The Cardiff Times

THE GLAMORGANSHIRE ASSIZES. ( Continued from last week.) WOUNDING AT ABERAVON. David Thomas (on bail), was indicted for wound- ialg Jeremiah McCarthy, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm, on the 11th of January. Mr. Pullin was counsel for the prosecution; Mr. .Bo-wea defended the prisoner. Jeremiah McCarthy, a labourer, at Aberavon, saw ihÐ prisoner near the Wern chapel, on the night of tbe 11th January. He saw the prisoner lookiDg at "him, and prisoner replied I am looking at you," aad he drew a knife and stabbed him in the left breast. Had had no quarrel with the prisoner. Cross examined Only knew prisoner by eye-sight. Had been charged two or three times for assaulting Stee police. Had been once in gaol for being drunk* Mr. Llewellyn Prichard, surgeon, Aberavon, said tie wound was and two inches in extent.. It this bleeding considerably. The wound, in his opin- 3W3, was inflicted by a side blow. Prosecutor was aonfined to his bed a fortnight, and the wound healed irn three weeks. Cross-examined From prosecutor's soudition he thought he was intoxicated when called m after the wound bad been inflicted. John Evans, labourer, Aberavon, gave eorrobora- tfre evidence. Cros-exAmined: He did not keep Hhe girls of the town in his house now. Had been charged two or three times with assaulting the police. John Eynon gave a confused and contradictory ac- ec-ant of the matter, and in cross-examination, he said he too had been in trouble. His Lordship What did they say you Jid ? Witness Once for poaching and twice for getting ibnnk. His Lordship: You are very near getting into Siouble to-day. P.C. Markham apprehended the prisoner, who told iira be did stab the prosecutor, because prosecutor struck him first. Prisoner gave him a small knife, which he said he used on the occasion. 'Mr. Bowen addressed the jury, and called wit- nesses for the defence. Thomas Thomas and David Evans gave evidence to the effect that prosecutor was the first to com- Hieijoe the row. Mr. W. Gething gave the prisooer a good character for peaceable nesg. Mr. Puilin replied, and his Lordship summed up, after which the jury fonnd a verdict of Guilty of un- lawfully wounding. Sentenced to four months' hard labonr. ROBBEUT AT ABEKDASE. Charles Wilkinson (28) was indicted for stealing a purse and four sovereigns, from the person of John Jones, on the 24th u:t. William Thomas (23), pud- iller, and Phoebe Taylor were indicted for feloniously receiving the same. Wilkinson anuTbotnas pleaded guilty Taylor pleaded not guilty. Mr. Ollivartt was counsel for the prosecution: Taylor was undefended. The prosecutor is a labourer, living at Q WEB dare. 11e was iij the company of Charlotte Wilkinson, at the Lamb, i,¡ A herd are, who robbed him of his purse and money. Thomas was there also, and iI" soon as ihe girl had robbed him, both ran off. Jones, gave iaforraa'ion to the policeman, and they chased the man and woman, who got away then. P.C. Llewellyn said he apprehended Wilkinson act! Thomas a short time after the robbery. P.S. Matthews «aid he suspected the prisoner Taylor h a 1 something to do with the robbery, and vy,) the 2Gth he went to her house and told her he suspected she bad revived part of the proceeds of the robbery. Taylor said she had not, and had riot seen either of the prisoners. He then said he must search her house, but first he would see what she had on her. In her pocket was a purse, eoataioing two sovereigns eleven shillings and sixpence. She said the two sovereigns were what her husband re: solved at the the weeks pay. When she got to the station she said, I'll tell you the truth, I did re- ceive a sovereign from Billo," meaning the prisoner WiUiain Thomas; on Tuesday nigh: he came into the house, and said where is PLcehc. I said here I am. He gave me a shilling and then a sovereign, and as he ran out lie. said take care uf rnv little boy." She added, "I was very foolish that I 'took the money, as I knew that he had stolen it, hut 1 could not say from whom. A* soon as I heard j that he was in custody I wanted to come down to give the money up, but the ledgers told me not to be foolish, but to keep it quiet." His Lordship summed up, and the jury found the prisoner guilty. Each prisoner to be kept to hard htbour twelve months. ANOTHER CLSE OF WOT;DTNCr. John Thomas was indicted for wounding John Bavies, at Caerphilly, with intent to do him some jrievious bodily harm. Mr. H. Allan was counsel tor the prosecution. On the 4th of October, the prosecutor and his brother were at the Sing's Arms, Caerphilly, when a quarrel took place between his brother and the prisoner. They left the house about eleven at night, and when they had got about three quarters of a mile on the road, the prisoner and his father overtook them. Prisoner's father said he was not to care far a man if be was as big as a mountain. (Laughter.) Prosecutor's brother was knocked down, and prosecutor went to him, the prisoner's lather at that, time beating him with a stick, and the prisoner kicking him. Prisoner then struck pro- secutor with a stone on the left temple, and the mark was there now. It was moonlight, and he was •spiite sure the prisoner struck him with the stone. The prisoner eros" examined the prosecutor at some length, and asked him if he was not running towards him when he fell, anJ prosecutor said no he was not. j Margaret Davies, wife of the prosecutor, was with her husband on the night in question, and she gave substantially the same account of the affair as her husband. P.O. Phillips detailed a statement male by the prisoner after he was in custody. The burden of it was that he struck the prosecutor and his brother because they had called his father bad names. Pri-oner said he was sorry for John; but'as for Daniel it served him right. Mr. Llewellyn, surgeon, Caerphilly, saw prose- cutor on the 5th of October, when be was in a very axhaysted state, from the ioss of blood. It was a lacerated wound. He attended him for two months. Mrs. Davies was recalled by the Judge. He asked her if Daniel Davies used any bad language to the prisoner's father, and she said one was as bad as the other. John Davies did Dot use bad language to prisoner's father. Prisoner made a statement to the jury and caled iiachel Morgan, who spoke of the provoking lan- guage which David Davies made use of in the King's Arms. T_T:T_1_1_=r- jury found a verdict of guilty. Sentenced to nine months' hard labour. The court rose a little before six. FRIDAY, MAECH IS. The court sat at half-past nine this morning. SENTENCES. Francesco Traverso and Pasquaile Pinchelle, convicted yesterday, were this morning sentenced by the learned Jndge. He said they had been convicted of tne serious ■offence of using those formidable knives which had been produced. He had been led to believe that the prisoners .Bi-ight have supposed they were being set upon by a differ- out class of persons to the prisoners, but that was no good season why such formidable weapons should be used, and i>reigners must understand that the laws of England^ would not allow such wespons to be used. Under the oircumstances he would not pass upon them the heaviest, sentence the law allowed. The sentence was that they aach be kept at hard labour for twelve months. The prisoners asked as a favour that they might be im. prisoned at Cardiff. His Lordship made inquiry, and said that might be icne. RECEIVING STOLEN PROPFETY. Abraham Potter, (on bail), marine store dealer, was indicted for feloniously receiving a brass tube the pro- perty of the Swansea Vale Railway Company, well-knowing it to h&ve been stolen. Mr. T. Allen was counsel for the prcseeudon, and Mr. Bowen for the defence. After the facts of the case had been str.ted by the learned c ounsel for the prosecution, the following evidence was given :— Uriifith Morris, in April 1861. was a labourer, in the employ of the Swansea Vale Railway Company. Recollec- Bed seeing a piece of brass tubing belonging to the company in February or March of that year. He stole that piece ■of tubing, and in January last he was committed to prison -For the offence. After stealing the brass he sold it to the prisoner. That was in the month of April 1861, and on a Saturday night, he believed. He met the prisiouer in Oxford-street, Swansea, and asked him if he would buy the piece of tubing and he said he had no objection. They then walked to the prisoners house. Prisoner offered 4d. tib. for it, and witness agreed to take it. Prisoner asked if any consequence was likely to follow, and witness said iie would ratner it was kept secret for a bit. Witness received 3s. Sd. or 4s. for it from the prisoner. Cross- examined: Had come here from gaol; was now undergo- ing imprisonment for stealing the brass. Did not know that prisoner appeared as a witness against him before the .magistrates, but heard him say something, and he was ordered to stand down as a prisoner. Henry Petrie was in the employ of the company as tibeir locomotive superintendent. In the early part of 1861 he missed a large tube. (The tubing, which was in pieces,'was identified by the witness and Morris.) Old tubing like this was readily sold at 6d. a lb. Cross-ex- amined The company had sold at cne time 105 lbs. of such tubing. It was very similar to all tubing belonging to tabular boilers. By the Judge: When old tubing is sold, I sell it, and not labourers in the company's employ. Sergeant Ball said he was looking for the witness Morris from the time of the robbery until December last, j on the 2nd of which he apprehended him. Next day he had a conversation with the prisoner Potter, at his lodg- ings, where the store was, at the back of a public house. Witness asked if he remembered buying a piece of tubing of a man, and selling it to Mr. Hill, and he said he did. He then asked him if he should know the tubing again, and the man of whom he bought. He said, yes; his name was Griffith Morris, and described where he had been working, observing that Morris was now employed on the railway. Potter saw the tubing,which he said was like the tubing he bought. He also sn,id he had sold a good deal of metal or tubing to Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill was not now living in Swansea, and he had not been able to find him. After Potter had given evidence before the magistrates against Morris, he toak Potter into custody. Next day he searched his loigings, where he found a book. When before the magistrates, Potter said the entries were in his book, and for this particular tub- ing he gave 4|d. a pound. William Tweedy, clerk to Mr. Rogers, brass and iron- founder, Swansea, gave evidence as to receiving the brass in question from Hill, marine store dealer, but he did not buy it, and he gave it up to Richard Lewis, a police- man. Richard Lewis followed up that evidence by connecting Morris and Potter with the possession of the brass. This was the case for the prosecution. "fr. Bowen said thp prisoner now looked to the jury for that justice which had beea denied him by the prose- cutors and the magistrates. He commented on the que-s- tionable evidence given by the principal witness, Griffith Morris, who Lad been convicted of stealing the brass. His Lordship, interrupting Mr. Bowen, said by the form of the indictment it was necessary to prove that Morris had been summarily convicted. The indictment did not state simply that Morris was found guilty, but that he was convicted before the magistrates in petty sessions. The record of the conviction, however, was forthcoming, and that answered the technicality of the indictment. Mr. Bowen resumed his address. The real question was whether the prisoner had acted in any wrongful man- ner when Morris brought the brass to the prisoner. Was it unreasonable that pr;soner should buy an article of that kind of a man like Morris, who he knew was working on the railway. It was suggested by the prosecution that the price given by the prisoner was inadequate. That was disposed of by the fact that middle-men dealt with the article, and that, they sold it to the brass founder for od per a fair price for prisoner to give Morris. Taking all the circumstances into account, there was no fact proved which was inconsistent with the innocent pur- chase of the brass, and therefore the prisoner was entitled to a verdict of acquittal. Tie learned Judge summoned up the facts, and the jnrv found the prisoner Guilty. His Lordship said this was a most serious offence, and one for which the prisoner must suffer eighteen months' bard labour. The following cause was disposed of at this stage of the business. BERRiy&TON V. DICKS. Verdict by consent for £ j0. Mr. Grove, Q.C., and Mr. Kvsns, for the plaintiff. Mr. Rees for the defendant. he facts, of course, did not transpire. WOUNUIXa BY FOKEIOJf SHA5IKX. George Geae and Charles Greman, both Greens, were charged with wounding Thomas Kelly, on the :*rd mst., at Cardiff. Mr. Williams was counsel for the prosecution Mr. H. Allen, at the request of the Judge, defended the prisoners. Thomas Kelly, an Irish seaman, who visited the port of Cardiff, was waiting down Bute-street, on the night. of the 3rd ir.st., when the prisoners passed dawn, and Greman said, What are you saying, you English son of ?. b Witness asked him what he was saying, and Greman struck hiM. Witness struck Greman, and then Gene struck him a blow on the side of the head. They knocked him down, and struck him again and again, using the same epithet as at first. During the scuffle, the witness was stabbed on the arm. There were sl:s.tee1.1 foreigners in the row. When they were going away, Greman said "I have stabbed the English son of a b- Elizabeth Hutcnings, of Frederica-stt eet, was in Bute- street at the time of this disturbance, and her account of the transaction was substvntially the same as that given by Kelly. She saw Greman draw a knife or dagger from a esse, fsnd he stabbed Kelly. A young seaman, whose name we could not est eh, said he was in the prosecutor's company on the night in ques- tion, and identified Greman as one of the aggressors. Marv Ann Jones, an "unfortunate," corroborated the former witnesses. Frank Smith, a native of Smyrna, a Greek, but a Tur- kish subject, gave his evidence in very good English. He said, Kelly asked him what he was laugning ar, ? Kelly replied by striking the Greek. Five or six then felt, unOn Kelly, and Greman drew a knife and struck Kellv with it. He was quite sure Greman used the knife. P.C. Hornblow apprehended Greman, but there was no kiiife found unon him. He denied having strucic Kelly. Mr. Mead, assistant to Dr. Paine, examined Kelly, who had a punctured wound on the left fore arm. It was not a dangerous wound, Sergeant Price apprehended Gene, who said be knew nothing at all about it. He found a large sheath knife upon him. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. Allen addressed the jury for the defence, pointing out the contradictions in the ease as unreliable testimony on which to convict the prisoners. His Lordship said the case was one of difficulties, and if the jury could not reconcile them in such a way as to satisfy themselves that the prisoners were the perpetrators of this outrage, although they might regret th&t the prose cuter was wounded, it would be their duty to acquit the prisoners. Not guilty. His Lordship said it was the safest verdict. He cau- tioned the prisoners against the use of the knife. THE PONTYPRIDD WATER WORKS COMPANY. A true bill was found at these assizes against this com- pany for causing a nuisance, but it will not be tried until next assizes, we believe, as the defendants were not aware of the proceedings. Of the nature of the allegations which the bill contains we are not aware. We presume it is an attempt on the part of the new company to extinguish the old. PEIUUIiY AT NEATH. David Evans on bail), batter dea13i", was iT dieted for committing wilful and corrupt perjury at the Neath County Court, OH the '22nd November last. Mr.'Giffard and Mr. Hughes for the prosecution: Mr. Grove, Q.C., a»u Mr.Bowen were counsel for the defence. Tee circumstances of this case were somewhat peculiar. The prisoner, as a butter dealer, carried on a large busi- ness. and had his goods conveyed 011 the South Wales line. Some time ago he entered into a special contract with the company, in which it was agreed that empties should be carried by the company at a. low rate, the pri- soner taking the risk of loss upon himself. Some empties were lost, and the prisoner brought an action in the county court to recover the value of those empties. In the course, 1J'f' the printed documents were put in bearing the signature of the prisoner, when the prisoner swore distinctly that the words on the document in question were not his signature. Hence this prosecution, which the le-u-ned judge of the county court had thought desirable should be instituted. T3»e learned counsel in stating the facts said he presumed the defence set up that as nrisoner 6:,1. Dot knõw English language but in answer to that he would prove that the prisoner conducted his own case before the court and never asked for an interpreter. Mr. Isaac Morgan, the registrar of the county court, produced the original plaint note in the case of David Evans v. the Great, Western Railway Company. It wes to recover 14s. for the loss of empty butter casks. He also produced a certified copy of the claim. The prisoner lives at Carmarthen. The case was heard on the 22nd November last, and prisoner appealed in support of his own case. Mr. Tripp appeared on the part of the com- pany. Prisoner stated his case in English, and tendered himself as a witness in support of his own case. He WR5 sworn, in English, and stated that he had sent butter casks from Neath to Carmarthen but he had not received them. Mr. Tripp cross examined him, and asked him if the signature, "David Evans" was in his handwriting, and he said they were not. He was asked the Question several times, by Mr. Tripp and the Judge, and his answers were the the same. The Judge then asked hirn to sign his name, and he did so. The Judge gave the paper to the witness to keep. The Judge cautioned the prisoner several times. The case was adjourned, and on the day when the adjourned case was to come on the prisoner withdrew the plaint, The prisoner app- red to have no difficulty in understanding English. Cross (eX- ainined: Prisoner can speak English much better than Welsh peasants. The question was put in various ways, and prisoner said" I did not sign it," That is not my handwriting," and No." Prisoner was swurn the first thing, as is the usual practice. Did not take par- ticular notice of the case until the Judge called his atten- tion to the signature. The judge of the county court was very sharp and quick in hearing the cases. The judge did not o.u this occasion speak sharp to the defendant. There was no necessity for it. Mr. Tripp, in p u-g t if* ques- tion, Is this your wriring—I mean the atme as the bottom. Prisoner compluined4that his a were lost through the company's negligence. A few after the court day, prisoner came to witness and saw ne did not understand what took place on the court day, and he withdrew the plaint. He said he thought they asked him if those papers were a settlement of the ;¡¡ai.er, The a word settlement was frequently applied by the Welsh to a receipt. Re-examined The prisoner during the pro- ceedings never expressed a desire to be ex,minecl ÎL. Welsh. An interpreter is always present in court. Mr. Tripp, attorney, said lie appeared at the county court as advocate for the company. Plaintiff stated that he sent two different lots ofbutter casks, part of which were ¡ lost. He asked the prisoner some questions, and put the documents into his hands, .which bore his signatures, and he said they were not his signatures. Yes, I never signed them," was one of the answers given by the pri- I soner. Witness put the question again in a still more I pointed way, and again he said he had not signed them. The Judge then asked for the papers, and repeated the I question three or four times, and prisoner made the same answer. The Jndge desired him to write his name, which he did. Prisoner appeared to readily understand what was said to him. The Judge told him that if it should hereafter be proved that the writing was his, he would direct proceedings to be taken. Prisoner did not ask for an interpreter, and he had no difficulty in ex- pressing himself in English. Cross-examined: He spoke English as well as Welshmen keeping shops in Swansea. Ebenezer Wiliiams, clerk to Mr. Tyler, Neath, an agent to the Great Western, proved that the prisoner brought some butter tubs to be forwarded to Carmarthen, and prisoner signed the usual documents, those which contained the signatures now in dispute. The prisoner spoke in English. Since the 10th of April last he had seen the prisoner weekly at the station. Neither ftsd difficulty in understanding each other. David Morgan, porter at the Neath station, received empties, and he filled up a printed document, which prisoner signed. Sometimes he spoke to prisoner in Welsh, but mostly in English. William Gilbert, goods clerk at Neath, deposed to the prisoner speaking in English quite intelligibly. Edwin Holly, clerk at Carmarthen, had repeatedly seen the prisoner write, and believed the signatures on the documents produced were the prisoner's Thomas Welsh, station master at Neath, had known the prisener for the last eighteen months, and had no difficulty in understanding him in English. I do not understand Welsh. Cross-examined When I spoke to the prisoner he at once said he had signed the declara- tion notes, and said that he understood that they were the papers which had come from Carmarthen. This being the case foe the prosecution, Mr. Grove raised several objections to the warding of the indictment, contending that it was the South Wales 'Railway and not the Great Western Company who should .;ave been the prosecutors. In point of law there was no such company in existence as the Great Western -at least such had !lot been legally proved as required in ail criminal cases. Mr. Giffard said such was unnecessary, but by the per- mission of the court called Mr, Martin Langdon, police superintendent in the em- ploy of the Great Western Railway Company. His jurisdiction extended over the whole of the South Wales division, from Grange Court to Milford, and this divi- sion included Neath and Carmarthen. Cross-examined by Mr. Grove: Received his appoint- ment twenty-one years ago. The late chairman, Mr. Russell, gave him his appointment. His appointment is not in writing. The South Wales line from Chepstow to Swansea was opened in 1850-thirteer. years ago. He acted under instructions from the Board. When he first received instructions the South Wales Board did not exist. His Lordship said he would reserve his opinion upon the point raised by Mr. Grove. Mr. Grove then made all able and ingenious defence on behalf of the prisoner. He admitted the prisoner had signed the documents, but he contended that the docu- ments had heen signed in mistake—he in fact having signed the receipts" which he, in his ignorance, believed were "declaration notes;" and in proof of his innocence, the prisoner, immediately upon finding bis error, aban- doned his claim, and got the company to give notice to the various witnesses that it was possible he had been mistaken in what lie had first said. Several witnesses were then called, who gave the pri. soner an unexceptional character for truthfulness and general good conduct. His Lordship, in summing up, went very minutely through the evidence in this case, and the jury consulted for a few a minutes, when they returned a verdict of Not Guihv." This finished the criminal business, GRONOW V. EVANS. This was an action of ejectment, in which Mr. GifFard appeared for the plaintiff, the Rev. T. Gronow. There was no appearance on the other side. Verdict for the plaintiff. DAVID V. PROSSER. Mr. Grove and Mr. Hughes appeared for the plaintiff, who brought an action on an award, and to recover < £ 3.38. The action was undefended, and the plaintiff got a ver- dict without calling evidence, beyond the mere praof of the award. THOMAS Y. STuBBS AND 01-HERS. This was also an action of ejectment. The action was undefended. Mr. Hughes appeared for the plaintiff. Verdict for the plaintiff. The court rose at half-past five. SATURDAY, MARCH U. The cuurt was opened at ten o'clock this morning. THOMAS AND WIFE V. TOJlNEY AND WIFE.—SLANDKR DISPUTE ABOUT A HEN. Mr. Giffard and Mr. Hughes were counsel for the plaintiffs Mr. Grove, Q.C., was counsel fur the de- fendants. This was an action for defamation of character. Plain- tiff and defendant are beerhouse keepers at Ystalyfera, and lived almost next door to each other. The defendant had accused the plaintiff of stealing one of his hens, and by way of aggravation the defendant had said that if the accusation were not true, why did the plaintiff not punish him for saying so. Under such circumstances, the learned counsel for the plaintiff said what was the plaintiff to do ? The. plaintiff took a very p-oper course by writing a letter to the defendant, before bringing the action, and although it might be said on the other side that this was a trumpery case, it was not for person; like the defendant to lightly defame his neighbour's character. The defendant had simply pleaded not guilty. John Lewis, farmer, Cwmtawe, said he knew the plaintiff, who is a tavern keeper and farmer; James Towney, the defendant, keeps n tavern—both living at Ystalyfera. In March, 1862, was in dendant's house, and saw Mrs. Towney. Had a conversation about a hen. She asked witness if he had heard about the lien, and he said he had not heard. She said David Thomas (plaintiff) had stolen their ben, and Thomas shot her. He said why did they not get a policemen to take the hen back. She said, Why don't they punish us, be- cause we say they have stolen it." She said she had lost, many hens before, and likely enough they were taking them. Cross-examined: There was only Mrs. Turn. ney and himself in the room when the above conversa- tion took place. Was quite sure that she did not sav they lwd soid the hen, and had not stolen it. She first said they had sold it to the plaintiff, and then that the plaintiff had stolen it. Witness had told his uncle that what Mrs Tourney said was as good as that plaintiff had stolen it, but he said there was a plea about selling it. Did drink two or three glasses at Tomney's when the csnvers.ation took place, and there was a distinction talked about between stealing and selling, but in his opinion there was not much difference. Re-examined: It was last Saturday that the plea about selling was talked about. Mrs. Tomney knew that witness was to appear at the assizes in this case. By his Lordship: He did not think the worse of the plaintiff for the accusa- tion. and stili went to his house occasionally. P.S. Passmore stationed at Ystalyfera, said he remem- bered being called into Tomney's house on the 8th Feb- ruary, 1862. They said they had had a hen stolen, and sold by the plaintiff to Thomas Davies, of Sorter; if they did not get the hen back they should proceed against David Thomas. They requested witness to take the hen away, but he said he could not do that without L legal proceedings. Called on the plaintiff, and ascer- tained from them that they claimed the hen as their own. Cross-examined When he called upon the plaintiff, he told them the defendant claimed the hen as theirs, and they said they would return it if they would swear it was theirs. Defendant did not mention an action in the county court, but they said they would take proceedings. His Lordship It would be a good thing if the hen a -a?- —>•> pc w < J David Jones, shoemaker, at Ystalyfera, had heard Mrs. Tomney speak about her hen several times-she said David Thomas had stolen her hen. Took a letter from the to the defendant about this dispute. Mrs. Tourney read the letter and laughed. She. laughed (he supposed) because the letter asked them to withdraw the imputation, and she said They steal my hen and are selling it." Cross-examined All the parties seemed to be in the same position as before. Thomas Da vis was the best off, having got the hen, (Laughter.) Taking and seiling were not the same in Welsh. Mrs. Thomas claimed the hen as her own. David Thomas, the plaintiff, who keeps the Railway Tavern, said since Feb 1862 his business had decreased very much. Cross-examined During ihit.time some part of the trade bad been slack, but others bad been good. There had been now lowering of wages since the Ameri- can war began. Some correspondence was put in and the plaintiff's case was closed by Mr. GifFard making a speech. Mr. Grove, in defence, said from the solemn manner in which Mr. Giffard had spoken of calumnious cases, he had no doubt there was a work in the press on "Moral Philosophy," by Mr. Harding Giffard, barrister-at-law. Nevertheless, did they ever hear such a trumperv case arising out of a dispute between two women respecting a hen. This was not a case for the purpose of getting damages, but costs and if this case prevailed, at. the next as.-izes there would be an abundant crop of actions for slancer arising out of quarrels between women. Whether rightly or wrongly Mrs. l'omney still declared that the hen was hers, and that the plaintiffs had taken the hen, but she had never said they had stolen it. The letter written by the plaintiff, which was written just after the dispute arose, evidently treated this matter in a very different way to what the evidence would have the jury believe was the true state of the case. Plaintiff said in the letter that it was ''what he called defamation of character," not that the defendants had-actually charged I'' the plaintiffs with stealing the her. His (the defendant's) case was, that there was no such charge made, and he (the learned counsel) submitted that there was nothing in the evidence proved to warrant the jury in giving plaintiffs damages for such a trumpery affair. His Lordship, in summing up, said the jury must as reasuciable men say what was the real effect of those ex- pressions imputed to the defendants. Words of mere abuse were not actionable. The question was whether the words used were calculated to convey an imputation of felony, or whether thty were merely words of abuse such as persons would use in the heat of passion. They would look at the subject matter of this action and say whether the words were spoken so as to impute the felony t of stealing the hen. If every idle, and every absurd and angry word which one woman might say of another, or one man in the same trade might say of another, were to be made the subject of actions for slander, human life would not be long enough to try them and therefore juries generally were careful to ascertain the real nature of these cases, so as to prevent improper actions being brought for the mere purpose of putting costs into some people's pockets. If they were of opinion that the words alleged to have been used by the defendant were uttered with the intention of imputing a felony, they must give a verdict for the plaintiffs, and such damages as they thought proper; but if on the other hand they did not believe there was such an imputation, their verdict must be for the defendants. The jury, after a few minutes' consultation, found a verdict for the plaintiffs, damages one farthing, and each party to pay their own costs. (Laughter ) His Lordship The law will settle the question of costs. One of the jury then got up and said they were not agreed. His Lordship: You must agree upon your verdict. The jury again turned round in the box to consult, and in a few minutes they said verdict for the plaintiffs, damages one farthing. His Lordship said the law regulated the question of costs—in damages of this kind each party would have to pay his own cost.. JONES V. JACOBS.—A REFERENCE. In this case there was a verdict for the plaintiff, by consent, subject to a reference. Mr. Giffard fur the plaintiff, and Mr. Grove for the defendant. WATKINS AND OTHERS V. MORGAN,-ALLEGED FOBGERY OF A MORTGAGE DEED. Mr. Grove, Q.C and Mr. Bowen were counsel for the plaintiffs Mr. Giffard and Mr. Hughes for the defendant. Mr. Bowen opened the pleadings. The action was brought to recover £700 principal, and interest thereon. The .defendant alleged that the deed was not his, and thereupon issue was joined. Mr. Grove stated the case. He said he appeared for the plaintiffs in this action, which was brought to recover the principal and interest upon a mortgage deed; but the jury would hardly understand the nature of this case unless he told them what was the defence which would be set up. He understood that the defence would be that the mortgage deed was not executed by the defendant, Mr. John Morgan. That in other words it was a forgery by some other person. His case was that the mortgage deed was a genuine instrument. From what he had learnt no imputation would be made upon the plaintiffs; but he had very little doubt the defence would be that a soli- citor of the name of Langley was the person who had forged the deed, On the other hand, he (Mr. Grove) would submit to the jury that the deed which would be put in was a genuine instrument; that it was executed bv the defendant M.organ, who could in an indifferent! manner write his name; and that possibly he was de- frauded by his solicitor, who had gone away. The de- fendant now endeavoured to-repudiate his own deed; but he thought the circumstances would satisfy the jury that the plaintiffs' statement of the case was the correct one, and unless his friend could account for a great number of facts which would be brought before them io evidence in favour of the plaintiffs, it would be perfectly clear that the defendant did execute this instrument If the defendant's version were the true one, some of the plaintiff's must be taken by the jury to have com- mitted perjury. The plaintiffs would depose to conversa- tions with the defendant, who knew perfectly well that the deed was a genuine instrument, and not a forgery by some other person. Probably the defendant had been tempted to repudiate the deed in order to save himself some loss which he had incurred. The facts were these. The mortgage for £ 700, and the usual interest there- upon, was granted by the defendant to the plaintiffs under the following circumstances. Tiie,plaintiffs were trustees under the will of the husband of one of the trustees, Mrs. Elizabeth Watkins, of Merthyr. These trustees heard from Mr. Archer Langley, of the firm of Messrs. J. H. and R. F. Langley—one of whom had got into great difficulties and had absconded, and the other had become a bankrupt—respecting a property at Cadoxton. One of the plaintiffs, Mr. Williams, made inquiries about the property,and went to Mr. A. Langley, whose office was in Cardiff, and said he wished to see the property, and as- certain if there was sufficient security. He went to Cadoxton and saw the propeity, but he did not see the defendant. It was a very important matter in consider- ing whether ultimately Mr, Langley forged the defend- ant's signature to the mortgage deed, that they should remember Mr. Langley did not try to keep this affuir from the defendant, for he actually sent. Mr. Williams to see the property, on which the defendant lives. If Mr. Langley had intended a fraud, he would not have sent the parties to the property on which the defendant resides. The imputation against Mr. Archer Langiey, who ultimately went away, was that be was the person who concocted this business and if that had been so, he might be presumed :o wish to keep the matter to himself. He had the draft of the deed in his possession, and it was in three different 1 handwritings. Hewortldprovethataportionwasinthe handwriting of Mr. Archer Langley, another portion in the handwriting of Mr. Robert Francis Langley, and a third portion in the handwriting of a clerk of the name of Gordon, who was now dead. That fact was entirely inconsistent with the allegation that the deed was a forgery by Mr. Archer Langley. It he had intended to commit a fraud, he would have kept this mortgage entirely away from the defendant Morgan. The money paid by the plaintiffs was deposited in the West of Eng hind Hank at Cardiff, and was payable by cheque to Messrs. Langlt-y, after the execution of the mortgage deed, whick was attested by Mr. Archer Langley. The interest was received by the plaintiffs, up to and including the 8th of Jan., 1861. So far, of course, that would not help his case, and be did not know it would help his friend's case. However, after the payment of the last interest in January 1861, Mr. Archer Langley was written to for the payment of interest, which had been allowed to get into atrear, and in answer he said thedefendant would in future pay the interest. Here again he could not help observing* that it was clearly Mr. Langlty's interest to keep the matter as much as possible from the defendant, ,1[_ li-' and yet he actually took steps by which the plaintiff illrs. Wathins ind the defendant would be sure t» meet. Mrs. Watkins first of all wrote to the defendant, and k. oftei wards they met at the Globe Inn, Cardiff, in October 1801. The defendant then himself paid her a half-year's interest due on the 8th July, 1861, She gave him a re- ceipt for the half-year's interest, the terms of which showed clearly that the defendant had paid £17 10s., being the amount of interest on £ 700 for half a year. During that interview the mortgage formed the principal topic of conversation, and the defendant never in any way disputed the existence of such a mortgage. The sum was mentioned, and the defendant stated that -the plaintiffs' security was a capital one, and that a Mrs. Edward Morgan had offered him j £ 700 for the house and field alone. Another half-year's interst came due on the 8th of January, arid the plaintiff then wrote three letters to the defendant, and on the 12th of January she received this answer-"Dear Madam, I received your letter. You sav you sent me two before. This is the first for me. Leave the interest till May next. My rents are coming due then, and I shall be very much obliged to you." On the 17th June another ktter passed between the parties, and the defendant premised to remit the in- terest in a few days, and never disputed the deed. He should prove that the plainiffs paid the £ 700, and that Mr. Archer Langley obtained that money, probably as a son of security for his costs. On the 18th July 1862, the plaintiffs received a notice from Mr. B. Matthews, solicitor to the Dorcas Society, stating that the trustees of that society held a prior morgan eon defendant's property for £ 500, and calling upon them to deliver up within forty-eight hours the several deeds and papers relating to such property, or legal proceedings would be commenced for the recovery of the same. Plaintiffs immediately sent to the defendant, and the defendant said something about the mortgage to the Dorcas Society having been paid off, and told the plaint ffs not to deliver up the papers. He never denied the plaintiffs claim. During the whole of tne iraii5ae,;„t>n ~k Mr. Watkins and Mr. Williams, defendant never said one word about this not being a regular mortgage deed. But now he came before the court to say he never signed that deed, he having paid interest upon it, and having discussed the matter with Mrs. Watkins and Mr. Wiliiams, without one word dis- puting or denying the Aleed; but just at the time—almost coincidently-that Mr. Archer Langley left the country, lie then for the first time assumed that the deed wasjnot genuine. The defendant curiously enough called with his attorney to inspect the title deeds of the pro- perty, and even then he did not say the signature was not genuine, but seemed to be in some degree of doubt, and said it was like his signature. He never said a word at that time about its being a forgery, but now he was to come forward and positively SAV that he never knew au\thing about this mortgage deed, and that the signature was not iris. It appeared to him (Mr. Grove ) that these facts Were unanswerable. He had no doubt some ingenious explanation would be offered bv his learned friend, but he did not beiieve that any of the facts would be satisfactorily set aside. Why was the defendant coming here to deny his own signature? The probable reason was, he had lost a sum of money by the absconding of Mr. Archer Langley. lie knew he was perfectly safe in denying his own signature, as nobody knew where Mr. Archer Langley was, and therefore he could net be called to contradict the defendant. A person like Mr. Langley having gone away under circumstances of a serious nature, being very largely in debt, no doubt the defendant would think he might safely impute to him forgery. He (the learned counsel) said that imputation was untrue, 11 it were true, his clients must have come here inten- tionally to peijure themselves. It was a serious issue for the jury to try. Was the defendant guilty of peijury in saying the deed was not genuine or were the two plaintiffs whom he should call guilty of peijury. He 1m. derstood that one part of the defence was, the defendant supposed the Dorcas Society mortgage had bee;: trans- ferred to the plaintiffs. That v/as totally inconsistent with the conversations between the plaintiffs and de- fendant, and the amount of the interest which the de- fendant paid to Mrs. Watkins. All were entirely inconsistent with the transfer of the Dorcas Society's mortgage to the plaintiffs. He would prove that the signatures to the deed in question were in the defen- dants handwriting. He would put in bills of exchange winch had passed through the bank, signed by him, and prove unquestionably that they were the same handwriting as that on the deed. The jury would fairly compare the handwriting, and would observe that the signatares on the bills and the deed were not exact copies, but that they had all the characteristics of the defendant's handwriting. That being the case, he apprehended that unless the de- fendant was prepared to controvert all these matters, the plaintiffs would be entitled to a verdict. He regretted they had such an issue to try, but it was one peculiar to courts of justice, and it was for the jury to express their 1 opinion upon it. It would not be pretended that the plaintiffs had done anything wrong in the matter, and their testimony would be supported by the broad facts of of the case. Was it in the least degree probable that Mr. Archer Langley would have acted as he did if he had in- tended to forge the defendant's name ? Was it not the most probable solution, that having lost money by Mr. Langley's conduct, the defendant would try to repudiate his signature ? The following witnesses were examined in support of the plaintiffs' case. Mr. Thomas Williams, of Merthyr. I am attorney for the plaintiffs in this case. I produce a deed. I know the handwriting of Mr. A. Langley. The attestation is in his handwriting. I do not know where he is. I have frequently inquired for him. In October last Mr. Dalton and the defendant called upon me to see the deed, and they took extracts from it. I asked defendant if it was his signature to the deed, and he hesitated and asked what the deed was about, and then said it looks like it. Mr. John Bird acted for the defendant, I believe, before Mr. Dalton. Cross-exanunei A bill was filed in chancery. and I have seen the defendant's answer. I had no knowledge of defendant's answer before this action was commenced, but I knew what that answer was before coming here to trial. Defendant did not deny his signature at the inter- view in Merthyr. I am familiar with Archer Langley's handwriting. I believe he is one of the firm, and used to act as a member of the firm. I was not aware of anv dis- tinction between Mr. Archer Langley and Mr. Robert Francis Langley. The latter is not out of the way. He is not here. I saw him yesterday. He was quite well and able to travel, as far as I could observe I have observed the signatures of A. Langley and Jihn Morgan. There are no persons of skill here to speak of those signatures. Mr. A. Langley's father, I believe, was once a member of the firm, and the firm was in high reputation, I believe. The mortgage deed was put in. It recited previous in- dentures, but did not make any mention of the Dorcas Sociey. In consideration of the sum of £ 700 John Mor- gan mortgaged certain premises and land to Mrs. Wat- kins and her trustees, and engaged to pay five per cent. per annum interest. It was the usual mortgage deed with the power of sale. Mr. Thomas Williams, one of the plaintiffs in this action, said I remember having a communication from Messrs. Langley in Dec. 1858. It was addressed to Mrs. W"itkint>, and signed by J. H. and ft. F. Langley. (It proposed a mortgage at Sve per cent.) I inquired the name of the gentleman and the property proposed to be mortgaged, and it was arranged that I should go and see the property. In consequence of that letter I went to Cardiff, and an agent went with me. I think Mr. Langley sent the man with me. The defendant was occupying the property at the time, but I did not see him. I re- turned to Cardiff and saw Mr. Archer Langley, and gave him instructions to prepare a mortgage deed. It was ar- ranged that the deed should be ready on the 8th of Jan., 1859. On the 7th of Jan. I caused J6700 to be sent from the West of England Bank in Merthyr to the braneh of that bank at Cardiff. I went to the Cardiff branch on the 8th, and from there to Mr. A. Langley's office. He told me the deed was not ready, and we arranged when it should be ready, 1 also asked him when the interest should be due, and who would pay it, and he said they would see the interest paid. 1 then went to the bank, and signed a cheque for ze700 in favor of Messrs. Langley. Soon after this I received the mortgage and title deeds. On the 8th July, 1859,1 applied to Messrs. Langley for the first half year's interest, and they paid Z- 17 10s. They con- tinued paying until Jan. 8, iSGL Application was made on the Sth of July, 1851, and I received a letter in reply, stating that John Morgan would in future pay the ill- terest. After that Mrs. Watkins received the interest herself. On July 18, 1862, I was served with a notice signed by Mr. B. Matthews, solicitor, Cardiff. (It was in reference to a deed made over by John Morgan to the trustees of the Dorcas Society, for the sum of £ 609 and interest thereon and he required the papers, &c. to be delivered up to him as agent for the trustees.) On the receipt of that notice I went to Cadoxton to see the defendant, and told him I had received this notice. He told me he had also received notice, and requested me not to give up the deeds to them on any account He either said they were paid off, or thought they were paid off. On the 1:2th of August, 1863, I again saw the defendant at Cadoxton, and served him with a notice to pay the money due to lUrs, Watkins. He said the deed was not signed by him, and that he had not received any money from us. I said ha had been paying the interest upon the money —he could not possibly deny that. The 12th August was the first time he deliied the signature. He said he paid the interest for Mr. Langley. I believe Archer Langley was in Cardiff on the 12th August. I knew no- thing of his affairs at that time. After receiving notice from Mr. Matthews I heard a talk about Langley being in difficulties. I remember defendant coming up to Merthyr with Mr. John Bird, on the 24th June, 1862. They were examining the deeds, and Mr. Birdsaid, "You have excellent security for your money." Cross-ex- amined: I never saw Mr. Robert Langley at all, nor had any communication with him on the subject of this mortgage. All the letters purported to be signed in the name of the firm, and were written by Mr. Langley. I never heard anything said about any other forgeries; but I heard that they had over-speculated in building, and got into difficulties. I never heard they had misap- propriated their clients' deeds. My son is the attorney in this c-se. Re-examined: I have seen the other, but always did business with Archer, _Mrs. Elizabeth Watkins, widow of Mr. Walter Wat- always did business with Archer, Mrs. Elizabeth Watkins, widow of Mr. Walter Wat- kins, of Merthyr, said, I am trustee under his will, and Mr. Williams is another. By that will I had some money which Mr. Williams invested with Mr. Langley. The whole of the title deeds were given to me when the mortgage was completed. Mr. Langley paid the in- terest in the first instance, and afterwards Mr. Morgan (defendant) paid it. I wrote two letters to defendant, and got no answer, but to the third letter I received an answer. I had an interview with him at Cardiff, and he paid me X17 lOs., a half-year's interest, due July 8, 1861. He asked me what I bad to depend upon, and I said the interest in the trust money which my husband left me. He said I had more deeds than were required to secure ,£700, and that Mr?. Edward Morgan, my neighbour, had offered £700 on the house and garden that he lived in. He said he knew the money came from Mtrthyr, but he wished to see the parties from whom it came. He asked me if I would have any objection ito take the interest quarterly, as that would suit h m better, he receiving his rents quarterly. I have not re- ceived the interest since May last. When Mr. Bird and Mr. Morgan were in Merthyr, I asked for the interest, and Mr, Morgan said he would come up in a few days and pay it. There was nearly twelve months' interest due then. Mr. Bird examined the deeds, and he told me I- had ample security for my money. Defendant was present, but he did not say anything. On the 6th August last I wrote to defendant asking him to say what day he would come up to pay the interest. He did not come, and I never saw him again. He never disputed my claim in any way. Cross-examined It was the 2nd October, 1861, when defendant said I had too many deeds. That was the first time I had seen him to talk on the subject. He never said at any time that he had only A-oO on the prisoner's property. I never said Mr. Lang- ley was too much of a gentleman to do anything wrong by the mortgage. I never heard him say that Mr. Lang- ley said my mortgage was a transfer of the mortgage to the Dorcas Society. Three or four deeds were on the table when Mr. Bird was up at Merthyr. I can point out the deeds which were produced. When I saw the defendant at Cardiff the sum mortgaged was not men- tioned When I saw him at Lantwit he did not say any- thing about £ 500. Mr. John P. Morgan, cashier of the West of England Bank, Cardiff, said I remember a sum of £ 700 advised to Mr. Williams on the 8th January, 1859. It was paid out on the 10th January. It was made out to J. H. and it, F. Langley or order, and endorsed by them in Archer Lang- ley's handwriting. I know the defendant. I have seen him at the bank two or three times, but I cannot fix a date. I have a recollection of paying him a sum of money. I have an impression it was rather a large sum. It does not appear so long as five or six years ago. I can't say that I have seen him with Mr. Archer Langley, but I think he has been there inquiring for Mr. Langiey. I can't say when it was. Mr. Langley used to make appointments with parties at the bank at two o'clock in the day, and persons used to call and ask for him. I have seen the defendant write. The signature to the mortgage deed I beiieve to be his, but it is rather better than his usual signature. Assuming the defendant had assets at the bank, I believe I should cash a cheque with that signa- ture. Cross-examined We have nothing in the books to show to whom the cheque was paid. I believe I paid it, and in notes. I can't say it was as long ago as 1857 that I paid the defendant a large sum of money. I think I may safely say it was not so long ago as 1357. We had large transactions with Mr. Archer Langley. I am cer- tain of having seen defendant write his name once, two or three years ago. 1 have seen his signature ones or twice since. His signature was remarkable one, and that made me notice it. When I saw him write was when we discounted a bill of his. I have seen some bills with his signature this week, and it is by these I have com- pared his signature. Mr. John Stephenson Bennett, cashier at the National Provincial Bank at Cardiff, said, I have seen defendant at our bank frequently, in bill transactions. I know his signature. The bilis produced have been discounted at our bank. One is endorsed John Morgan. I believe them all to be endorsed or signed by the defendant, John Morgan. I believe the signature on the mortgage deed to be in his handwriting. Cross-examined I have seen him write frequently. The attestation, "A. Langley," appears to have been written in different ink to the other signature, but I should think that the two signatures of A. Langley were written at the same time. I think Mor- gan's signatures were written at the same time. The court, rose at four o'clock. MONDAY.—MAECH 16. The court was opened at eleven o'clock, and the case of Watkins and others v. Morgan was proceeded with. One of the jurymen, Mr. Evan Williams, was absent, when the learned Judge took his seat. It was stated that he had been suddenly taken ill, and the learned counsel con- sented to the case going on with eleven jurymen. Miles Spickett deposed I live at Cadoxton, I am a farmer. I live next door to the defendant, I have known him for the last 40 years. I have seen him write. I be- lieve the signature on the mortgage now produced to be in the handwriting of the defendant. I believe the signa- tures on the four notes are also those of the defendant. Cross-examined I first saw the deed just handed me the d week before last. I saw it at my residence at Cadoxton. Mr. Williams brought it to me. Mr. Morgan generally signed his name with a tremulous hand. Before the four B efo e bills had been put into my hand this day, I do not think I had previously seen them. There was evidently a little shaking of the hand in the signing of the bills. I think there is a little trace of the trembling of the hand in the signature on the deed. I think I have occasionally seen the defendant write in so bold a hand. I cannot say whether the defendant generally wrote with a tremulous shake of the hand. He-examined Looking through the glass which you have lent me I see a trembling in the whole of the signatures. I do not see any appearance of patching" or "prÜnting" in the signatures. They appear to have been written with a trembling hand. Having carefully examined the signatures through the lens 1 believe them to be the signatures of Morgan the defen- dant. Mr. David Vokes sworn: I was lately the cashier at the Messrs. Langley's. I always understood that Mr. Archer Langiey was the principal; he attended to the business of the office. lVIr. John Gordon, a law stationer who resided a few doors off, did the law stationery for the office. Mr. Gordon is now dead. I should not like to swear to the signature of the defendant. The. signature attached to the deed is that of Mr. Archer Langley. The draft of the deed is written in four different hand writings—part that of Mr. Archer Langely, part that of Mr. Hubert Francis Langley, part by Mr. Gordon, and a part in the hand- writing of a clerk, either Mr. Clare or Mr. Webb. The draft is prepared in the ordinary way in which such docu- ments are prepared in their office. Gross-examined: I have no reason to suppose that either Mr. Clare or Mr. Webb is dead. I always understood that Mr. Robert Francis Langley and Mr. Archer Langley were partners. I myself have a claim against the Messrs. Langley on the part of my father for £;)00 and threatened criminal pro- ceedings unless it was paid. I don't believe the profits of the business were equally divided. 1 am not in a position to answer the question whether the division was equal. I was connected witl) the county court department. I believe that some of the profits derived from that were handed over to Mr. Archer Langley, and part of the con- veyancing profits, I believe, were handed over to Mr. Francis Langley. I (WI not aware that there was any other clerk except Mr. Clare, after Mr. Gordon was dis- charged. He left six or seven months ago. I think he was there about two years. I have not seen him sine e last July. He is now at Mr. Fellowes's office at Rick- mansworth. near London. This closed the plaintiffs' case. Mr. Giffard, in his address to the jury for the de- fendants, said his friend was very anxious to close his case. What further proceedings might go on against Mr. Robert Francis Langley it was not very material to hisr (Mr. Giffard) to know, but that he was within reach he should be able to show, for he was seen in Swansea that morning. They could easily understand why Mr. R. F. Langley did not wish to appear. It was quite enough for him to show that Mr. Robert Francis Langley was within reach, and as to Mr. Archer Langley, he would take very good care not to be caned. The case which he (Mr. Giffird) had to lay before them was a very short and a very simple one. It would have been better if his learned friend Mr. Grove had in candour stated the defendant's case, because his learnfd friend knew what it was two months ago, On the 29th January a bill was filed in chancery, and the attorney for the plain- tiffs knew perfectly well what the defendant's answer was but his learned friend ingeniously put before the jury the case for the plaintiffs, and left him to explain the case for the defendant, although he affected to know what defendant's case was. The defendant's case was that he never signed the ded at all. That was the start- ing point. He might mention at once that the mode in which the defendant accounted for the various state- ments made on the other side was tolerably simple. It was this. In 1817, he mortgaged some property which he possessed to an association called the Dorcas Society, of which the deceased Mr. Langley was not only the attorney but one of the trustees. Upon that property £ 500 was advanced. From 1847 to 1Slit the defendant had gone on paying the interest upon the £500 to Messrs. Langley. He believed there would be no doubt that down to the very moment of the explosion, when it was discovered that Mr. Archer Langley had defrauded everybody, the interest had been paid to the Dorcas So- ciety, and therefore at the time when it was suggested the two interests were paid, the other must have been paid by Mr. Archer Langley to conceal the fraud. This led at once to the inquiry, when Mrs. Watkins wrote the letter to the defendant, why he did not repudiate the transaction? The explanation was a tolerably simple one. At that time Mr. Archer Langley was in high credit. Everybody supposed that Mr. Robert Francis Langley and Mr. Archer Langley were partners, and it appeared now that they were partners. The defendant Morgan went to his attorney, Mr. Archer Langley, to ask an expianation of Mrs. Watkins's letter, whereupon Mr. Langley stated- Mr. Grove rose to object to any statement being made of what passed between the defendant and Mr. Archer Langley. Mr. Giffard said he should certainly press for the ad- mission of that conversation. His Lordship. I'll receive it if you press it. I am rather inclined to think it may be admissable. I will take a note of the objection when the evidence is offered. Mr. Giffard was very glad there had been this inter- locutary discussion, because the jury might .well suppose there would be a great injustice done if the defendant was not allowed to state why he p tid the interest to Mrs. Watkins. He had told them that the Jiad mortgaged his property for £500 to the Dorcas Society. That mortgage was in existence then, and was in exist- ence up to this moment, and for that £500 he was liable to the Dorcas Society. Upon receiving Mrs. Watkins's letter he went to Mr. Archer Langley, and said to him there was a mistake in the amount due on the mortgage. Mr. Langley said the reason why Mrs. Watkins applied to him was tbis-the Dorcas Society wanted the money, and he had transferred the mortgage to Mrs. Watkins, and in future he would have to pay the interest to her. But then, said the defendant, how came the half-year's in- terest to be f:17 10s. ? Oh, said Mr. Archer Langley, there was more than half a year's interest due upon the mortgage. As a matter of fact Mr. Archer Langley was rip-ht; there was an arrear of interest due; there was 617 os. 6.1. due; so that within 3s. 6d. the amount was the same. No doubt there would be great difficulty in dealing with the case, if they did not take into considera- tion the class of life and degree of edueation possessed by the defendant. He ought not to have taken the re- ceipt from Mrs. Watkins without inquiring. At the same time, it must be remembered he had consulted his own attorney, Mr. Archer Langley, when he got the letter from Mrs. Watkins, who did not know much more about it than the defendant himself, and that attorney gave an explanation which satisfied him. The defendant told Mrs. Watkins that she was mistaken, and that the only thing she had got was an assignment of the mortgage from the Dorcas Society. Unfortunately the defendant believed his own attorney, and paid the half-year's in- terest; but ultimately no more interest was paid, and until the great explosion took place, whereby it was dis- covered that Mr. Archer Langley had cheated everybody, the defendant was in doubt what was the state of affairs. Now let them consider for one moment what the facts were. They were of that class of evidence which went no further than a likeness in the handwriting. That appeared to him very immaterial when a jury were dis- cussing the question of forgery. The object of forgery was to render the signature like the signature of the original. Mr. Archer Langley had the signa- tures of the defendant in his possession, any one of which he might have imitated, and he had im- itated it with sufficient skill to render it like the defendant's handwriting. There was this distinction which he thought they might expect to find in a person who was forging—that it was written in a firmer and bolder manner than the original. He would call wit- nesses who would say that the signatures in question were written in a bolder and firmer hand, such as might be expected in a person forging. Now what were the facts ? If his client came forward as he had done in answer to the bill in chancery, what was there to convict him of perjury ? Why the character of the handwriting would go for nothing. Then what remained ? The de- fendantwould be put into the witness box,and his learned friend would cross-examine him, but he would nst be able to establish anything against him. What his learned friend asked the jury to do was to convict the defendant of fraud and the grossest conspiracy with Mr. Archer Langley, and of purjury in denying that this was his writing. No doubt Mrs. Watkins insisted upon her view, and the defendant insisted upon his view but Mr. Morgan distinctly told her that the only deed in existence was a transfer from the Dorcas Society. It might be the parties were in conflict there. It only showed the danger of relying on that sort of inferencet the defendant saying nothing. Mr. Bird, a highly respectable attorney, and now the worshipful the Mayor of Cardiff, advised the defendant to say nothing. The parties were in litigation then, and it was very proper advice to tell the defend- ant to hold his tongue. Mr. Dalton would also be called, and he would tell them that the defendant denied the handwriting. He had said it was part of his ease that the defendant could be no party to the guilt of this fraud, and endeavouring to deny his handwriting and so escape the payment of the money to the plaintiffs, unless he was in conspiracy with Mr. Archer Langley and he would tell them wliv. That very property was mortgaged to, the Dorcas Society. That mortgage deed was in the possession of Messrs. Langley. They were receiving the interest and paying it to the Dorcas Society. No one could know better that the defendant could not re-mort- gage that property to Mrs. Watkins without paying off the amount to the Dorcas Society. There was no allusion to the Dorcas Society. Mr. Archer Langley expressly excluded any notice of it. They must start, therefore, with this fact, that Mr. Archer Langley was clearlv com- mitting a fraud with the Dorcas Society. He could not' mortgage the thing twice over. Having got £ '500 from the Dorcas Society, and that claim being still in force, Mr. Archer Langley committed the grossest fraud in the world by concealing from Mrs. Watkins on the one hand and the Dorcas Society on the other that he was dealing with a property the title deeds of which he held for the mortgage to the Dorcas Society. That being so, it was impossible for his friend to deny the assertion of the de- fendant that he had no part in the second deed. Why should the defendant be made a party to that fraud ? If Mr. Archer Langley, being in extremes, and knowing that desperate remedies were applied in desperate cases, -if he wanted to raise money, why should he make the defendant a party to it ? He would diminish the pro- ceeds which would be required by himself, and thus pre- vent to some extent the accomplishment of the object he