London. This bequest was h^d to have been a gift ifii Mortmam-a conclusion *Wh the Vice-Chancellor sail, "he came to with the S^.test reluctance and regret." Here, however, the gift ? f«r the benefit of the congregation. Then, again, as the ^uest in this will is, for a particular object, if that object fails, though, it is a charitable gift, it will form part of the residuary estate to be administered. If also, when a testa- to,r makes a general gift, by will, to trustees for' an object the law does not allow to be accomplished by will, a communication to the legatee of the testator sin ten- r "on is proved, though it is not expressed in the will, the fails I Walsrr&ve v. Xebbs, 2 K, and. J. 313 Moss ?• Cooper 4 L. T. R. 793 Jones v. Badlev 19, L. T. R., and Juniper v. Batchelor, 19, L. T. R. 200.] If a gift trustees with the design to aid in building a chapel '"e gift is void if such intention were communicated to the j^stees by the testator, though not expressed by the will. |VIra Watkins, the widow, advanced £ 100 on a note, in her {^etime to aid the building. Since her death this note has J beea sued on by her representatives. Probably,-if this had jjot been done, the disposition of the £ 100 by her, if it had ^charged this legacy, might have been questioned. _Af, tinae of the death of the testator the chapel, not bein g b'Jdt, there was no congregation in that chapel, though thf re a congregation which intended to meet in the cha pel ^en it should be built. Mr Joseph Jordan says, he left "BC Wesleyan Congregation along with Walter Wat'.{ins, testator's wife, and a number of others that they wor- shipped for some time in a school-room, and afteywavds re- ^.°vet\ to the Temperance Hall, having -differed ^ith t,he old Wesleyan connection on certain points °* Chu rch government, and formed themselves into ??. assov "iation of Welsh Wesleyan Reformers during "hich t ime they were getting up subscriptions t?r a cha pel to be used as a place of worship by them .?at the ch urch was erected in 1855; that W. VVatkins, ?e testato. died the 22nd November, 1854, ar.d that the was c 'pened about the year 1856 that he and. other ^embers of the congregation, including the widow, Mrs. yatkins, wot"shippedthere for some years, and that their ?ass-itteetin" ?, doctrines, and mode of worship were similar L those of th e old Connection. The declared trust of the I papel Was i.; Upon trust to permit the said chapel or ,lleeting-hcmse, with the appurtenances, from time to time, used and enjoyed as a place of worship of Almighty ^°d for the use the congregation, church, and society of roteatant Dissei iters of the denomination commonly called Vesleyan Reformers, at Salem Cbapel aforesaid, and of Uch persons as si iall hereafter be united to the said chapdl °r Society." This is the substance of the declaration of fust, under the d eed of 1856. Then Mr. Jordan says that aftfc/ they had been there about two years a number of people from O chapel called Horeb, situate at Penydarran, being a? Indt ^pendent chapel, having had a dispute in their le ct it and came to them, and professed to become \v sleyan Reformers. These new members made S^jection, +„ the class meetings^ and to the old hymn book.. Mass niepH s were discontinued, and the Independent *yinn bont8 substituted for the one formerly used, in 8pite of V nfr Jordan's) objections, and the objections ,°f all • i Welsh Wesleyan Reformers hut being Jess niltT1 gina} • were over-ruled. The chapel then Wame ,fr<^us independent congregation, and Mr. Jordan a.n- o longer that of a Welsh Wesleyan 13 n 1 the congregation Welsh Wes- eyan nPr, it is now on a certain register S? the fii'ff ner.8 u i v. ponging to the Independents. Jhe pev 5rerl c yaPe s. states that the differences of tw0 'mbonley+-Jobnst °B that the Independents 1° Zt are principle as part of their recognise the c< >nne> i i Reformers do- SP! organisation, while the v EB,F>A1N ^-etormers ao. e°onHiv xi pY.vnt deacons, have any °$cial Itnf iiQ r lay,m i ndent'-ehes, whereas lay- Preacher i111-, Indep vg a definite official £ ?sition a 1^ H Ckw t, ,n Methodist Reformers: thirdly +i"0fn^l1t \v T6S Met Hodiat Reformers have aeverr that th? Lesleys .n Met. ^nfcg members 0f their recogmsed b,ylhef rmers have never as „ ^nomination, and that thiese Keto ,nised ^ut nni 01 body expressed a wish to be so recog. cegsation of fcas John Davies says th, ,e te been no of 'n the chapel, or any sudden or abrupt se.. e^bers, the changes havin ? been gradual, some v. "a some aoing • and that Mr. Johnson is in error ,f lay-preachers as part, of their system, he himse,. tWD! been a lay-preacher b efore Mrs. Watkins left, and c Jcrt, Mr" John Morgan has acted as such. Perh&ps Mr. t i anaGs^0newas misunderstood t.for he speaks of official status, \Viiv^^t mere preaching. Messrs. Thomas Williams and j 0{ -J«atQ Wilkins say that the chapel was used as a place 1 er« shiP by the sect knowi las Welsh Wesleyan Reform- beli ? and about the year 1860, to the best f their ] -.I > since which period th e said chapel has been used as -j or p °f worship for the se ct known as the Independents, j that Ongregationalists. Mr John William Lewis states j cban ^arge number of pe ople from. Zoar Chapel left that I that an^ came to theirs, a R'.d owing to their influence and hefo °f .the people from 11 oreb, who had joined them L finj-re (in the year 1S59), s<; veral changes were made and ) oha^f at so many altera: ,i ons were being made in the f Drl, and that they wacited to introduce one Robin Wit-v,' had been and was an Independent preacher, he, the several others, includeing Mrs. Watkins, widow o ll! ^stator, left the chapel, and joined the Wesleyans.. Thomas Williams, one of the surviving trustees and v e°Utor of the will of the -testator, states the facts of the ^Uest an(j tv ,jrg -yvatk ins lent £ 100 to the trustees of Wesleyan Refortr. C'hapel, on their note of hand, that after her decease lie and his co-trustee com- th need an action for the saiue. He says the trustees of cbapel have never been changed, but tha.fc !"he>a0 not ^iip in the said chapel, nor d o they hold it for the con- futation which has always worsh ipped there, such congre- now consisting of WelsL' Independents, instead «. ,W"elsh Wesleyan Reformers. Upon this state or ;^ts there can be no doubt tl'at the congregation, of Independents, is a, different denominational con- f f?egation than that of Welsh Wesleyan Reformers. But nf^,as further said that there are instances of recognition ■o the change of tenets of the members of such chapels. t "wherever such recognition has taken place it has been Peculiar and exceptional circumstances, and chie y o^.er the operation of Lord Lyndhurst's Act of the 7 and ^^ct., ch. 145. In the case of Attorney-General v. Bume, hich ig) perhaps, the latest of this class of cases, having decided in 1868 (18 L. T. R., 742), there had been a t^ndation at Devizes for the benefit of Presbyterians m seventeenth century. Gradually the congregation Baptists. For 70 years the congregation, which, deed of 1803, was described as Presbyterians, was ^ually Baptists. There was nothing definite in the ^Pressions qf the deed of foundation in the use of the of0lD "Presbyterian," and there having been a succession _#.(~.aptist ministers for more than 70 years, the case was ^ttun the terms of Lord Lyndhurst's Act, which provides „ 25 years' usage previous to the suit was conclusive Ol! nce °f objects of the charity. And the Vice- aT1cell°r further said:—" Even if this were not so, it is, th* i even*'s» dear that there is not, and has not been for if last century, any strictly Presbyterians at Devizes, and' the Baptist congregation is not the object of these nantiea, they must fail altogether. This would make it case for the application of the cy-presx doctrine, and Pon that doctrine he was of opinion that the present con- Pon that doctrine he was of opinion that the present con- ^Sation was the proper object of the charities. There Pr » decree accordingly." (37 L. T. n., 704.) Certain .a^j yterians, consequently, who claimed the fund failed, i»i baptist congregation were confirmed in their enjoy- L^^t 0f the chapel and the endowments. In the case nae. at the very inception — and only a few years J^ce—of this chapel, the distinctive difference of Welsn jb €sleyan Reformers and Independents caused them to be Stioct churches. The words Reform and Reformers ^ded to thp "Wesleyans," would not describe,a body of i'CSeJS. If thfdoMtion had been dtaBnotto giro. build the chapel, it would have failed through a legal 1 tuition of Sh a testamentary appropriation. But « <U <■> "WA the «n ««*3 110 doubt thit those who asriembied in +"he'testator occasions here joined in prayers ^iththetestator "'ere those whom heexpectéd would join m worship m the ehapel they designed to build. But m tIns hall they were Uncertified or unregistered assembly, so far as the law ^d recognise them" -of pious persons meeting here forming a congregation bound by any enforceable J^ks-qf association. They professed to be VVesleyans m es^ntials of teaching and in their doctrinal professions, .$t they had severed from, and were in opposition to, the SesleyL Church as a constituted body of Christian men cabled themselves Reform Wesleyans, hut the word inform iiierely expresses a vague and indefinite sentiment, ying, when it expresses anything in defined words, some of temporary efforts though the word Reform may be ^ade significant to designate the accomplished purpose a new society to which an older society may have been PPosed. In political contests, and in the changeable ^cunistances of human life, new institutions are proposed, fresh objects, of desired, or desirable of, attainment, 'J'ise, and the multitude may be held together to assist in attainment by aery for''Reform. It brings many nto one flock though of different folds, who entertain Prions decrees'of political hopes and expectations, and who I^uire for their union none to be defined as common to all. ut in a reliaious eqmmunity, if the word Reform is not ) congregation, church, and society of Protestant Dissenters, the denomination commonly fcalled 'Wesleyan Reformers.' at Salem Cha,pel, and of such persons as should thereafter be united to the said Church, and to be used occasionally for such purposes of religion and benevolence as a majority of the communicants of the said church and society should require and to, permit such persons to officiate therein from time to time, as the majority of members who have been in full communion, for three months shall choose and appoint to be their permanent minister, during their will and plea- sure only, and without any control by the trustees for the time being; anc: to permit such persons to officiate until he or they may be displaced by a like majority." There is no expression of doctrines, and the chief object of the trust seems to be that the congregation may always have an acceptable minister to guide and instruct them in religious duty. The word "Wesleyan seems to be as much a mere name as that of Reform," in the style and designation of the chapel. The trust deed does not define the meaning of either of th ese words. It seems to be a free church, in the election of i ministers acceptable to the congregation at all events it is < ;he congregation of the chapel to which the gift was approp riated. The chapel did not exist when the testator die, 1, and the trusts were declared eighteen months after his de; ith. The chapel and the congregation were non- existent wh en the will took effect. If the gift were to be con- strued as a g-ift by the testatorfor the benefit of the congrega- tion aasemb ling in the intended chapel when his wife should die and then p: iyable, the present religious services of the chapel would not prevent the trustees from receiving this bequest. I think, h owever, that as there was no existing congrega- tion at th" time of the testator's death, the gift failed. As a religiou s person, the testator must be presumed to have had defin ite views respecting the purposes of his intended charitable bequest; but is it to be inferred that the trusts of the ch apel promulgated by the deed eighteen months after thw tieath of Mr. Watkins were expressions of the pur- poses he. intended to promote ? I by no means desire it to be supposed that I infer he would not have assented to them. J merely say he had not the opportunity to have assented to the principles of the trusts, if the trusts were to be regap led in the benefit of the congregation," which he desired 'to aid. But there is another ground on which it ap- pears to, me that the bequest' conclusively fails. It is the gift of £ 100 for the benefit of the congregation of a chapel to be built." Is it possible to say that these are not irr tentionally vague words, directing the trustees to tpply this money to the building, or that they are not ivords used to evade the legal effect of words which, ivithou t doubt, would have made the gift inoperative, lad th ey distinctly directed the appropriation of the money ;o the. building of the chapel ? It appears to me that the jene^jij of the congregation contemplated by the testator vas the building and that, on this account, the bequest :ailr>d. Judgment for the residuary legatees. T heire was no application as to costs, it being understood ;hp,t as; it was, in a sense; a friendly suit, the costs would i )e deft ayed out of the legacy amount. ] ABERDARE INTELLIGENCE. TEA MEETING.—A tea meeting was held at Nazareth Chapel, on Thursday last. A large number of persons put in an appearance, who showed, in an unmistakeable manner, their appreciation of the tea and the proceedings generally. The chapel was very neatly and appropriately decorated, a circumstance which tended to heighten the enjoyment. Tea being over, an entertainment came off, consisting of singing, &c. The chapel was now well filled, and the evening passed rapidly, but pleasantly. The usual cere- ve I g monies having been gone through,"the audience dispersed. MEETING OF COLLIERS. —A meeting of colliers was held on Monday evening last in Maesydre, in order to hear a deputation from the North of England on "the Colliers Universal Amalgamation." Mr Thomas Thomas, Cwmdare, took the chair, and addressed the audience in Welsh, ex- plaining the object of the meeting. The deputation, Mr Lewis, then spoke. He said he was a Welshman, but had. been fourteen years in the North of England. During that time the changes in favour of and against the colliers had been many. He wanted to know whether the colliers generally were in the position they ought to be in at the present day ? No, they were not, and he appeared before them in order to try and amend matters. Very recently they had received an advance of wages, but were they in a posi- tion to maintain that ? If the masters were to come and say, We will lower your wages again so much," the pro- bable result would be that they would have to succumb to it. Union throughout the kingdom would place them in such a position that would compel the masters to keep up the wages, and very soon the collier would be placed upon i level with persons of other occupations. He explained what were the results of amalgation with the carpenters, joiners, masons, [and others, and contended that by the same means colliers might raise themselves from their pre- sent miserable poverty-stricken condition. Time after iirne the colliers of Aberdare had been solicited to have an jniversal unity, but to their shame, he said, they had leclined or rather refused again they were solicited by (• iieir brother workmen for the sake of themselves, their vives, and their children. He then proceeded to state the )bjects of the proposed amalgamation, which were princi- )ally-less. working hours, more wages, permanent widows' :ompensation, better system of sub-inspection, &c. The ipeaker indulged in the usual clap-trap with great vehe- nence, and was seemingly appreciated by his listeners. The .atter part of his speech was given in Welsh, by which he jxcited the enthusiasm of the meeting. Other men also spoke on the subject, advocating the principles of the icheme. After all was over in the shape of addresses, the issembly unanimously decided in favour of amalgamation. Che meeting broke up in good order. BOARD OF HEALTH.-The ordinary meeting was held yesterday (Thursday), when there were present Messrs R. H. Rhys, (chairman), J. Lewis, T. Davies, D. Davis, Wil- iam Davies, Daniel David, T. Burn, T. Pugh, and the Rev M. Phillips.-The minutes of the last meeting were read tnd confirmed, and also a report of the Finance Committee was read and adopted from which it appeared that there was a sum of £ 271 10s 4d in the Treasurer's hands they -ecommended.that cheques for, £ 446 13517 d should be signed n payment of the several amounts. The Inspector of Nuisances' report was read, and notices werelordered to be served upon the parties complained of. The Medical officer )f Health reported that the well-known Privy House" in Vlarket-street was overcrowded, and he recommended the Board allow to only two persons to live in it. A discussion iollowed, and it appeared that-the house had been so iltered as to justify the Board in allowing people to live therein, but the question now was one of simply over- crowding.—Mr Pugh, who had a motion on the question, k-i rose and said he should not make a long speech, as the .I,- iress ^tated he was in the habit of doing, but he would only nake onL" of five minutes duration, this he did, endeavouring o show tha the Board had not been acting fairly in the natter of appi,,)viDg of building plans favouritism was not le said a byegone but a present element of the^Board and o denounce lit was reason for nsmg.^The Chairman „i +>i<.t Tmrl hp k*Q°wi1 that Mr Pugh did not ial a mo+ion, he should not have ntend maki g time of the Board. in taking a speech.—The Clerk was requested to write to the wties that lived in the*house that unless they reduced the fuX to'two, they w^^g; n<r —The surveyor s report was also read, ine price IOI ;he North West Gate of the park, which had been broken JV one of Mr Hosgood's cabs would be £ 8 8s. 9d, the work was ordered to be proceeded with, and Mr Hosgood 7be charged with the expense,-The building plans from Messrs. P. Rees, William Davies, and T. J. Pearce were improved of.—Mr. Dyke appeared before the Board asking that they would take into their serious consideration the makin"- of a proper road te Abernant Station there had been he said, several accidents on the road lately. The members*all agreed that it was necessairy tha^somethi^ should be done, for at present the road was a very dangerous one.-The estimate for a new general district SSSeS iu the JE. as well as a park rate of Id intl £ was' read.—Tenders for the supply of gas to the street larrins were read from both the New and Old Gas Com- panies, in which the former offered to supply^ a™p with gas, of the requisite illuminating power at: £ 1 lfa"bd. ITnd the latter for £ 2 per year; the tender of the New Company was accepted.-One or two other unimportant matters having been disposed of, the Board broke up. ABERDARE POLICE COURT. TUESDAY .(Before H. C. Greemmod, and B. H. Rhys, Esquires.) FURIOUS DRIVING.-TWO men named Thomas Williams and David Price, from Pentremawr, Cefnpennar, were mmmoned for furiously driving along f mS°%hbuir bf LrSottlJiJtr together hibSlfined at the lit »urt). rm horseback, tiding down amTtke sfc S wf 4 was full of people, who had to run m all directions to make way for the defendants and their horses he ran after them for some- distance, but they still continued at the same Tate until they went out of his sight The reason at, *■ 4-a ti' *tv* «n full was that it was about half-past "Id Se^Sle »ere co-tag U of the different nlaces of worships-One «f the defendants said there Were noTmanypeople on the streets a<; the time and^ll that wpre there walked on the pathway. —-Mr J^ees, wno seemed to know the place much better than the defen- dant, reminded him that there was no pathway for a lo distance on the road where he was seen by the oqlcej?., and as to the number of people walking up and down the street he was certain that as they were coming out of the places of worship, that they could be counted by thousands. The Bench, after cautioning defendants against indulging in such mad freaks again, fined them 5s and costs, amounting altogether to 12s 3d, which sum was immediately paid. Six KNIGHTS OF THK NEEDLE IN TROUBLE. — Henry Griffiths, William Price. John Lewis, Edward Williams, Timothy Edwards, and Evan Jones, all of them tailors, were summoned for being in the White Hart beerhouse, Aberaman, during prohibited hours, and for \^hich offence/ the landlady had been convicted. The two last-named de- fendants did not appear; and after the service of summons upon them had been proved, warrants were ordered to be issued for their apprehension.—P. S. Davies said that on the morning of Thursday, the 26th ult, he went into the above beerhouse where he found all the defendants drinking in a back room Mrs. Watkins, the landlady, was also in the house at the time.—All the defendants admitted being m Se at "he time stated by the officer but they went • tViorp to have a *'drop" with the lodger, when the officer came and disturbed them.—The P^uch said that they could not make any excuse now for being m a public- house during prohibited hours for it was well known that they were making themselves liable to a fine and that a heavy one, too, viz., 40s. and costs. They d nl however, to impose the full penalty this time, they again be summoned for a similar offence they would certainly be dealt with much more harshly, rined-s 6d and 8s. 6d. costs, or 7 days'imprisonment. No APPEARANCE.—-Charles Williams was summoned by Mr Daniel David Ifor wilfully damaging two fields.-De- fendant did not appear.The summons was proved to have been left at the house where he lodged, but it appeared that he had not had it yet.—The case was therefore remanded for a lortnignt. COWARDLY ASSAULT ON A FEMALE.-Henry Lewis was summoned for assaulting Susan Poole on the 4th inst.—The complainant said that on the above date, she met the defen- danf in Gwawr-street; they had a few words, after which he struck her on the back until she fell down in a brook of water," where she was nearly smothered; she was much hurt by the fall.—A witness named Eleanor Rules was called ajid deposed to seeing the defendant strike the com- plainant until she fell into the water she did not see MJ*S Poole give him any provocation.—P.C. Cross said that he remembered prosecutrix coming to the station a few days ago; she was quite .wet, and seemed as though she had ago; she was quite .wet, and seemed as though she had Vea taken out of sopjepool of water she had also a wound head which was bleeding very much, and one of her on the ■ crovd 4c%l swollen she s»i<J tha-t she bad been hand8wasae 1 • '■ pushed into the brook in Gwawr-street.—The defendant admitted having struck prcsecutrix as she stated, and then entered into the particulars of numerous rows which he had had with her for beating his children, which he said, she was continually doing.—The prosecutrix denied having at any time beaten the defendant's children.—The Bench con- sidered the charge was proved, and fined the defendant for his cowardly assault upon the complainant in the sum of 20s, and costs 13s 9d, or in default 14 days' imprisonment. DISORDERLY PASSENGER.—William Morgan was charged with being drunk in the Great Western Railway Station, and also with using abusive language, and interfering with the Company's servants.—Samuel Williams, ticket col- lector, said that the defendant came into the station on the 7th instant; he (witness) did not notice that he was drunk when he came in a short time afterwards he got up from one of the seats and began quarreling with another man, whom he struck and he also made use of very bad language.—In reply to the Bench, witness said he had not a copy of the Compatfy's rules to produce, for he thought that Inspector Mends would have attended the court.— The case was therefore adjourned until next week for the production of the rules. A YOUNG BURGLAR.—Richard Howells, a young lad about 15 years old. was brought up charged with stealing two quarters of tobacco and a bottle of sugar lozenges, the property of Mr Benjamin Evans, grocer, Cwmbach.—The prosecutor said that on the 6th instant he went to the back of his shop, when he found one of the windows of his ware- house quite loose, as though it bad been taken out by some inexperienced hand, who could not put it back in its right place he had such a large quantity of goods at the time that he could not say whether he had lost anything or not; he had two boxes of tobacco there, and a large number of sweets in eight pound bottles; he knew the prisoner per- fectly well, for he lived opposite his shop he had also sent I him away from his shop many times the bottle produced was precisely the same as the ones he had, and it had also the maker's name, which corresponded he was the only person in Cwmbach that kept such bottles the tobacco was like that which he sold. Rees Williams, another lad living at Cwmbach, said he knew the prisoner very well about, a month ago he gave him a quarter of tobacco for 6d.; he used a portion of it, and the remainder he gave up to the police-constable; the prisoner did not say at the time where he got it from, but said on the following day that he had stolen it from the man with whom he was lodging last Sunday week he also received some lozenges from the prisoner ;|they were like those produced he did not say any- thing as to where he had got them from.- Thomas Davies, another lad, said he received nearly a whole quarter of tobacco from the prisoner that day week for 45 marbles he smoked the whole of the tobacco the prisoner did not tell him where he had had it from.—In reply to the Bench, the witness said the marbles that he gave for the tobacco were not worth a penny, and did not think it strange that it should be given him for those few marbles he did not know the price of a quarter of tobacco, for he only bought apennyworth at atime.—The Bench, addressing the witness, remarked that he must have known that the prisoner could not afford to give a quarter of tobacco, which cost from Is to Is 3d. for a few marbles, and advised him to be more careful in his purchases or exchanges in the future, or he might find himself in the same awkward predicament as the prisoner.—P.C. Williams said that from information received, he apprehended the prisoner at Cwmbach last night; he told him he was charged with unlawfully enter- ing the shop of Mr Benjamin Evans and stealing there- from two quarters of tobacco, and some lozenges; he replied that he knew nothing about it, but atterwards said he had had one half-a-quarter, and again said It was only one whole quarter that I took out of the shop, in the strike week, at Cwmbach prisoner asked him to tell Mr Evans to call at his (prisoner's) house, and he would tell him all about it; prisoner told him some time after he was charged, that he had stolen another quarter of tobacco on the Friday after he had taken the first. Under the window where he got in there were some visible footmarks corresponding with the prisoner's shoes, which he produced the bottle (produced) he found in a closet at Cwmbach, having been thrown down there by some children whom he could not trace. Mr Rhys here remarked that he thought Mr. Evans was very careless with his pre- mises.—Thomas Walters, the person with whom the pri- soner lived, said he had not missed any quarters of tobacco. -Inspector Howlett said that after P.C. Williams had brought prisoner to the station, and he had booked the charge, be repeated it over to him, and he replied, I do not deny but that I took the two quarters of tobacco, but I did not steal the lozenges.—The prisoner was now charged with simply stealhig the two quarters of tobacco, to which he pleaded guilty, and the Bench sentenced him to 21 days' imprisonment with bard labour. A YOUTHFUL THOUGH CONFIRMED DRUNKARD.—A young man named Griffith James was brought up under a war- rant Gharged with being drunk and riotous in Mill-street on the 24th inst.—P.C. Pointz proved the charge.-It ap- peared that this was not defendant's first appearance, he having only about a month ago been fined in the sum of 25s, :3d. for a similar offence. —The Bench now mulct him in the penalty of 10s. and 10s 9d costs.—The defendant applied for a week to find the money.—Their worships granted his application on the condition that he would give up drinking.—Defendant said he now intended trying to keep away from it. ANOTHER PAIR OF DRUNKARDS.—James Donovan and Thomas Jones were also summoned for being drunk and riotous.-The charges were proved and the defendants were severally fined 5s and 10s, and costs.





Family Notices