The Cardiff Times

I A CURIOUS MISPRINT.—The Swansea Herald an- nounces the application of the Social Government Act to the town of RLthLI, in Norti Wales. What t branch of social life this n )tv act is to covern, remains for illustration.

yttt,trs to ttf i OT. -0 RE-ELECTION OF MR. JOHN. SIR,-As a very old inhabitant, and one that has seen a few jobs perpetrated not only by workhouse masters, but by those who carry their heads much higher, I must tell you that I rejoice at the decision of the country guardians to reinstate the man who has been proved guilty of acts bordering upon fraud," because they have thereby proved, what I have all along believed, that they are themselves equally guilty with Mr. John. Depend upon it, they are birds of a feather.Yours, &c. David-street, March 15,1859. STANLEY. SIR,-I am heartily glad that Mr. Edward John has been reinstated master of the union, as my faithful and consistent friend Horatio will now have a nice lunch whenever he visits Cardiff, particularly as lamb is just coming iuto season. What can be nicer.than a cupot the best tea, with some nice Cheddar cheese, although it be taken out of the paupers' allowance. The Poor Law Board is to be highly recommended for their kind consi- deration. The ratepayers of Cardiff and the paupers in the house, must therefore hail the day when the Poor Law Board sanctioned to reinstate a man whose actions they had but a fortnight previously declared to be BOR- DERING ON FRAUD.-Yours, &c., A RATEPAYER. JUSTICE IN CARDIFF. gjg _In reading the second edition of your last week's paper, I learnt that the grand jury had ignored the bill against Mr. Richard Cory for an as- sault, and on afterwards reading your article on the subiect, I felt struck with the justice and correctness of your remarks. The case of Mr. Cory leads to the question of the general conduct of the magistrates. The charge against Mr. Cory was that he committed an assault on the 2nd of March. When the sum- mons was returnable, Mr. John Bird appeared before R. O. Jones and David Lewis, Esqrs., as the attorney for the plaintiff, and commenced by stating that he s4 should have thought that from the considerable ex- pense the defendant had before been put to for an assault, he would have abstained from a lepetition of conduct like this." This, you will observe, was the introductory re- mark on the case of alleged assault on the 2nd of March. Was the remark not made to prejudice the mind of the magistrates, and was it relevent to the case ? Did the magistrates attempt to check Mr. Bird ? Not at all. They allowed him throughout his speech to go on in the same strain—referring to matters and making assertions foreign to the case in question. But, Mr. Editor, this appears to be the ordinary practice at the Cardiff police court, as wit- ness another instance last week, when Mr. Hall was charged with embezzlement. Mr. John Bird again appeared for the prosecution, before the same R. O. Jones, Esq., Barrister at Law, and Stipendiary Ma- gistrate, assisted this time by T. E. Heath, Esq., Borough Magistrate, when Mr. Bird tells the magis- trates that the prisoner had before embezzled from the same employer, but had been forgiven,-a state- ment again suffered by the magistrates to be made without objection. The result in each case being the committal to the assizes, possibly by a bias being formed in the mind of the magistrates by statements wholly unsupported by evidence, and referring to distinct matters. Now, I boldly assert, for the in- formation of R. 0. Jones, Esq., Barrister at Law, and for the other magistrates, who, if not educated as barristers, shouli possess sufficient business experi- ence and common sense to guide them, that it is con- trary to law and practice in all tribunals-criminal or civil-in this country, as well as repugnant to justice and fair play, to allow any matter to be brought for- ward irrelevent, and not supported by evidence; and it is further the practice, where prisoners have been previously convicted, sedulously to conceal the fact until after the verdict of the jury, when it is brought forward in aggravation, properly supported by testimony. Shall it be said that the bare state- ment of an advocate is evidence of a fact ? Is it to be tolerated that a person unsworn, and hired to conduct a case, shall be allowed to say whatever may come to his .tongue, and that our magistrates, who sit on the bench to hold the scales of justice with an even hand, without fear or favour of either party, should not only permit such a gross violation of principles consistent with law, reason, and justice, but should absolutely forbid the advocate of the de- fendant from protesting against such a course? Now, I hereby call before the bar of public opinion, the Stipendiary Magistrate, who is paid out of the Borough funds the sum of Y,600 a year, because he is supposed to be learned in the law; and I also call the other magistrates to whom God has given reason and thought to answer upon what grounds they refused to hear Mr. Ingledew, who rose to object to the course pursued by Mr. Bird, and yet after- wards allowed Mr. Bird so boldly state without a tittle of evidence, that Mr. Cory had assaulted a Russian captain ? The bench is reported to have said, that as the plaintiff a foreigner" had been illtreated, the de- fendant must be sent to the assizes. Now, what just reason there is that a man should be sent to the assizes for assaulting a foreigner more than for assaulting an Englishman, is best known to the wisdom of the magistrates who made use of the expression ? It is certainly not known to me. I do not wish to find fault without providing a remedy. I therefore submit to the magistrates that in future cases they should not permit any statement to be made unsupported by evidence, and that they set their face against vulgar declamation and idle spout- ing, remembering that in this commercial town there are men who can take notes of their acts.-Yours, &c., Cardiff, 17th March, 1859. REASON.

CAERPHILLY. A DOG's GRASP.—A tolerably-sized terrior dog was sporting with boys the other day by fetching sub- stances from the brook. The animal failed to find a stone which was thrown in, but it brought out another that was 6 inches thick, 1G or 18 inches long, and weighed 241bs. How it could have grasped so large a substance and brought it out of the water, was a marvel to many who witnessed the feat.

4 PENARTH. THE BITER BIT.-An outrage occurred on the night of Thursday week which was the subject of judicial inquiry on Saturday last, at the Cardiff Town-hall. John Quail and James Butler, men em- ployed on the Penarth Harbour works, were charged with assaulting and robbing Michael Walsh, a shoe- maker, who now lives at Penarth, but formerly in Cardiff. The circumstances are somewhat singular, and show bow an innocent person may be made to suffer, if great care is not taken in sifting evidence. Mr. Wilcocks appeared for the defendants. Walsh, who was drunk on the night in question, appears to have been roaming about the works, arid when in the neighbourhood of the saw-mill, met the wife of John Quail, as she was on her way with her husband's supper. He behaved to her in a very improper manner, and when she reached her husband told him of the outrage. Like every properly-minded man he felt indignant, and WEnt in search of Walsh, whom he found and administered a sound thrashing for his conduct. James Butler is a watchman, and he saw Walsh in the course of the night. When Walsh got away from the works he went to the police station and lodged a complaint against Butler and Quail for assautt and robbery, and they were appre- hended on that charge, but admitted to bail. Walsh having been closely examined, it was elicited that he had actually given some money to Butler, and the magistrate perceiving that there was no evidence against him discharged him, and Mr. Wilcocks put him into the witness-box on Quail's behalf. Mr. Lancaster also gave Quail a ten years good character; and at the close of the inquiry the bench at once dismissed the case, and said that Walsh had a narrow escape of being committed for perjury.

GLAMORGANSHIRE SPRING ASSIZES. The Spring Assizes for this county were opened at Swansea on Thursday. Mr. Justice Hugh Hill arrived from Carmarthen at two o'clock in the after- noon, and was conducted by the High Sheriff, Charles Crofts Williams, Esq., of Roatli Court, from the rail- way station to the Guildhall, where the Commission was formally opened. At half-past three o'clock his Lordship attended divine service at St. Mary's parish church. The prayers were read by the Rev. C. W. Evans, curate of Penarth and Lavernock, son of the High Sheriff's chaplain, and the sermon was preached by the chap- lain, the Rev. James Evans, rector of Landough, near Cardiff. The text was taken from Romans xiii., 1 and 2—"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to them- selves damnation." The service being concluded, his Lordship was escorted back to his lodgings at Coleridge House. FRIDAY. The Court opened at ten o'clock, and the usual lists having been called over, the following gentlemen were sworn on the GRAND JURY. C. R. M. TAijBOT, Esq., M.P., Foreman. H. H. Vivian, Esq., M.P. A. Pendarvis Vivian, Esq. L. L. Dillwyn, Esq., M.P. Iltid Thomas, Esq. Henry Thomas, Esq. T. E. Thomas, Esq. Howel Gwyn, Esq. William Llewellyn, Esq. Griffith Llewellyn, Esq. Charles Warde, Esq. M. Moggridge, Esq. J. Trev. Jenkin, Esq. E. R. Wood, Esq. Starling Benson, Esq. Christopher James, Esq. J. Jose Strick, Esq. P. S. L. Grenfell, Esq. W. Graham Vivian, Esq. C. H. Smith, Esq. Edward Lloyd, Esq. John Biddulph, Esq. J. P. Budd, Esq. The proclamation against vice and immorality having been read, The learned Judge addressed the Grand Jury, observ- ing that the state of the calendar, which was about to occupy their attention, was such as really to be a ground of congratulation to them, and also a matter of thankful- ness to God that there was so little of serious crime to be found in it. There was but one case of a serious cha- racter, and that was a case in which a woman was charged with killing and slaying her infant child-ttie manslaughter of the child. From the depositions it would be seen that two things were suggested as causing the death of the child-first, the exposure of the child when suffering from disease, which exposure accelerated its death; and next, the not supplying her child with proper nourishment, as it was the bounden duty of the mother to do. If it were made out to their satisfaction that the child was living when deserted and exposed, although it might have been then suffering from mortal disease which must have resulted in death, whether the child had been exposed or not, yet if the exposure acce- lerated the death, and the mother was the person so ex- posing it, then she would be guilty of manslaughter. If the child died before desertion, and the cause of death was the not supplying it with sufficient nutriment, then it must be established to their satisfaction, before they could say that the mother was guilty of manslaughter, that it was in her power to supply that nutriment. If the mother had no milk to give it, or no means of obtain- ing nourishment for her infant, then, however hard- hearted the mother might have been, and however she might have neglected her duty, the law did not say that she was guilty of manslaughter. They would bear these facts in mind when considering their verdict. There was no other case in the whole of the calendar calling for any observation in addressing gentlemen of the experi- ence and intelligence of those comprising the grand jury, except one, which was trifling as a legal case. It was a charge of assault against a person named Cory, and he only referred to the case for the purpose of saying that a party from Cardiff had been guilty of the gross impro- priety of writing a letter to him (the learned judge) with a,view to influence his mind in regard to the case and if the person persisted in the course of conduct which the letter indicated, it would be his duty to commit him. The individual might have been ignorant of the impro- priety of addressing a judge, in reference to a case com- ing before him, except in open court; and with these ob- servations he would leave the case. His lordship then dismissed the Grand Jury to their duties. TRIAL OF PRISONERS. CHARGE OF EMBEZZLEMENT ON THE VALE OF NEATH RAILWAY.— Joseph Ashley was indicted for embezzling a sum of money, from the Vale of Neath Railway Company, on the 24th August, 1858, and two other sums within six months afterwards. The case deferred to the assizes from the quarter sessions. Mr. Thomas Allen appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Henry Allen for the defence. The prisoner was ticket- collector at the Abernant station, and it was in that capacity he was alleged to have committed the embezzle- ment. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. Jane Davies, alias Thomas, was convicted of the man- slaughter of her infant child, at Swansea, by leaving it exposed, while alive, on the night of the 26th February. She was sentenced to four month's hard labour. Joshua Francis was convicted of stealing a horse, value £25, the property of John Pulsford, at Dansamlet, on the 25th February. A previous conviction, for horse stealing after a former felony was proved, and prisoner was sentenced to four years' penal servitude. James Fitzgerald, indicted for breaking into the house of Thomas John, at Lanishan, on the 28th November, and stealing various articles, was acquitted. Catherine Donegan, indicted for the same offence, pleaded guilty, but not yet sentenced. FELONY AT MERTHYR.—Michael M'Carthy, sinker, was charged with feloniously stealing 641 bs. of beef, the property of Joseph Griffiths, at Merthyr, on the 5th of March. Mr. 1. Alien prosecuted the prisoner being undefended. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with hard labour. PICKING POCKETS AT SWANSEA.—Margaret Hamil- ton was charged with picking the pocket of Mrs. Jones, at Llangafelach, on the 2nd of March. Mr. Lloyd, instructed by Mr. Atwood, was for the prosecution; Mr. T. Allen defended the prisoner. The jury found the prisoner not guilty. FELONY AT ABERAMAN.-Edward Phillip, (alias William Vaughan) collier was charged with burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of James Dagger, and stealing therefrom three sides of bacon and two pig's checks, all of the; value of ^g4 10s., the property of the said James Dagger, at Aberaman, on the 15th of February. Mr. Giffard prosecuted the prisoner was undefended. the jury found the prisoner guilty; and a previous conviction for felony having been proved against him by "aynard, he having been convicted at the Merthvr-Tydvil Police-court in the name of William Vaughan, he was sentenced to four years' penal servitude. FELONY AT MERTHYR.,—William Holt and Mary Jones, hawkeis, were_ charged with feloniously stealing £ 30 in gold 'n silver, from the petson of Enoch Isaac, at Merthyr, on the 5th of March. Mr. Bowen was for the prosecution; and Mr. Giffard defended the prisoners, The jury found both the prisoners guilty. A previous conviction was proved against the prisoner Holt, for stealing a pair of boots, the property of Wm. Williams, at Merthyr. The previous conviction was proved by superintendent Wrenn. A previous conviction was also proved against the female prisoner; and they were severally sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, the judge observing that the verdict was a most proper The court adjourned at six o'clock. SATURDAY, MARCH 12. STEALING AT COWBRIDGE.—Petter Gottfrey Ross- morsen. mariner, was charged with stealing a silk scarf, and other articles, the property of Daniei Cunningham, at Cowbridge, on the 26th of February. Mr. H.Allen prosecuted, the prisoner was undefended, The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to four months imprisonment with hard labour. ASSAULT AT CARDIFF. Hamberston lhomas,boatman,Lewis Leyshon, labourer, Susannah "r|ce, nnd Ann Morgan, were charged with fetomousty assaulting one Juan Francisco, a foreign sailor, and violently stealing from his person e2 10s., at Cardiff, on the 16th of December. Mr. Lloyd prosecuted, and Mr. T, Allen defended the prisoner I nomas. The prosecutor stated that he met the two female prisoners near the railway station, Cardiff, and they asked him to go with them. He refused, when the four men came up. i wo of them fell upon him one knocked him down, while the other robbed him, afterwards cutting his shoes from his feet with a knife. The prisoner Leyshon knocked hnn down, and Thomas cut his shoes off. The others looked out and kept watch. After robbing him they all ran away and went into a. house. He afterwards went with a man named Hornblow to a house in Whit- more-lane where he found the prisoner Thomas and the two female prisoners, whom he identified. He afterwards identified the prisoner Leyshon at the police station. P.C. llornblow (18), Cardiff police, deposed to finding the two female prisoners and Thomas in a house in Wiutuiore-lane, and took the three into custody. Inspector Giffard, Cardiff police force, deposed to the prosecutor identifying the prisoner Leyshon as one who had assaulted hem. He also identified the rest of the prisoners subsequently. Mr. Allen addressed the jury at cor.siderabie 1 1 1 for the prisoners, after which he catseft the ioil<nvinn Wit- nesses, in order to prove an alibi on toe p^rt of and to show that the prosecutor h¡:d no money at the time of the robbery. James Lodge said he lived in Gecyge-strcet, Caiv-i^, and kept a boarding-house for s do p t lodged at his house, ¡¡Lei when he c n be taid he i'd no money. Supplied him with money to b::y with, up to the time ot the robbery and alter. Thomas Yarwood said he.liv <i i \> 'llLm,),'e-Lne,an,1 remembered seeing the prison i ) the night of the rubbery. vo t i ri Davies came in with Uim. iIe came: in abülIt eleven o'clock, aud remained about ten l tc wh'i! Inspector Giffard came and took hirn II prosecutor, Francisco, had been at the house about half- past ten o clock in company with George Mitchell, John Marney, William Rees,. and Wm. Magennett. The prosecutor left the house shortly afterwards, and the four men followed immediately. John Harris said he was a boatman living at Newbridge and was in company with the prisoner at the Welsh Harp at eleven o'clock on the night of the robbery. He had been in his company from ten o'clock that night. His Lordship asked this witness how he knew that the night to which he alluded was the night of the robbery, and he said the landlady at the Welsh Harp told him that it was the 16th of March. She told him that morn- ing. He was ordered to stand down, his lordship observing that lie (the witness) had evidently been tutored. Mary Neathway, landlady at the Welsh Harp, de- posed to the prisoner Thomas having been at her house at 11 o'clock on the sight of the robbery. She repudia- ted with indignation the suggestion of the connsel for the prosecution that her house was a brothel. George Mitchell said he was a boatmau at Newbridge. On the night of the robbery he was drinking at the Fishguard Arms about half past ten. He left and went to Yarwood's house in Whitmore lane. The prosecutor was there drinking with two girls. William Rees left the house while the prosecutor was up stairs. The prisoner Thomas not there. The two female prisoners followed William Rees out of the house, and the prosecutor fol- lowed them, after which the witness left and followed the prosecutor. He saw William Rees take the prosecutor by the shoulders and pull him down and rob him, after which they all ran away. The prisoner Thomas was not there any part of the time. The prisoner Leyshon was not there either. Heard afterwards that Thomas and Leyshon had been had up for the robbery. Told Thomas Yarwood that he (witness) knew something about it.. Cross-examined by Mr. Lloyd: Went into the house for nothing else but to light a pipe. Was close by the men "when the robbery was committed. Hannah Davies came into Yarwood's house in the course of the evening. There were no other women in the house except the wife of Yarwood, after the prisoners left. The Jury found the whole of the prisoners guilty of a violent assault with intent to rob, it not having been clearly proved that a robbery had been committed, no evidence having been adduced that the prosecutor had any money about him. A previous conviction of felony was proved against Lewis Leyshon,for stealing cheese, property of John Hib- bert. The conviction was proved by Mr. Cox, governor of the House of Correction at Swansea. Mr. Allen called., the mother of the prisoner Thomas, who gave him an excellent character for honesty and sobriety, and said he contributed greatly towards the maintenance of herself and her husband. Leyshon had been eight times before the magistrates at Cardiff; and Ann Morgan and Susannah Price had also been fifteen or sixteen times before the Bench. Leyshon, Price and Morgan were sentenced to eighteen months' imprison- ment, and Thomas was sentenced to five months. THROWING VITRIOL ON THE PERSON.—John Rees was charged with having, on the 28th of January, at the parish of Llanguicke, maliciously thrown a quantity of oil of vitriol upon the face of David Williams. Mr. ;H. Allen prosecuted, Mr. Giffard and Mr, Rees for the defence. Not Guilty. FELONY AT MERTHYR. Catherine Davies, seam- stress, was charged with feloniously stealing a silver watch, the property of William Thomas, smith, of Merthyr, on the 28th of February. Not Guilty. The Court adjourned at half-past five o'clock. MONDAY, MARCH 14. OBTAINING GOODS BY FALSE PRETENCES AT SWANSEA. — Willim James Keast, tailor, formerly in business and residing in Goat-street, Swansea, was charged with fraudulently obtaining, by false pretences, fourteen dozen of silk and woollen scarfs, and other articles valued at £50, the property of Messrs. Nevill, Jourdain, and Co., of Wood-street, Cheapside, London, through their travellor Mr. Baker, at Swansea, on the 18th of January last. Mr. Evans, Q.C., with Mr. Giffard prosecuted and the prisoner was defended by Mr. T. Allen. Guilty. His Lordship, in sentencing the pri- soner, said The jury who have tried you have found you guilty upon the clearest evidence. About your guilt no one who has paid the slightest attention to the evidence can feel the least possible doubt. Yours is as bad a case, as any I have met with during my administration of justice. The man who robs another in the street, or the person who plunders another openly, are, both of them, petty depredators compared with you. Your frauds were detiberate your frauds were extensive. The advice—the good advice-given by the witness Roberts, who advised you to go back to journey work and begin life as an honest man-you ought to have taken. You did not do so but you said you were determined to begin business again -to open a shop for tie sale of goods-when you knew that you could not pay for the goods you contemplated ordering. I should be trifling with justice were I not to visit your crime with a severe sentence: that sentence is that you be imprisoned for two years, with hard labour. The prisoner was removed from the dock, apparently astonished at the sentence. LARCENY AT PENARTH. Abigail Murphy was charged with stealing a large quantity of tea and other articles, the property of David Evans. Mr. Stacey prosecuted, the prisoner being undefended. Mary John, wife of David John, said that on the 8th of March, between four and five o'clock, she was driving her donkey cart home from Cardiff to Penarth. On arriving at the bottom of North Hill she missed some tea and a piece of cheese from a basket in her cart. The prisoner was walking behind the cart; Stopped the vehicle and saw the things gone from the basket behind the cart. The prisoner attempted to run away. Gave her into custody, because she had the things Mn her apron. John Hooper said he lived at Penarth. Saw the pro- secutrix and her cart at the bottom of the hill. Saw a woman behind the cart, and saw her take something out of the cart. Did not know who the woman was. P.C. 107, Glamorganshire constabulary, said the prisoner was given into his custody at the time and place alluded to. Searched her, and found the cheese and tea in her possession which the prosecutrix said had been taken from her cart. Solomon Joseph said he was a pawnbroker living at Cardiff. The tea, produced, he sold to Mary Evans, the prosecutrix, on Tuesday, the 8th of March. Robert Taverner said he kept a provision shop in Bute-street, Cardiff. The cheese produced was a piece which he sold to the prosecutrix on the 8th of March. He knew the cheese because he purchased the whole dairy of it, and it was seldom there were two dairies alike. He also compared it with a piece of cheese which he cut from the same cheese as that which he sold to the prose- cutrix. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and a seeond charge was made against her, of having stolen :two drinking glasses, a jug, and a spoon, the property of Mrs. Catherine John, of the Grange Inn, Penarth Roads, on the 8th of March. The jury found the prisoner Guilty upon this charge also; and she was sentenced to three months' imprison- ment for each offence. EMBEZZLEMENT AT CARDIFF. Joseph William Halt was charged with embezzling certain moneys the property of his employer, Mr. Hugh Bird, of Cardiff, on three different occasions. Mr. Giffard prosecuted, and Mr. Bowen defended the prisoner. Mr. Hugh Bird said I am an agricultural implement manufacturer living at Cardiff. The prisoner was in my employ two years and nine months. His salary was £ 150 a-year, exciusi ve of his expenses. His duties were to dispose of goods and receive money for them. For goods sold at Cardiff he had to account every day, and for goods sold at Newport and Cowbridge he had to ac- count on Wednesday night or Thursday morning, when ,oods were sold on the previous Tuesday. On the 2nd of October last there is no entry of a sum of 95 5s. for a turnip cutter sold to Mr. Thomas Jones. If the prisoner sold such an article the entry ought to have been made, He accounted on that day, for two sums one ofX5 5s. from Mr. Edwards, and a sum of £4 received from another person of the same name. The entries are in the prisoners hand-writing. (A letter was handed in, writ- ten by the prisoner to Mr. T. Jones, telling him that he had lost the £ 5 which he had received from him for the turnip cutter, and asking him not to say anything to his employer about his having paid the sum, promising to put it right in a day or two.) The letter just handed in is in the prisoner's handwriting. I have a customer at St. Bnde's Maj or—Mr. William Baker. Prisoner did not account at the proper time for a sum of money re- ceived, but he accounted for ,£10 a month after he should have done. Did not account for money received from Mr. Moseley. Cross-examined Prisoner was in the same line of business as myself some time ago, but became bankrupt. He was exclusively in my employ. Never asked the prisoner about the account of Mr. Thomas Jones till after I had dismissed him. Did not know anything about it till then. Prisoner is in the service of his brother, solicit- ing orders in the same line of rountry as he did for me. I advertised the prisoner, cautioning the public not to pay moneys on my account, but it was before he went into the service of ins brother, and immediately on his leaving my employ. Ten days after the prisoner left mv service he sent me £5 5s., which I immediately handed over to Mr. Va:«lr<»n. my attorney. An offer was made to the p; ison"r hy my attorney, to the effect that, if he wou'i1 uk <-1 I'-fmlt, prosecution should notensue. The pi s tci dcci'.net' and I heard it reported that he had i cine, that he would proceed against me <1,"1, but I never heard him say any- time about it. T'.omas Jon.s, farmer, said he bought a turnip-cutter of the prisoner, and paid him f 5 5s., getting his receipt the i Received a letter from the prisoner as to his 5 1 the £5, d, in consequence of his receiving ',ot i 1 dr. Bird anything about having tii ey. J. farmer, deposed to paying the prisoner -S4 it <a,c't!.e. on a specified date. WtU:;n:! Eakc-i. a ti, said he paid the prisoner jgll il c.f c HI last. < I have known the prisoner for years, i iv fonnd him strictly honest in all his in I ive paid him thousands. -"is the t i the prosecat,on; and Mr. Bowen aJdrc'M;. 11 i Oil the other side, contending that the ofth.. in the matter was anything but wnch si I ) the idea of embezzlement. In t :c t of the I;; 5s. received from Mr. Jones, it was apparent that the prisoner had lost E5,, and, being anxious to replace it without the matter coming to the knowledge of his employer, knowing that it would lessen confidence in his carefulness in matters of business if it did so, he wrote a letter to Mr. Jones, an old customer, wishing him not to say anything about the C5 5s., as he would put it right in a short time. The learned counsel then adverted to the conduct of the prisoner after he was dis- missed from the service of Mr. Bird. He did not show a disposition to get out of the wav but, on the contrary, went into the same line of business for his brother in the neighbourhood. The offence, he urged, could not be considered to be great, as the prosecutor's attorney had actually made overtures to compromise the matter, if the prisoner would apologise. Had the offence been con. sidered a felony, Mr. Waldron, the attorney alluded to, would never have laid himself open to a charge of com- promising that felony. The deduction, therefore, to be drawn from the fact was that the offence was not, nor was it considered to be, a felony, or a fraudulent embez- zlement, but was simply one of those acts of carclessness on the part of a servant which was thought to be such as might reasonably be met by an apology on the part of the delinquent. Mr. Bowen made some further remarks as to the character of the prisoner, and his desire to face any inquiry where his integrity was impeached, and con- cluded with a few minor remarks. The jury retired, and after a short deliberation they returned into court with a verdict of Guilty, with a re. commendation to mercy. Mr. Giffard said he was in- structed on the part of the prosecution to join in that recommendation. The prisoner was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, his Lordship observing that he fully and entirely concurred in the verdict. ASSAULT AT CARDIFF.—Timothy Hurley, labourer, was charged with having assaulted and beaten William Selby, a police-constable in the employment of the South Whales Railway Company at Cardiff, on the 23rd of February. Mr. Giffard prosecuted the prisoner being undetended. The prosecutor said that, on the day in question, the prisoner was on the line near the New-town station, with several others. He (Selby) ordered him off the line, as the train was coming. He refused to go, and the prisoner struck him. If lie had fallen down the train must have passed over him William Atterwell, a policeman on the South Wales Railway, said he saw tha prisoner manoeuvring" with the policeman Selby at the New-town station. Saw the prisoner strike Selby two or three times, prisoner struck him (witness), too, and gave him a touch of a black eye." A laugh.) David Evans said he saw the prisoner strike Selby, having been dared to do it by his companions, who offered him sixpence to knock down a policeman. He said he would do so for a shilling, and went and knocked down Selby. The jury immediately returned a verdict of Guilty. P.S. Glass (9) was called as to character, and said the prisoner was a very quarrelsome man, and drunken, and had been in custody before. He was now sentenced to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour, his Lordship observing the offence was a very serious one, and others, so offend- ing, would be dealt with in a similar way, The safety of the public, he said, demanded it. NISI PRIUS COURT, TUESDAY. CARTWRIGHT V CARDIFF WATERWORKS COMPANY. -Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Grove, Q.C., and Mr. Giffard; for the defendants, Mr. Evans, Q.C., and Mr. Hoyd.—This was an action, brought by the plaintiff, Mr. W. S. Cartwright, who is lord of the manor of Llan- daff, to establish the ownership of a piece of land (an acre and a quarter) near Ely-bridge. Mr. George Halket, agent to the lord of the manor of Llandaff, proved the usage, since 1813, of the land in question by the com- moners of Llandaff, which he said was a piece of waste, and always, as he understood, belonged to the lords of the manor. In 1851 permission was given to the Cardiff Waterworks Company, through their solicitor, Mr. T. Dalton, to lay down a water-pipe in connection with the company's works. The plaintiff was examined, and proved that certain emoluments arising out of the land in question had been paid to him as lord of the manor. On the 2nd of September last he was near the land, and saw some iron pipes laid there. He saw Mr. South, se- cretary of the Cardiff Waterworks Company, and asked him if it was intended to go through the land with the pipes. He said it was the intention of the company to do so and he (plaintiff) told him he should not permit it. On the following 8th of September he saw the com- pany's men had cut partly through the land, and were laying down a 12-inch pipe parallel with the other pipe for which permission was given in 1851. Ordered the men to desist; and the inspector and foreman agreed to i accompany him, with Mr. South, who argued that the -» permission given in 1851 was sufficient power for the company to put down pipes subsequently. Mr. South said the work should not be continued; but the works were allowed to go on. William Evans, of the White Lion, Ely, was called to prove that, as long as he could remember, the spot of land in dispute had been used by those who had holdings" under the lord of the manor. Mr. Edward, miller and maltster, gave evidence to the same effect, also proving that a payment for sand taken from the river which bounds the spot in dispute had been made on behalf of the lord of the manor, by whose authority they had also removed a wall-fence which had been put up by the authority of Mr. Clive, at the boundary of the spot alluded to. Several documents were put in as proof of proprietorship, which closed the case for the prosecution. Mr. Evans, on the part of the defendant, submitted that the spot of land in dispute had always been an open piece to the public, and through which there was a certain well also open to the public. He produced a copy of the Water Works Act, and argued i by citing certain clauses, that the act gave power te go through any "public passage or place" for the purpose of supplying water. His Lordship overruled the argu- ment, stating that the piece of land in dispute did not come within the meaning of the Act, a public passage or place," being such a place as might have been dedi- cated, by the owner, to the use of the public. His Lord- ship directed a verdict to be given for the plaintiff, damages 40s., reserving several points for future dis- cussion. STRATTON V. INSOLE —This case was settled, and was not brought on, being an action of demurrage, brought by Mr. Stratton, ship-owner, to recover compensation from the defendants, who are coal merchants, for loss alleged to have been sustained by the detention of his vessel at Cardiff, consequent on the Aberdare strike. GRANT AND ANOTHER V. JENKINS.—Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Grove, Q.C., with Mr. Hughes. For the defendant, Mr. Giffard. The action was brought by the plaintiffs, Messrs. Grant and Co., who are timber mer- chants at Cardiff having a yard at Aberdare, to recover the sum of £38 13s.; for timber supplied to the defendant in the year 1855, he being at that time landlord of the Freemasons Tavern, Aberdare, and making some addi- tions to the house, in which additions the timber was used. Thomas Jones, manager in the employ of the plaintiffs at Aberdare; David Evans, builder, of Aber- dare; and a haulier named Jones, gave evidence in the case on the part of the plaintiffs. At the close of the case for the plaintiffs, !1r. Giffard said he was unable to meet the evidence, and his Lordship directed a verdict to be given for the plaintiffs for the whole amount claimed. HOWELLS V. WILLIAMS AND OTHERs.-Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Grove, Q.C., with Mr. Pullen. For the defendants, Mr. Giffard and Mr. Hughes. This action was brought under the following circumstances: The plaintiff, Mr. Howell Howells, is a builder residing at Britonferry, and in the autumn of last year was engaged, under contract, by the Rev. Benjamin Williams and others forming a committee, to erect a chapel at Peny- wern, Dowlais. He completed the contract; and was subsequently employed by the defendants to do certain extras in connection with the aforesaid chapel, in the shape of out-buildings, and it was in respect of these extras that the claim of zC57 was now made by the plain- tiff. The defendants did not deny a certain amount of liability, but limited that liability to the sum of zel 17s. 3d., which sum they had paid into court. The plaintiff was examined at considerable length touching the nature of his contract with the committee, and the precise character of the extras alleged to have been ordered by them and the extent of work was spoken to by Mr. J. Reynolds, surveyor, who had made a valuation of the whole, including extras. It appeared that the total amount for which the building was to be erected was not inserted in the contract, but £479 was the agreed amount, if the contract had been followed. The contract was alleged by the plaintiff to have been departed from, and extras subsequently ordered to be executed. He had re- ceived the sum of j £ 512, which was ze33 over the agreed amount, which latter sum, added to the jgl 17s. 3d. paid by the defendants into court, constituted, as alleged, the whole of the claim upon them for extras. On the other hand, the plaintiff claimed £57 over and above the -0512 which he acknowledged to have received. The case occupied a considerable time, the accounts for extras being so closely intermingled with the original contract as to render extrication next to impossible; the items generally.presenting an aspect of inextricable confusion. The case was not concluded at the rising of the court, and a verdict for the defendants was given next day. WEDNESDAY. DE WINTON AND OTHERS v. DAVIES. SPECIAL JURY.—Mr. Grove, Q C., and Mr. Giffard for the plain- tiffs attorney, Mr. R. W. Williams, Cardiff. Mr. T. Allen and Mr. Hughes for defendants; attorney Mr. j Washingtan Brown, Swansea. Mr. Grove said the action was brought upon three bills of exchange for the sums respectively of £ 100, £ 171 15s., and £ 191 5s.-making a total of £ 433. The jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiffs. MOODY ^RSECE.—Mr. Grove. Q.C., and Mr. Giffard. for ^plaintiff; instructed by Mr. R. J. Cathcart. Mr' Giitard appeared for the defendant, Mr. Richard Llewel- Ivn Itecs, solicitor, Cardiff. The action was brought to eject defendant from premises at Maindee, near Cardiff, neki ot plairitiffT through an alleged breach of covenant in the lease, which required defendant to insure and keep insured" the premises, and to produce the receipts when required. Verdict for defendant. The business of the Assizes terminated soon after four o'clock on Wednesday afternoon.

TAFF VALE RAILWAY. Traffic for the Week ending March H, 1859. Total £3J51 9 3 Corresponding Week last Year. £ 3 )36 15 7 QUEENSTOWN, March 12.-Put in, 11, the Williama Mary, from Cardiff and Milford for Tamgona (rail* way iron), through stress of weather.

SUPPOSED MURDER AT HIRWAIN. The body of a man named William David, aged 30, a haulier at the Hirwain Iron Works, was found in the stable of the Hirwain Castle, public house on the morning of the 8th instant. It was at first sup- posed that he had fallen through the loft over the stable, but on further examination it was suspected that this account of the death was improbable, and suspicion fell on the landlord of the Hirwain Castle, at whose house the deceased had been drinking at a late hour the previous night. The landlord, named William Jones, a miner, was arrested by the police and removed to Merthyr, where he was examined before the magistrates and remanded. He was again brought up on Monday, and committed to Cardiff gaol on the charge of the wilful murder of William David, at Hirwain, on the night of the 7th March. An inquest on the body of the deceasecl wat: held at the Bridgend Inn, on Monday afternoon, before John Morgan, Esq., deputy coroner, and a respect- able jury, of which Mr. John Watkins was foreman. Mr. Simons, of Merthyr, appeared for the accused, and Mr. Frank James watched the case for the friends of the deceased. The inquiry was tedious and protracted on account of the evidence having to be interpreted from Welsh into English, and the cautious and evasive manner in which the witnesses gave their evidence. The evidence was very conflicting, end left the matter shrouded in considerable mystery.

CARDIFF POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MONDAY. (Before R. O. JONES, Esq.) DISORDERLIES.—John Hopkins and Charles Morgan were each fined 5s. and costs for being drunk, and Richard Sleep, a respectable-looking young man, was charged with fighting in Bute-street, with a foreigner, at eleven o'clock on Saturday night. He pleaded that the foreigner struck him without provocation, and was fined 5s and costs. Elizabeth Harris, prostitute, was charged on suspicion of attempting to rob ^e above prisoner Pharlpf Morean, but as there was nothing stolen, she was discharged with a caution. William Stephen for beinff drunk, was fined 5s. and costs. He wished to know what recompense he was to have for havmg his clothes torn off his back. The bench told him that it he choose to get drunk he must take the consequences. ASSAU LT.- William Williams was charged with as- saulting John Bunchflower, keeper of a public bake- house Defendant had called at the bakehouse and asked for his master's tins, when a quarrel mpipp took nlace in the bakehouse. Mr. Owen defended, cuulcalled witnesses to show that complainant was the asere«sor Fined 10s. and costs, or seven days. William Smart was charged with attempting to de- fraud the keeper of the West turnpike ^te l atrick Williams said he was the keeper of the West gate. On Monday February 21, the defendant passed thiough the gate between nine and ten o'clock in the morning, and on asking for the toll he tendered a ticket bearing the date of that day. Witness asked him where he got it. He replied that he had been through the gate that morn- ing previously, and had the ticket from complainant himself Mr. Edwards, defendant's employer, was called and proved that defendant had only been sent to town once on the day in question. Defendant said he had passed through the gate before six o'clock that morning. The bench said the onus lay with complainant to prove that defendant came by the ticket unfairly, and as there was no evidence to that effect he would dismiss the case. ALLEGED ASSAULT.—John Davies, Cardiff pilot, was charged with assaulting Mr. Pendolo, shipbroker Mr. Pendolo said he was standing on the Last Bute Dock, on the 10th, when a ship was going out with which he had business. The captain asked complainant if he could get a man to assist them out of the dock, when Davies came up and took him by the collar and called him a b-, putting his hand in his face. Defendant called William Evans, hobbler, who said he saw the parties quarrelling but did not see Davies lay his hand upon complainant. Dismissed with a caution. BEERHOUSE OFFENCE.-William Johns, landlord of the Wheatsheaf, Adam-street, was charged with selling beer on Sunday morning, and with permitting drunken- ness. Sergeant Cambridge said about half-past one o'clock on Sunday morning, March 6th, he found a large number of persons drinking in the house, some of whom were playing dominoes. The bench did not consider the charge of drunkenness sustained. Mr. Owen defended, and called witnesses to prove that the parties were lodgers, and that no beer had been drawn after eleven o'clock on Saturday night. Two previous convictions were put in and he was fined 20s. and costs.

that inquiry—that was the circumstance of Mr. "°hn being led home drunk. The CHAIRMAN That has been inquired into, and "egatived. Mr. WILLETT I am in a position to prove that Dot only was Mr. John led home drunk, but that Mr. Wyld led him home. If the board will re-appoint I shall press for that to be again inquired into. A very respectable gentleman has assured me, and JJr. Cory, and Mr. Mason, that such is the fact. If '«at gentleman maintains the statement which he ^lunteered to me, then there can be no doubt of the act. Rev. H. J. THOMAS This has been disposed of. (Hear, hear.) Mr. WILLETT I have a perfect right to state the leasons why I move the amendment. The CHAIRMAN And they have a perfect right to answer vou. Mr. WILLETT They have a perfect right to answer but you, as chairman, have no right to interrupt when I am stating my reasons, whatever those jeasons—good, bad, or indifferent. I ought not to ?e interrupted at this board. If the party persists statement, I shall only feel it my duty to. ask 0r another inquiry. Esv. II. J. THOMAS asked if Mr. Willett referred the charge of drunkenness which was preferred More the Inspector ? Mr. WILLETT Yes. f Rev. H. J. THOMAS: But you cannot bring that 0l'Ward again. I thought you .would have taken a herYkind and humane view—the same as Mr. Mason has done, and which has gained for him the respect of thin hoard. If you had. viewed it in the same i, and withdrawn your amendment, you would &?ave stood much higher in the estimation of the l^ard and the county at large. A better officer than a reward John never "existed, save and excepting the I Regularities of which he was guilty. Every fair I Way was afforded you, and you succeeded in dis- I him. By the petition which was signed by I chairman and vice-chairman and forty guardians, | 'he Poor Law Commissioners have thought lit to Sive him another trial; and I thought you would be so inhuman, so unkind, and so void of every deling as to oppose that. We give you credit for being influenced by conscientious motives, but to a Attain degree you seem to be governed by malicious Motives. Mr. WILLETT You have no right to impute mo- ^'es. lIltev. H. J. THOMAS I have as much right as you ad to impute motives to me a fortnight ago. Mr. WiLLETT I did not impute motives to you. Jfiv M. THOMAS supported the amendment, as he not see how they could appoint Mr. John after te decision of the Poor Law Commissioners on the Rector's report. The votes were then taken. For the amendment—Messrs. M. Thomas, (Pen- vfch) Willett, and Twigg. For the motion—The Chairman, Vice-Chairman, H. J. Thomas, Rev. H. Jenner, Captain Jenner, Messrs. Alexander, D. Jones, Mason, J. Howell, jlewellyn Thomas, D. Thomas, Evan John, D. Davis, Jones, and C. Pearson. The motion was carried by 16 to 3. THE ALLEGED NEGLECT OF AN IN-DOOR PAUPER. ^ir. Paine stated that in consequence of remarks S papers and other statements, he considered it duty to apply to the Coroner that he should hold fittest on the body of William Vowles. Mr. WILLETT I was going to make a similar ap- ^cation. J Paine I merely inform the board I have 0Qeit. It was done an hour ago. RP COST OF THE RECENT INQUIRY. ■Che Clerk applied for a cheque for £ 33 15s. 6d. to the cost of the late inquiry, which sum will be ^"ged to the common fund. H. J. THOMAS Is that all? Clerk: Yes. Cheque granted. cfR r" Wride, recently appointed assistant relieving- tficer for Cardiff district, was ordered to give two V^eties of i;50 each for the due performance of his v^ties a letter having been received from the Poor W Board to that effect. There was another letter, proving the amended dietary table, on the under- ^Ming that the allowances should be as near as "0sSible to the certified table. MATRON AND SCHOOLMISTRESS. Aev. H. J. THOMAS moved that Mrs. John, as atron, and Miss John as schoolmistress, be re- nted.—Carried. Rev. H. J, THOMAS: IS Mr. John entitled to his ary during the time of his suspension ? MASON Certainly not. ihe Clerk: It ceased from the time of his sus- 5si°n to his re-election. llev. H. J. THOMAS I merely asked the question. F EXPENDITURE OF COUNTY MONEY. 0A series of resolutions and a petition to the House J Commons, adopted by the Merthyr board of Indians, was sent to this board asking the guard- j,Ds to co-operate in the matter of managing county hy an elected board, rather than by the a?istrates as at present. This gave rise to a dis- ^Ssion on the subject, and mention was also made (.i fact that the bishops had refused to license If/ c*ergymeu who had been appointed prison chap- sta for this county, because they did 'hot under- ^d Welsh. A motion was made that the petition .adopted, but at the suggestion of the Vice-Chair- 11 the question was postponed for a fortnight. WELSH APPLICANTS FOR MASTER AND MATRON. The CHAIRMAN stated what the committee had done the preceding <1^, when they met to examine the ^plications for the above offices. There was not "u Ql1.e applicant sufficiently acquainted with the duties the office that enabled the committee to recom- ^nd to the board, and therefore they intended to ^ggest the propriety of advertising in some English ^papers for a person of whom it should not be '^Mred that he speak Welsh. They believed that Qj edcondition specified in the advertisement pre- vjje<i those persons applying, who had had ex- v^^nee in English workhouses. The letter from tbePoor Law Commissioners, however, precluded ejg, necessity for advertising again. There were een applicants for the office of schoolmistress, w they selected four or five, but that was also e°essary. hi RELIEF COMMITTEES. -^Oo MASON moved his resolution that they ask the m r. Law Board to give their sanction to the form- °f a relief committee for Cardiff. It was t0 °hitely necessary that something should be done L FeUeve this board of the enormous amount of °ftpltlesa which had to be transacted. The cases, Vi** *n number, generally occupied five or six h' an^ oreat'y taxed the powers of the chairman he guardians who sat to administer relief. It ^o very hard upon the relieving-officer, who got through his work till late on Saturday hftf But it was harder still upon the poor, who So Wait so many hours, and who could not, in cases, receive their relief till a late hour at 2? He, therefore, proposed that the Cardiff *inrc^atVa should sit on Fridays to hear Cardiff cases, ktd course any guardian who thought proper to Wrd so> The general business of the would be transacted on Saturdays, as at it and if any special case of relief arose, referred to the board which sat on cIhe.C?AIRMAN 1uestioned whether the Poor Law miners would sanction such a committee.. he Clerk said it had been done in several cases. CHAIRMAN thought that every word which Mr CS°Q had uttered supported the motion which had J? adopted for a division of the union. (Laughter.) I • MASON wished to prevent a division by^qual 1 114 the labour of the guardians more fairly. tQ ev. H. J. THOMAS only wanted the rural parishes V^ticipate fairly in the payments which were Wvfec' f°i' the common fund. He was sure they very loath to part with Mr. Willett and Mr. W?' (daughter.) V* "ls little coquetting between the town and ry guardians, the motion was adopted. A LEFT-HANDED COMPLIMENT. si • JENKIN JONES gave notice that next Saturday move that Mr. John be called in and com- Qted! (Laughter.) 'jv' MASON What do you say ? CHAIRMAN You had better leave it as it is. ^airl0St immediately afterwards, however, the •tn^n thought they had better send for Mr. John Mfe Inform him of the reappointment of himself, daughter; and as soon as Mr. John ap- there was a most extraordinary stamping of Th ThPHaIKMAN informed Mr. John of what had tak." Place, and expressed the hope that he would Kbat-re future. He was to be allowed six months 6 tfi°n' at the end of which period the board would to report to the Commissioners. n said he hoped he should be able to steer Hot charges laid before against him. He Mfe>g, *ish his daughter to be reinstated, as his I ^^istaugg jVas not and she would be of some A^^treso t,Hen res°lved that the electron of school- place on the 26 th inst.