The Cardiff and Merthyr Guardian Glamorgan Monmouth and Brecon Gazette

MONMOUTHSHIRE SUMMER ASSIZES. The commission for this county was opened on Thurs- day afternoon week, as stated in our last, by Mr. Justice Patteson, who entered the town escorted by the usual retinue of javelin-men, and attended by the High Sheriff, W. Phillips, Esq., and his chaplain, the Rev. D.. Jones, of Caerleon. At four o'clock the learned judge proceeded to St. Mary's Church, where the assize sermon was preached by the sheriff's chaplain. Lord Denman, who was joined in the commission with Mr. Justice Patteson, did not arrive till a later period of the day. Lord Denman presided at the Crown Bar, and Mr. Justice Patteson sat in the Nisi Prius Court. CROWN COURT.—FRIDAY. Lord Chief Justice Denman took his seat about eleven o'clock, and the following gentlemen were sworn as the GRAND JURY. The Most Noble Marquis of Worcpstrr, foreman. Lord Granville Somerset, I W. A. Williams, jun., Esq. M.P. G. Cave, Esq. S. R. Bosanquct, Esq. O. A. Wyatt, Rsq. W. H. Little, Esq. T. Wakeman, Esq. O. C. S. Morgan, Esq., T. Tudor, Esq. M P. P. Turner, Esq. E. H. Phillips, Esq. John Butler, Esq. John Roberts, Esq. T. Davies, Esq. J. F. Vaughan, Esq. T. Gratrox, Esq. The officcr of the court having read the usual procla- mation against vice and immorality, his lordship addressed the grand jury as follows :— Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—J consider that I shall be fully justified in congratulating you upon the lightness of the present calendar. I am decidedly of opinion that there has not been for many years a calendar less marked with serious offences and I hope, gentlemen, that this improvement in the character of the calendar may be regarded as evidence of an improved state of socicty; and I think I may unhesi- tatingly express my conviction, arising from long experience on this circuit, that this improvement is now progressiwc. I have come to this conclusion, gentlemen, from observing that it has gone on for some time; and I hope that I may in future have to congratulate you on its continuance. The means to promote this desirable objec', as you are aware, gentlemen, are in the hands of those to whom are entrusted the mora! and religious education of the people, and to them we naturally look for the improvement we contemplate. We have, cer- tainly, the utmost confidence in their endeavours to promo'e public improvement in their particular sphere, believing, as we do, that nothing but effective moral and religious training can produce such a diminution of crime as we all desire to see. If, however, gentlemen, this happy result may not so speedily follow these means as we could wish, then there are others which may help to facilitate this desirable consum- mation viz., the extension of good education-, which will, doubtless, be instrumental in the formation of moral habits, Ibis being necessarily the case with everything which directs the attention of the community from merely sensual pleasures to those which are of a more ennobling and elevating cha. racter. But this may be the case, gentlemen, with regard to other pursuits than those which are purely educational—it being quite reasonable to suppose that the encouragement of manly sports, of an innocent description, may tend to the same oljcc.. We may, therefore, gentlemen, safely recom- mend the encouragement and sanction of such exercises, inasmuch as they are eminently calculated to divert the minds of the people from pursuits of a sensual and debasing kind. Gentlemen, I cannot but congratulate you upon the absence of any evidence in this calendar of crimes resulting from poverty poverty, unhappily, as is known to voti, sometimes producing, though inexcusably. crimes of the worst description. We have need to be thankful, however, that there are no crimes in this calendar which can be traced to poverty ,and may well regard it as an indication of the improvement to which I have before alluded. Little observation will be necessary from me, as to the cases which will come under your considera., tion, the criminal law being now rendered so plain as to relieve the judge from the necessity of any lengthened explanation. There is one case, No. 14, in the calendar, where it is pos- sible the full offence may not be made out,& gentlemen, I wish merely to inform you upon that case, that if you are not satis- fied that the more serious crime was committed, then it will be your duty to throw out the bill, it not being competent to find a true bill for an assault merely, if you are not satis- fied that the more serious offence was perpetrated the case must be then investigated, if at all, under another indictment. I shall not occupy your time, gentlemen, with any further observations, but must now request that you will proceed to your duties. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. MALPAS.—CUTTING AND STABBING.—John Jones was charged with having, on the 12th of June, at Malpas, feloniously stabbed and cut Henry Morgan, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. Henry Morgan, sworn and examined by Sir T. Phillips: I had a field of vetches, in Malpas, in June last; in consequence of losing vetches, I watched the field on the 12th of June I saw the prisoner come over the hedge, having a reaping hook with him I then went up to him, as he began cutting vetches, took hold of him, and said, Hallo, my man I've caught you now." He struck my neck with the reap hook, and called David Jones; David Jones came, and took hold of me round the neck, and asked me to let the prisoner go I said I would not; the prisoner wished me to let him go and when I would not, he drew out his knife and stabbed me in the side, saying I'll let you go." The knife penetrated my clothes, and my side. David Jones had hold of me round the neck, and, in getting him off, I knocked him down. I afterwards threw down the prisoner; soon after some one came, and the prisoner was taken into custody. John Powell examined I live at Malpas. On Thursday, the 12th of June, I heard cries of murder, and, in com- pany with another man, went towards the spot whence they proceeded. In a field I found the prosecutor and prisoner scuffling. I took a knife from prisoner, and afterwards gave it to the policeman. I saw the prosecu- tor stripped, and saw a wound on his body. Henry Williams said, I am a labourer in the employ of Mr. Morgan. On the 12th of June I went into Mr. Morgan's field of vetches, and discovered that the vetches had been trodden. I found a hook there. George Harris: I am a police-officer, at Newport. John Powell gave me a knife, and a reaping-hook was given me by another person, as were the clothes worn by the prosecutor when the attack was made. [The knife, clothes, &c., were produced, and were found cut through in the part cor- responding with the place where the wound was inflicted.] E. J. Phillips, chemist,^ Newport, said the prosecutor applied to him on the 15th of June, saying he had been wounded in a scuffle on the previous night; examined the wound, and it was about a quarter of an inch deep and half an inch long, and might be inflicted by a knife like that produced. His lordship, in summing up the evidence, remarked to the jury, that the prisoner had been charged with having stabbed the prosecutor with a knife with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm, and to prevent his being lawfully apprehended and he was sorry to find that this crime was far from being an uncommon one. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and after a feeling address from his lordship, the prisoner was sentenced to 15 years' transportation. Richard Christopher, a man tottering with age, and who appeared to be very deaf, and almost insensible to the serious charge brought against him, was indicted for the manslaughter of Thomas Powell, in the parish of Llanvihangel Crucorney, on the 16th of April 1825; another count in the indictment charged the prisoner with the wilful murder of the said Thomas Powell. The evidence in this case did not show the cause of the prisoner having been so long a time exempted from prose- cution for the crime laid to his charge—the testimony of the witness John Watkins, constable of the parish, given below, (and which is the only evidence in which allusion is made to his detection), merely showing that some time in the month of April he was discovered to have been the person supposed to have caused the death of Thomas Powell, 20 years ago. Edward Bevan, who was the first witness called, deposed to having seen the prisoner quar- relling with deceased at the time laid in the indictment, striking him with a stick across his head, & on other parts of his body; and stated that the deceased died on the morning after the quarrel, and was supposed to have died of the wound so inflicted. Margaret Edwards I was the widow of Thomas Powell, and have since married Morgan Edwards; the evening before the day on which my husband died Bevan, the last witness, came to fetch me I went to a field with him, and found my husband there lying on his side I sent for a workman to take him home I sent to Abergavenny for a doctor, and Mr. Lowe, an assistant of Mr. Batt, came; my husband died about six or seven the following morning; I know there was a person called Richard Christopher living at Cefn house, near my house, at the time when my husband died, but I cannot swear the prisoner is the man. Thomas Jenkins; I was sent for the evening before Thomas Powell's death, but did not see Richard Christopher that evening I believe prisoner is the man who lived at the Cefn-house 20 years ago I have had no conversation with Christopher since. Thomas Batt, surgeon, said I lived at Abergavenny 30 years ago on the evening after being sent for to go to Powell's house, I went and he was dead I examined his body, and found a compound fracture of the skull, and a portion of the skull driven into the brain, but cannot say with what kind of instru- ment it was done. John Watkins, constable, deposed to having seen the prisoner a short time since in the parish of Lanvihangel Crucorney, and finding, on inquiry, that he was the person who was supposed to have caused the death of Thomas Powell 20 years ago. His lordship summed up the evidence against the prisoner, remarking that be did not think it sufficiently conclusive to convict him of the serious charge laid in the indictment. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty, and the prisoner was at oncc discharged. STEALING A SHIRT.—Mary Ann Scott was charged with stealing a shirt, the property of Elizabeth Sutton, in the parish of Chepstow. There being no evidence to show that the prisoner had taken the shirt, or that she had had it in her possession, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. STEALING LEATHER.-Eliza Pond, married woman, was charged with stealing a piece of leather from the shop of Mr. G. Bryant, in Chepstow. Edmonds, a shopman of Mr, Bry- ant, said, on being examined—the prisoner came to my master's shop on the 15th of July last, to return a pair of tips which she had bought there. I had occasion to go out of the shop whilst the prisoner was there, and on returning, found that some pieces of leather, which I had left on the counter, were gone. I then followed the prisoner, and found her not far from the shop, I asked her what she had done with the leather she had taken from the shop. She denied having taken any. A piece of leather was produced by the constable, and identified by the witness as one of the pieces he had left while there, on the counter. The constable was next called, and said, I went from information I received, to a place called Cle- ment's Court, and in a sort of recess or cupboard in the passage leading to that court, I found the piece of leather which I have now produced. Thomas James, being ex- amined, said On the J 5th of July last, I saw the prisoner in Mr Bryant'a shop, and she appeared to be putting some- thing under her apron I observed the prisoner from the time I saw her put the article under her apron until she left the shop, which she did soon after. On her leaving the shop, I saw some leather projecting from her pocket- hole I afterwards told Mr. Bryant's apprentice what I had seen the prisoner, on leaving the shop, went towards '1 place called Clement's Court. William \fheele, a shoe- maker, residing in Chepstow, said he saw the prisoner go into Clement's Court on the 15th of July; he was standing in his shop at the time. John Giles Bryant, the prosecutor, on being called, said I am a currier, living at Chepstow in July last, I sold the prisoner some tips, but never sold her any leather like that produced I believe that the leather produced is my property. Magill, head constable of Chepstow said: that on the 15th of July, the Jptoner was given into his custody on this charge. Edmonds, Mr. Bryant's shopman, being recalled, said: I did not see any leather with the prisoner when I was in the shop with her. Mr. Curtis, pawnbroker, who Wife recalled at the request of the prisoner, said he never knew anything against her previously to this charge. The jury, after a brief consultation, returned a verdict of Guilty, and his lordship sentenced the prisoner to one month's imprisonment, with hird labour. BIGAMY.—John Dugmore was the next prisoner ar- raigned and this unfortunate wight, with a visage expressing the most woful gravity, pleaded guilty to a charge of Bigamy having married Mary Friend, in the parish of Bassalleg, on the 17th of November last, his former wife being then alive. The unhappy victim of unstable passion was sentenced to two months imprison- ment, with hard labour. BURGLARY.—Thomas Jones, a man whose appearance gave no evidence in his favour, was charged with having feloniously broken into the dwelling-house of the Rev, John Price, in the parish of Abergavenny, on the Otli of April last, and having stolen therefrom a piece of bawn, four silver table-spoons, one silver tea-spoon, a silver sugar-toDgs, a pair of snuffers, two books, and a knife, the property of Mr. Price. Verdict—Guilty. ANOTHER BURGLARY BY THE SAMF. PHISONER.—The same prisoner, Thomas Jones, was further charged with feloniously entering the dwellirg-house of Elizabeth Gardener, in the parish of Lanover, on the 15th of April last, and stealing a piece of bacon, a hook, two snuff-boxes, a pair of spectacles, and various other articles, the pro- perty of the said Elizabeth Gardener. The jury, with very little hesitation, returned a verdict of Guilty upon this charge also, and the prisoner, after some monitory remarks from his lordship, was sentenced to ten years' transportation. ANOTHER BURGLARY.—John Prothero and William Jones, two fellows in whose countenances the most hardened villainy was depicted, were charged with stealing a moleskin jacket and a Bible, the property of Walter Prothero. A second indictment charged the prisoners with stealing, on the 1st day of May last, at the parish of Llanfoist, seven silver spoons, one silver sugar tongs, one tea caddy, one tobacco box, one pair of breeches and leggings, one waistcoat, a piece of bacon, a piece of cheese, three loaves of bread, and two silk handkerchiefs, the property of Sarah Lewis; and also with stealing a petticoat, three pairs of stockings, a silk handkerchief, a pair of boots, and sixteen shillings and four pence in silver, the property of Mary Ilosser. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty against both prisoners. They were each sentenced to seven years' transportation. BOOT STEALING.—Ann Rees, a decent looking woman, who seemed deeply conscious of the disgrace of being ar- raigned as a prisoner, and expressed much contrition for her offence, pleaded Guilty to an indictment charging her with having stolen, at Abersychan, a pair of boots, the property of Thomas Spittle. His lordship addressed a few cautionary observations to the prisoner, and sentenced her to one month's imprisonment, with hard labour. ROBBERY AT ;1R. LEIGH'S QUARRY, NEAR PONTYPOOL. -Charles Probert and Thomas Knight were charged with having stolen a pickaxe from the quarry of Capel Hanbury Leigh, Esq., near Pontypool, on the 24th July last. The jury found both prisoners Guilty. "They were sentenced to twelve calendar months' imprisonment each, with hard labour. SATURDAY. The court was opened this morning at nine o'clock. UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIN. — Joshua Rees, an un- fortunate wretch, whose haggard face afforded decisive evidence of his debauched life and Thomas Lucas, who exhibited the outline of an immitigable scamp, were charged with having, on the 22nd of July, at Tredegar, unlawfully uttered counterfeit coin. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty against Thomas Lucas only. His Lordship sentenced him to twelve months'imprisonment, with hard labour. MALICIOUS WOUNDING AT NEWPORT.—George Jenkins, a surly and savage-looking fellow, next presented himself in the dock, and, with an air of reckless hardihood, pleaded Not Guilty to an indictment, charging him with having assaulted Maria Meyrick, with intent to maim and disable, or to do her some grievous bodily harm, in the borough of Newport, on the 18th day of May last. After a few minutes consultation, the jury returned a verdict of Guilty of assaulting with intent to do some bodily harm. Sentence-transportation for the term of fifteen years. BURGLARY AT CALDICOTT.— William Pritchard, a sullen and insensible-looking fellow, Henry Johnson, a man of colour, with a savage expression of face, and Richard May, whose appearance furnished a volume of evidence against him, were charged with breaking into the dwelling-house of Charles Arkwell, at Caldicott, and stealing three caddy spoons, a pocket-book, three gowns, &c. The sentence of the court was that Pritchard & Henry Johnson be transported for fifteen years each and that Richard May be imprisoned twelve calendar months— one week at the end of eash three months to be in solitary confinement. NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY. [Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.] DOE DEM. HULIN AND OTHERS V. RICHARDS AND ANOTHER. —Mr. Greaves, Mr. Keating, and Mr. Fran- cillon, were counsel for the lessor of the plaintiffs and Mr. Whateley, Q.C., and Mr. Gray appeared for the defendants. Attorney for the lessor of the plaintiffs, Messrs. Croombe and Son for the defendants, Mr. W. A. Williams. This was an action of ejectment brought by Mrs. Ann Hulin, Mr. John Williams, Mr. Thomas Williams, and Mr. William Holbrook, to recover posses- sion of a house on Castle Hill, Monmouth, a cottage and garden at Cwmcarvan, and some other property in Gloucestershire; the claim of the plaintiff being as heirs at law on the maternal side. The defendant, Mr. Richards, who was formerly a draper at Swansea, came into possession of considerable property incltidin" that in question on the death of his cousin in December, 1841. To sustain the case on the part of the pIaintiff a host of witnesses were called; but it would be impossible to give a summary of the case without the assistance of the parish registers, deeds and pedigrees with which the case was charged. Some technical arguments lengthened the cause, and at the close of the plaintiff's case, Mr. Whate- ley submitted that the plaintiff must be non-suited, inasmuch as notice to quit possession had not been served on Miss Kemys, the tenant of the house on Castle Hill, and on the party in possession at Cwmcarx^n. With respect to the other property in question, a notice had been served on the plaintiffs that the defendant did not mean to defend it, and a rule had been obtained in the Court of Exchequer :t few days since to strike that part out of the consent" which had been given by Mr. Richards to defend the action at his own risk. Mr. Greaves and the other learned gentlemen argued the point at some length, and Mr. WhateJey having replied, the learned" judge held that as the property in question appeared to be in the possession of tenants who have not had notice to quit, the plaintiff must be non-suited. LEWIS v. "rISE AND ANOTHER.—An action of tres- pass undefended. Mr. F. V. Lee and Mr. Cooke were counsel for the plaintiff. The action was brought to recover the value of certain trees which the defendants had improperly possessed themselves of. The plaintiff had purchased a piece of land from the Duchy of Lancas- ter, and employed a man named Harris to pull up an ash, and some apple trees; when the work was completed, the defendants came with a horse and cart, and carried them away. They were valued by Harris at JE3, for which amount the learned judge directed a verdict to be entered. The jury accordingly found for the plaintiff, damages £3. Attorney for the plaintiff Mr. Phillpotts, Newport; for the defendant, Mr. Evans. DOE DEM. WEBB AND OTHERS V, JOHN REES.— This was an action of ejectment. Mr. Sergeant Talfourd (with whom was Mr. Gray) stated the plaintiff's case, which was not to eject the defendant from the premises, but compel them to conform to the customs of tbe manor of Westland and Bryngwyn, of which the lord and lady were plaintiffs, by attending at the court to be admitted as heirs of one Thomas Price, and to pay the fine conse- quent thereon. The premises in question is a public- house, the Duke of Wellington, at Trevethin, the evidence given was chiefly documentary, from the rolls of the manor, which were produced by Mr. Parkes. After a very tedious aRd uninteresting tiial, interspersed with several legal arguments between the counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Whateley and Sir Thomas Phillips on the part of the defendant, it was agreed between the learned gentlemen to let the verdict pass for the plaintiff, each party to pay their own costs, upon the understanding that the defendant was to be admitted on the next court day and pay the necessary fine. Mr. II, Evans was attorney for the plaintiff; and Mr. C H. Cloft for the defendant. DOE DEM MATTHEWS v. SKYRME.—Mr. Whateley (with whom was Mr. Hanmer) stated the plaintiff's case. This was an action brought to recover the possession of a house and certain lands at Portskewitt. The plaintiff is a farmer, and the defendant, who also follows that oc- cupation, is his brother-in-law. In the month of June, 1844, the defendant got into arrears with his landlord, Colonel Lewis, and it was agreed that he should give up possession of the farm to the plaintiff, who was accepted as tenant by the colonel. The defendant's wife continued to live in the house, but in the month of February last the plaintiff required that it should be given up. The defendant refused to quit possession, contending that it was part of the agreement, when the farm was given up, that he should be allowed to keep possession of the house. This was denied, and to recover possession this action was brought. To prove the plaintiff's case Mr. Whateley called Mr. J. L. Baldwyn, who said,—I am a solicitor at Chep- stow. In the year 1844, the defendant was tenant ot a farm at Portskewitt. On the 1 th of June, 1841, I was authorised to receive from the defendant the farm for the remainder of his term. I saw the defendant on the sub- ject. He said, "I'll give up Portskewitt farm, house, buildings, and land, to you as Colonel Lewis's agent." 1 his occurred at St. Pierre House. I called in Mr. Vaughan, who was stopping at St. Pierre, to witness the surrender. I let the farm from the 11 th of June to the 2nd of February to the plaintiff the remainder of the defendant s term, The rental was £222; that was the rent the defendant had it at. I was present when Colond Lewis's agent let the farm afterwards to the plaintiff as a tenant at will for £ 187 per annum. The plaintiff is still Colonel Lewis's tenant. In February, 1845, I sent a letter, by desire of the plaintiff, to Skyrme, requesting him to quit the house on the 18th of that month. After that I saw the defendant, who said he would not give up possession till he saw his attorney and had a settlement with Mr. Matthews. Cross-examineil by Mr. F. V. Lee, for the defendant: It is not my general duty to let the farms. I have done so. Defendant told me he had put his name to some accommodation bills. I did not advise him to sell off" his stock. He told me to prepare a deed for that purpose. Defendant said he wished to give up possession of the farm and buildings to Colonel Lewis. I took Mr. Vaughan to witness the giving up of the farm. I never saw him again till August. Mr. Henry Vaughan In June, 1844, I was staying at Colonel Lewis's. I remember being called into a room by Mr. Baldwyn to witness the surrender of a farm by Mr. Skyrme. He did surrender it. Mr. Valentine Parsons: I live at Crick, and am agent to Colonel Lewis. Previously to the 2nd of February in this year I met the plaintiff at the Rev. F. Lewis's at Portskewitt. Mr. Baldwyn was present. I let Portskewitt the house. M1'. Skyrme is now in possession. Mr. Lee. on behalf of the defendant, admitted that he had no answer to the case presented on the other side, and a verdict was accordingly entered for the plaintiff. Mr. Whateley applied for immediate possession, saying it was a very hard case on the plaintiff. Mr. F. Y". Lee hoped his lordship would hear the next case before he came to a decision. Messrs. Baldwyn and Morgan were attorneys for the plaintiff; and Messrs. Phillpotts for the defendants. SKYRME v■ MATTHEWS.—Mr. F. V, Lee, and Mr. W. M. Cooke were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Whateley for the defendant. Plaintiff's attoineys, Messrs. Phill- potts; defendant's attorneys, Messrs. Baldwyn and Morgan. Mr. F. v, Lee stated the case for the plaintiff, who is sister-in-law to the defendant, Mr. Matthews, the plain- tiffin the last case, and the action was brought to recover the sum of £3?7, alleged to have been lent by the plain- tiff to the defendant, under circumstances as detailed in the evidence. The defendant by his pleas denied that he was indebted. Jit. Justice Patteson having summed up the evidence adduced with great clearness, the jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the defendant. SATURDAY. Mr.JnsticePatteson entered the "iisi Prius Court at 9 o'clock. MARSDEN U. RICHARDS.—In this action Mr. Whateley, Q.C., and Mr. Gray appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Serjeant Talfourd and Mr. KeatingfoT the defendant. The declaration stated that the defendant was a common carrier from New- pcrt to Abergavenny, and that the plaintiff had caused a package of shawls to be entrusted to his care for conveyance Irom Newport to Abergavenny, but which package the defend ant delayed in delivering at the premises of the plain'iff, whereby he (plaintiff) lose the sale of them. The defendant admitted the allegations contained in the plaintiff's declara- tion, but pleaded that by a s-ibscqiiciit agi-eenipnt between him and the plaintiff matters had been amicably arranged. The plaintiff denied this, whereupon issue was joined. Mr. Serjeant Talfourd said that as it was quite clear that the issue was on the defendant, he had a right to begin. Mr. Whateley submitted that when anything was to be proved on the part of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had the right to het>in. The learned judiie decided in Mr. Whateley s favour, but, at Mr. Seijeant Tatfourd's request, took a note that lie had claimed the right of beginning, and that his claim had been over-rnled. Mr. Whateley then commenced his opening. The plaintiff", Mr. VI arsden, is a draper, residing at TIrynmawr, near Brecon; the defendant, a respectable man, is common carrier, and also a timber-merchant at Abergavenny. In June, 1844, Mr. Marsden had an order to supply a quantity of shawls to a female benefit society, who had determined to have a grand procession, and after the procession to diink tea if nothing stronger. (Lanehter.) They determined to appear in pro- cession on the 22nd of Julv, 1844, all in very smart shawls — all like like sisters. (Laughter.) There would he 159 sis'ers altogether, and they were to go lovingly in procession in these shawls—a very pretty interesting sight. (Laughter.) ;\1 r. Marsden, having, had the order for the<e shawls, wrote to a hou<e in Manchester—Messrs. Barney and Company—for a supply of shawls-told them in his letter they were wanted for the 22nd of July, the order being given by him in June. The Manchester House percciving the nature of the case, im- mediately sent off the order by the Birmingham and Glouces- ter Railway, but they arrived in Abergavenny only on the ISh of Jnly-fonr days before they were wanted in Brynmawr. Having arrived there, they ought to have been instantly for- warded by the defendant, Mr. Richards, but Mr. Marsden did not receive them till the 27th of July, the day for which they were wanted being past. They were wanted on the 22 id they were not received till the 27th of July. Mr. Marsden refused to take them in, as be had 103t E-20 by their non- delivery in proper time, as the profit would have been three shillings on each shawl. The day having passed, of course the 159 shawls would all be thrown on his hands. The de- fendant, on the pleadings, had admitted that it wa, his duiy to have delivered them within a reasonable time. He received them on the 18th of July; he did not deliver them till the 27th. The defendant said—"I admit that I oughttohave delivered the shawls—:hat I was negligent, but I contend that by a subsequent agreement between us, by the terms of which I am to receive 12 shillings for the carriage, and not 12 shil- lings and 20 shi lings for warehouse room, an end has been put to the whole transaciion," but Mr. Whateley denied that the affair had been so terminated. He said on behalf of the plaintiff, that no such agreement was ever entered upon. Was it reasonable that the plaintiff should agree to pay the sum of 12 shillings—receive the shawls-qqietly put up with his loss of £ 20 — and let the whole matter be no more thought of? No; be claimed damages for the 100,< he sustained by the negligence of the defendant, which negligence was a imitied. It would he for Mr. Serjeant Talfourd to prove that such an agreement was entered into and if he attempt-d to do so, he ( Mr. Whateley) would then have another oppor- tunity of addressing them. Daniel Lewis examined by Mr. Gray In June, 1844, I was in the employ of the plaiiuiff. In that month an order was given to him for 159 sha«ls by Mrs. Harriet fwans, on behalf of a female bpnefit society. The shawls were to be delivered on the 22nd of July at Bry nmar, which is 8 or 9 miles from Abergaveisnv. 't he price of each sha \vl was to be from Gs. Gd. to 8-5. The shawls did not arrive until 4 or 5 days after they were wanted. The p'auitiff refused to take them in. If he hud supplied those shawls to the society, he would have realized a profit of 3 shillings on each shawl but not having them at the proper time, he would have no immediate market for them, and they would not sell for more than 2s. 6J. each. Cross-examined by \1 r. Serjeant I'alfourd The plaintiff never told me his toss was no more than a shilling a-piece. The defendant has no warehouse at Brynmawr. The women did not take the shawls afterwards. I cannot say whether they were asked to take them. Re-examined They applied for them on the 22nd of July, but they did not afterwards. This concluded the plaintiff s case. Mr. Serjeant Talf^ur^ t"cn addressee! the jury on rlrfenrtaru's behalf. He submitted that the plaintiff had "totally failed to prove that he* was entitled to special damages; and he thought when the jurv heard all the circumstances of th<case they would not be sorry to find that he had so failed. 1 he plaintiff in this case is a person of great resp.-ciability, who keeps a shop on the top of a high bin at Brynmav. r, about ei *hi m'b-s from Abergavenny. '8 defendant, iiichards, was she CJUI- mOIl carrier from Newport to Abergavenny, but no! the carrier to Brynmawr at ail. I'e c,ln ideis he has satisfied l is con- tract with his customers when i,e J,as delivered Roods at At)ergaveiiliy at I'll was notat all oi,tir.-(j t'o (Jelivei- them. In this case an order was given for 159 shawls which were required for some benefit society at Brynmawr. They were wanted for the 22nd of July, 1844. but there was no proof that the defendant knew anything about tl,at -tlle,e was no prltof that he was aware that they were wanted for any purpose; no proof that by the nr>n-rtelivery special damage «as occasioned. I here is an admission upon the re cord by a very great slip thai a breaehoi contract had been in- curred by the defendant. I here was no proof in evidence that any breach of contract had taken pl.tce, because l.e was only the carrier from Newport to Ahergavennv buf a'though there was a breach of contiact admitted, there was no proof to connect that breach of co tract wirh special damages. It did not follow that because defendant had conveved the goods to Abergavenny that he was obliged to deliver them at Bryn- mawr. His contract was fully satisfied when he delivered them at Abergavenny. vvas the duty of the plain'iff to have sent for them to Abergavenny here they were; and as he expected them he ought to have sent for t'lem. It vvas very true tViat he (Mr. Serjeant ialfourd) was not entitled by the pleadings to say tint the defendant had been guilty of no delay; but he was perfecrly entitled to SIIV that it did not at all follow that because the gods might have been a day or two behind time, that the los* of the bargain was the conse- quence, and in the entire absence of all proof on that po'nt nominal damages were ail the required. How did the facts stnnd? The goods ariived by the deft ndan; at Aberga- venny on the 18 h or 19 li July, and would have been in time for the plaintitf if sent for, but the defendant was not at all bountt to send them. Ilo vever he took the first opportunity of sending them up Wi,eii the.y arrived at the plaintiff's house lie refused to take them in and sent them ba k again Clearly he had no right to do so. Because a carrier is liable to an action if he does not perform his duty, he does not by that act make the gpods his own: he acquires no property in them. The package might have cor.:ainpu jewels of immense value or articles which would suffer no injury by delay in delivery, and therefore the plaintiff had no right to fling them back. In the first ulace, the plaintiff had not proved the contract between him and Harriet Evans. He may have so.d the shawls; may have gut p,-ofi' on every shawl. He ( Mr. Ser- jeant Talfourd) was iili,d to filld that dIapers got such enor- mous profits rite shawls were to be sold for 6s. 6d. a piece out of which 6s. Gd. there icmained 3- profit He was glad to hear that tradesmen rcal'*ed C( nt- Percent. It would he news in Brynmawr and in Manchester. (Laughter.). The Manchester folks would b» thinking it was high time to put on a little when tradesmen made £ 1C0 per cent. (Laughter,) Customers would think it high lime to look out for cheaper shops. (Itenewed laughter) II was a large order-an order for 159 shawls, and therefore they might be purchased at a cbeiip rate, and yet the profit was 3s. upon 6s 6d. ( Laughter.) What the profit would be if only a single shawl were ordered did not appear, but it would be gieater. But no proof had been made that the sliawls were not sold. He (Mr Serjeant Talfourd) would not be surprised to ficar that the 159 sisters wore those very shawls on the 22nd of July this \ear (Laughter.) lie had not the honor of being in the secrets of those 159fair sisters of Breconshire, (much latightpi) but he "as inclined to conjecture that they had purchased (h. m for this year's procession. If they were a)) on hand still somebndv would have been called u> say so—to shew that they were now utter waste. At all events if the plaintiff was to call upon a poor carrier for special damages it was his duty to pive evioence of it—to shew that the shawls were unsold. He (Mr. Ser- jeant Talfouid) would shew the jury that the plaintiff had dis- tinctly claimed one shilling each as loss, and then they would be able to judge of ins modesty in now claiming £ -20 damages. The plaintiff had however n"t proved that be bad lost a sin-le shilling by the defendant's conduct he had not proved that the shawls were unsold. On the 27th of July, the day the shawls were taken to plaintiff's house, he wrote ibis letter to tie defendant: — "Bryntf.awr, July 27th 1844. "Sir,-I this moment was offered a case of shav.ls which you or some one else detained a full month, in consequence of which I lost the sale of them. I cannot think of taking them in without your paying me for my loss a shilling on each shawl. If not, you had better take the case of shawls your- self, at the following pi ice—159 shawls at 65. OJ. each- f51 13s. Gd, Jf you are not guilty of the delay, you must trace it to some one who did so, as they are in your custody. You is ho only person I have to look to for paymen\ I wrote to the ™i!way company, and so the delay must be this side of G loucester." After some humorous observations on the propositions con- tained in the letter, Mr. Serjeant Talfonrd said the goods were sent back and remained in defendant's warehouse for several months. The plaintiff had a friend named Moses-a nersou not of the Jewish nrtion-whotn be authorised to go to \1 r. Richards, the defendant, and endeavour to arrange mat- ters amicably. To this person Mr. Richards explained every thing connected with the package, as far as he was concerned, and which statement, upon being made known to plaintiff, he expressed himself perfectly sati-fied, and said he supposed the fault did not rest with Mr. Richards However, on the 14th of February last- ValentiDe'R Day, which he (Mr. Serjeant Talfourd) supposed reminded the plaintiff of the ladies—a letter was sent to defendant, threatening an action at law. After the action was brought, the plaintiff wrote to Mr. Moses, and authorised him to settle the matter between him and de- fendant. It was a very sensible letter, and was dated Bryn- mawr, March 22nd, 1815, having probably been written nnder the influence of a curtain lecture delivered by Mrs. Marsden. (Laiisrhter.) Mr. Moses waited upon the defendant, an after rto pay their own costs. The goods were sent to plaintiff, and defendant heard no more of the. matter until the month of June, when, to his astonishment, having as he supposed washed his hands of the matter, he found a declaration filed "Rainst him, to which he was called upon to plead. He pleaded that agreement which had been concluded between him and the plaintiff bv means of Mr. Moses Mr. James Moses examined by Nlr. Keating. — In the year 1^>44 1 carried on business at Abergavenny. Towards the latter end of that year the plaintiff called on me, and we had a conversation about some shawls. He explained to me that by the delay in the delivery by the carrier, Mr. Rich irds, he had lost the sale of th'm and then asked me was he ( \!r. II.) worth powder and shot. He told me he intended bringing an action against Mr. Richards, as he could prove he (plaintiff) had sustained damages by the loss of the sale of the shawl- ) told h m I thought he had better not do so, as I understood Mr. Richards did not profess to bring goods to Brynmawr at all he was carrier only to Abergavenny. We soon after- wards went down to Mr. Richards's house and the shawls" were the subjcct of conversation. After bearing Mr. Richards's explanation, Mr. Marsden said most distinctly to him in my presence—" I clearly exonerate you." He left Mr. Uichards's house perfectly satisfied. This was the 21st of March, in the present year. W itness proceeded to detail the sutsfance of various con- versations he had had with the plaintiff, who on one occasion said he was determined to go to law. and that he would not try the case b fore a humbngging jury at Monmouth: he would try it in London. The day after this expression had been made use of witness received the following letter from the plaintiff:— Brynmawr, March 22nd, 1845. Ie Dear Sir,—From the conversation I had with you yester- day. I have been consulting Mrs. Marsden on the subject. She is afraid of law. No one ought to he afraid of any thing when they are right. It is Mrs. Marsden's wish that I should get you to settle this matter to save loss of time and expense to both of its. As my go 'd woman is averse to taw, will you be so kind as to settle it for 01". She has faith in you as a man of business. Whatever your trouble may be, I shall be happy to pay you." J Witness then stated that he succeeded in effecting an arrange- ment between the parties, by which it WdS stipulated that the!, shawls were to be sent to Brynmawr —that plaintiff was to pay twelve shillings for their carriage, and that he was not to pay anything for their warehouse r.iom. He added afterwards that the action was to be stayed, and that each party was to pay his own costs. Being cross-examined by Mr. Whatelev witness said that he was positive it vvas distinctly understood' that the action was to be stayed, and that the parties were to pay their own costs. WiIDes.4 had lost or destroyed all the notes received by him from the plaintiff, with the exception of li,e one read by Mr. Serjeant 'I'alfourd, and which author- ised him (witness) to enter into an arrangement with de- fendant on plaintiff's behalf. Mr. Wiiateley then put in a series of letters written by Mr. Moses to the plaintiff for the purpose of showing that he (Mr Moi s) had not been accurate in his statements. The first letter was dated Maich 24.1), 1845, and in it Mr. Moses stated that he had seen defendant—had failed in bringing him to anv terms, adding— he (defendant) is inflexih'e'' —from which letter, Mr. Whateley sui.J, it was clear no agreement had been entered into up to t'latdate. A passage in the letter can ed much incr imetrl in court it was this—"There is no calculating on the expens's of lawyers; assuredly they will fleece those they have in their power." Mr. Moses was en- deavouring to prevail on the plaintiff to relinquish all thoughts of going to law. ° The next letter read was dated March 22nd, 18(5. Mr Moses stated in it he had not been able to effect an arrange- ment. ° The next letter read was dated "ill of April, 1845, and was as fo:lows —" Dear Sir, Mr. Richards will not deliver up the case [of shawls] but on the receipt of the enclosed bi'l, which he declared was paid before the pacliagn came to his h.inds. You had better send him the amount by post-office order, and get the goods sent lip. Mr. liichards is determined 0:1 the above conditions. Yours truly, The Mosaic Dispensation." (Laughtcr. ) Another and a subsequent letter blamed the plaintiff for ''dilly-Jallying," and urged him to send the monev required, as "the shawls could easily be converted into tin." (Great laughter.) A letter dated 11th of April, 1815, was as follows;—< Dear Sir, There ts only one tiling now to he done, and th t is the pleasure of drinking your health in a glass of Cogniac, and s noking a good Havannah. You can call and pay me the amount." (Laughter.) A letter dated 27di of May. applied for the money which, in coniolrting the agreement, witness had undertaken, on plaintiff's behalf, to pay Mr. Richards. Mr. Serjeant Talfouid again addressed the jury in a speech of great ability, lie said it clearly appeared by the tenor of the letters read, and especially by the one dated 11th of April, that the agreement had been fully determin'd upon, and that, therefore, th" defendant's plea was established bpyond all controversy. The agreement between the plaintiff and Mr. Richards, by the agency of Mr. Moses, had clearly been made. A settlement had been effected. What did that settlement include, the payment of a paltry sum of 12 shillings? Of course it included everything in disoute. What did Mr. Marsden desire Mr, Mo^es to get settled ? It was the law sui\ "Mrs. Marsden was afraid of law." HRPPilv, Mr. Marsden had a better half (Laughter.) Mrs. Ma sden was at home to «:iee him a curtain lecture on the perils of law. (Renewed laughter.) Good i\lr" Marsden may have said to her hus- band— We onlv ask one shilling a shawl damages, which will amount to £7 19; it is never worth while to go to law to make Richards pay damages for not delivering goods which he was not bonnrl to deliver.3 It is not worth your wh le to go and fight it out at Monmouth. if shp thought her husband would not have a humbugging Monmouthshire jury," but would go and try the cause in London, he (\fr. Serjeant Tal- fourd) dared say the good woman would have been full of alarm. (Great laughter.) The letters which had been read i proved the defendant's case. It wxs quite clear that Mr. Moses was authorised to make an agreement on the plaintitl's behalf it was equally clear that lie had made such an agree- ment, and that everything had been settled. He was not authorised merely to settle^the question about the package: he was to settle the action It was absurd to contend the con- frary-ahsllrd to suppose that the matter was to be settled by halves. Why, in that case the intensions of good Mrs. Mars- den, who was so much afraid of law, would have been de- feated. It was the la.v suit she was afraid of; it was the law suit Mr. Moses was t0 settle. Everything was settled with the exception of the "Cogniac and the Havannah. (Laughter ) Certainly the letters did not mention ••••ything respecting th" costs, but it was their silence he (Mr Serjea-it r..1fourd) relied nii-n. Mr. M'.s-s was not a lawyer—accustomed to insert fully all matters in la,wlla"e that could not be misunderstood he wis merely a frrindly mediator, and h iving succeeded in settling everything, thought no more of the business than merely to acquaint. Mr. Marsden that he had succeeded, and that nothing remained but to drink his health in a glass of good Cognjac." (Laughter.) He (Mr. Serjeant Talfollrd) submitted confidently that on the evidence adduced by his learned friend, Mr. Whateley, the defendant was entitled to their verdict. Nir. W hateley then commenced his reply. He said it was quite plain Mr" Serjeant Talfollrd would not have addressed th m with so much vehemence had he.notbecn conscious that he had a weak cause People seldom or never used strong words unless they had weak causes. Mr. Marsden was an unlucky man. He had had a false friend in "The Mosaic Dispensation. It was distlnelly put in issue that there had been an agreement, but that was negatived by M r. Moses, "The Mosaic Dispensa ion," who said that not one farthing had been paid, but that he considered himself responsible for the money. On the pi adings, Mr. Richards had admitted that he was bound to go to Brynmawr. Would he have ad- mitted any such thing if licivas not fully aware that he was obliged to go there? Certainly not. He knew what he was about well enough. Again, with regard to the cent. per cent. profit which Mr Serjeant talfourd had so dwelt upon, he (Mr. ) would say that profits to that extent were not realised. This was an extraordinary order; and it wa3 to orders of this sort that tradesmen looked for their profits. At all even's he wasentittedtoone shilling a shawl — £ 7 19*. damages. Mr. Whateley then proceeded at considerable length to contend that the subject of the agreement was simply the delivery of the goods and not the settlement of the action. Mr. Marsden had fallen into rhe hands of a nice friend. There was an old Spanish proverb to the following effect:— God protect me from my friends; I can protect myself from my enemies and so in this instance Mr. Marsden would have done very well had it not hecn for .1 The Mosaic Dispensation." (Laughter.) From such "dispensations'' Heaven preserve all people. (Great laughter.) If Mr. Moses's account of the set- tlement were cor rect what would Mr. Marsden gain ? He lost the sale of the shawls-lost his market for them—and would the jury believe that after losing so much lie was content to pay 12s, on the bargain, or that he ever contemplated such a terminati in ? Mr. Moses's reciprocity was, like the Irish man's, all on one side (laughter); for a more one-sided affair than this alleged settlement tie (Mr. Whateley) never heard of. He then briefly reviewed his argument—contended that Mr. Marsden had been very hardly used,and was entitled to liberal compensation and concluded by expressing a hope that the jury would return a verdict in his client's favour, and award him such damages as they might think the circumstances of the case required. The learned judge then fully summed up the evidence, ob- Wving that it clearly was a case for the jury's decis on. He thought that if there had been a settlement at all, it was a set- tlement of every thm^. If the jury should be of opinion ihat an agreement was made, then the defendant would be enti led to their verdict: if an agreement not been made, the piaintiff would be entitled to receive their verdict, with damages. The jury, after a few moments'consideration, returned a verdict for the defendant. ABERGAVENNY.—STEALING A WATCH.—John White, of Aberystwith, Cardiganshire, was charged with having stolen a watch and appendages on the 28th day of May last, from the house of Mr. William Williams, of Aber- gavenny. Sir Thomas Phillips conducted the prosecution. William Williams examined: The prisoner worked for me on the 2lst of May. He was employed to put some bedsteads up. On the 27th of May he came in and three or four others with him, called for beer, and while they were drinking he went out. I had on that day a silver watch in my bedroom. I saw it that morning and missed it on the same evening. On the 27th the prisoner was 11 charged with having been in a bed-room in my house. He said he had not been there, I have seen the watch since with the officer, Susan Williams examined I am mother of last witness and was at his house in May last. In that mouth I saw the prisoner up stairs, in my son's house, under the bed. I was very much frightened and went down—sent some one up stairs to turn him away, but he was then gone. By the prisoner I did see you under the bed, and I accused you of it that night. I did not say that I only saw the man's shoes. Thomas White examined I am the prisoner's father, and live at Aberystwith, Cardiganshire. In the month of July last I received a watch from my son, and took it to the watch-maker—David Herbert—by my son's directions. David Herbert, watch-maker, of Aberystwith, exam- ined I had a watch, chain, and key, which I gave to P.C. Evan Davies. I received them from Thomas White. P.C. Kvan Davies, of Aberystwith, examined: On the 12th of July I took the prisoner into custody, on charge of stealing a watch, chain, and key. I produce a watch chain, and key which I received from Mr. Herbert. Pri- soner told me they were the watch and appendages which he had sent by his father to Mr. Herbert, and that lie (prisoner) had bought them of a young man at Aber- gavenny. Prosecutor, William Williams, identified the articles as being his property, and which he had left safe in his bed-room on the 2ith of May. YenIict-Guilty. Sentence-Six calendar months' im- prisonment, with hard labour. CAERLEO.W—FELONIOUSLY WOUNDING. Thomas Rums, aged 41, was charged with feloniously wounding on the 5th day of April, 1S15, Elizabeth Burns, his wife, with intent to do her some grievous bodily harm. Sir Thomas Phillips conducted the prosecution. Elizabeth Burns examined I am the wife of the pri- soner, and have been married to him a year and a half. lIe has been a soldicr and is in the receipt of a pension. On Saturday night, the 5th of April, I had a dispute with him in the public-house in Caerleon. I went to him to the public-house. He was not drunk nor very sober. A dispute took place between us about a man named Price. I drank with Price. My husband was jealous about Price. No violence took place in the public-house. I got to our house about 12 o'clock and found him and William Price there. He was then very drunk and had half a gallon of b. er on the table. When I went in be asked me what I wanted there; and why I did not stop where I had been. I said—" I would sooner be at homo." I (I ran k a few small glasses out of this half a gallon. My husband went out to look for lodgings, because I had said he had better go and return home in the morning. He returned and said if I would not behave myself I should catch it. I sat by the fire-he went out to the back-kitchen—re- turned to the room with something behind his back, which I believe was a small hatchet, with which he struck me twice, namely, on my head and on my baud which I put up to protect my head. Cross examined by the prisoner I threw beer in your face before you struck me. I did not strike you with the bellows. I sent for a constable to take you out of the house. I did not tell you that my fancy-man had more business in the house than you. Ellen Watts examined I live at Caerleon. On Satur- day night, the 5th of April, I was in Thomas Burns' house. Pie had a dispute with his wite. William Price was there, but he was not the cause of the quarrel. The cause of the quarrel was, because prisoner had spent all his pension money. Prisoner brought a small hatchet from the back-kitchen in his hand, and with it he struck his wife twice on the head. I ran out and cried murder." When I came back, prisoner was sitting witharaxor in his hand, and said he would do it." It was prisoner brought William Price to the house. Prisoner was threatening to cut his throat when he said I'll do it." Cross examined by the prisoner When you returned Price and your wife were drinking together. You had been taken out by the constable before that—about an hour before you struck her. James Eimerick, constable, of Caerleon examined On the night of the oth of April, I found the prisoner in his house. I had taken him out of his house on that night. He was then a little in beer. I took him away because he was makinga great noise with his wife. I left him go back because he promised to be peaceable. In about an hour and a half I Was again sent for. I found him on the ground with a razor in his hand, and he said I'll do it." On the 8th of April the prisoner cut his throat with a carving knife. When I came back the second time, I saw the prisoner with a razor- his wife was lean- ing against the fire-place, bleeding from her head. IV1 r. Inues, of Caerleon, surgeon, proved that on the night of Saturday, the 5th, or the morning of Sunday the 6th of April, he saw the prisoner's wife, who had been cut in five different places on the head. Two of the wounds were serious, and likely to be produced by a small hatchet which was found wet with blood in the house. There were two wounds on the hand. All these wounds were caused by so manv separate blows. On the Monday, prisoner suffered from Delirium Tremens-the effects of drinking. Prisoner's wife had fainted when I saw her first, from loss of blood. This concluded the case for the crown. The prisoner then called Mr. Jones, the landlord of the public-house in Caerleon, in which he (Burns), Price, and his wife, had been drinking. He proved that Mrs. Burns had said on that occasion, that her name was not Bums but Abraham and added (pointing to Price) "that's my fancy man sitting down." The three went away peaceably. The wife went away about an bout before Price and Burns, who left together. About eleven I was locking the door to go to bed, when Burns came in— asked if he could sleep there as he could have no peace in his house, but was told that there was no room. Witness begged of him to go to Newport to get a bed. Burns then put his hand into his pocket, took out a pair of razors, and said to him (Jones) —" Will you accept of one of these and keep it for my sake, as I may never see you more. I have carried it with me all over the country for 21 years," The learned judge then summed up with great clear- ness, and kindly made a few suggestions in the prisonet's favour, telling the jury that if they were not satisfied he (prisoner) intended to do his wife some grievous bodily harm-to maim and disable her—they might find him guilty of the minor offence contained in the second count of the indictment. lie thought the conduct of the pri- soner and his "iL" on the evening in question, highly & ex- tremely discreditable; however, there could be no doubt that the prisoner committed a violent attack on his wife, and the jury would have to say what Was the character of that violence. Intoxication was no excuse for his conduct, butiatheran aggravation. However, it was a circumstance to be taken into consideration when a jury had to decide what a man's intention was, Yerdict-Guilty of an assault. Sentence—One year's imprisonment, with hard labour. In passing sentence, the learned judge observed that the prisoner, it seemed by documents handed to him, had maintained an excellent character during the time he re- mained in the army. His crime was a very serious one, and therefore, the punishment would necessarily be rather severe. If he had deprived his wife of her life, his life would, most assuredly, been forfeited, and no mercy could have been extended to him in this world. STEALING WEARING A PPAIlEL.RICll(lrd Pont in, aged 33. labourer, was found guilty of having on the Uth day of July last., at the parish of Grosmont, stolen two shirts & moneys, of the property of George Davies, and was sen- tenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for eight calendar months-the first and last fortnight to be in solitude. Mr. Hanmar conducted the prosecution. This (at half-past two o'clock) concluded the labours of Mr. Justice Patteson, at Moumouth, who immediately left the court for his lordship's lodgings.