Weekly Mail

SCANDAL IX HIGH LIFE. j In the Divorce Division of the HigliOmrt of Justice, on Satin-day, the suit of Blandford v. Blandford came before Sir James Hannen. It. was a petition presented by the Marchioness of Bland- ford for the dissolution of her marriage on the ground of the cruelty, desert ion, and adultery of her husband, George Charles, Marquess of Blandford, with Lacfy Aylesford. Mr. Inderwick, Q.C., and Mr. Searle appeared for the petitioner; Mr. C. Hall, Q.C.,and Mr. Layman for the respondent. Lady Blandford was then examined. She said: I was married to the respondent on the 6th of November. 18G9. There are four children. In 18731 purchased Oakdean, near Dorking. In the autumn of 187<1- Lord Blandford and I were visiting Lord and Lady Aylesford at Packington Hall. I noticed Lord Bland Lord's manner towards me had ch;:nge:d. He stayed away from home occasionally, and Iw did not treat me kindly when ho was there, In 1876 Lord Blandford and I occupied separate apartments. In June. 1875, I recollect he struck me. We were sitting at breakfast at the time. I had made some observations about his connection with Lady Aylesford. I told him that matters could net go on as they were, and he had better go off with her altogether. I left the room after I had received the blow. I complained on that, occasion to my sister, Lady Lansdowne. I was expecting my confinement about the end of August in that year. I had formerly told my hus- band or that. On the 15th of August Lord BJand- t'ord told me he was going to the North-to Bir- mingham. I had made arrangements to go to my father, the Duke of Abercorn, who at that time was Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. I asked Lord Blandford if I should telegraph the birth of the child to him, and he said "No." That was the last time I lived with his lordship as his wife. In July, 1878, 1 went to Blenheim. I had some letters there from Lord Blandford. I gnve all those letters to my solicitor. Lord Blandford in those letters told me where he was going, but there was no suggestion that I should return to him as his wife. My mother communicated with him after the child was born. I also sent a letter to my husband letting him know that the infant had a red mark on the back of its head, which I attributed to the blow I had received from him. I received that letter back from Lord Blandford, with another in the same envelope. On the 18th of November I was staying in Park-lane. Lord Blandford called on me and was with me for about half an hour. I asked him a few questions about my journey, and he told me to make my own arrangements, as he did not wish to interfere. Some time after that Lord BIandford knew I was going to Oakdean, for then he said he might call on me, but he did not know. I did not set; him again after that until the 26th of February, 1876. I was then in lodgings in London. He called on me. He had not seen any of the children during that time. He never saw the last child until it was twc years old. At that interview he told me he would never live with me again, and that I should know the reason. I wrote to him that evening, and received an answer from him. His letter told me he oould not live with me again, and referred to his relations with Lady Aylesford. I wrote to him again, asking him to give me an interview. I did not at that time know the real state of affairs between himself and Lady Aylesford until I saw him. I had heard that Lady Aylesford had left her home. I next, saw him on the 13th of May, 1873, at the Hotel Westminster. Paris. In 1877 my family were anxious that some provision should be made for myself and family. They wished Oakdean to be secured to me. Communi- cations passed between myself and Lord Blandford. Lord Blandford objected to sign a. deed of separation. In February, 1877, I filed a petition to the court praying for a judicial separation from Lord Blandford, but no further steps were taken in that matter. In March, 1878, a deed of separation was signed, and provision bv that instrument was made for myself and family. Oakdean was secured tome, and I was to have the custody of the children. About this time I heard that Lord Blandford had left Lady Ayles- ford, and that he was living in the South of France by himself. I wrote to him on the 27th of March from Biarritz, and after that I saw him at the Hotel Westminster in May, 1878. Ultimately it was arranged we should again live toget her after the divorce suit in which Lord Aylesford was suing for dissolution of his marriage with Lady Aylesford on the ground of her adultery with Lord Blandford. Ar- rangements were finally made for our living together, and a house was taken for us in Cadogan- square but Lord Blandford liked to have portraits of Lady Aylesford about the house. I objected to that, and quarrels ensued. I eventually asked him if it was true he had a son by Lady Aylesford. He replied that it was, and then I instituted the present suit. Lady Lansdowne confirmed the evidence of the petitioner as to the cruelty. His Lordship said that one act of cruelty, although proved, would not be sufficient; but, taken with the desertion and cruelty it was suffi- cient- He made a decree nisi dissolving the marriage, giving the petitioner the custody of the children.

The Liverpool tug Gamecock returned to Queens- town on Wednesday after a fruitless search in the Atlantic for the disabled Dominion Line steamer Quebec. The tug, which reports terrific weather at sea, will remain at Queenstown awaiting further instructions from the managers of the line at Liverpool.

SERIOUS SHIPPING ACCIDENTS. GREAT LOSS OF LIFE. RAILWAYS INUNDATED. SWANSEA EAST PIER SWEPT AWAY. A Press Association" telegram says :—Another heavy storm of wind and rain is reported from various parts of the country. At Penzance a heavy gale sprung up from the north-west, veering to the south-west, during Sunday night, and moderat- ing towards the morning. A tremendous sea. however, was then breaking on the northern shores of Mount's Bay. Shingle and sand were washed upon the West Cornwall Rail- way, which skirts the seashore, and the line was blocked, 'busses having to be used to convey passengers between Penzance and the neighbouring town of Marazion. Several hundred feet of granite coping, some of the blocks weighing two tons, together with iron railings and shcets of asphfdte pavement five inches thick, forming part of the Penzance Espla- nade, were broken, the sea breaking completely over the Esplanade and into the Baths, smashing windows and damaging furniture. It flew over the Queen's Hotel, hurled large lishing boats across the road, and deluged all houses near the sea. One house fell, the occupants having a narrow escape. On Saturday night, during a heavy sooth-west gale the brigantine Jean Gustav, of Cannes. stranded in Sandowen Bay. In answer to signals of dist ress the Coastguardsmen at Ventnor launched their galley, and succeeded in rescuing four men and a boy. One man was drowned. At Hastings the sea broke in great force over the parade, flood- ing George-street. Early on Monday morning a sudden gale sprung up off Banffshire coast, and the fishing fleet had to take refuge in Sinclair Bay. When off Moss Head, Wick, David Flett, and Alex- ander Bance, from Indachley, Banffshire, were swept from their boat by a heavy waveand drowned. The full force of the gale was felt at Dublin. The Holyhead and Kingstown mail steamers were much delayed, and damage to person and property was also sustained. At Youghal a good deal of damage has been done by the sea washing across the road, rendering it impassable at high water, and flooding houses near the beach. At Ballyhaunis houses were partially unroofed by the violence of the gale, windows being blown in and thoroughfares blocked by uprooted trees. The brigantine Querim Stampelly whilst making for Plymouth was swept by a huge wave, which carried away the hatches and three of her crew, who were drowned. The Liverpool barque Uriel also arrived at Plymouth, and reported that her carpenter had been washed overboard. The Nor- wegian barque Orion has put in severely damaged. The barque Goldfinder arrived at Shields on Monday, and reports passing, in the North Sea, two fishing vessels bottom up. A Grimsby fishing boat also reports having seen a brig in a helpless condition founder in the North Sea. At Waterford a number of old houses were partially blown down, and three persons were injured. The surrounding country is flooded for miles. In the valley of the Thames and Isis the floods are unprecedented. The waters have been rising since Thursday last, and most serious results are apprehended. A large ship went ashore east of Kinsale Harbour on Monday; crew saved. Several houses in Kin- sale have been blown down, and the floods are very high in the district. A meeting of the Local Committee of the Porth- cawl Lifeboat Association was held at Mr. Brogden's residence, at Porthcawl, on Monday, to investigate the circumstances attending the wreck of the steamship James Gray on the Tuskar Rock on Saturday, January 27, and to ascertain if the lifeboat on that occasion had done all in the power of those by whom it was manned to save the crew of the said steamer. The fol- lowing resolution was passed unanimously:— "That, after a careful inquiry into the whole of: the circumstances of the case, your committee are of opinion that, considering the time at which the lifeboat was launched (it being then low water), and the position into which it was driven by the storm, it was impracticable for the lifeboat to reach the steamer so as to save the crew." During the gale in the Bristol Channel 100 feet of the East Pier Extension Works, at Swansea, were swept away, and the engine and pile-driving machinery were cast into the sea. The damage is estimated at £2,000, The steamer Oxenholme broke from her moorings in the South Dock Basin, and did considerable damage, and the French schooner Reine des Fleures, with coals, went ashore on the sands at Black Pill, in Swansea Bay. The vessel is not much damaged, but there appears little chance of getting her off. The crew were saved. Three more dead bodies have been picked up at Swansea. Two are supposed to have belonged to the wrecked Agnes Jack, the third being identified as Mac- natnara, one of the four men who were drowned in the lifeboat disaster. The Bristol Channel has been visited by a severe gale. Early on Monday morning the wind began to blow heavily from the S.S.W., and continued for several hours. A number of casualties are reported to the shipping in Permit,h Roads, including the total loss of a Cardiff pilot cutter. The following is a list of damages:— The barque Lady Dufferin, already reported us having been in collision in Penarth Roads, slipped one anchor fwd chain 1m Monday morning, and was taken in tow and docked at Cardiff in the forenoon. The Nova Scotian barque D. H. Morris, Captain Graham, in ballast, from Hull for Cardiff, slipped anchors and chains, and drove on the West Mud at Cardiff during the forenoon. The ship Prince Rupert, in ballast, from Havre for Cardiff, at anchor in Penarth lloads, was fouled by the barque Warwick Castle, of Liverpool, in ballast, also for Cardiff. The ship JippeLl both anchors and chains she has sides chafed, and damage to channel plates. She was docked in Penarth. The barque is only slightly damaged. While Mr. Thomas Rosser, Cardiff pilot, was in charge of the ship Princo Rupert in Penarth Roads on Monday morning his cutter. No. 12, Baratanach, dragged her anchor and drove on Penarth Beach, by the Kymin. Tho crew were taken off by Mr. Lewis Jones, Cardiff pilot, in his cutter L. J. J. The Baratanach, soon after striking, became a total wreck. On Wednesday morning the ship Oxford— Captain Braddick, of and from London, with emi- grants for Adelaide—was towed up to Penarth Roads disabled. The captain of a Cardiff tug, who was down Channel, the previous day about half-past two o'clock in the afternoon observed a large ship off the north end of Lundy Island with t.he screw steamer Troutbeck, of Newcastle near her. Tho captain of the tug ascertained that the ship was the Oxford, with a general cargo and j emigrants for Adelaide, that she had called in at Plymouth, and finally sailed with 400 ernigrants- men, women, and children. On the 7th and 8th she encountered fearful weather in the Bar of Biscay, during which she was dismasted. The captain and several of the crew received severe injuries, the former being nearly blinded. The emigrants throughout the trying ordeal behaved nobly there was no panic. After the wreckage had been cleared away the captain decided to bear up for the nearest port, and it was when run- ning before the wind that Captain James Adie, of the screw steamer Troutbeck. of Newcastle, from Ardrossan, with a cargo of coal and pig iron, for St. Nazaire, noticed the distressed vessel. He says that at a quarter past one o'clock on Monday afternoon, the Longships bearing S.S.E. six miles, wind S.W., very heavy sea, he observed a ship with her ensign union down, and signalling N.C." (" In distress, want assistance"). Be turned the steamer round, and went after the ship, which was running with what canvas could be set, and signalled, in reply, K.R G. Shall I take you in tow?") He answered. "C." ("Yes.") At half- past three o'clock got as near as possible, and told I him to get a tow line ready, but he said that he had not one. He adds: I then bent two life buoys to two lines, but they were carried away. As it was getting dark, I told him I would stand by I until daylight. I burned blue lights, and flare-up lights, the ship doing the same throughout the night to show the relative positions of each vessel. It rained and hailed heavily throughout the night, the sea ran moun- tains high, and the ships seemed at times to be engulphed in the trough of the sea. Next morning, at half-past saven o'clock, we launched the port lifeboat to carry a line on board the ship. The mate and four men succeeded, at the peril of their ives, in bending it on to the ship's line, anù hauled lIt on board the steamer. As 800n as everything was completed, and the steamer began towing, the rope broke. Nothing daunted, the brave men went again, and succeeded in getting another new hawser fast. The steamer again attempted to tow the ship, but the terrible strain was too much, as the ship was labouring heavily, and the rope parted a second time. Signals were then made to go on as far as Lundy Island. At half-past eleven o'clock they proceedad, the ship requesting the steamer to go ahead and pilot the way, and she would follow. At two o'clock in the afternoon they got under Lundv, and took a Bristol Channel pilot on board. At half-past three o'clock she launched the lifeboat again, and got the third rope on board the ship, and towed her to a safe anchorage under the Flat Holms, at half-past five o'clock on Wednesday morning, communication between the two ships having been carried out by signals and lights from a quarter-past one o'clock on Monday afternoon up to half-past five o'clock on Wednesday morning. The Troutbeck brought, up in Penarth Roads waiting arders from her owners. The Oxford is a full-riggei) iron ship of 1,282 tons net register, built in 1869, and is owned by Messrs. Temperley, Carter, aiid Co., 21, Billiter-street, London. A HURRICANE IN THE BAY OF BISCAY. [FROM OUR CORRESPONDENT, f GIBRALTAR, FEB. 4,-ntIligence laas reached us here that her Majesty's dispatch vap-sel Lively, with Sir John Hay, the new Commarnder-in-chief of the Mediterranean squadron, on bawd, has put into Port Corcubion through stress of weather. The Lively experienced heavy weatbw throughout, her voyage, and had her rudder damaged while in a hurricane in the Bay of Biscay.

THE GREAT FLOODS IN AMERICA. ["REUTER'S" TELEPRAM.] NEW YORK, FEB. 13.—The floods are unabated At Louisville a dam burst, flooding 35 blocks of small buildings, and drowning 30 persons. At Louisville 5,000 to 8,000 person* are homeless. At Cincinnatti portionsof goods and.passengerstations of the Southern Railroad have fallen into 30ft. of water.carrying with them according to one account 50 persona. Only nine, however, are known to have been drowned. 1

I THE WINTEE ASSIZES. GLAMORGANSHIRE. The civil and criminal business of the Winter Assizes for the County of Glamorgan was proceeded with in the Town-hall, Cardiff, on Saturday.

CROWN COURT. (Before Lord Chief Justice COLERIDGE.) The Lord Chief Justice took his seat at ten o'clock a.m. THE GRAND JURY. The following were sworn on the grand jury, viz., Mr. F. E. Stacey (foreman), Mr. J. C. Nicholl, Mr. J. S. Gibbon, Mr. R. F. L. Jenner, The Mackin- tosh, Mr. Richard K. Pritchard, Lieut.-Colonel David, Mr. Rees H. Rhys, Mr. James Lewis. Lieut.- Colonel C. R. Franklen, Mr. C. H. Williams, Mr. Thurston Bassett, Lieut.-Colonel Hill, C.B., Mr. T. W. Booker, Mr. Tudor Crawshay, Mr. B. St. Albyn Jenner, Mr. R. W. Llewellyn, Mr. Godfrey Clark, Mr. John Prichard, Mr. Wm. Thomas Lewis, Mr. J. Stuart Corbett, and Mr. Griffith Phillips. TRIAL OF PRISONERS. THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE AND CARDIFF JURORS. WHOLESALE FINING. The Clerk of Arraigns having called out the name of Mr. Thomas WiHiams. gentleman, Conway- road, Canton, and received no answer, The Lord Chief Justice said Those jurors who reside in Cardiff really have no excuse for not being in their places. Now, if that gentleman does not attend he will be fined JE5, and I happen to know, from circumstances that have lately come under my knowledge, that if a man is fined j65 it is exceedingly difficult to get the Treasury to let him off—he will have to pay, that is what I mean. Now, that gentleman is fined B5, The Clerk of Arraigns: I am afraid, my lord, I must call him again. The name was called a second time, and no reply being received the fine was allowed to stand. The Clerk of Arraigns called Henry Anthony, Newport-road, Cardiff, and received no answer. His Lordship: Fined £5, David Thomas, Ystradyfodwg, and Thomas, Pontlottyn, were also fined £5 each. Later in the day similar fines were inflicted for non-attendance on the following summoned as jurors:—Henry Fraser, Park-place, Cardiff; Philip John Jones, Stanwell-road, Penarth; William Gladdish, West-street, Bridgend Thomas Morgan, I Victoria-street, Dowlais; and William Richards, Maughan-street, Penarth. ALLEGED THEFT OF IRON.—A THIRD TRIAL. Samuel Owen, sailor, 44, and James Long, sailor, 37, were charged with stealing a quantity of pig- iron, the property of Mr. Lewis T. Merrow and another, at Swansea, on the 15th of April, 1882. This case had been twice before tried, and on both occasions the jury had failed to agree. It now came forward on adjournment from the Swansea Assizes. Mr. Abel Thomas appeared to prosecute, and Mr. Dillwyn to defend the prisoners. —The jury returned a verdict of Not guilty," and tbe prisoners were discharged. EXPOSING GOODS AT SHOP DOOHS.—A PRESENTMENT FROM THE GRAND JURY. The Foreman of the Grand Jury said he was desirous to call the attention of his lordship to the fact that the jury were of opinion that it was not right of tradesmen to expose goods outside their shop doors, that being an unnecessary temptation. NO TRUE BILL. The grand jury found no true bill in the case of Ellen Thomas, charged with stealing J67 from John Henry Heale, at Swansea, on the 25th of January. THE RECENT HAY DEALING FRAUD. Samuel Hardwick, hay-cutter, 50 years of age, was indicted on a charge of obtaining 6tonsl4cwts. of hay, value £26 17s., the property of Mr. T. Mansel Fianklen, clerk of the peace of the county of Glamorgan, on the 7th of September, 1382, by means of false pretences. Prisoner was further indicted on a charge of having conspired, with one Thomas Trenchard, since convicted, to defraud Mr. Franklen of the hay referred to. Mr. Benson pro- The jury found the prisoner guilty of obtaining hay bv means of false pretences, but ignored the charge of conspiracy. Prisoner had been pre- viously convicted at Taunton Assizes. He was sentenced to eight months'impi-isonment withihard labour. AN ALLEGED MONEY-LENDING SWINDLE. John Burrell, 48, described as a commission agent, was indicted on a charge of obtaining, by means of false pretences, the sum of Is. 6d. from John Ride, saddler, Cardiff. — Some remarks were exchanged between the Lord Chief Justice and the learned counsel in charge of the case for the Crown, and eventually his lordship, addressing the jury, said that from the evidence it was clear the case against the prisoner could not be sustained. The latter would, therefore, be dis- charged. No evidence was offered on the second charge. SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A SHIP'S COOK. Charles Henry Boel, 31, described as a ship's cook, was indicted for having on the 1st of February obtained £2 from Charles Howard, Penarth. The modus operandi adopted by the prisoner, it was alleged, consisted of his obtaining a blank cheque, which he liJled up, making i). pay- able to a Mr. Clarke. This he took to the prosecu- tor, asking him to cash it. The latter could not do so at the time, but let him have ;C30" account unti the following day. Then it was found that the cheque was fictitious. Evidence was called in support of the charge, which was not, however, made out, and the prisoner was discharged. ALLEGED ROBBERY FROM A FOSEIGNER. Mary Jane Marten, 25, of no stated occupation, was indicted for stealing £10 10s. from the person of Cornelio Fennsalid, at Cardiff, on the 23rd of January. Mr. Dalton prosecuted. The evidence Wild insufficient for conviction, and the prisoner was discharged. CANNIBALISM AT NEATH. William Rees, 38. farm labourer, was indicted for unlawfully and maliciously causing grievous bodilv harm to Daniel Evans with intent to maim and disfigure him. Mr. Abel Thoma6 prosecuted, and Mr. R F. Williams defended. The Lord Cnief Justice, addressing Lhe prisoner, said he had been found guilty of an atrocious thing. Prisoner had behaved more like a savage than n. civilised man. Had he been found guilty of the full charge, he would have been sentenced tu penal servitude. Under the circumstances, however, he would now be sentenced to twelve months'imprisonment with hard labour. NISI PRIUS COURT. (Before Lord Justice BRETT.) DAMAGES FOR THE LOSS OF AN EYE. NEIL V. CLODE.—The plaintiff, John Neil, a runner in the employ of Mr. E. C. Downing, ship- broker at the Cardiff Docks, claimed damages for an assault alleged to have been committed by Mr. T. B. Clode, butcher, on the 8th of September last. Mr. Bowen Rowlands, Q.C., and Mr. Brynmor Jones '.instructed bv Mr. Downing), appeared for fur the plaintiff, and Mr. M'lntyre, Q.C., with Mr. Benson (instructed by Mr. Cousins), appeared for the defendant The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, with JE30 damages. ACTION AGAINST A CIRCUS PROPRIETOR. KALTENBACH v. TAYLEURK.— This was an action brought by Edward Kaltenbach, jeweller, Caroline- street, Cardiff, against Joseph Tayleure, proprietor of the American Circus at Cardiff, to recover damages for trespass, &.C., through the defendant's wagon having broken the plaintiff's shop window and damaged certain articles there placed.— Verdict for the defendant. ACTION FOR ALLEGED LIBEL AND SLANDER. A JUROR WITHDRAWN. STEBBINGS v. BLOW,-Thi" was an act ion to recover damages for alleged libel and slander. Mr. W. Evans (intructed by Mr. W. Williams ) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Brynmor Jones (instructed by Messrs. Downing and Handcock) for the defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff, Mr. T. Stebbings, was second mate of the steam- ship Refulgent, and defendant was the captain. The libel was alleged to have been contained in a letter which, it was stated, the defendant had written to Mr. Matthew Thompson, alleging that the plaintiff had sold rope, chains, and other pro- perty belonging to the ship, which he was not authorised to do. It seemed that the plaintiff had never seen the letter, and did not know of its existence, but had only heard of it.—The first wit- ness called was the gentleman to whom the letter was alleged to have been sent, and he denied ever having received any such letter, and, upon it being stated that the plaintiff denied having written such a letter, it was decided, upon his lordship's suggestion, to withdraw a juror so the case dropped, no order being made as to costs, QUE8TI0SU\'H A SHERIFF'S SEIZURE. In Stacey v. Thomas was involved the question whether certain property seized by the sheriff belonged to the plaintiff, James Stacey, accoun- tant, Cardiff, or to the defendant, James Thomas, also of Cardiff. Mr. Higgins (instructed by Mr. T. H. Ensor) appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. M'lntyre (instructed by Messrs, Batchelor and Belcher)was for the defendant.—After a short consultation, the jury found that the money was meant to be given by Mr. Stacey to his son, and that the bill of sale was not good. This was a verdict for the defendant. CROWN COURT.—MONDAY. (Before Lord Chief Justice COLERIDGE.) The Lord Chief Justice took his seat at ten o'clock a.m. SHOP ROBBERIES BY BOYS AT CARDIFF. Alfred C. Drane, 15 George H. Drane, 17 Alex- ander Hodinott, 17 and Frederick George Coles, 16, pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking and entering the shop of Mr. Wm. Packer, and stealing therefrom a half-tin of corned beef, one box of figs, 31bs. of tobacco, and one pound in money, at Cardiff, on the 17th of December, 1882. Coles also pleaded guilty on a further charge of breaking and entering the shop of Henry Herbert, and stealing therefrom a quantity of clothing, and 3s. in money, at Cardiff, on the 25th of October, 1882. His Lord- ship, in passing sentence, said it was a pity to send juveniles to prison for comparatively light offences, when there were no extraordinary circumstances in the case. A boy was, perhaps, sentenced to im- prisonment for stealing a few gooseberries. This was the beginning of the manufacture of a criminal, and that criminal was maintained at the expense of the country, while, at the same time, he was useless to himself and to everybody else. Without expressing any opinion as to the course which had been adopted in the case before him, he had decided he would pass a light sentence in the case of Alfred Drane, without hard labour, as he desired that he should not be associated with criminals. This latter prisoner would be sentenced to one week's imprisonment, George Drane to four- teen days' imprisonment, Hodinott to fourteen imprisonment, and Coles to one month's im- prisonment. BURGLARY AT BARRY. John Gratrix, 63, labourer, was charged with burglariously breaking and entering the house of Catherine Green, and stealing therefrom various articles, at Barry, on the.7th of 1Dber last.—He "leaded guilty, and his Lordship sentenced him to wo months' imprisonment. THEFT OP BOOTS AT CARDIFF. Edward Thomas, 49, boatman, was charged with stealing a pair of boots, the property of Peter Hale- wood, at Cardiff, on the 30th of January last. Mr. Gibbons prosecuted, and the prisoner was unde- fended.—The jury found him guilty; and two previous convictions for felony were proved against him.—His Lordship, referring to these previous convictions, said that the prisoner was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for receiving a watch which had been stolen. He could not understand that sentence unless there were some extraordinary circumstances in the case with which he had not been made acquainted. He could be as severe as any judge when there was the necessity for severity but he could not pass a sentence of long imprisonment for a trumpery larceny, and involve the country in an expense of hundreds of pounds for that which was only worth 2s. The sentence of the court was that the prisoner should be sent to prison for three months with hard labour. ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AT CARDIFF. Wm. Kirby, 26, labourer, was indicted for making a violent, assault upon James Collins, and steal- ing from his person three halfpence in money, and one knife, at Cardiff, on the 7th of Januaryj 1881. Mr. G. C. Thompson conducted the prosecution. James Collins did not appear, and his lordship directed that his recognizances should be for- feited. From the evidence called it appeared lhat the prisoner and another man attacked Collins in Bute-terrace early on the morning of the 7th of January. They knocked him down. the prisoner seized nim by the throat, and the other man pro- ceeded to rifle his pockets. Some men who were passing interfered, and the prisoner and his com- panion ran away. The latter was, however, cap- tured, after a long chase but he denied his uilt, and said that he was himself assaulted. The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to impri- sonment for twelve months with hard labour. LARCENIES AT MERTHFR. John Rees, 28, painter, pleaded guilty to the charges of stealing two pail's of boots, the property of George Oliver, at Merthyr, on the 8th and 13th of January respectively.—He was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment. CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH AT YSTRADYFODWG. Mary Jenkins, who had been admitted to bail, pleaded guilty on the charge of concealing the birth of a child at Ystradyfodwg on the 8th of September, 1882.—She was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment. WAREHOUSE ROBBERY AT MERTHYR. Robert Grove, 23, puddler, and Richard Thomas, 18, puddler, pleaded guilty to the charge of break- ing and entering the warehouse of Messrs. Lewis and Hound, and stealing therefrom a tub of butterine, a tin of lard, certain dips. three bars of soap, a quantity of flour, and five sacks, at Merthyr, on the 4th of February, 1883.—Mary Thomas, 22, pleaded guilty to the charge of re- ceiving these articles well knowing them to have been stolen. They were sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour.—Martha Murphy, 54, who was also charged with the offence of receiving, pleaded not guilty, and no evidence bein" offered against her she was discharged. BURGLARY AT LLANSAMLET. Llewellyn Llewellyn. 19, haulier, was charged with burglariously entering the house of Mr. Wm. Thompson, and stealing therefrom lis. 2d. in money and a goid albert chain, at Llansamlet, on the 27th of December, 1882. He admitted his guilt, and was sentenced to six months' imprison- ment with hard labour. RECEIYING STOLEN PROPERTY AT SWANSEA. Stephen Machen, sen., and Stephen Machen, jun., father and son, surrendered to their bail on the charges of stealing and receiving, knowing to have been stolen, a quantity of copper and yellow metal, the property of Messrs. Michael Williams, Foster, and Co., at Swansea, on the 8th of December last. Mr. Benson conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Marshall the defence.—The jury found the prisoners guilty of the charge of receiving it, and his lordship deferred sentence until next day, when they were each sentenced to five years' penal ser- vitude. NISI PRIUS COURT.—MONDAY. (Before Lord Justice BRETT.) REES 11. QUKNKRDU.—This was an action brought to recover damages arising from the loss of profits on the sale of a cargo of potatoes which the plain- tiff had agreed to purchase, but which the defen- dant failed to deliver within the time specified by the agreement.—Mr. M'tntyrc, Q.C., and Mr. T. W. Lewis appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Bowen Row- lands, Q.C and Mr. Brynmor Jones for the de- fendant.—The jury were of opinion that the first contract was annulled by the second one, but that, the cargo of potatoes was not delivered within a reasonable time, and on this point the verdict was for the plaintiff, damages to be agreed upon between the parties, which was JE67 10s. ACTION ON A EIRE INSURANCE POLICY. D. Denning, marine-store dealer, Penarth, brought an action against J. Broom field (secre- tary), as representing the Phcenix Fire Insurance Company, for £100, the amount of a policy of insurance upon the contents of a shed at Cogan Pill. Q C., and Mr. B. F. WiTliams were for the plaintiff, and Mr. M'Intyre, Q.C., and Mr. Cookson defended. The jury did not believe the plaintiff had been guilty of fraud, and gave him a verdict for .50. A CLAIM FOR INJURIES RECEIVED. This was an action brought by J. Merrifield, formerly a haulier employed by Mr. Hibbert, Cardiff, against the Marquess of Bute, for bodily injuries sustained on a level crossing at the top of Tyndall-street. Mr. Bowen, Q.C., and Mr. Jeffries (insl ructed by Messrs.Morgan and Scott) were for the plaintiff; and Mr. M.Intyre, Q.C., and Mr. Arthur Lewis (instructed by Messrs. Luard and Shirley) fur the defendant. A special jury was sworu. The amount claimed was £ 500.—Mr. Bowen stated that there was a line of railway opposite the North-Western Goods Warehouse, at the entrance into Tyndall-street. Any person going to the goods station would have to cross this line. On the 27th of May. 1882, plaintiff was returning from the goods station with his master's wagon, when h8 was struck down by one of the defendant's engines and received serious injuries. Two trucks which were on a siding obstructed a view of the line upon which the engine was. The gates were open at the time, and he put it to the jury that it was the duty of those who used the line to see that those who crossed it were protected. At the time of the accident defendant received 24s. a week from his employers, but in consequence of the injuries he received— fracture of a rib and collar bone—he was unable to do anything for a considerable time. The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, damages, £75, CROWN COURT.—TUESDAY. (Before Lurd Chief Justice COLERIDGE.) THE SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A SWANSEA PAWNBROKER SECOND TRIAL. Hyman Freedman, pawnbroker, Swansea, was again brought up on the charge of receiving three gold watches from George Thomas, the property of William Williams, jeweiier, Swansea, well knowing the same to have been stolen, at Swansea, on the 29th and 30th of September, 1882. Mr. Brynmor Jones appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Bowen Rowlands, with Mr. B. F. Williams, for the defence. The case was heard on the previous day. but the jury failed to agree, and were in consequence discharged without returning a verdict. The evidence was now repeated, the effect of it being that George Thomas, who tvas an assistant to Mr. William Williams, stole the three watches from his employer, and pledged them with the prisoner. It was alleged thnt the prisoner knew the position of Thomas, inasmuch as he had done business with him in the shop. and had at the time a bill of sale on his fur- niture and that he must, therefore, have had a guilty knowledge of the manner in which this per- son became possessed of the watches. To this it was replied that there was no wood reason to sup- pose that the prisoner had such knowledge, as Thomas stated that the valuable of the watches belonged to a captain who lodged with him, and tacitly sanctioned the assumption that the others were his own property. It was also urged for the defence that two of the transactions took place during the Feast of Tabernacles, and that then the prisoner's religion would not permit him to enter upon the duties of his business. He did not, therefore, know anything about those transactions. Among the witnesses called to speak to the excellent character of the prisoner were Mr. Tennant, clerk to the justices at Aberavon Mr. Evan Evans, J.P., Aberavon; Superintendent Thomas, Neath; Inspector Price, Cardiff; and Sergeant John, Swansea. The Jury found the prisoner guilty, but recom- mended him to mercy, and Mr. Brynmor Jones, on behalf of the prosecution, endorsed this recom- mendation. On the following day prisoner was sentenced to five years' penal servitude. CUTTING AND WOUNDING AT LLANDILO- TALYBONT. David Daniel Davies surrendered to his bail on the charge of cutting and wounding David Thomas at Llandilo Talybont on the 1st of January, 1883. Mr. Dillwyn prosecuted, and Mr. C. Higgins de- fended the prisoner, who was found guilty and sentenced to six weeks'imprisonment. His Lord- ship remarked that the assault was a very cowardly one, but he made allowance for the provocation that the prisoner had received. AN EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF THEFT. William Edwards was charged with stealing an overcoat, the property of William Jones, at Swan- sea, on the 19th of November, 1882. Mr. Arthur Lewis prosecuted, and Mr. Higgins defended the prisoner. The urosecutor said he was a labourer, living at 27, Page-street, Swansea, and on the 19th of November last he went to the Belle Vue-street Chapel, at Swansea. He took off his coat, and put it on the window sill. After the service his coat was missing, but there was another coat there somewhat similar to it, but of common quality. Some days later he saw the prisoner walking through the street with his coat on, and he gave him into custody. Cross-examined he said that he had had the coat for six years, and that it was worth about 30s.—His Lordship stopped the case,and said that it was evident the jury could not. convict the prisoner. There was nothing to show that there was any original stealing, and mis- appropriation afterwards would not be theft.—The jury found the prisoner not guilty, and he wa.s discharged. ASSAULT AND ROBBFRY AT SWANSEA. William Williams, 17, labourer, and John Evans, 28, labourer, were charged with assaulting and stealing from Thomas Searle a jacket and cap, value 30s., at Swansea, on the 24th of January, 1883. Mr. Dillwyn appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. D. Lewis for the defence. The jury found the prisoners guilty, and his Lordship deferred sentence. THE ROBBERY IN A BARBER'S SHOP AT CARDIFF. Peter Stephenson, 28, barber, David Williams, and Thomas Jesse were charged with feloniously stealing from the person of John Harris JE8 10s., at Cardiff, on the 3rd of February. 1883. Mr. J. R. Jones prosecuted, and Mr. Arthur Lewis defended the prisoners. The jury stated that they found Stephenson guilty and the other two prisoners not guilty.—His Lordship deferred his sentence on Stephenson, and Williams and Jesse were discharged. Stephensan was sub- sequently sentenced to 21 days' imprisonment without hard labour. ALLEGED FORGERY. Francis Robert Robertf SOt described as a book canvasser, was charged with forging an order on Francis Clement Eddersliaw, his employer. Mr. Clement Higgins prosecuted, and Mr. B. F. Williams defended. The prisoner forged an order for an Encyclopedia," with the view of obtaining his commission upon the order, which was found to be fictitious when the party named on the order was sought for. Prisoner was found guilty, but recommended to mercy. Six months' liard labour. NISI PRIUS COURT. (Before Lord Justice BRETT.) EXTRAORDINARY ACTION FOR SLANDER. F. H. Pearce, money-lender, brought an action against John Jones, solicitor, Cardiff, to recover £1,000 for an alleged slander uttered by the latter. Mr. M'lntyre, Q.C., and Mr. Brynmor Jones were for the plaintiff; and Mr. Bowen Rowlands, Q.C., Mr. B. F. Williams, and Mr. Higgins were for the defendant.—The jury, after a brief deliberation, re- turned a verdict for the defendant.—His Lordship said the case was one which never ought to have been brought into court, and ordered both sides to pay their own costs. SLANDER BY A SURGEON. Mr. H. E. Jackson, surgeon, Llandrindod Wells, brought an action against Mr. W. B. Davies, another surgeon of the same neighbourhood, to damages for alleged slander. The jury gave a ver- dtct for the plaintiff for £40. ACTION FOR LIBEL.—CLAIM FOR .£5,000, JONES v, CROSS.—The plaintiff in this action (for whom Mr. W. M'lntyre, Q.C., and Mr. B. F. Williams appeared) was a manager of collieries in the neighbourhood of Coedcae and Hafod, in the Rhondda Valley, and the defendant was the manager of the London and Provincial Bank, London. The alleged libel was contained in a letter written to the manager of the Cardiff Docks branch of the bank. The defendant, who had transactions at the bank on behalf of the company with which he was connected, referred to the plaintiff as Having "the low, cunning, and all the vices and none of the virtues of the Welsh;" and that his success in business had been entirely owing to a stroke of good fortune, and not to his own business abilities. The letter also spoke of the plaintiff as being cun- ning and stupid," and as being an unscrupu- lous person."—His Lordship here stated that there was in those expressions no ground to enter an action for libel, and directed the jury to enter a verdict for the defendant, which was accordingly done. ACTION FOR SEDUCTION. The case of Martin v. Evans was an action brought by a widow of Aberdare for damages in respect of the seduction of her daughter by the de- fendant, a traveller for a Bristol firm of wine and spirit merchants. In 1881 plaintiff was occupying the position of chambermaid at the Queen's Hotel, Newport, and defendant stayed there for some time and became ill. Plaintiff waited upon him, and it was during this time that acts of familiarity which led to the birth of a child (since dead) took place. Defendant did not appear, nor was he represented by counsel. The jury found for the plaintiff, damages £75. Mr. B. F. Williams appeared for the plaintiff. CROWN COURT.—WEDNESDAY. ASSAULT WITH VIOLENCE AT SWANSEA. William Williams, 17, labourer, was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, and John Evans, 28, labourer, to nine months' imprisonment, in each case with hard labour, for the offence of which they had been convicted, of assaulting and robbing Thomas Searle, at Swansea, on the 24th of January, 1883. BTGAMY AT LLANWONNO. David Davies pleaded guilty to the charge of committing bigamy at Llanwonno on the 6th of December, 1881, by marrying Mary Jenkins, whilst his former wife, Elizabeth, whom he married on the 9th of October, 1869, was still alive. He was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment without hard labour. EMBEZZLEMENT BY A SWANSEA CORPORATION OFFICIAL. ANOTHER HEAVY SENTENCE. Daniel Bevan, late rate collector to the Corpora- tion of Swansea, was charged with embezzling the several sums of £2 14s., £117s,. and £1 7s. 6d., the moneys of the corporation, at, Swansea, on the 18th of February, the 18th of April, and the 15th of June respectively, 1882. Mr. David Lewis, with Mr. Brynmor Jones, ap- peared to prosecute, and Mr. Bowen Rowlands, Q.C., with Mr. B. Francis Wilhams, to defend the prisoner. The allegations of the prosecution were that the prisoner received the sums stated from a Mr. Burchell, of 5, I'enmaen-terrace, a Mrs. Higgin- son, of 35, St. George's-terrace,and a Mrs. Spencer, of Waterloo, and that ho entered on the counter- foil of his books in each the word vacant," thereby representing that the houses were vacant, and did not account for the money in the usual way to the corporation. The following are the circumstances as set forth in Mr. Burchell's case, which was substantially the same in the other two. Tho prisoner made a demand on Mr. Burchell for £2 14s. The money was paid to him, and on the demand note was the receipt in the prisoner's handwriting, dated Feb, 18,1882. On the counter- foil of the receipt, which ought to be the same as the receipt itself, the prisoner entered the sum of £2 0s. 3d. The number in the demand note, which represented th. number in the rate-book was 2,280, and the prisoner altered this number to 3,380. Then he found that No. 303, a totally diffe- rent person, had paid £208, 3d. on an earlier rate, and he struck out the figures 3,380, and wrote fn their stead the figures 303. Having done this, he turned to the counterfoil of the demand note served on Mr, Burchell, and wrote the words vacant space," which was intended to convey that the house was empty, and that no rate was paid upon it. The defence sought to prove that these dis- crepancies were the result of errors made by the prisoner, who had a large district entrusted to him in which building operations were constantly in progress. The case for the prosecution having been con. cluded, Mr. Bowen Rowlands addressed the jury for the defence, and said he had a few observations to make, and it would be for them to say whether they considered that the conduct of the prisoner in regard to that matter was so clear as to lead them, without any chance of escape, to the con- clusion that he was guilty of the frauds alleged against him. The jury consulted together for a few moments, and then the Foreman said they would hear his lordship's remarks on the other two cases. His Lordship: Will you say what vou think of that case? The jury immediately agreed to a verdict. of guilty in the case referred to, and his Lordship said that under the circumstances it would be un- necessary for them to deal with the other two cases. His Lordship,, in passing sentence, said: You have_ been found guilty on evidence, to my mind irresistible, of gross and repeated acts of dis- honesty in a situation of great trust; and I have Always, since it has been my painful duty to pass sentence upon people, tried to distinguish between small acts of larceny on the part of uneducated persons under temptation from acts done by por- sons in your position-persons in situations of tiust, pel sons of education who take advantage of positions they could not get unless they were supposed to have good characters to defraud em- ployers, who must more or less be at their mercy I cannot pass upon you the same sort of sentence that I shouid pass upon an ordinary person guilty o. an ordinary act of hshonesty, The sentence I inflict upon you is severe, and it ought to be severe, because you had advantages which the criminal class have not. If the sentence is more severe, so is the guilt 111 the case of a person in your position more aggravated a grot, deal than in the case of a poor, uneducated person, who may have been manufactured into a criminal bv the necessities around him. I cannot in my judgment justly sentence you to less than five years' penal servitude. r u<n ALLEGED FRAUDS BY A TRUSTEE AT SWANSEA John Cole, 40, labourer, was chareed with forging and altering a cheque with intent, to defraud at Swansea, on the 26th of June, 1882. Mr. Abel Thomas appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Benson for the defence. The jury found prisoner guilty, and his lordship deferred sentence untill the Spring Assizes saying he would give prisoner an opportunity of refunding the money. (Before Lord Justice BRKTT.) THE FORGERY BY A BOOK CANVASSER. Francis Robert Roberts, 50, a book canvasser, charged with forging an order upon his employer, Francis Clement Eddershaw, Swansea, with the viewof obtaining commission thereon, was brought up and Sentenced to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour. This concluded the business. NISI PRIUS COURT. (Before Lord Justice BRETT.) ACTION AGAINST LOHD WINDSOR. DAVID PRITCHARD v. LORD WINDSOR.—This was an action involving the question of the ownership of a portion of the freehold of Cefn Forest Estate. For the plaintiff there were Mr. H. Mathews, Q.C., Mr. B. Francis Williams, Mr. William Evans, and Mr. T. M. Joseph (instructed by Messrs. James and Co., Merthyr); and for the defendant Sir fI. Giffard, Q.C., M.P., Mr. M'lntvre, Q.C., and Mr. Brynmor Jones. His lordship's solicitors instruct- ing counsel were Messrs. Nicholl, Manesty, and Co., London; Messrs. Knight, Law, ana Co., common law solicitors, London: and Mr. E. B. Reece, Cardiff. Mr. Cadogan Llewellyn Williams, surveyor, Tre- herbert, said that he had made a survey of the piece of mountain land in question. The red lines on the plans produced on the eastern and western sides, meeting at a point on the north, showed the boundary. There was a stone on the north where those two lines met. There were also stones on the west side where marked on the plan. There was a mountain road running down from north to south. The road led northward to Dowlais, and to the south to Caerphilly, and so on to Cardiff. At the north, where the two red lines met, the l stone described was on the side of the highway. On the eastern side there were also stones, as re- presented on the plan. The witness further de- scribed the walls on the land, and which were the boundary between Forest Farm and TaiTuppalshaf. There were six quarries in the places indicated on the plans, all within the disputed piece of land. David Pritchard, the plaintiff, said I live at Cefn Forest, and am one of the legatees and trustees of the will of the late Mr. Thomas Williams. Cefn Forest Farm is one mile from Tai Tuppa Ishaf. Remember David Thomas Williams, the father of I Thomas Williams. He lived in Forest Farm. He died in 1832. Lived at Cefn Forest at that time with Thomas Pritchard, my father. Had a cow- house at Cefn Forest. Remember that place being repaired about 51 years ago. The roof was taken off and a new roof put on. The stones came from the disputed, land. They came from the lowest place—that nearest to Forest or Tai Tuppa. The stones are boundary stones, standing at Penrhiw- geifr, and facing north there are other boundary stones. The stones referred to are fixed in the earth. On the west side there are five to six stones. I should think that the stones I then AAW were Axed by men and not naturally. Know Danderi Farm. There was a wall separating Danderi from the mountain. Remembered the wal I being put up, I should say 40 or 50 years ago. Th. I stones were raised from the nearest place to the wall. I and they were raised outside the disputed land, This wall was 100 yards, and in some places more,) from the stones spoken of. Thomas Joseph was the next witness ex- amined by Mr. Mathews in support of the plaintiff's case. He remembered the wall being built which was now the eastern boundary of the wood. It was built in 1844 or 1845. He had calculated that ten customary acres would make 23 acres. The wood as now enclosed was only 20 acres. Edmund Edwards also gave evidence for the plaintiff, after which t> Mr. Mathews called William Lewis, a quarry- man, David Watkins, Isaac Lewis, David Evans, David Williams, Thomas Williams, William Wil- liams (pendicci Fach). and Daniel Williams, wagon inspector. The learned gentleman then handed in deeds dated 1684, 1743, 17M, 1708, 1765, in which reference was made to the property in question. Sir Hardinge Giffard then opened the case for the defendant. He argued that plaintiff's prede- cessors, whilst in occupation of the other farms which were admittedly the property of LordClive, had set up their claim to the piece in question, and he ridiculed the idea that the stones spoken of were boundary stones. For the defendant he called witnesses, and the Court then rose.

MONMOUTHSHIRE. The business of the assizes was commenced on Saturday morning. Only one judge was present— Baron Huddleston, who presided in the Crown Court—Justice North being detained at. Hereford. There was no civil business. His lordship took his seat at 10.30, when the usual formalities were pro- ceeded with. The grand jury consisted of the fol- lowing gentlemen :—The Hon. F. C. Morgan, M.P., foreman; Sir Arthur Mackworth, Bart., Sir H. M. Jackson, Bart., Mr. J. A. Rolls, M.P., Mr. A. D. Berrington, Colonel Byrde, Mr. Arthur Bosanquet, Mr. W. G. Cartwright, Mr. G, Griffin-Griffin, Mr. E. Lister, Mr. E. Longworth Lister, Mr. A. E. L. Lowe, Mr. F. J. Mitchell. Mr. E. P. Martin. Mr. E. R. Marden, Mr. R. H. Oakley, Mr. W. W. Phillips, Mr. E. J. Phillips, Mr. J. T. Price, Mr. R. P. Rees, Mr. Reginald Vaughan, Mr. E. D. Williams, and Mr. W. H. W. Wilson. BREAKING AND ENTERING A STABLE AT CALDICOT. Charles Gibbons, 24, labourer, was charged with breaking into and entering a stable with intent to commit a felony, on the 2lst ult. Mr. Daniel pro- secuted prisoner was undefended. His lordship summed up in favour of an acquittal, and he was acquitted accordingly. The Judge (to the pri- soner) Now, don't you go and take people's tiles off again. Prisoner was then discharged. THE NEWPORT BELLOWS CASE. William Duckett, 28, blacksmith, WM indicted for stealing a pair of blacksmith's bellows, the property of John Williams, ship carpenter? ilt New- port, oh the 2nd of February, 1881. Mr. Ram was counsel for the prosecution; Mr. Boddain defended. His Lordship said it was a very doubtful case, and directed the jury to acquit the prisoner.—He was then discharged. WOUNDING AT MAINOEK, NEAR NEWPORT. Frederick Westlake, 37, labourer, was indicted fpr unlawfully wounding Joshua Pope on the 26th of December last.—Mr. Maddy prosecuted, and Mr. Ram defended.—On Boxing Day there was a rabbit coursing match at Maindee. In the course of the afternoon prosecutor went to the Carpenter's Arms, where he saw the prisoner. The latter produced a half-sovereign, and asked prosecutor to fight him for that. He refused to tight. About half-au-hour after prisoner ran at him, with a skittle ball in his hand, and he knocked the ball out of prisoner's hand. Then the prisoner rushed at him, and wounded him on the left thigh. Six months' hard labour, AN ARTFUL YOUNG DODGER AT NEWPOHT. Henry Taylor, 16, ship's steward, was indicted for stealing a silver brooch and a pair of ear-rings, the property of Sarah Gee, on the 23th of December last. He was further charged with stealing a silver watch, the property of Sarah Gosling, on the 4th ult. Mr. Evans had been instructed to defend the prisoner, but acting on his advice the prisoner pleaded guilty to each charge. Also to a previous conviction at Newport, where hestole a watch and chain, and was punished by three months' hard labour. Mr. Evans had been instructed to state that the prisoner had been led astray by the girl Lillic Wilkins, to whom he gave a brooch and ear- rings. His Lordship called her into the box and made inquiries, when tho fact was elicited that tho prisoner was introduced to her father s house by a lodger, and that she had only spoken to him once or twice when he gave her these articles. It also transpired that prisoner had suffered two months imprisonment in London f jr stealing a watch in 1831. He belongs to London. His Lordship, in passing sentence, said it was a cruel thing that Lillie Wilkins should have be-on implicated in his wickedness without any reason. Prisoner was a most artful thief. He would be allowed one more chance without being sent to ponal servitude. Twelve months' hard labour. FALSE FSKTKN'CKS BY A SAtIOR AT NE'iVl'GliT. Honry Harris, 27, pleaded guilty to obtaining by false pretences three several sums of 18s. from Edward John Poole, John Prico, and Harry Miller, in December last. He pretended he was the captain of a ship, and obtained these sums on the faith that he would give them an order for moat, beer, &c. Six months' hard labour. CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH AT NEWPORT. Mary Ellen Harris,17,wasindicted for endeavou- ring to conceal the birth of her dead child, on the 28th of November last. Mr. Batchelor prosecuted prisoner was undefended. Prisoner was acquitted. CROWN COURT.—MONDAY. Baron Huddleston resinned the trial of prisoners at the Shire-hail, Monmouth, on Monday, at past ten o'clock a.m. SHOCKING OUTRAGE ON A GIUL. John Wheeler, 29, commercial traveller, was in- dicted for carnally knowing Emily Bowen, a girl under twelve years of age, on the 1st of March, 1882. Mr. Boddam appeared for the prosecution, and Mr, Ram for the defence. Roes Bowen, the father of the girl, is a moulder, living in Clarence- street, Pontypool. The girl Fmily is ten yeais of age. The father had two permanent lodgers, one of whom was the prisoner, and occasionally more. One girl, aged six years, was in the habit of sleep- ing in the same bed as the prisoner. Bowen keeps a bagatelle table.—Emily Bowen, a diffident child, gave in a low voice the story of prisoner's wrong- doing. She said she took some water to the pn- simer's bedroom, when he committed the offence. He gave her a penny, and said she was not to tell her mother. He did it moro than four times in the bedroom, sitting-room, shop, and parlour. The judge summed up, intimating that the girl's story, corroborated as it was by the doctor, was sufficient to establish the prisoner's guill, it tho jury beiieved that story,-Thr1 jury" found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced'to ten years' penal servitude. EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF FORGING A WILL. John Parry, an elderly man, who had been out on bail, was indicted for forging and concealing a will, purporting to be the will of Thomas Lane, deceased, on the 28th of March last. Mr. Ham and Mr. Daniel were counsel for the prosecution; Mr. Darling and Mr. Kettle were tho prisoner's counsel. After a statement of the case the following wit- nesses were called:— Arthur Bloomfield Thomas, clerk of the probate registry at Llandaff, produced a will purporting to be the will of Thomas Lane, late of Aberbeeg, in the county of Monmouth. Caleb Thomas, managing clerk to Messrs. Gus- tard and Llowellin, solicitors, Newport, who are prosecutor's solicitors, said the prisoner produced a document purporting to be a will, and they sent it to London to get counsel's opinion a" to whether the prisoner was executor as well as trustee. Thomas Gwyn Powell, solicitor, Tredegar and Brynmawr, said in May last he asked for Mrs. Lane, widow of the testator. Wrote a letter to pri- soner on May 3, and on the 4th received a letter purporting to be in the prisoner's handwriting, fn that letter prisoner said the will was in his posses- sion, and he intended to administer it at once. William Carter, collier, living near Aborbeeg, was at Thomas Lane's house on tho day the will was made. Prisoner was there. Thomas Lane gave his uncle (the prisoner) instructions to make a will. The prisoner then went downstairs to write out tho will. He afterwards read the docu- ment. Harriet Lane, widow of Thomas Lane, remem- bered the day when the will was made. It was written out by the prisoner from her husband's instructions. Prisoner read it over and her hus- band made his mark. Isaac Geo Austin, grocer, Abertillery, uncle of the previous witness, said shortly after Lane's death he went to seo the prisoner, and prisoner produced a will, which he read. This was the case for the prosecution. The Court then adjourned, and after I he adjourn- ment Mr. Darling consulted with his client, and said, after the intimation given by his lordship, he felt lie could not further hope to contest the case. The prisoner would, therefore withdraw his plea, and plead guilty. His Lordship asked what had become of the will ? Mr. Darling spoke to the prisoner, and then in- formed his lordship that he could not tell what had become of the will. His Lordship then said prisoner had been ex- ceedingly well advised to take the course he had done. If prisoner had called his son to show that the document produced was testator's will, his lordship was satisfied that he would have been stating what was untrue, and he should havo been obliged to visit upon the prisoner a severe sentence. Looking at all the facts of the case, and hoping that prisoner would give every information that would lead to the widow obtaining probate of the will, his lordship said he proposed to deal with the case in a way which would satisfy the ends of justice. It was that the prisoner enter into his own recognisances to come up and receive judg- ment at the next assizes. It might be that if the prisoner did what was right he would be treated with leniency. There was another indictment for concealing the will, and unless prisoner satisfied the parties concerned as to what had become of the will he would be tried on that indictment and severely punished. Prisoner then entered into his own recognisances in the sum of £200, and was discharged. BURGLARY AT MONMOUTH. James Rogers, 44, labourer, was indicted for breaking into the dwelling-house of Miss Rosa Champney Powell, of Agincourt-square, Mon- mouth, and stealing certain articles, during the night of the 21st of January last. Mr. Ram pro- secuted; prisoner was undefended. In this case a good deal depended on the footprints found in the house, and those made by the prisoner after his apprehension. If was also proved that he was seen about the town that night. When appre- hended prisoner said he must have been drunk to have committed such an offence as that. The inmates were not disturbed. Nearly two bottles of sherry had been drunk by the burglar. Prisoner protested his innocence, but was sentenced to six months' hard labour. ALLEGED ROBBERY AT MONMOUTH. Charles Pritchard was charged with stealing 1O.I!. from James Bevan on the 20th ult. Mr. Wigram prosecuted, and Mr. Gough defended. Prisoner was acquitted, This closed the business of & £ assize.

THE ALLEGED FRAUDS BY A CARDIFF CORPORATION CLERK. COLLAPSE OF THE PROSECUTION. THE PRISONER DIjCIIARUED. At the Glamorganshire Winter Assizes, held at Town-hall, Cardiff, 011 Tuesday (before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge), David Dundas Gordon (23), clerk, was placed in the dock on an indict- ment. charging him with feloniously forging a certain order for the delivery of goods with intent to defraud at Cardiff on the 4th of January, 1883. There were several counts in the indictment. Mr. B. Francis Williams, with Mr. Arthur Lewis (instructed by Mr. T. H. Stephens), appeared for the prosecution and Mr. Montagu Williams, with Mr. Gibbons (instructed by Messrs. Ingledew, Ince, and Vaclicll), for the defence. Mr. F. R. Greenhill, financial clerk, deposed to having signed the order produced, which was an order upon Messrs. Daniel Owen and Co. for £1 worth of postage stamps and other articles of stationery. Mr. Montagu Williams: You do not. find any postage stamps on the requisition ?—Witness No The stamps appear in the order and in the coun- terfoil?—Yes. The order would be signed by me, and given to the person who signed the requisition. The counterfoil would remain in the book, and the book would remain at my office. So tlmt at any time by referring to the book you could see that JE1 worth of stamps appeared on the counterfoil'!—Yes. The counterfoil would always remain in the office as a memorial of that one pound's worth of stamps?—Yes. His Lordship: Did you compare the requisition with the order?—I cannot say whether 1 did or not in this case. There may have been twenty or thirty orders before me at the time but I generally compare them. You cannot say whether the stamps were in the requisition ?—No, I cannot. If you had compared the requisition with the order you could have found it out at once ?—Yes. Mr. David Watkin Thomas, chief accountant to Messrs. Daniel Owen and Co., said that the order for the £1 worth of postage stamps was brought to him on the 4th of January by the prisoner, and, in accordance with their custom, he gave him the equivalent for the stamps in money. Prisoner placed his initials on the order, and the order was then given back to him by witness, and handed to another clerk in the same office who supplied the Stationeiy. Wm. Thorne Lee, clerk to the town-clerk, said he kept the postage stamp book for Mr. Wheatley, and he did not receive from the prisoner £1 worth of stamps either on the 4th or 5th of January. Mr. Montagu Williams: Did you say before the magistrates that on the 21st of December there were no stamps in hand, and you got £1 worth, which was exhausted on the 3rd of January ?— On the 4th of January," I believe I said. Mr. Williams then read witness's statement, and asked him if it was correct. Witness: It is all correct but the date. It was not the 3rd, but the 4th of January. You did not say it was exhausted on the 3rd of January?—No. But in point of fact on the 4th of January you borrowed a shilling from a clerk in the office to buy some stamps, and when vou received the £1 worth you paid liitn back, and used the rest ?—Yes, sir. Would it be an unusual thing to go for apound's worth of stamps twice on the same day or on two days running ?—A very unusual thing. Joseph William Morecombe said he was a clerk in the Financial Office of the Cardiff Corporation, and he was now undergoing a sentence of impri- sonment for embezzlement. The order produced was in the prisoner's handwriting. The prisoner came into the financial clerk's office on the 4th of January and brought a requisition with him. Pri- soner wrote out an order according to the requisi- tion, and witness took it to Mr. Greenhill, by whom it was signed. When he brought it out again pri- soner added £1 worth of stamps, one dozen lead pencils, and one box candles, and he mads the same addition to the counterfoil. He afterwards received half a sovereign from the prisoner. Mr. Montagu Williams: It was your duty to make out that order?—Yes. Why did not you do it?—I was busy at the time. Then did you say to the prisoner I am busy you had better tiB it, up yourself "?—I might have done so. You took the order into Mr. Greenhill, and when you came out these stumps and caudles and lead pencils were added by the prisoner ?—Yes. Were you looking at what he was writing?—I did not say that, I knew what he was gOJn to put down. Were you looking at what he was writing—ves or no?—I do not remember whether I was looking or not. Now, did you not say to him before he took the order in, Lee wants a pound's worth of stamps you had better add thai, to the order"?—I do not remember it. Will you swear you did not ?—No, sir, I will not swear it. Did you also say, "Lend peneils and candles you have had already; you had better add them ?" —I do not remember making that remark. Will you swear you did not ?—No, sir. You say he gave you 10s. immediately after- wards. Did you not tell him that Mr. Greenhill had found out that the requisition did not agree with the order, and that, the one pound must, be handed back until a proper requisition arrived?— sir. You remember that, do you?—I never made use of those words. Did lie not hand you back, instead of half a sove- reign, a soverein :-No, flir, His Lordship; What do you say he gave you the money for was it money ?—Yes, my lord. Mr. Walter Hemingway, head-constable of Cardiff, was then called. He said that on the 6th of January he was at the town-clerk's office. The mayor, the town-clerk, Morecombe, and the pri- soner were present on thl) occasion. Mr. Arthur Lewis What took place ? Witness In reply to a question from the town- clerk Mr. Montagu Williams.- I should like to ask a question or iwo, if your lordship will permit, me. His Lordship Yes. Mr. Montagu Williams: Where wa t!lil< r-1n the town-cl"rk's office. Wore the prisoners in custody?—No, they were not. It was so vend hourfl afterwards before they were 1:1 ken into CITRtO<1y, On the same day Yes, on the same day. Do you ;11(\:111 to" say they were ini orrogatod in the presence of tho mayor ?—Yes, they were. Were they cautioned?—They were. His Lordship What, were you there for?—I was SfIÜ, for by the town-clerk. Yes, I itlll not suggesting that you were there wrongfully; but what were you tirre lor?—To hear a discussion with reference to some defalca- tions that, had been detected. Were you there to ascertain whether there was a case against the prisoner ?—To ascertain whether the corporation would be justified in giving the prisoner in charge. And thereupon he was interrogated ?—Yes, my lord. His Lordship You sent for the prisoner to get up a case against him out of his own mouth. I am not aware of any legal principle upon which this evidence can be rejected. Mr. Montagu Williams: I quite submit there is no legal ruling against it, but upon the question of public policy His Lordship: I cannot reject it, but, I have said that, personally, I disapprove of it. Mr. Arthur Lpwis: Well, Mr. Hemingway, what took place r Witness Morecombe said, Tho last money we took was on Thursday last. Gordon added one pound's worth of stamps to an order, and received the money from Messrs. Daniel Owen and Co. He gave me 10s., of the money, yesterday after- noon after we left the office." Gordon said," Yes, I did, and you were aware that I made the addition to the order." Mr. Montagu Williams Did you make any note at the time of what was said ?—Not at the time. Now. WHS not this what was said, Yes, I did make the addition to the order, and you knew it ?" You knew it." or "you were aware of it"— words to that effect. Mr. Arthur Lewis said this concluded the case for the proseeution: Mr. Montagu Williams: I submit to your lord- ship that there is no case here. In the first place I will submit that the prisoner cannot be convicted upon this indictment for felony. Upon the indict- ment. as it stands he is not charged with forgery at common hw, with a misdeamoanor in tnakina a mere addition to a document, but, he ia charged under the statute with feloniously forging an order for the delivery of goods, and then varvinsr the offence and calling it a receipt. His Lordship: What is the statute ? I see 24 and 25 Vic., cap. 98, sec. 23. Mr. Montagu Williams: If your lordship will turn to the last, edition of "Archibald," page 612, you, find that where the forgery is by a mere addition to the instrument., and has not the effect ot altering it, but is merely collateral to it—as, for instance, a forged acceptance or endorsement to a but of exchange—proof of the forgery of the ad- dition will not support an indictment "charging a forgery of the entire instrument. Here the forgery charged in the indictment is a forgery of the entire instrument. His Lordship What is the authority cited ? Mt-. Montagu Williams: "The Queen and Bir- kett." You see, my lord. this is a genuine docu- ment, save and except the alleged addition after the signature of Mr. Greenhill of the one pound's worth of postage stamps. They do not set it out in the indictment as a forgery of the addition. They set it out as a forgery of the entire document, and what I contend is that the indictment thus set, out cannot be supported. His Lordship: I wil! ask mv brother Brett about it. Mr. Montagu Williams: A forgery at common law is a fraudulent making of a writing to the prejudice of another man's rights. Proof of the altering of a part of a genuine instrument will support an indictment charging a person with having forged the instrument itself, so that at common law a distinction is drawn. At common law it would be an offence, but it would riot be an offence under the statdte. His Lordship I understand you. Mr. Montagu Williams: If they rely upon it as an addition they ought to have set out the addition upon the face of the indictment. His Lordship That is a question as to whether I should amend. I will take my brother Brett's opinion. Have you any other point ? Mr Montagu Williams: Yes. Then I shall sub- mit to your lordship, although there is no law on the subject, that the approver must be corroborated. After the last answer of Mr. Hemingway, I venture to urge that in this case there is no corroboration of the approver. His Lordship: I shall certainly tell the jury thev must be very certain that the approver is right I oefore they convict the prisoner upon his unsup- ported evidence. His Lordship then retired to consult with Lori Justice Brett, and on his return into court he said: My learned brother agrees with me that this in- dictment is wrong—that as framed it certainly does not meet the case, because an altera- tion is not the same thing as a forgery. It is charged as a forgery, whereas, if it is any- thing at all, it is clearly an alteration. But then Mr. Williams, you could not have been misled, anc I shall amend the indictment. Xlien, upon th< other point he agreed with me that there is no ruW of law to prevent a jury acting upon the unsup- ported evidence of an approver; but juries have always been told, and I shall not fail to tell them in this case, that they must not accept it without corroboration.andthecorroborationhere, although I' could not withdraw it, is a corroboration which, if I were a juror. I would not act upon, because it was obtained in a way which is extremely to be disapproved of. Mr. Montagu Williams: Does your lordship thinli there is sufficient power to amend ? His Lordship: You may amend when nc\body is prejudiced thereby. You knew what you h tc meet. Your cross-examination revealed it mth singular clearness. Mr. Montagu Williams: Your lordship "ill see His Lordship: Does it matter how you succee< I ? And I mean you to succeed. Mr. Arthur Lewis: After so strong an expre; i- sion of opinion from your lordship I do not I ought to occupy the court any longer. j His Lordship (turning to the jury): Mr. Lewis thinks this case should not be proceeded with, and my own opinion is that the evidence before you is too slender to enable you to convict in this case. The jury then gave a verdict of Not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged.

A SWANSEA BREACH OF PROMISE CASE. AMUSING EVIDENCE. ( LOVE IN THE SALVATION ARMY. At the Glamorganshire Assizes on Tuesday, in the Nisi Prius Division (before Lord Justice Brett), an action for £1,000 was brought by Mary Jana Morse Tittle, a young woman, 28 years of age, whose parents reside at Swansea, against William Hooper, a widower, carrying on the business of tobacconist and fruiterer, also of Swansea. Mr. Brynmor Jones was for the plaintiff, and: Mr. Bowen Rowlands, Q.C., for the defendant. Mr. Brynmor Jones, in opening the case, said plaintiff and defendant became acquainted in February, and in six or seven weeks the friendship ripened into affection, and the parties becamer engaged, the defendant promising to marry the plaintiff. The promise was admitted by the de- fendant, whose plea, however, was that he had i been released from the engagement. The defen- dant made presents to the plaintiff in the usual.; manner. The defendant was, it appears, a mem bee of the Salvation Army—(laughter)—and tha learned counsel believed that on the 4th of April after spending some part of the day with tha plaintiff, he expressed his intention of going to a» meeting of the Salvation Army. Some little cool- ness ensued, and the result was that for the future there was an absence of the warm affection which had previously existed on the part of the defendant The plaintiff had not, however.given him any release Sometime afterwards the plaintiff had a conversa- tion with the defendant, when he told her that his affections were altered, and that he did not intend to marry her. He had since married another young lady. The matter was a most serious one for the plaintiff, because she had even gone so fat as to prepare her wedding trousseau. Whilst thE defendant professed to be a religious man, and day after day attended the prayer meetings the Salvation Army, he (the learned counsel) thought the jury would agree with him that he had acted disgracefully with regard to the feelings of tha young lady who appeared as plaintiff in the pre. sent action. The plaintiff was called, and bore out the state- ment of the learned counsel. The plaintiff w,, always polit-ele." His Lordship: Was he more than that?—Yes.. Mr. Brynmor Jones Did you go out with him Plaintiff: I went to chapel with him. His Lordship You do not mean that you went with the Salvation Army, do you ? Plaintiff: I went to meetings sometimes. 00 the night when he was leaving to go to the Salva- tion Army meeting I said to him Hooper, dear- don't go to the Salvation Armv meeting to-night. He put his arm around my" waist and replied, Will you go with me," and I said I shall not go out this evening, I am so busy preparing my wedding dress." He then looked at his watch. His Lordship: What did he do with his arm, please ? Plaintiff: Oh, his arm was round my waist all the time. I said What time is it ?" and he said A quarter to eight," and I said You have not got much time, then," and he said '• No, I must ba going or I shall be late for the meeting." I said, Do not be late," and he rose, shook hands- His Lordship: Shook hands! Plaintiff: And kissed me. (Lasughter.) His Lordship: And went away Plaintiff: And said" Good night, darling." His Lordship Then what did he do? Plaintiff: Then he went. He did nor. come back. I saw him on the Wednesday following in Oxford- street, Swansea. He raised his hat and shook hands. He never came to our house again. I went to his shop one day and asked him to send US an orange-box to use for firewood, and I iisked him if it was the young lady he had in the shop that was keeping him away from me. The young lady was my sister. His Lordship: You were jealous, eh ? That is it, right enough. (Laughter.) What did Vie say ? Plaintiff: He said, No it is not. I have mada up my mind never to get married." 1 sai'.d, Then all your professions of love for me wete false ?" He said, Mv affections have altered." I ftaid, "So soon ? I have not altered. I hope you will remember our engagement." I saw the defendant many times after that, and I had a conversation with him on the 7th of April, when he said he did not intend to get married. He told me his property yielded him RLOO a year, and I thought that as I was many year? younger than he was he shoulu settle some- thing upon me before we were married. He said he would see his attorney, and next day tald me that he would settle JE60 a year on hiB dahteJ and the rest upon me after marriage. Eventually I heard that he had married somebody else. Cross-examined by Mr, Bowen ltowlands, Q C. '■ When he left me on the 25th of April to go to the Salvation meeting wo were apparently on gdod terms. I do not like the Salvation Army as as chapel. I am a Wesleyan but there was n o dispute as to denomination. His Lordrhip: You did not, like marching up and down the street with 1hree or fouir young ladies waving handkerchiefs before them ? (Laughter.) Plaintiff: I had been to the Salvation Army. I knew he had been married before. I was aware « lie had been married twice before being engaged to me. He came to see me two or three times a. day. (Laughter.) His Lordship He must, be rather an o]d gentle- man ? Plaintiff Forty-five, my lord, he told me. His Lordship: Oh, he is young yet. Mr. Rowlands: And did you sometimes go and see him as well ? Plaintiff: 011, yes, several times a day. Mr. Rowlands: Now. on this interesting occa- sion. when you went for the box for firewood His Lordship You do not suppose she wanted firewood, do you? (Laughter.) Mr. Rowlands: No, my lord. Plaintiff (continuing): I never asked him to leave the house on the night when he went to the Salva- tion Army. His Lordship Wrell, if she did, that would only be a lovers' quarrel. That would not cause her to release the defendant. After she had her wedding; trousseau ready, the contract would not be broken by her finding fault with his marching out with the Salvation Army. She was not going to give up the fruiterer and the will you know. A consultation here took place between the learned counsel for the parties, and a verdict was entered for the plaintiff, by agreement, for .£45.

TIIE CRISIS_IN FRANCE. l" CENTRAL NEWS" TELEGRAM. J PARTS, FEB. 14 (MORNING).—The Voltaire says the reason M. Ferry yesterday declined to accept M. Grevy's invitation to take office was tho malevolent attacks that have been made on previous Cabinets. A report is current this morn- ing that M. Freycinet has accepted office, and means to unite the scattered factions of, the Left. I REUTER'S TELEGRAM. 1 PARIS, FEB. 14.—The Committee of the Chamber to-day unanimously rejected without discussion. the Pretenders Expulsion Bill, voted by the Senate, and for the negatived Bill brought forward in the Senate by M. Barbey, authorising the expulsion by Presidential decree of Princes guilty of subversive acts or manifestations. The Committee afterwards voted on the original proposition of M. Floquet for immediate expulsion from French territory of, all members of families that have reigned in France which was declared carried. I

TRIAL OF MR. O'BRIEN, M.P. At the Commission Court on Saturday, the trial of Mr. William O'Brien, M.P., for publishing a seditious libel in United Ireland, was resumed, when. Mr. Jasmes Murphy, Q.C., replied for the Crowno", The case was carefully summed up by Mr. Justice Harrison, and the jury retired to consider their verdict. They were absent from court fifteen minutes, when the foreman intimated that therø was no possibility of their agreeing, and they wero accordingly discharged. The Crown counsel inti- mated that the case would not be tried again &tt the present Commission, and that Mr. O'Brien would receive ten days* notice when it was to bo tried again. As soon as the news of the result of the trial of Mr. O'Brien reached London Mr. Parnell despatched the following telegram, addressed from Parnell to William O'iBrien, M.P., Imperial Hotel, Dublin:- I congratulate you most heartily upon your virtual acquittal, which is of the utmost impor- tance to thie cause of freedom of speech anc writing in Ireland."

Robert Pnice, a factory operative, was charged at Stockport on Wednesday with the murder of Jas, Morris, in IVessrs. Leigh's mill, during Monday night. The prisoner had been seen about the pre- mises, and had blood-stained clothes. He was rec manded. At a meeting of miners' delegates, representing 40.000 men, held at Wigan.on Wednesday, it was re- solved to recommend the national conference to, be held at Manchester on tho 27th inst. to adopt a resolution to work eight hours per day and five days per week in order to restrict the output 06 coal.