The Cambrian News and Merionethshire Standard

JTh7^^oflhe~current week contains a notice and j.DO way box in which cattle can drawings o an imp huminely removed from place to be more conveniently anc1 hum:mey^ hope companies pothers wUl take the subject into their con- si deration.

CARDIGANSHIRE LENT ASSIZES. The commission for these assizes was opened on Friday, March 24, in the Shirehall, Cardigan, before Mr Justice Grove, who arrived about 3 30 p.m. After opening the commission, his lordship, escorted by G. G. Williams, Esq., high sheriff, and the usual officials, attended divine service in St. Mary's Church, the assize sermon being preached by the Rev James Lewis, vicar of Llanilar, the high sheriff's chaplain. SATURDAY. The Court sat this morning at 10 o'clock, when the fol- lowing gentlemen were sworn as a grand jury :—Messrs C. M. Griffith, Llwyndyris (foreman), G. B. J. Jordan, Pigeonsford, --Nl,,rgan Jones, Penylan, J. Vaughan, L'au. goedmore, W. H Lewis, Clynfiew, J G. P. Hughes, Alltlwyd, Thomas Davies, Cardigan, C. E. Longeroft, Llanina, J. T. W. James, Pant?aeson, J. R. Howell, Noyadd, T. H. Brenchley, Glaneirw, D. G. Davies, Car- digan, W. Buck. Stradmore, M. O. M. Llovd, Bronwydd, J. H. T. Miles, Cardigan, C. M. L. Fitz-Williams, Adpar, and Thomas Morris, Blaenwern. In caarging the grand jury, his Lordship said it was not the first opportunity he had had of congratulating a grand jury on the small amount of crime, and the small amount of litigation in this happy county. He also con- gratulated them on the large attendance of grand jurymen the business was very light, and he was not aware that any difficulty would arise in any of the five cases on the calendar. The depositions in two cases had not reached him; consequently he could say nothing on them. En- quiries had been made, and although it was stated they had been forwarded, tae depositions h id not reached the (fficers of the court. There were two cases of lacceny on the calendar which presented no difficulty but another, a charge of conspiracy to defraud,presented some ditliculty and it would be for the grand jury to consider if there was intent to defraud. His Lordship then went at some length into the law on the case, stating that if the female prisoner had obtained the goods through her son without the intention of paying for them, that would be a larceny, but if she honestly intended to 'jay for them of course there would be no larceny; and if they found the son thought by cheating his master to benefit his mother by giving her what she re- ceived they would find a case of larceny against him. There was a case of burglary also in the calendar, but it was one of those of which the depositions had not reached him. The Graud J ury found true bills against all the prisoners. ALLEGED THEFT OF AN OVF.RCOAT. Thomas Llewelyn (24) collier, was indicted for stealing an overcoat, of the value of 10s, at Llwynbwch, in the parish of Caronisclawdd, on the 18th February last, the property of John Felix. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr North appeared for the prosecution the prisoner being undefended. John Felix, the prosecutor, deposed that he was work- ing at Llwynbwch, and on the 17th of February he placed the overcoat produce! in the stable. He missed the coat on Saturday, the 19.h, and went to Tregaron and gave in- formation to the police. P.C. John Pearce said he was stationed at Tregaron and on the 19th of February last, he apprehended the prisoner at Llanafau with the coat on him. He said he took the coat with the intention of returning it, and he also said a man named David Williams had allowed him to take a coat. The Judge—The coat produced. Witness—No, another coat. The prisoner said he wished David to be called at the Petty Sessions, but he was not. The Judge-Surely the man should have been called. There is a law now which allows the Magistrates to bind over a witness not before them to appear at the Assizes, and have h's expenses allowed, but h. re is a man who wishes another called as witness, and it is not done. The prisoner, in his defence, said on the night in question he was working at Llwynbwch, his wife being in Tregaron. He was very wet, and after tea he went into the stable with the intention of attending to the horses. David Williams remarked that he was very wet, and he said he bad no CloWn; to change. David then said there was a coat in the stable he was welcome h the loan of, and fiading two coats there very much alike, he took the prosecutor's in mistake. David never pointed out any coat in particu'ar and he (the prisoner) did not know until he was appre- hended there was any case against him. The Ju>!ge, in summing up, sa'd the case was a pjculiar one, and he very much doubted if the jury could convict the prisoner, and he was also not quite sure, but was rather inclined to believe, that he was innocent. He thought they should find him not guilty. The jury returned a verdict of "Not guilty," and the prisoner was immediately discharged. STEALING A SHIRT. John Lee, alias Michael Hinton, or Linton, or James Rowe (52), labourer, pleaded guilty to stealing a shirt, value about seven shillings, and two ounces of tobacco, the property of James Thomas, on the 6th of October, 1875, at the parish of Penbryn, Prisoner pleaded not guiity to a previous conviction for arson at Clonmel, and a previous conviction for larceny at Cashel. Mr Lascelles, instructed by Mr J. H. Evans, Newcastle-Emlyn, appeared for the prosfcution. The first eonviction was proved by Edmund Power, warder of the Clonmel gaol, but his lordship considered the second conviction could not be sustained in law. The prisoner said he bad never been within miles of either place, but as the witness had come all the way from Ireland to say what he had, he would swear to it right or wrong. He never saw the witness before he was shown him in Cardigan gaol. The judge did not think he was quite doing his duty in not passing a sentence of penal servitude, especially as he found the prisoner's career had been full of little pecula- tions, but as the conviction proved was so far back as 1858, he thought a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment: with hard labour, would meet the case. BCBGLABY AT LLANBADARN FAWR. John Hutchinson, alias Ginger, alias John Thomas Hutchinson, (20), a tramp, and James Paxton, alias Thomas Atkinson (20), a tramp, pleaded guilty to breaking aDd enter- ing the dwelling house of John Jones, at Llanbadarnfawr, on the 17th January last, and stealing therefrom one black cloth over coat, a pair of gloves and other aiticles. Mr Thomas, instructed by Mr Hughes, Newcastle Emlyn, appeared for the prosecution. The prisoners also pleaded guilty to a previons convic tion. Sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment each with hard labour, with an intimation that if they came before the court again they would probably get a term of penal servitude of seven years at least. CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD AT ABERYSTWYTH. Elizabeth Jones, and Abraham Jones, mother and son, surrendered to their bail, charged that they did on the 6th of January last, conspire together by false pretences to ob- tain, and did so obtain, certain quantities of tea, sugar, rice, oatmeal, biscuits, oranges and tigs, the property of John James, at Aberystwyth. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr Henry Alien, instructed by Mr Griffith Jones, Aber- ystwyth, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Bowen Rowlands, instructed by Mr Hughes, Aberystwyth, for the "defence. John James, sworn-He kept a large grocer's shop at Abtfystwyth, and adjoining it he also kept wine and spirit stores. The prisoner, Abraham Jones, was in his employ, his duty being to wait in the shop. On the 6th of January the female prisoner came to his shop and asked to see her son; he told her he was in the stores and she could go there to hinj. While she was in the stores he examined the till and took out all the money, returning 10s in silver into it; after that he called two of his assistants to witness what he had left in the till, and stationed one at the desk and one walking carelessly about the shop to notice any- thing that might take place between the two prisoners when they came into the shop. He then went into his parlour divided from the shop by a glass door. At two o clock the male prisoner came into the shop, followed in a little time by his mother, and he saw him serve her with b ?0hUenoo,°LtheebeSt t8a n 34 wPlr lb- and other articles, but he could not see exactly what they were. She tendered a coin, either a florin or half-a-crown, after each transaction and as she passed it to her son it was pushed back bv him The female prisoner was in the shop altogether about fortv minutes, and after she left the till was examined and 17s 6d found therein, including the 10s left by the prosecutor He afterwards asked the male prisoner to account for what he had sold to bis mother, aiid he replied one pound of 2s tea oatmeal, 2s. rice, Is 6d. He asked him if that waa all' and he replied, yes. He again asked the boy as to supply! ing other articles, more particularly as to supplying two pounds of sugar at 3d., and after some hesitation he admit- ted doing so, to each of she aiticles read on the memoran- dum now produced, amounting altogether to 8s. 6d. The prosecutor then went to look for the female prisoner, and found her about one hundred and fifty yards off, in Mr Morgan's shop. She had a basket on her arm, but the groceries were not in it. She went with him back to his shop. and he told her be had reason to suppose her son had supplied her with greets she had not paid for, and asked her where they were. She replied in the carrier's cart he expressed his determination to go to the carrier's cart with her, and after going to the next door but one to his shop she suddenly turned in saying the groceries are her?," and they were brought out in a white canvas bag. They then went back to the shop, and he turned out a pound and two ounces of biscuits, value Is. ld. a pound of the best tea, 3s. SJ. 12 pounds of the finest Carolina rice, 5s. 2d. five pennyworth of figs, &c. He told her she had been a long time at that sort of game, and it was quite time it was stopped, and that he should call Sergeant Evans to give her into custody, to which she male no reply. The value of the articles altogether amounted to 15s, 102d., besides a bottle of beer from the stores. He explained to Sergeant Evans what had taken place, and aft<r she had been cau- tioned, she was taken into custody. Sergeant Evans then came back and charged the son. Amongst the articles were also two shillings' worth of oatmeal, and three kinds of sugar, the whole value, including the bottle of beer, being 16s.. 163.4 d. Cross-examined by Mr Rowlands—He kept about six as- sistants altogether. When goods were sold over the counter the money should be put in the till. He had no system of checks, but if it had been a credit transaction, an invoice would have been given, and entered in the books. When in the parlour he was net visible to those in the shop, as he .1 4. had a fine muslin over the glass, and the room had been darkened. During the three quarters of an hour he was in the parlour watching, only one customer came in, and that was for a pennyworth of matches, so the assistant had in. formed him. He told one assistant to appear careless about the, sh0D so as to complete the trap he had laid for the prisoners The tea was wei-hed from the 3s 8d bin five pence per pound was not a high price for finest Carolina ( rice. He would undertake to swear the coin passed after I every article was served. The boy took some coins, he knew, because he could hear the till Opening. Never authorized the male prisoner, or any one else, to open an account without consulting him. Christmas-boxes were givtm over the counter, but not to servants. The female prisoner never left a balance of Is 4cJ from a previous sale to his knowledge, and if it wan so, it did not appear lit the books. I Morgan Griffiths, an assistant to the prosecutor, corro- borated the previous evidence. He weighed the articles found on the female prisoner, and found them to be of the value of 15s 9J, not including the bottle of beer and the two ounces of biscuits over the pound. He kept a memo- randum of the goods he weighed, which he handed in. Cross-examined—He was walking carelessly about the shop when the female prisoner was present being served, and sold a pennyworth of matches to a customer. Could hear the conversation. William James, another assistant, was present at the desk during the time the female prisoner was being served. He could hear the conversation of the two prisoners, and no one but the son served his mother. He kept an account of what was ordered. Sergeant Evans proved apprehending the prisoners, after cautioning them. The goods amounted to the value of 16s 4gd, including the bottle of beer. After he locked the female prisoner up she said she bought the beer at Downey's stores, and the fi at a little shop in the town. Xext dav she said she had made a false statement, and that she had obtained the beer and tigs at the prosecutor's shop, paid her son for them. Crosi, examined -The female p.iscner volunteered the statement. Could not tell the exact words, but she spoke in Welsh equivalent to what would mean false statement. She had a tit when in the cell. Mr Allen having submitted that the case had been abundantly proved, and that he had established a case of fraud under a pretence of sale, Mr Rowlands, for the defence, said he should call no witnesses, but contended that the action of the prosecutor had been of a most cowardly character, and that he had hid himself in a skulking manner in his parlour to ]307 a trap for the prisoners. He would call the attention of the jury ti toe appearance of the boy as a proof of his innocence the fraud, if fraud it was, was not the frightened stealing of a frightened boy stealing with fear and trembling, but a sale boldly conducted over the counter, and he was positively loudly talking with his mother during the trans- action, sufficiently for the assistant stationed at the desk to take down every article, and he considtred if any harm had baen done a civil court would have been the proper place to have taken it to, and not made it a criminal case to be tried there that day. The mother's story of the goods being with the carrier was perfectly consistent, as goods were leit at various places to be cailed for by the carrier, and the probability was that the goods in question were left at the shoemaker's home to be so called for. The learned counsel commented upon tho absence of the prosecutor's books, as it might have been found from them that there was a balance of account of Is 41, which would have swelled up the amount of 15s 9d, as given by the prosecutor. After alluding to the hithert) irreproachable character of the prisoner, and the bid state of health of the female prisoner, h° concluded a long and able address by appealing to the jury to acquit them. His Lordship then summed up, pointing out the law bearing on the case, and reminded the jury that it was not because a person fainted away or was :11 that she was to be allowed to commit an offence also if the mother obtained the goods without guiltyknowledge.but afterwards received them knowing them to be stolen, she would be guilty of receiving them. The jury, after retiring for about balf-an-hour, returned a verdict of guilty against both prisoners. The prosecution having recommended the male prisoner t) the merciful consideration of the court, on the ground that it was thought lie was influenced to commit the offence by his mother,his Lordship sentenced the female prisoner to nine months' imprisonment, and the boy to four months' imprisonment, both with haid labour. Mr Rowlands applied for arrest of j udgment on the ground that there was no proof of any specitic article being stolen, which his Lordship refused. STEALING MONEY AT TSPYTTY YSTWYTH- Rees Morgan surrendered to his bail charged with stealing 133 on the 23th February last, the money of John Messe-, at the parish of Yspytty Ystwytb. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr Henry Allen, instructed by Mr Hughes, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr B, Rowlands, instructed by Mr Griffith Jones for the prisoner. Mr Allen, having briefly opened the case, called Sophia Messer, who deposed-Her husband kept the Black Lion at Yspytty-Ystwyth. On the 28th of last month *he had 13s sent her by a neighbour to pay a bill at Aber- ytwyth there was 10s in gold and a florin, but she could not remember what the other shilling was composed of. The money was wrapped in paper when she had it. She put the money on the mantelpiece in the kitchen, and after she put it there the prisoner came in and a man named John Jones with him. About half-past eight a.m., s'ie went to to meet the Aberystwyth train, and wben about eighty yards from the house she recollected that she had left the money on the mantelpiece, and the prisoner in the home, John Jones having left the same time as she did, She then sent a !ittle boy named David Oliver, back to the house to tell ber husband to mind the money. She then went on to Aberystwyth, returning between seven and eight the same evening, but she had seen nothing more of the money. No one but the prisoner, except her own family and a lodger, was in the house after she received the money. Cross-examined—The lodger's name was David Jeffreys. She never heard he was a travelling musician or played the flute, but she knew he was in the militia. She received the money about eight o'clock in the morning. She did not say before the Magistrates the money consisted of 10s in gold, 2s in silver, a threepenny piece, and the rest in copper, as far as she knew, but she was not quito sure as to the last shilling. The boy Oliver was not here tp-day. By the Judge—Jeffreys did not leave the house till the following Thursday, and the money was taken on Monday. By Mr Rowlands—I never sav Jeffreys drunk while staving at the Black Lion. John Jones, cousin to the prisoner, went to the Blick Lion with him on the morning in question. He asked him for 3d or 6d, he was not quite sure which, neither could he say if it was as a loan or gift. When he left the house he ha I seen no one there but the prisoner and the landlord. Cross-examined—He left the house just before Mrs Messer. By the Judge—He did not take the money or see it. Sarah Ann Messer, daughter of the prosecutor, after her mother and John Jones left, saw the prisoner take a piece of paper from the mantelpiece, and after lighting his pipe with a piece put the remainder in his pocket. There was only one piece of paper on the mantelpiece. Prisoner called for some beer, and gave her 6d in payment, and she gave him threepence change. Cros3-examined- W e do not keep paper on the mantel- piece to light pipes, but we do matches. Jeffreys, the lodger, came down when prisoner was leaving the house, but°she did not see him drink any beer with the prisoner, ghe was fourteen years of age, and she did not take the money. Margaret Jane Messer, another daughter of the prosecu- tor, aged ten years, also saw the prisoner take some paper from the mantelpiece, and after lighting his pipe put the remainder in his pocket. She generally corroborated the evidence of her sister. John Messer, landlord of the Black Lion, remembered his wife leaving the house to go to Aberystwyth on the morning in question, and just afterwards received a message from her by Oliver about the money. He immediately looked for it on the mantelpiece, but it was not there. Oliver did not ciae farther than the kitchen door. Jeffreys came down- stairs about a quarter of an hour afterwards, and the prisoner called for some beer after the money was missed. Cross-examined—He only looked at the mantelpiece, but his eldest daughter searched the house. She was not here to day. Mary Wood, a washerwoman, working on the morning in question at the Miners' Arms Inn, Pantygroes, proved seeing the prisoner come in between 10 and 11 o'clock, and call for some beer, and she saw him call for some beer several times, for which he paid, but she could not say whit coin he paid with. P.C. Rowlands proved apprehending the prisoner, and he said he had money that morning from his wife. Mr Bowen called no witnesses, bat submitted that al- though it was a case of some suspicion, still there was no proof of the prisoner taking the money. This view of the case was taken by his Lordship, who considered that Oliver, Miss Messer, and the landlord of the Miners' Arms should have been called, but it was for the jury to say if they were thoroughly convinced the prisoner was guilty. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. This was the whole of the criminal business. CIVIL BUSINESS. CHARGE OF LIBEL AGAINST A NEWSPAPER. (Special Jury case.)-Party against Roberts.—The plain- tiff, Miss Eliza. Jane Webly Parry, resides with her sister, Miss Ellen Webley Patry, at a place called Glan- helig, near the village of Llechvyd, near Cardigan, on the banks of the river Tivy. The defendant was Mr John Cowayson Roberts, printer and proprietor of the Cardigan Observer, the charge being that the defendant did falsely and maliciously publish, in the said newspaper, certain letters containing false, scandalous, malicious, and de- famatory words, reflecting on the said plaintiff, for which she el-ti med X500 damages. The defendant pleaded that in an article published in the first issue of his papar on the first of January last, he announced that its columns would be open at all times for the free and fair discussion of public questions that the letters which constitute the al- leged libel were communicated by a correspondent, and that he was ready and willing to give insertion to any an. swer or answers in the same way as insertion had been given to the letters which constituted the alleged libel that the said defendant was not influenced by ary feeling of malice or ill-will towards the plaintiff or any other person or persons that he was not aware the letters referred to the plaintiff, or that the said letters, or any part of them, con- tained any defamatory meaning attached to them that, as soon as the defendant learnt that the plaintiff was ag- grieved, he took an early opportunity of apologizing, in large type, in a prominent part of his paper, on the 26th of February, 1876 and the defendant paid into court five shillings by way of amends for the injury sustained by the plaintiff by the publication of the alleged libel. Mr Bowen, Q.C., and Mr Hughes, instructed by Messrs Jenkins and Evans, Cardigan, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr B. T. Williams, Q-C., and Mr Arthur Lewis, in- structed by Mr Davies, Haverord:wet, for the defendant. Owing to the number of special jurymen objected te by the defendant's counsel, the case was tried by a jury of eight only. Mr Hughes having opened the pleadings, Mr Bowen, Q.C. addressed the jury. The plaintiff com- plained of certain letters which had appeared in the Cardigan Observer, which when he had read to them he had no hesitation in saying they would consider to be one of the most gross attacks made upon innocent ladies. The case could not last bng, as the defendant admitted every- thing, and it would be for them to say whether the apology given under the 6 and 7 vie., c. 96, v. J,Iwas a sufficient one, and whether also the sum of 5s paid into court was sufficient redress for the libel complained of. The learned Counsel then proceeded to read the first letter of which the follow. ing portions were the most complained of :—"Not far from a pretty little village on the banks of the Tivy there is a snug country residenca occupied by ladies who are red-hot church-goers, and carry out their religious ideas, in a very remarkable way. They are also keen politicians, acute parochial lawyers, and occasionally figure as party leaders and Tory advocates in parochial senates. These ladies have several persons in their service, and among others two sis- ter.3-daughters of a respectable woman who died lately. One daughter resides indoors, and being a member of the Peace at any price' party, she lias reluctantly consented to go t) church on Sunday, with a view we suppose of making life endurable at her 'captive' home. The first conquest, being won, an attack was planned by these ecclesiastical strategist} to win the other heretic sister to the fold of the orthodox church, but their efforts proved futiel, and she, like a true daughter of nonconformity, has cast her lot with the good people, at one of the village chapels. When her Tory iandiadies heard of this daring act they gave her to understand that she must q'1it her little home on these Christian ladies' farm, as they had a church-woman to reside there instead. Consequently, the young woman has been, or soon will be, evicted, for simply acting conscientiously upon matters which concern herself and her God al.>ne. Such is the plain unvarnished story recited to me, an,1 I have not hesitated to head it with the rather strong title of Persecution, no. 2.' I blush for my native country, sir, when I see it made the theatre of these disgraceful acts, aud most sincerely hops that in their zeal to prolong the downfall of the Church, the Church Ladies will adopt a more Christian way of winning proselytes to the orthodox fold I contend that servant maids should enjoy theological independence. Let these Apostolic (?) daughters of the Church enjoy their own opinions, and be satisfied; but I claim for the servant maid the same right; In the name of noncon- formity I charge these Christian (?) ladies to pay higher re- gard to religious convictions everywhere, but if their sJUls be too cramped by bigotry to do so, then I advise them to pray to God penitently for forgiveness and guidance. I am certain that my Bible holds oat no hope of heaven to those who worry and persecute a humble saint." He (the learned counsel) thought it hardly necessary to tell the jury that not one word of those allegations was true, and that the charges brought against these ladies were entirely and utterly untrue, and were not sought now to be substantiat ed by the defendant. The following are extracts from the next letter-" It will be remembered that a young woman figured in my )ait as the victim of blind zeal. It appears she is not the first of her family who have been thus treated. This brave girl's mother was attacked on her death bed on the same score. The deceased was originally a Baptist, but was not a member of that respected denomination. While she was ill, religious (?) consolation was forced upon her by a curate a reverend gentleman of a superior caste in the sa'ne church also tried his powers, but they were respectfully declined, and, finally, her stedfastness pre- vailed over all pressure, and she was admitted into mem- bership of a humble dissenting chapel, and breathed away her soul that night in hopes of a triumphant resurrection, Dissenter though she was. The daughter was then ap- proached by the Parson, but she held firm to her mother's creed, and though she was taken to the sea side for three weeks with the evident purpose of over-throwing her good intentions, she joined herself to a Dissenting communion. She was again banished for a time, and a strenuous effort was made to erase Dissenting ideas of religion from her heart. U. he young girl had, however, too much steel in her nature, and she came out of the fiery furnace unscathed by the burning flame. All honour to the young heroine A fractional degree of benevolence, has, however been shown by the ladies' of late. They are very good at cawl distributing, it appears and believing that even the devil ought to have his due, we feel bound to say that the circuit of cawl distribution his been recently extended, so that some of the dissenting poor are admitted to share the privileges. To give cawl to the poor is undoubtedly laudable, when cawl and church are treated as separate questions, but to confound cawl with religion is preposterous." Both these letters were signed "Whipper-in." The jury would see that the accusation against these ladies was that the last mornents of this poor woman were interfered with by them, but the real fact was that they sent to the Rev. W. Rees, the minister at Llechryd, and asked him to come and administer to her in her la3t moments, and that gentleman came and baptiz,d her so there was no truth in that. Th eallegition as to the daughter was equally unfrue. It appears that the Misses Parry were in the habit of spending a certain portion of the year at the Gwbert, and this girl not being very well after the shock received from the death of her mother, they took her with them for the benefit of her health, as a charity, and while at the Gwbert her religion was never interfered with, and she went freely and of her own accord to her own place of worship. As to the cawl distribution, these ladies gave away this nice kind of broth to about twelve people, two only of whom belong to the Church, the remainder being N onconformist. The poor woman died in their employ, and she was also in the employ of their mother before them, and they allowed her 2; per week towards making her comfortable. The learned gentleman thought the jury would agree with him that the libels were of a most offensive character, and these ladies ultimately directed their solicitors in the matter. Those gentlemen sent a letter to the defendant, demanding the author's name, as the allegations were untrue, and he replied on the 10th of February refusing to give up the name, stating that the letters dealt with principles and not persons. There was nothing therefore to be done but to issue a writ, and that was done on the 12th of February and on Saturday, the 26th February, an alleged apology ap- peared in the Observer, so that until he got into the lawyers' hands, defendant never tried to apologize for the insult he had committed, and it was not tendered as the honest apology of one wishing to do justice for the injuries inflicted, but simply to escape the effects of his own misconduct, by means of an Act of Parliament, in mitigation of damages. After the writ was issued one of the ladies withdrew, be- cause the law did not allow two persons to be bound together as plaintiffs, except in the way of trade. The defendant now admitted the statements, but alleged the apology and 58 was sufficient to meet the requirements of the case. But these ladies consider that, these statements having been made in a public newspaper, they should have a thoroughly public retractation. Mr Williams, Q.C., said the defendant had pleaded under Lord Campbell's Act, which gave an editor of a paper the power to apologise in mitigation of damages. The ques- tion therefore was whether the apology and amount paid into Court were sufficient compensation. His Lordship-You are really not going to contend that an editor can insert anonymous letters of this description in a newspaper, and then pay 5s into court a3 amends for the injured feelings of these ladies. Mr Williams-Just so, my lord. His Lordship-Then I shall adjourn the Court until Monday morning, and psrhaps with two nights elapsing you may be able to settle the matter between you. I The Court then adjourned. MONDAY. His Lordship took his seat this morning at ten o'clock. The Court was crowded, and much interest was evinced in the proceedings. The letters of Messrs Jenkins and Evans of the 7th of February, and the defendant's reply of the 10th were sent in and read. Mr Bowen, Q.C., said everything had been admitted, so that there was nothing to prove. At the same time he wished to put the plaintiff in the box as his learned friend wished to ask her a question. Miss Elizlo Jane Webley Parry sWorn She was the plaintiff in the action. Cross-examined by Mr Williams-I have seen an apology in the Cardigan Observer. Jt speaks of my own and my sister's wounded feelings, but nothing of our slandered characters, and it does not say the statements were false. Ilwas last year a candidate for the office of overseer for the parish of Llechryd, but did not go to the poll. I possess political feelings, but never unduly take a political part in my neighbourhood. I took an active part in the election of the School Board because I had a great interest in Educa- tion, and I am an active promoter of the Church in the parish. Mr Bowen—That is the plaintiffs case. Mr John C. Roberts, the defendant, cxammeu uy lour Arthur Lewis. He was the proprietor, editor and printer of the Cardigan Observer, which was started on the first of January last. Before he became so he bad no experience in publishing or editing papers, he was simply a journeyman printer. He was a native of Conway, North Wales, and came to Cardigan from Merthyr, in October last to reside. Up to the time of the letters appearing in his paper, he had no personal knowledge of the plaintiff. The letters were con- tributed by a correspondent, they were not inserted as statements of himself, and they were inserted with a bona fide impression that they would be answered. There was an interval of a fortnight between the two letters, and dur- ing that time no complaint was made of the insertion of the first letter. In the.issue of his paper of the 2Gth of February an apology was inserted. Cross-examined by Mr Bowen—He had a short acquaint- ance with Cardigan years ago, being connected with the Cardigan Herald, as a printer, and occasionally served as reporter. Since then he had been connected with a news- paper in Merthyr as a journeyman printer. He left Cardi- gan six years last November, and was for about five years at Newcastle Emlyn previously to coming to Cardigan the first time. He meant to say he did not know the ladies referred to in those letters, but he knew some ladies lived at Glanhelig, and he also knew that was near Llechryd he did not take the trouble to enquire about the letters, but he inserted them thinking they ought t3 be in, and contained nothing personal, and that there was no harm in them. He had no opportunity of asking his correspond- ent before inserting the letters whom he alluded to. Before inserting the first letter he read it over carefully, but he did not show them to any one for the purpose of eliciting whom they alluded to. He expected an answer to the first letter, and his object was to get these ladies, whoever they were, to enter into a discussion with Whipper in." as he thought it was a public question and when he found the first letter was not discussed he did not thiuk it necessary, when the second letter was brought, to ask his anonymous correspondent whom it was he alluded to. In the fortnight that elapsed between the publication of the two letters be might have spoken of the matter contained in the first let- ter, but he could not say with whom, and he did not during that time know it was the Misses Webley-Parry that were alluded to, and it never occurred to him it was they, as there were many ladies on the banks of the Tivy. Finding no answer had been returned to the first letter, he did not think it necessary to make any enquiries as to who the persons were. After answering the letter of Messrs Jenkins and Evans, on the 10th February, he com- municated with Whipper in and then knew who the ladies we rd. In speaking of principles not persons, he did not mean to connect them with any ladies. Whipper in" told him who the ladies were, but he declined to answer who they were.. Mr B. T. Williams—We admit they were the Misses Parry. Defendant—When he found the ladies felt aggrieved at the letters he did not immediately apologize, because he thought they dealt with principles, and not persons his correspondent told him so, and he endorsed that opinion, and he did so then, although he did not wish to offend the ladies. The apology published on the 26th February was sent him, and written for him he instructed his solicitor to prepare an apology he now adopted the language of the apology, and not that of the letter to Messrs Jenkins and Evans. He did not know he had transgressed until I served with the writ, and be was very sorry if anything bad been done to hurt the ladies' feelings, and he expected they had some right to complain of those letters. He had changed his mind since he had writen "principles, not persons," &c. By Mr B. T. Williams-He regretted he had inserted the letters, and withdrew entirely, without any qualification, the statements therein made, and he now made no qualifi- cation whatever in the apology he offered the Misses Webley Parry. Mr B. T. Williams then addressed the jury for the de- fence, and complained of the feeling that had been imparted into the case by his learned friend on the other side. As a matter of fact they were always open to criticism by their friends all the days of their lives, and it had been laid down often by the Bench that people living in the state they did should not be too sensitive, and unless any serious imputa- tion was made against character such actions should not be encouraged. He must ask the jury to look at the libel with their own eyes, and not be influenced by the forcible language of Mr Bowen, that it was one of the grossest libels that had ever been wricten, which he certainly thought they would consider a great exaggeration. There was a lot of verbiage, no doubt, in the letters, dealing with principles and not persons, but what of that. He contended that the ladies were simply charged with being select in the reci- pients of their bounty, and exercising great zeal in gaining converts to the church they belonged to, and those were charges many of them would be proud of, and yet this was styled by his friend one of the grossest libels ever written Mr Williams having dwelt upon the inexperience of the defendant in editing and managing a paper, characterized the letter sent to the defendant by Messrs Jenkins and Evans was very arbitrary they not only demanded the author's name but the manuscripts as well, which they had no right to do. Defendant thought he had done nothing more than his duty in inserting the letters, but after con- sulting his friends he thought proper to alter his opinion, but then finding himself in the hands of the lawyers, Messrs Jenkins and Evans— dangerous opponents—he took counsel himself. The question for the onsideration of the jury would he as to whether the apology was given in time under Lord Campbell's Act. His Lordship—Mr Bowen very discreetly never riised that point. Mr Williams-Very well, my lord. The writ was issued in the names of the two ladies, which was unlawful, and in point of law the defendant wpuld have been entitled to a nonsuit thereon, and the action went on thus to the 24th of February, when the error was discovered. The name was struck out on the 23rd, and on the 24th the defendant re- ceived notice, so that up to that time the defen- dant was entitled to a nonsuit, and he submitted that the action commenced from the publication of the apology on the 26th of February; and the question was whether under Lord Campbell's Act the apology and amount paid in were not sufficient, the defendant having in- serted the libel without malice, and done all he could to make amends. They would have to consider not the wounded feelings of these ladies, but whether the defend- ant had complied with the Act. These ladies, who are of high principles and character-and nothing can be said against them—took an active part as promoters of the Church, in School Board elections, and in politics they were not to be blamed for that, but commended, but still, taking the part they did in public affairs, they could not expect but to be more open to criticism than those who con- fined themselves to their domestic duties. They had from the adies themselves that they wanted by this action to clear their characters, and that they did not want damages, and he was certiinthey did not call for damages. How was it, therefore, that these proceedings were continued ? Was it because their solicitors wished heavy costs to arise from it; or did they wi-h, through a court of justice, to injure a paper for party purposes? He believed these ladies did not want damages, and he also felt convinced the jury would do justice in the case fairly and calmly. Mr Bowen, having replied, agciin maintaining that tha libel was a most gross one, and commenting upon the un- justifiable attack made by his learned friend on the plaintiff's solicitors, contended that the defendant had never made any attempt at amends in any way until the law compelled him to do so, and called upon the jury to show their dis approbation of such an act by awarding the plaintiff ample damages. His Lordship then summed up at great length, pointing out the difference between oral and written defamation, and analysed the letters throughout, with the law bearing on the different points. The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with 925 damages. His Lordship directed immediate judgment, and certified for a special jury. EJECTMENT. James v. Fear.—The record in this was withdrawn. This finished the business of the Assize, and the Court ose at half past one.

CARNARVONSHIRE ASSIZES. These assizes were continued at Carnarvon on Thursday, March 23, before Mr Justice Lush. SINGULAR CHARGE OF ATTEMPTED MURDER. William Wilkins, 60, river watcher, was charged with shooting at Jane Jones with intent to murder her. Mr I. Williams prose- cuted; Mr M. Lloyd, Q.C., defended. The prosecutrix lives at Wigan, near Pwllheli, and at midnight on August 15th, prisoner, who is a watcher on Llanystumdwy river, knecked at her door and demanded entrance, saying that he wanted to light his pipe. Not knowing the man she refused to admit him, whereupon he became greatly enraged and kicked at the door. Prosecutrix's husband then went to the window and asked prisoner to go away. Prisoner replied that unless the door was opened he would shoot him, and in a few seconds a shot was fired at a window where prosecutrix was standing with a lighted candle. She ex- tinguished the candle and was in the act of raising the blind to see where prisoner was when a second shot was fired, the shot passing through the window pane. One of the children crying, prosecutrix went into another room with a lighted candle, and another shot was fired at the window of that room. Prisoner was apprehended the following day, and two pistols, one loaded, were found in his possession. The defence was a total denial of the charge. Owing to ill health, the prosecutrix was unableitolbe called as a witness, and wh 1st her husband was under cross-examination he was seized with a fit and had to be carried out of court. The jury acquitted the prisoner. ALLEGED PERJURY. Albert Harrison, hotel proprietor, Llanfairfechan, and Owen Williams, labourer, were charged with committing perjury at the Carnarvon Quarter Sessions. Mr Corbat-Yale and Mr Trevor Parkins prosecuted Mr Swetenham and Mr n'ggins defended. The charge arose out of the hearing of an affiliation appeal at the January Quarter Sessions, in which Williams was the appel- lant against an order made upon him by the Pwllheli magis- trates. At the Quarter Sessions, Harrison, who is a brother-in- law of Williams, was called as a witness on his behalf, and swore that at the time of the alleged intimacy between Williams and the respondent the former was not at Tydweiliog.but in his service at Llanfairfechan. Similar evidence was given by Williams, and the order was quashed. Inquiries subsequently made by the police resulted in the apprehension of Williams and Harrison for perjury. The case against Williams was first gone into, some 20 wit- neses being examined for the prosecution. The jury returned a verdict of "Not guilty." Mr Parkins stated that, as the case against Harrison was iden- tical with that against Williftm3, the prosecution would offer no evidence. In the second court, before Mr M. Lloyd, Q.C., Owen Jones, aged 24, was acquitted on a charge of rape at Llanaelliaiarn. Mr I. Williams prosecuted; Mr Swetenham defended. This concluded the criminal business, and the Court rose at seyen o'clock. FRIDAY. Griffith Jones, aged 25, labourer, was sentenced to 18 months' hard labour, for stabbing, at Lianberis.

CORRESPONDENCE « Stranger's" letter is too long the gist of his communi- cation could be put in a few lines. Correspondents should recollect that space is valuable and that setting type costs money. # D. D.s verses are not well enough written to justify mser tion. ASTI-HnIBl;G.- \V e have received an impudent letter bear- in./ this signature, which we decline to publish. 11 ever our report" are not eo.rect we are willing to correct them, but we do not allow oar correspondents to be abused •without cause. Before a letter iike> e °^jL^i6.i ^Ve received is sent to a newspaper, the wrlteJ ;ms. his name for publication, and prepare to defend a criminal action for libel.—EDS. MELINDWR SCHOOL BOARD. SIB,-Mucti buune has been laid upon Melmdwr School Board, in some quarters, for having neglected their funda- mental ob'igaum, namely, to educate children." One duty has been by no means neglected by the Board, however. I refer to the levy of rates. They have been Sevenpence in the nrinnr) Der vear since the formation of a Board in August? l*«i,le3 contributions from Parcel Canol. But^while the' fault-finding Spirit has been so much dis- played, no one seems to have thought fit in his wisdom to show how the things complained of might be remedied. Al- though one writer boidly asserted the incompetency of the members to manage the educational affairsef the district, would it not have been kinder to offer a few instructive sug- gestions to a Board which is said to be in such great need of counsel ? And lirst as to the way to reduce the rates. There are two schools which may be expected to earn 2120 in Government grants. To obtain this the Board must provide £ 120 in pence and rates. But ^^ile only 01we penny per week is charged, much less than £ 50 will be o tained from the two schools, so at least JE70 must come from the ratepayers. What the Board should do is to increase the fee, so that the main portion of the cost of education may fall on the parents and not on all the ratepayers indiscnmi- nately. 't'Lk at it in another light. The cost of maintaining the two schools is about £ 280, ana of thi. y the Government grant is £ 120, then the remaining £ 100 must be got. From the rates £ 70, school pence £ 4o extra grant to weak parishes £ 45. I my then and vouch for tne fair- ness of my figures, that the school fees must be raised, or the rates cannot be lowered. Furthermore, I would ren.ark that it is the duty of the Board to see that every child within its jurisdiction receive prooer instruction, and to do this they should appoint an oifi^-r to enforce the compulsory clause, which is as yet a dead letter in their by-laws. With the best wishes for the Melindwr and every other Board of education.—I am, &c., RATEPAYER. 1HE LIBER ATION SOCIETY AT DINAS MAWDDWY. SIR,-I wish to draw yuur attention to the incorrect statement of your correspondent, in last week's issue of the Cambrian News, as to the Liberation Society's meeting held here. In the first place he says that "the audience was not large," which is quire untrue, a3 the chapel was very nearly tilled with attentive hearers. In the second place he says bat the generality of persons in this small district are adverse to the objPct," which is also untrue, and wha; will prove it be3t is that by far the greatest part of the population of this neighbourhood are Nonconformists, and hwe provided eleven places of worship, while the Church of England has only two places of worship in the same district. Another thing that will also prove that the generalitvof persons in this smill district are not advere to the object, is: At the Liberation meeting of that evening a resolution was passed, favourable t1 the Disestablishment and Di3endowmeut of the Church, and was carried unani- mously; and when it was asked if anybody had any objec- tion to the resolution, not a hand was raised against it. I beg to inform the readers of the Cambrian News that a Local Committee of the Liberation Society has been formed here, and there are a good many subscribers. A LIBERATOR. FOUND DEAD. Sir,—A paragraph under the heading of Dinas Mawddwy, in your last isue, calls for an explanation from me. It states, with reference to the death of Rowland Edwards, the man who was found deal on the roadside between Dol- gelley and Dinas Mawddwy, that he had "been seen rather late at the Cross Foxes Inn," which, it would appear, was the lait place t which be called. The coroner having found it unnecessary to hold an inquest, the wording of your report calls for an explanation-or rather contradiction from me. The deceased, who appeared perfectly sober, called at my hou«MKfr half-past six on the night in ques- tion he simply sat down for a rest, and, not asking for drink, was supplied with none. My brother-in-!aw, John Ellis, thinking the old man wai tired, started after him on horseback, and gave him a lift to his (Ellis's) house, a mile distant. Mr Ellis asked him to turn in and rest at Caerty- ddyn, but the old man declined, saying he wanted to get on, and could manage very well. I wish simply to state the fact that the poor fellow left my house perfectly sober before seven o'clock, and that he had no drink in my house. -I am, &c,, T. ROBERTS Cross Foxes, near Dolgelley. [It was not intimated in any way whatever that the de- ceased was not sober.—EDS.] THE SURVEYOR AND INSPECTOR OF NUISANCES. SIR, From the report in your paper of Friday last, of a meeting of the Town Council held on the 21st March, I learn that Mr Green compliined that jthe Inspector of Nuisances had of late been neglecting a portion of his duties. In reply to which complaint the Inspector said he had been pretty well fully engaged:with other matters which no doubt he has. Would you kindly allow me through the me iium of your journal t) ask Mr Green or any other representative of the ratepayers, if either of them will oblige by asking the Sur- veyor at the next Council meeting, with whose authority he is acting a engineer to the Tregaron Local Board, and also if rightly informed, superintending the erection of the Skating Rink now being erected in the town. Out of jus- tice to his brother professionals I wish the question to be asked, as it seems very unjust towards them as ratepayers (out of which rates I presume the Surveyor receives his salary) that he should be allowed to practise privately and deprive them of the means, out of which they are expected to pay th--ir rates. And more especially, if I recollect rightly, that one of the conditions of his appointment was that lie was to dovote the whole of his time to the duties of his office. And I am sure there is ample work to engage the whole of his time, if the Council wish to keep their little queen of watering places to the fore, during the forth- coming season.—I am, &c., JUSTICE. Aberystwyth.

BREACH OF PROMISE CASE. A "SHY LOVER" BROUGHT TO TASK. Hugh Hughes, a farmer living at Cremlyn, Aber, was sued by Ellen Roberts for damages for breach of promise of marriage. ) Mr Swetenham (instructed by Mr Roberts, Bangor) was for the plaintiff and Mr M. Lloyd, Q.C and Mr Higgins (instructed by Mr Allanson) for the defendant. Mr Swetenham, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff was a young woman some 29 years of age, living with her brother at a farm called Tygolchy, near Portdinorwic, the defendant, who occupied a farm of 80 acres, being 17 years her senior. About five years ago the defendant was introduced to the plaintiff at Bangor, and, finding pleasure in her society, they had a quiet walk and talk, which, at the de- fendant's request, resulted in another interview in a fortnight's time. These meetings became more frequent, and the defendant, who lived nine miles from the plaintiff, at last took to calling at her brother's house. The defendant, however, was of a remarkably shy, diffident, and retiring disposition, and, apparently, being averse to publicity being given to the fact that he was courting, when visiting the plaintiff would not enter the house, but signalled his presence by gently tipping at the window, and the young lady would either slip out for a walk, or wait until the family had gone to bed, and then admit him into the house. In the neighbouihood of Tygolchy were some woods, in which the two were very fond of taking long walks. But, as a Welshman, defendant preferred the Welsh custom 01 courting, and his choice inclined to get into the houso when the family had retired, and to remain in the kitchen with the plaintiff until four, five, and six o'clock in the morning. Eventually the defendant pro- posed, and it was arranged:that the marriage should take place as soon as his house had been enlarged. Plaintiff, getting rather tired of her long engagement, and finding defendant reluctant to name the day, offered to release him. But to this he would not consent, and, at his suggestion, it was mutually agreed to defer the marriage until the death of plaintiffs mother, who was an invalid. The mother died at Christmas, 1874, and the marriage was again mooted, defendant stating that the ring should'cast £ 2, and tbe wedding £ 20 at least. Believin? these representations, in February last year sho allowed intimacies, which resulted in the birth of a stillborn child in November. Upon acquainting the defendant of her condition, he told her to go to Dr Humphreys, and her suspicions being confirmed, she weat to Cremlvn, and pressed defendant to keep his promise. His reply was that his house was not ready, and that he did not love her well enough to marry her. The plaintiff's evidence was supported by that of Jane Owen, her servant, who spok" to the frequency of tho defendant's noc- turnal visits, and to overhearing him ask plaintiff if she loved him sufficiently to marry him to her reply iu the affirmative and to his discussing the expenses of the ceremony. No witnesses were called for the defence, which was a denial of the promise to marry. The jury assessed the damages at X250. On the application of Mr Lloyd, judgment was stayed for fen days, his lordship remarking that under the circumstances he did not con.,Uer the damages excessive. ROBERTS V. HUGHES. This was an action for tho recoverv of 1!85 and interest due upon a promissory note. The plaintiffs were William Roberts and Mary Jones, executors of Robert Hushes, for whom Mr M. Lloyd, Q.C., and Mr Trovor Parkins (instructed by Mr Griffiths, Llanrwst) appeared and the defendant, David Hushes, who was represented by Mr Swetenham (instructed by Mr Parry- Jones, Conway.) The defendant had paid £ 15 123 6d, and pleaded a set off i.f C91 5s 7d for the maintenance of the deceased,who was his brother. The jury found for the plaintiffs for £2713 6d, exclusive of the amount p.id into court. SATURDAY. OWEN V. MORRIS. This was a special jury cause for damages for breach of con- tract in connection with the construction of tho line of railway between Festining and Bettws-y-Coed. The plaintiffs, Messrs Owen and Jones, were represented by Mr Morgan Llovd, Q.C., and Mr Swetenham (instructed by Mr Elii3 Roberts, Festiniog); and Mr Coxon, Mr Corbet-Yale, and Mr Higgins (instructed by and Mr Coxon, Mr Corbet-Yale, and Mr Higgins (instructed by Messrs Louis and Edwards, Ruthin) appeared for the defendants, The Messrs Morris and Jones, railway contractors, Carnarvon. question at issue waa whether the defendants, who are cos»J i tors for a portion of the line near Dolyddelen, had not sub' part of their contract to the plaintiffs. It was settled tha'J jury should decide whether any contract had been eriteied i .[ and if so, whether it had been broken, leaving matters of "f J as to quantities for reference. One of the plaintiffs was exami^ at some length, and it was ultimately agreed, upon the tion of the ludge, to refer the matter to Mr Horatio Lloyd J: j. questions of law which might arise to be submitted to tae flJ» Court of Justice. a JiV'Se k'iv.ing tn open the commission at Dolgelley °n turday, the remaining special jury cause, in which Messrs P" Roberts and Son, timber merchants, Liverpool, sued Mr Tho»»J Henry Lloyd, wine merchant, Llandudno, for £ 100 due upo«,f bill of exchange, was made a remanet, and the court rose sh°r before noon.

TREGARON. LEcrtTRE.—On Monday evening, March 27, a lecture W delivered by the Rev. Thomas Hughes, Machynlleth the Temperance cause, in the Methodic Chapel. The W William Lvans, Llanilar, presided. There was a large tendance. BOARD OF GUARDIAN, TUESDAY, MARcil 2;í Present Mr D. Evans, chairman, Mr Daniel Jane. onef j W'ig i Jones, vice-chairmen, Messrs Morgan rJ1 jY ,'am J°!jes) Carou is-clawdd, Jenkin Je0, /n' (j-arthheli, Evan Davies, Gorwydd, David Davies, Ii. g geitho, Thomas Jones, Prysg and Uarvan T. VV. D*n Yspytty Ystwyth, and DaVid Williams, clerk.. A. statistics. Out-relief administered during the Dast night, p*r Mr Stephen Thorn is, £ 80 13s tJd, to ool V&xxV relieved during tbe same period, 8..he lheWorkhouse.— The deed for the loan of £ 3 000f°r expenses to be incurred in the erection of the new Hot* house was executed by the Board. PETTY SIMONS. TUESDAY,' MARCH 28TH.-BEFG K. J. Davies, Esq Major Fhelp, and the Rev. Octav^ Davies. Drunkenness at Llanddewi Brefi.—John Hughes, udewi Brefi, was charged by Mr Edward Humphreys being drunk at the Pontllanio railway station, on the -■ 3 February.-The defendant admitted the r,ffence.-Tho*k Jrarry stationmaster, Pontllanio, proved the charge, and ue endant was fined 03, and costs. „ n°'W DTivin<J--Mr Supt. Lloyd charged D.wid Marilyn, with furiously driving a ca-ton the highly, thopar^hof Oarou.onthe 16th March.—P.C. J- said he saw the defendant on the 16tb, riding on the t, (Mr w.,fc'1 feet on the shafts. He was g0'Pocas ridi^ fv. ° £ nine miles an hour. The servant j rtdlD on the other side of the catt. and Mrs Jones » -L1. Ltiiui,uer person were in the cart. The driver was not drU; -rhe Lei ch cautioned the defendant to be careful «» future whilst driving, and dismissed the case. aei Marriage RejO icings. -N,lr Superinten(l,nt Lloyd cWf i David James, Hafodlas, Daviri Lewis Black L'oo, Joseph .J organs, Llanddewibrefi, with 'wantonly firi"? °a a gun within fifty feet of the highway at Llllnddewibrer; on the 15th March.—Mr Lloyd stated that tue guns \86. fired off to celebrat marriage rejoicings at Llanddewi^efj As this was the first case which had been brought their worshipi be did not wish to press the charge, ua cases were, therefore, dismissed on the payment of costS the defendants. j The Llanddewibrefi Garden Case.—John Watkin I Llanddewibrefi, was charged by Charles D ivies, ot l\e same place, with maliciously destroying a certain vegef M production, to wit, 500 cabbages, and seven plots of \et' and onions, to the value of £ 5, in a garden at LhaddL{f brefi, on the 20th June, 1875.—Mr Thomas Jones, aolt^ Llandovery, appeared for the defence.—Charles Da?lCS ust that about one o'clock on the morning of the 20tb June-reiy he saw three men in his garden, which was almost eO^Ljd destroyed. He went, accompanied by his wife, to a about 11 at night, and returned at about 12 30. had returned he went out to the gar.W where he men, two of whom he identified. They were David f Davies and John Watkin Lloyd. He saw them destr<i the leeks and omons. Fifteen out of skteea potatoes were destroyed, and ten plots of onions. hunured cabbages were also destroyed. He would cot for _the damage that bad been done. It was light night, and it was perfectly clear when he savv the {, fendanf. He was about ) yards off when comP al hitf> saw bim.-CroBgs -examined His wife was with JJ8 when he saw the men in the garden. did not see anything in their hands. His wife coughed' the men went away he did not say anything to tbe gept did not send for anyone to value the damage, but be m to Mr Loyns to see it.—Elizabeth Davies, cofflP^iint tefl wife, said she went to a field with her husbaLd abouj cut o'clock on the night of the 19cb, because someone btd alsO off the tails of their cows, and Lloyd had said he \.o&* take their entrails out. She and her husband returned o j, a little after twelve. They saw three men in the g*T j, destroying the produce. Two of the men were ide° vi One was tbe defendant, and the other David Francis The defendant was the nearest to witness and ber h"s he being about three yards off. She coughed, and the 9 ran aw*y.—Cross-examined She did not tell Anni that she did not know the man. She had said th» only knew two of them.—John Richards, Llanddewi said he met the defendant on Saturday night, tbe et'3 June, about twelve o'clock, on the road near Mr { iU field. Ha said he was going for some tobacco He the direction of Llanddewi Brefi. When witness wen*b' Jhji he asked his wife, Where can John Lloyd b» going .&t- time of the night ? "—This was the case for the cofflp1?^ gb« —For the defence Ann Evans was called. She was tbe wife of Richard Evans, and lived at Ll*11' Brefi. She taw Mrs Elizabeth Davies on the gee" the damage had been committed. She said she ^(te. two men in the garden, but she did not know who tb^jutiy —David Francis Davies, the defendant who bad beeU J caO3? charged, with the present defendant, when tb0 .fieTe° before the Bench for the first time, and who had s 0o his punishmoni, wa3 then called. After soine & between the magistrates' cUrk and Mr Thomas 0 to the admissability of Davies's evidence, the be sworn. He merely said on the night of the pra0ci3> was in bed with his wife and children.—^ • micstioO^ or' tailor, said it was very dark on the night q f„n(jaiic Margaret Roderick, Gwyngoed Fawr, said the d 0 slept at her house on a Saturday night last summer. a Jones, Nantdderwen, also said it was a dark n^'in90« that it was raining about twelve o'clock.—The conip^ on being asked if he had any question to put to ness, said he had not; but that he thought the last nt, dl was down very late that night.—Daniel Lloyd, Ii II dope not think more than 10s. worth of damage had bef to the garden.—John Kees, wh0 lived about a >^ Llanddewi, estimated the damage done at £ 1 at the fte Th8 Bench considered the case proved, and tffi defendant to six months'imprisonment with hard Jay.arge<J Drunkenness— Jeremiah Davies, Dolaucothie, c 0 u tb0 by Mr Supt. Lloyd with being drunk at Tregar0" 16th March, was fined 5s, and costs. —Stephen ^$e Tregaron, changed with a similar offence comniitte rts 17th March, was also fined 5s, and costs, aSlik0/ having proved the charge.—John Morris, Tynant, jgtP wise charged with being drunk at Tregaron on March. Mr Jones,Llandoverey, apreaI. T ,r t>;orcp who said he was sober on the 16tb. Jo*111 x that he saw the defendant at the Red Lion at The landlady asked the constable to turn the ma refuse. he complied with her request. The defendant ha ^n(j to leave the house. He was middling drnnfc» je- brother was leading him. P.S. Roberts sa'd he ^e,'s s>h°P' fendant about ten o'clock, near Mr Thomas Hu £ nd Jolf He and his brother were going home arm in arm I QDe f Morris was staggering a little. Cross-examine0' ujetw the men was slightly lame, and they were g°lDg ser^ home. Jenkin Morris, Tynant, and Ellen dr^ x at the Fountain Inn, said the defendant was n The Bench commented on the conflicting evidence, the constable, and fined the defendant 5s, and co.T'0tbe'' Assau'ting the Police.—Jenkin Morris, Tynant, jo» the last defendaut, was charged with assaulting Pierce at Tregaron. Mr Jones appeared for iV'-0 —The constable said he was assaulted with a t and in cross-examination stated that he turDT(hn &°rtet brothers out of the Red Lion Inn and that br° jjjg who was fined in the last case, was dragging ver in home by the arm.—John Morris said he wa3.#r fcloy^Lii* Red Lion Inn that night.—Cross-examinedJby^1 PreV^Ji0 did not know how many times'he had been fined o i occasions. He had gone home sober from Tregaof 103, hoped to be able to do so that night.—A fine 0 vrao costs, wa-s-inflicted. Railway Offences. — James James, Pencae_ vv charged by Mr Edward Humphrevs, Abery9 ~ToV m having obtained a return ticket to travel to *rr"rt o» .glr Llangvbi, with which he parted to Hugh Hef .g st^ A, 16th March. Hugh Herbert and Thomas Pa £ y'h master at Pontllanio, proved the case.—^ to Coedmawr, was also summoned for travelling M Chester and Milford Railway with half a h\e, James James, the ticket not beiDg transfer* ^0 3» lfith March.—Mr Humphreys said the market t ft# A issued at one-third the original fare. He enA he practice to travel with non-transferable tickets, !\tenlit1f 1 be the Bench would show that they would discou1?* gi)0iilc jt' —The Bench said the words not transferabi(3. coifl^{e printed on the tickets. The men had, doubtles ted the offence in ignorance of the bye-laws, a" p0lice they would be only asked to pay the costs, the v being disallowed. W>L.nf Alleged trespassing in pursuit of iij,of' Abercoed, Daniel Williams, Pencefn, John \>S e & cae, and Daniel Davies, Caenhireg, were chain Evans, Sunny Hill, with trespassing in sea J the day-time, on land in the occupation of Pa?;retl Pencefn, on the 10th March. Major Phelps re jefen^9, Bench during the hearing of this case. l^ill tenants of Mr GIbbs-said they had a right to el A letter was read from Mr Frederick Roberts. t0 CL saying that Mr Gibbs had let the sporting r'g tb' Powell, but as the defendants would not a e nttelig($ the case was adjourned to the next court f°r t, ^tiug of Mr Roberts, to prove the reservation arK game by Mr Gibbs. -e uP^ Non-payment of Rates. -An order was no^o > r Rowlands, Railway Hotel, for the payment u and highway rates. Trespassing in Pursuit of 6'amc.—Thorny, _a3 Hill, charged Thomas Jones, Nantnaches, x"f r treSl,.ctiK Pengarn, and William Edwards, Llwyng°f>. tbe \nic\ in search of game, in the day time, on i<5;h tion of David Jones, Old Abbey, on tb fc th Wiliiam Edwftrda did not appear, and him was adjourned.—Thomas Evans, defe&faA j employ of Colonel Powell, said he saw tne p> w Rhosgellygron land, on the 16th March. ^a ft> Lisburne had the right to the game. The 10 a greyhound, a sheep dog, and a retne # search of game. They started two bares, bu 1 The defendants ran away, but the keep pts ^hjr J ones and William Edwards. The defend tb^ 10s. each, and costs. There were no fewer cases entered for hearing at this court. attendance of spectators throughout tne rose at half-past three o'clock. 1