Potter's Electric News

PEMBROKESHIRE EPIPHANY QUARTER SESSIONS. WEDNESDAY. The Court assembled at ten o'clock for the trial of prisoners, of whom there were nine, charged with various offences. There were on the Bench, the Chairman, J. H. Scourfield, Esq., the Rev. T. Watts, Rev. J. Philipps, J. Bowen, Esq., the Rev. M. Williams, S. Harford, Esq., and the Rev. E. F. Woodman. The proclamation against vice and immorality having been read, The Chairman proceeded to charge the Grand Jury. He said:—Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—the calendar' upon the present occasion presents a rather more numer- ous list than usual, but at the same time there is nothing in the character of the offences to call for any particular observations from me. There are only two cases which are a little out of the common in the calendar: the first is Mary Thomas, who is indicted for abandoning a female child under the age of two years, whereby the life of the said child was endangered, at the parish of Letterston, on the 13th of April, 1863. This is under a particular sta- tute; it does not appear that she finally abandoned the child, but she actually came back and took it again. You must consider what her intention was, and whether she did seriously endanger the life of the child by what she did on that occasion. The other case is one of great peculiarity, and is that of Peter Warlow, who is admitted to bail. He was a servant in the employ of a gentleman in this county, and during his term of service he went away with his livery. He is indicted for steal- ing two coats, which was certainly the property of his master. In this case you must be satisfied that he had a felonious intention in so doing. It is rather a peculiar case, and I don't remember a case of that kind coming before me-the case of a servant being indicted for steal- ing clothes which were originally given to him, of course upon the condition that he remained in his master's service. With these exceptions there are no cases which I think require any observations from me, and with which you are not perfectly capable of dealing. In most cases, the same features are generally found when an article is lost, and then found in the possession of a per- son, and that person is not able to give a satisfactory account of the way in which he became possessed of that article which clearly was not his, the Grand Jury in nine cases out of ten, can never do wrong in finding a bill. There are so many cases in the calendar, that it is desirable that we should go to business as quickly as possible, more. particularly as the great commission opens to-day, and 1 will not detain yon any further. I shalt be obliged if you will select any bill which will occupy the least of your time, in order that the court might proceed with the business, and enable me to discharge the Petty Jury, which F am always most anxious to do, for their own sake as well as that of the county. A true bill having bean found, the court proceeded with the TRIAL OF PRISONERS. Rachel Scourfield, 46, charwoman, was indicted for feloniously receiving a quantity of meal, the property of George Protheroe, of the parish of Newton, on the 13th of April, 1863. The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. Mr De Rutzen prosecuted. Esther Evans: I am servant with Mr Protheroe of Newton. I remember the 13th of April last: I saw the prisoner's sister coming down from the bedroom on that day with a bag of meal: she took it to the cart house. She left it there. I saw the prisoner's sist6r give it to her, at the hayguard gate. The prisoner's sister told me in bed that night to look in the cart house if there was any meal shed. 1 believe the meal was the property of my master. William James: I am servant with Mr Protheroe. I recollect going home by Graig-y-Borion on Sunday after- noon, the 13th of April. I saw the prisoner: the last witness was with me. The prisoner gave me a bag, and told me to carry it to her sister. She told me to tell the last witness as little as I could help. The prisoner ga^e me a new cap. Mr De Rutzen said he was not able to adduce any more evidence r.8 regarded the meal. The prisoner's sister, who was the real thief, ought to have been subpoenaed: she had been convicted before the magistrates, and what he (the learned counsel) proposed to do was to put in a conviction, but he hardly thought that would carry the case further. The Chairman said that there was not sufficient evid- ence to warrant a conviction; and the Jury, under his Worship's direction, returned a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. Mary Thomas, 21, servant, was indicted for that she did unlawfully abandon a female child under the aae of two years, whereby the life of the said child was then and there endangered, at the parish of Letterston, on the 13th of April, 1863. The prisoner pleaded guilty, stating that she put the child on a cross road near a house, and that it was picked up in about an hour afterwards. The Chairman, in passing sentence, said: — Mary Thomas, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of unlaw- fully abandoning and exposing your child, being under the age of two years, whereby the life of such child might have been endangered or its health permanently injured. Such cases have, by a recent statute, been made very serious offences, and a person convicted of it is liable to be kept in penal servitude for three years, or to be im- prisoned for a term not exceeding two years with or without hard labour. In the present case, the facts which came out, although they bring you within the compass of the law. show that it is not an aggravated one. I do not think that it has been satisfactorily made out that you contemplated abandoning the child to en- counter any amount of danger, in consequence of a long exposure to the weather. I am inclined to think that you kept some watch over the child; it appears that you realty came back to it. Under these circumstances the Court wishes to take a very lenient view of your case, but at the same time we must warn people of the practice of exposing children. It is highly censurable; and although in your case, the child may have sustained no damage, sLill at the same time in another case, a different result may occur. On any change in the weather, or any par- ticular circumstances of the child's constitution, it may have been liable to contract serious disease or suffer death from exposure, and it is necessary that the Court should mark its sense of the impropriety of your conduct, at the same time taking into consideration all the miti- gating circumstances in the case. I observe from the calen- dar that you have been in gaot already two months- -from dar that you have been in gaol already two months--from April last,-and we therefore think that the justice of the case will be satisfied on the present occasion by your being imprisoned in the House of Correction for one calendar month. Peter Warlow, (admitted to bail 2nd of May, 1863), 23, servant, was charged with stealing two livery coats, one stable jacket, one waistcoat, two pairs of breeches, two pairs ot gaiters, one pair of trousers, and one pair of boots, the property of his master, William Venables, at the parish of Cosheston, on the 5th of April, 1863. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr Lascelles appeared for the prosecution. The pri- soner was defended by Mr W. S. Owen. William Venables: I know the prisoner. He came into my service about the middle of last October. I agreed to give him X20 a year and his clothes. That was all that was arranged. He continued in my service till April. I do not know what became of him after that. He took away his livery clothes I gave him no authority to take them away. I understood they were my property. I have seen the clothes to-day: they are the same: they have my livery buttons on them. Cross-examined: I was not at home in April: he was in my service six months. Ho slept in an outhouse. He had access to valuable property. I had a good character with the prisoner. I was not examined before the magis- trates. Re-examined: My wife is not here to-day in conse- quence of illness. Martha Phillips: I am in the service of Mr Venables. The prisoner left the prosecutor's service on a Sunday at 11 o'clock at night, about the 10th of April. I called the prisoner next morning, but he was not to be found. I went to the place where he slept: the door was shut. 1 looked into the room I saw no clothes there. Cross-examined: I was not examined before the magistrates. Henry Higginson I was in the Glamorganshire Con- stabulary in April last. I apprehended the prisoner at Bridgend: he gave the name of William Phillips. I asked him if it was not Peter Warlow, and he repeated that it was William Phillips. He said he had been in service with Col. Ford at Pembroke. I asked if he had any livery and top-boots with him: he was not dressed in livery at the time. I went to his lodgings, and found two carpet bags, and one basket. The bags were locked and the prisoner had the keys upon him. They were under his bed. I found the articles I now produce. The prisoner was employed at the Bear Inn, at Bridgend. I made a search there, and found one pair of top boots which I now produce, in the stable. I found an envelope addressed Peter Warlow, Venables, Esq., Cosheston, near Pembroke.' He said he was vety sorry: that he would go back, and that his master would not punish him if he gave the clothes back. I gave the clothes to Mr Superintendent Kelly of the Pembrokeshire Constabulary. Snp. Kelly deposed that the articles produced were received by him from the last witness. Henry Pratt (of the firm of Davies, Morgan, and Pratt, drapers, Pembroke): The clothes produced were made by our firm at Mr Venables' order, and were charged to him. The coat has Mr Venables' button on it. John Morris: The pair of boots were made by me for Mr Venables' servant: Mr Venables paid for them. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Owen addressed the Jury on behalf of the prisoner, contending that there was no evidence adduced to convict the prisoner, who believed that he was entitled to the clothes which had been given to him by his master. The Chairman summed up, and the Jury, after a brief deliberation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. Samuel Morgan, (admitted to bail 10th June, 1863) 20, labourer, was charged with stealing a silver watch, value X2 10s., the property of William Bowen, at the parish of Saint David's, on the 3rd June, 1863. The prisoner pleaded Guilty, expres3ing his sorrow for the offence. The Chairman sentenced the prisoner to three months imprisonment with bard labour. William Jones, 30, wire worker, pleac; ul guilty to a charge of stealing one shirt, value 6s. 3d., the property of John Griffiths, at the parish of Saint Florence, on the 8th May, 1863. The Chairman, in passing sentence, said:William Jones,—you have pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing a shirt. You do not give a very good account of yourself: however, I cannot speculate too much as to what you came here for or whatyour general occupation is. I must take the case as I find it. You have committed the crime of larceny, and must be punished for it. The sentence of the Court is that you be Imprisoned and kept to hard labour for two calendar months. Benjamin Morgan, (admitt 3d to bail 20th June, 1863) was charged with stea.ing a quantity of flooring boards, and one grate, the property of David Davies, at the parish of Llanstadwell, on or about the 1st May, 1863, The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr Owen appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Lascelles for the defence. John Davies: I am a butcher living at Neyland. I own a house there. In the month of April I purchased some deal boards, 11 in number. The house was not occupied in April: I put the boards there. The front door was nailed up from the inside: the hack door was fastened by a bolt, which I sprung from the outside with my knife. I examined my house about the 5th or 6th of May twenty-four boards and joists were gone. I saw the prisoner a day or two afterwards: I asked if he had had my boards, and he said he had. I told him that would not suit me at all: and he said 1 Not go in a passion I'll give you some more instead.' I went to the house two or three days after that, and found that a grare, which had been fastened in the kitchen for two years, was missing. I asked Morgan if he bad taken the grate, and said he had takeu it, and put it in a building at Honeyborough. Cross-examined: I had a suspicion that the prisoner took the boards. I bad some boards of the prisoner. The prisoner had been building for me. The house, from which the boards were taken, was built by the prisoner for me. Previous to this affair, I was on good terms with the prisoner. I do not know where the grate is at the present time. I remember the celebration of the Prince of Wales's marriage: a counter may have been fixed at my house about that time: I can't tell what time it was put up.^ It was not put up about the time of the marriage of the Prince of Wales; but about the lstof April. Some of the prisoner's boards were used in the construction of the counter. The prisoner said he had boards that would answer the purpose; and I agreed to take them. He spared me 11 boards, and I paid for them about the 6th of April. J swear tiat there was no arrangement between myself and the prisoner, that I should have his boards was in his employ at the time: I told Rees to keep an account of the prisoner's boards. Robert Thomas went with the prisoner to take the grate: the house is in a thoroughfare at Neyland. The receipt produced is the one I received from the prisoner when 1 paid for the boards I bad from him. Re-examined I used the timber referred to in the bill in making the counter. Rees was to keep an account of the boards that I might know what I had to pay for. James Rees: I am a carpenter. I was in the employ of the prisoner at the beginning of May. I and the pri- j soner removed the boards from Mr Davies's house: he handed them to me. The prisoner said he had the grate: that he had put it up in a building at Honeyborough; and that he would give Mr Davies another in its place. Cross-examined: We removed the boards in the middle of the day. Robert Thomas: I live at Parryville, Neyland. In the month of April last, I slept at the prisoner's house. By his desire, I went with him to Mr Davies's house. He went into the house through the window, and put the grate out. He placed it in a chaff-house, and covered it with hay. Cross-examined lie asked me to go down with him to the cottages. I am not at present connected with him. I had differences with the prisoner's father. Prosecutor, recalled, said that there was no arrange- ment as to the prisoner giving him a new grate instead of the old one. This concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr Lascelles addressed the Jury in a powerful speech on behalf of the prisoner. The Chairman summed up, and the Jury, after a few minutes' consideration, found the prisoner Not Guilty. The Grand Jury returned no bill in the following cases:— Erasmus Davies, the younger, 36, charged with stealing fifty-two pounds weight of copper, the property of John Tombs, at the borough of Tenby, on the 9th of May 1863. Ann Madox, (admitted to bail the 16th of June, 1863), charged with stealing one brooch'aml one ring, the pro- perty of John Maule Sutton, at the parish of Narberth, within four months last past. Florence Sullivan, 24, mariner, charged with stealing two glass"s. one table cloth, and one fork, the property of John Millar, at the borough of Pembroke, on the 5th of May, 1863; and also, with stealing one Detticoat., three jackets, and one pinafore, the property of James Powell, at the barough of Pembroke, on the oth of May, 1863. The Court adjourned at three o'clock.

PEMBROKESHIRE SUMMER ASSIZES. The commission for these assizes was opened at the Shire H all on Wednesday evening before the Hon. Sir J. P. Wilde, Knight, one of the Barons of Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer. His Lordship arrived from London by the six down express train, and was met at the Railway Station by W. Rees, Esq., of Scoveston, High Sheriff of the County, in whose carriage, escorted by javelin men, he was con- veyed to the Hall. The commission having been read, the Court adjourned to 12 o'clock on Thursday. His Lordship attended Divine Service on Thursday morning at Saint Mary's Church, where the Assize ser- mon was preached by the Rev. J. H. A. Philipps, of Pieton Castle. The rev. gentleman, whose discourse was marked by much eloquence, selected for his text the 5th chapter of the II. Corinthians, 10th verse. For we must all appear before the judsrment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it he good or bad." His Lordship took his seat on the Bench at twelve o'clock. There were six prisoners :for trial for the County of Pembroke, charged with the following offences:—one with forgery; two with robbery with violence one with burglary; one with supplying a noxious powder to pro- cure abortion; and one with wilful murder. The calen- der for the Town and County of Haverfordwest contained only one prisoner, who was charged with arson. The names of the gentlemen in the commission of the peace having been read over, the following gentlemen were constituted a GRAND JURY FOR THE COUNTY OF PEMBROKE. Sir Hugh Owen, bart., (foreman,) James Bowen, Esq, James Child, Esq, T. H. Davies, Esq, G. W. W. Davies, Esq, J. N. Dunn, Esq. R. P. Davies, Esq, J. Evans, Esq, J. B. Allen, Esq, J. Higgon, Esq, G. James, Esq, John James, lisq, W. H. Lewis, Esq, T. Mansell, Esq, Wi-n. Owen, Esq, James B. LI. Phillips, Esq, X. Peel, Esq, T. Roberts, Esq, Edward Wilson, Esq, and F. L. Barou De Rutzen. The following gentlemen were sworn as a GRAND JURY FOR THE TOWN AND COUNTY OF HAVERFORDWEST: Ed. Owen Davies, Esq, (foreman,) David Clare. Esq, H. Davies, Esq, Robert Greenish, Esq, Stephen Green, Esq, J. B. Henley, Esq, Richard James, Esq, William Lewis. Esq, William Llewellin, Esq, H. Phillips, Esq, W. Phillips, Esq, Jas. Phillips, Esq, G. Phillips, Esq, A. Stannard, Esq, S. Taylor, Esq, John Thomas, Esq, and W. Williams, Esq. The usual proclamation was then read, after which Hia Lordship proceeded to charge the Grand Juries. In doing so, he said :— GENTLEMEN OF THE GRAND JURY,—I have to con- gratulate you upon the numerous attendance on the part of those who are concerned in the administration of justice in this county. We are met here at the usual period of the year to transact the criminal business of the county, and I think it is fortunate we have so large an attendance as has been given on the present occasion. As to the cases, I regret to say that I cannot, in common with those who have filled this place before me, congratu- late you upon the calendar, which shows a greater pre- sence of crime than is usual in your well-ordered county. Gentlemen, there are six or seven prisoners for trial on this occasion, and I regret to say that out of those six or seven, three or four are crimes of very great magnitude. There is a case of robbery with violence by two soldiers; that will be a question turning entirely upon the credit that you give to the prosecutor, and the person whom he says was with him. That is a case with which you will probably have no difficulty. There is another case of robbery or rather burglary, which is a question of iden- tity the evidence against the prisoner turns upon the possession of some pocket handkerchiefs, which were found in the barracks were the prisoner was. That per- haps may be a case of some doubt. There is a case of forgery against the clerk of some Milford Improvement Commissioners, which is very plain, and with which you will deal without difficulty. There are indeed three charges against the same individual — three separate charges. I rather think it will be found that the prisoner admitted altering the cheques in one or two oases: I think his excuse was that he meant to apply the money he obtained by the alteration to pay further charges on the Commissioners. I need hardly point out to you that when a man alters a cheque, unless there are some ex- traordinary circumstances to show he was doing so honestly, or to presume that he did so without the in- tention of fraud, he is therefore guilty of forgery. Gentle- men, I now come to the really severe and heavy case of the Assime-tbat is a case in which a woman named Williams, is charged with poisoning or attempting to poison her husband. The case, there can be no doubt, is one of some peculiarity. The evidence shows that there was an illness of the husband for some duration, and during that illness there were symptoms which are con- sistent with, and not only consistent with, but strongly indicative of his having taken poison. It is also shown that the wife obtained poison for the purpose, as she said, of killing rats. That is the facts of the case on one side. On the other side there is no doubt of this that the hus- band lived for a full month after she had any access to her husband, after she left his residence—after she was in the house. The question will be, when you hear the medical testimony,-for there is no doubt he ultimately died from exhaustion,—whether you can sufficiently at- tribute the exhaustion from which he died to be the con- sequences of any poison previously administered to him. There is a further fact upon the depositions, that on opening the body no poison was found, but it is said that the lapse of thirty days for which the deceased lived, that lapse of time would be quite sufficient to account for not finding any poison. If you can do so, no doubt it will be your duty to find a bill, and allow the case to be dealt with in this court. There is one case which I would mention to you, because I think it is one in which you will find no bill. It is the case of a man, named Gwyther, a farmer, who is charged with having obtained, supplied, and procured poison, knowing it was intended to be unlawfully used with intent to procure miscarriage. This is an offence which is created by a late statute; for administering a poison or drug for such purposes was always a criminal offencei The offence here charged is created by a late statute; and section .59 of that statute says that whosoever shall unlawfully supply or procure any poison or other noxious carriage, &c; therefore the offence is supplying a cer'al? drug, or whatever it was, knowing that it was intended to be used for that purpose. The evidence in this case, as I have it on the depositions, is very peculiar, for it will turn out, if the witness states to you what she said before the magistrates, that the prisoner gave her a pow- der, and that she says she did not take the powder, and never intended to take it for the purpose charged. IfJ point of law the construction of that section is that it is not sufficient that a man should obtain the powder and give it to another, intending it to be used, but it is neces- sary that the person to whom it is given intends to use it for a criminal purpose. Therefore, gentlemen, inasmuch as the offence comes before you in a different form, it is my duty in point of law to tell you that the offence is not completed. It also appears that there is some doubt that it was a powder which was usually used for this purpose. The chemist who will come before you will tell you that he did not se'l the powder for such a par- pose, so that the case in other respects is involved in un- tell you that he did not seil the powder for such a par- pose, so that the case in other respects is involved in un- certainty. I need not detain you with any further ob- servations. I may tell you that there need not be a 111' 1 Grand Jury to find a bill, but that any majority of twelve is quite sufficient for the purpose. GENTLEMEN OF THE GRAND JURY OF THE TOWN OF HAVERFORDWEsT.-ln the calendar before me you have one bill, and that a very short one. There is one case-* a ease of arson. The question will be wholly one 0' identity. There were two men who were originally charged with the offence-one named Garrn and She other named O'Keefe. The magistrates, however, thought tM evidence against O'Keefe not sufficient, and the only one whom they sent is here is John Garrn. There will or there may be some doubt as to his identity; however, if you have no douht about thatr unless yoa feel that the case is so feeble in point of evidence, and not worth further discussion, your duty will be to find no bill. 1 have no other remark to make, but to thank you for your attendance on this occasion. The Grand Jury then retired, and in a short time returned a true bill. The Court then proceeded with the TRIAL OF PRISONERS. William Robson, 25, soldier, was charged with bor- glariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Thomas Grieve, at the Borough of Pembroke, on night of the 30th of May. 1853, and stealing 34 handker- chiefs, and certain moneys the property of the said Thomas Grieve, and a watch, chain ami key, the property of James Angus. The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. Mr H. Allen prosecuted. Thomas Grieve: I am a draper at Pembroke Dock. On the 30th of May last I locked up my house at half-pasc eleven o'clock at night. At half-past six on Sund&JC morning, I looked out of my window, and saw a piece ot beef lying on the garden wall. It was not there the day before, Access could have been had to the house bY the kitchen window. I lost a silver watch and chatSt and 34 handkerchiefs, which were in the shop the night before. They could have had access to the shop b1 means of the kitchen window. The handkerchiefs prO- duced are my property. None of them were sold to any customer. Robert Irving: I belong to the Pembrokeshire Con- stabulary. On the 31st of May 1 went to the Pembroke Dock barracks, and received the twelve handkerchiefs/ now produce. They were taken from the pillow case iO the prisoner's-bed there was straw in the pillow-case. By the Judge: The prisoner was not in the room at tl16 time he was under arrest. Patrick Power: I am a sergeant in the 85th regimen" I was in charge of the room where the prisoner slept. The handkerchiefs were found in the prisoner's pillo"* case: I had occasion to look for the prisoner on Saturday night: he was not in bed as he should have been- *• could not find' him in the Barracks. I saw him at o'clock on Sunday morning in bed. I locked the door oj the hut which the prisoner belonged to: he could only get in through the window, which was three feet the floor. I sleep in the same room. When I ordered the prisoner under arrest, be wanted to make up his bedf but I would not allow him. The things were found in his bed. Mary Lewis: On Saturday night, the 30th of May.M house of Mr Grieve's was secured. The kitchen shutdown. It was open the next morning about na past six o'clock. The doors were fastened the nex morning. George Evans: I am a constable in the County COP- stabulary, stationed at Pembroke Dock. On the nigb' of the 30th of May I saw the prisoner in Bush-street, at two o'clock, about three hundred yards from the proSe- cutor's house. He was going in the direction of tbe prosecutor's house. John M'Kennon: On Sunday, 31st of May, I fouod some handkerchiefs under the step of the door of the bfl to which the prisoner belonged. William Hall: I was at the door when the handker" chiefs were found: I saw no one touch them. By the Judge: 1 found the handkerohiefs by accident: they were not covered up. or Sergeant Power re-called by the Judge The prison occupied part of a hot, which will accommodate 24? Twenty were present at the time. The prisoner the roll call. Another man, named Baker, was also o°l at the time. They wers both in bed the next morning* By the Jury: Baker slept in tse bed next to the prisoner. George Evans re-called by the Judge:. I saw tbEt prisoner in Bush street: there was another soldier, Baker, with him. Baker was charged before the mag's* trates; but the magistrates did not think there was stly case against him. e This- concluded the case for the prosecution. The prisoner, in his defence, said that the pillow-case con* taining the handkerchiefs might have been put into hi bed by Baker, who slept in the next bed. His Lordship summed up, and the Jury, after a sho* deliberation, found the prisoner Guilty. The prisoner admitted a previous conviction for felonY; His Lordship, in passing sentence, said:—Prisoner the bar,—It appears that you were convieted in the of February, 1861, of the same or a similar offence to tD» of which you have just been found guilty, and you we* then sentenced to l°i months' imprisonment. That tence would have expired in August, 1862, but a month has not passed over your head before you rePer^j the same offence. It will be my duty now to pass up you a much more severe sentence, and I hope that may P an end, (when you come out into the world after sufff1 it), tp this system of crime which you have entered up° .j The sentence of the Court upon YOU for this that you be condemned to penal servitude for five years. Francis Weeks Szlumper, 27, clerk, was indicted that he did on or about the 1st day of September, 1 at Milford, feloniously forge a certain Power of Attorn to transfer certain Shares and Interests, belonging to •The Milford Improvement Commissioners.' e- Mr Laseelles and Mr. de Rutzen appeared for the proSnd cation. The prisoner was defended by Mr T. Allen a Mr Bowen. Rev Octavius Leach [ am the rector of Hubbe*0J in this county. 1 was appointed Chairman to the Improvement Company. I made the necessary dec'ar tion. The prisoner was appointed clerk in 185&: ^eaSfh0 for the keys of the seal about the 10th of Sept. seal to a contract lease. I attended at the where the seal was kept. It was secured by three y which are numbered 1, 3, and can only be the three distinct keys. There are duplicate keys. After 0Jl seal was affixed the seal was locked. Subsequently! g the same day, the prisoner asked me to exchange K that he might clean them. I gave mine to him b?et0l turned me two at the same time. I did not notice tn but put them in my pocket. I next opened the seahftd the 4th of April, with the keys which Mr Roberts received from the prisoner. I examined tbe keys 1 reC0ujjjj. from the prisoner: they were not the same as I gave^■ He retained No 1. I next saw my own key in the' session of Mr Roberts on the 4tb of April, prisoner had my keys, he would be able to open the There was no authority given to the prisoner t°.aP/L|tb the power of attorney. There was £ 224, I think* interest, belonging to the commissioners. in Cross-examined by Mr T. Allen: There is no ^^1*0 the bye laws that the clerk should have possession keys; or that the Commissioners should have the erg: of them. There was £ 7,000 owing by the Comnais31" the money invested was-to pay off the debt. It wa proposed that zC500 should be raised to pay Off the bloy pro tanto. The financial year ended in May. there 1862, we sent out a printed balance, showing tn» was a sum of £ 224 3s. lid. for the sinking ^^9 cheque drawn for £ 244 was never presented. I'* QJU- duty of the clerk to lay the cheques before the sioners at their meetings held monthly. The » were not held monthly, because there was 6 u oflly quorum. A commissioner is nobody by himself: sk -jfae recognised at the monthly or extraordinary Tjf end of clerk was in the habit of passing his accountsat; the financial year. I do not know of my the eircnmstaDces attending the On the loth of May, the CflOUiM38ioiaer8 iiiUt a

MIDSUMMER QUARTER SESSIONS. These sessions were held on Friday, before the Rev. T. Watts, chairman, and H. P. Goode, Esq. (mayor), Wm. Owen, Thomas Rowlands and Summers Harford, Eoqrs, There were no prisoners for trial, and the names of the Grand and Petit Jurors having been called over, they were both dismissed with thanks for their attendance. The Treasurer's accounts were audited and passed, and a rate not exceeding one penny in the pound was on the Treasurer's application ordered to be levied and raised. The Inspector of Weights and Measures, (Mr Thomas Harris,) having sent in his resignation, the same was accepted by the Court .and ordered to be recorded on I the minutes of the proceedings. It was thereupon moved by Thomas Rowlands, Esq., seconded by Harry Phelps Goode, Esq, and unanimously resolved that Mr W. Evan Owen, accountant, be appointed in his stead. Mr Harford brought to the notice of the Court the oft-mooted question ot the Asylum, and stated that as the Town and County of Haverfordwest was now considered to be separated from the other counties of the union, it was a question whether Haverfordwest should not ask for a return of the money paid by that County towards the expenses, and moved I that application be made to the Committee of Visitors of the Joint Lunatic Asylum at Carmarthen, to refund to the Town and County of Haverfordwest, the sum of £ 75 4s. the amount contributed by that County for the purchase of the site of the said Asylum, which was carried, and ordered accordingly. He (Mr Harford) also moved 'that the best thanks of the Bench be given to Mr W. Vaughan James tor having first discovered, and pointed out to the Court, that Haverfordwest was not now in a position to continue in the union,' and a vote of thanks was accord- ingly unanimously recorded. On the motion of Mr Goode, (the Mayor), seconded by Mr Harford, it was ordered 'that Mr John Henry Scour- field, the Member for the Borough, be requested to obtain an alteration of the 25 & 26 Vict. cap. III. sec. 48, so as to enable Haverfordwest to arail itself of the permissive power vested in Boroughs having Recorders to send their Lunatics to any Asylum.' There being no other business before the Court, it broke up about 12 o'clock at noon.