Monmouthshire Merlin

r> COURT OF CHANCERY. o ,f AN INDIAN CHIEF AND HIS INTEKPP.ETER." a t^ie court was fixed for Friday, to hear the i- eC) Lake v. Currie." The novelty of a full court usually r w a crowd, and conspicuous among the strangers who p fyi way towards the bar, was the gentleman so well ir ,ej.ab°ut town as Captain Acherley. The captain has for y tc1/116 ta^en under his protection a chief of one of the na- r< » *hes of Canada and its dependencies, who has found his tj.l0 this country, to ask redress of some real or L<» injui'ies sustained by his tribe from the English it j 'ties, The Indian, on the present occasion, was adorned emblem of peace, for he bore aloft one of the trun- af L5 °f a police-constable, and appeared to be satisfied that f badge of no common authority. When their lordships o„ fca 11 Acherley, seizing the truncheon from the hand of [ft exclaimed, I appear before your lordship, the /-hancellor, as the interpreter of this Indian chief who be lled a petition to the crown on the 15th day of Julv, nt fet^0r<^ Chancellor Who are you ? sq ie Acheiley: The interpreter of the Indian chief. ss- ^ta'Qr^ Chancellor: Then you will hold your tongue. it. I) iltl Acherley .• We appear to present a petition. t; .?rd Chancellor: You have heard what I said. Officers, »lf ir .^» man. of Acherley: You will have to answer for this else- do ^Lord Chancellor' Officers, remove this man. ^in Acherley, extending towards them the constable's gh *cl»imed I am a constable as well as they are. I have en appointed. lid ,(.Cord Chancellor impatiently waved his hand. The offi- >e. Veying, seized the petitioner, et» \,Captain, then quietly catching at some papers he had laid oo table said, Wait a moment, don't hurry me." The a Juries, however, would not wait a moment, and the cap- ilo appearance of resistance, was carried kicking &t it "6 court, the savage following his more warlike inter- ✓eactfably iu the rear.

CROWN COURT. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE WILLIAMS. The following cases concluded the business of the assizes; at? the termination of which, the learned Judges proceeded to Gloucester, where the calendar was a much lighter one than tiiat of this coun'y. TREDEGAR—CHARGK OF EMBEZZLEMENT. John Seaton, 22, was charged with embezzlement from his employer, Mr W.Wilson, draper, Myoyddyshvyo.-The prisoner was a traveller in the employ of the prosecutor but in conse- quence of irregularities he had been discharged. He had subse- quently removed to Scotland, and the prosecutor having dis- covered the accoun s incorrect and irregular, he was apprehended on a charge of embezzlement. Several witnesses were called, who deposed to the fact that they had made payments to the prisoner; but no satisfactory charge of embezzlement being made out, the prisoner was acquitted.—The prisoner was then indicted for stealing several dresses, with the care and custody and sale of which he was entrusted. He was, however, ae. quitted en the charge. MONMOUTH—INFLICTING BODILY HARM. Thomas Evans, 28, was charged wiih having, on the 28th day of July, 1S52, at the borough of Monmouth, unlawfully and maliciously inflicted grievous bodily harm upon James Knight. -The prisoner pleaded guilty, and was recommended to mercy by the prosecutor, who was his brother.io.Jaw.-His Lordship said his only doubt and difficulty was, whether he ought cot to order au indictment to be preferred for a more serious charge.- F-veive calendar months' hard labour, TREVETHIN-BOOT STEALING, Eiiza Neat, 34, was charged with having, on the 3rd day of July, 1853, at the parish of Trevethin, feloniously stolen two pairs of boots, the property of Samuel Vol.—Mr Huddlestone prosecuted.—Elizibeth Vox, the wife of the prosecutor, by mis. take left a pair of boots in the shop of a Mr Havard, at Ponty- pool, whither she had gone to make some purchases. The prisoner was proved to have sold boots to a Mr Long, a shoe- maker, at Abersychan, and the boots were identified by the orosecutor's wife. The prisoner was obly defended by Mr Smythies, who suggested that the prisoner might, consistently with an honest intent on of restoring ihe articles, have taken them from the shop. The prisoner vas found guilty, and a pre- vious conviction was proved against her.—His Lordship said, if the for.ner conviction had been for an offence of a severe character, the prisoner would have received a very severe punish. ment. He hoped, however, that the prisoner may hereafter be induced to lead a decent and honest life.—Sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. LLAN VIHANGEL-PONTYMOILE — BOOT STEALING. Henry Howells, 34, was charged with having, on the 6^h day of July, 1852, at the parish of Llanvihangel Pootymoile, felo. niously stolen one pair of boots, the property of Walter Lewis. — Mr Skinner prosecuted.—The prosecutor left a bundle at the turnpike at Pontymoile, out of which he stated a pair of boots was taken. The prisoner was seen near the turnpike, and was afterwards found with the boots in his possession but Mr. Scot- land, who defended the prisoner, represented on his behalf that the account which he gave of his having found the boots, was perfectly consistent with the probabilities of the case, and the same view being taken by the jury, the prisoner was acquitted. NEWPORT-ROBBERY AT THE RAILWAY STATION. John Henry Edwards, 27, and George Franklin, 24, were charged with having,on the 15ihof July, 1852, at the borough of Newport, feloniously stolen from the person (,f Rachael Evans, one five pound note and other moneys, the property of Daniel Hugh Evans.-Mr Vaughan prosecuted.—The prisoners, who had frequently been steu in and about the stations on the South Wales Railway, were watched by the Police-Superinteodem Martin Langdon, andclearly detected in stealing the money from the person of the prosecutrix at the Newport station. They had about them return tickets from Cardiff to Newport. Mr Smy- thies defended the prisoners. A previous conviction was proved agairssl tho prisoner Edwards, who was sentenced to ten years' tfaDSportaiion Franklin was sentenced to twelve months' im- prisonment. NEWPORT — BURGLARY AND SHOP ROBBERY. Edward Williams, 16, John Williams, 14, and Thomas Da- vies, 20, were charged with having, on the 24 h of June, 1852, at the borough of Newport, feloniously and burglariously broken and entered the dwelling-house of Divid Evans, and stolen therein three silver watches, and other articles, hi: property.— Mr Milman prosecuted. Edward Williams pleaded guilty,- Mary Ann fltdney, niece to Mrs Ev«ns, who keeps a shop in Commsicial-road, Newport, said, on Wednesday, the 23id of June, she shut up the house, and Mr Evans, Mr and Mrs Scott lived iu the house, and they went to Led also. She came down stairs at four o'clock in the morning, and found the shutter down, and a pane of glass broken.— Mary Evans, the wife of the prosecutor, proved that she missed the articles from the shop. Her shop was a dressmaker's and jeweiier's. Among 0 her things she missed a pencil-case and a comb. — Mr Robert Snarpe, workman for Mr Frost, proved that John Williams brought a pencil-case into the shop for sale. He knew the pencil-case, and asked him where he got it. He said he found it opposite Mill-street pump. Witness pretended to weigh it Hid gave the wink to a person in the shop to fetch a policeman. 1 nomas Davies was looking in at the window.—O Jier witnesses proved that the prisoners were seen together.—The prisoners were found guilty of receiving the articles, knowing them to have been sloleu.— Edward Williams was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment and the other two were sentenced to -ix months' imprisonment. William Collard, 24, cha ged with having, on the 12lh of February last, ot the parish of Abergavenny, feloniously stolen one pair of boots, the properly of William Syn,onds. P.eaded guilty. A previous conviction was proved.—Twelve months' impiisonment. NEWPORT — CilAPGE OF ROBBERY AND VIOLENCE. Ann Yarwood, 20, Catherine Rees, 20, and Ann Wyer, 32, were charged with having, on the 8 h of May,1852, at the borough of Newport, feloniously aod violently assaulted Simuel Jcncs, and stolen from his person four shillings, the property of the said Simut! Jones. Mr Skinner prosecuted, and Mr Scotland defended the pri. soner Yarwood. Samuel Jonesexamined I am a labourer residing at Newport. On Saturday, the 8th of May, at a quarter past one, I was going home, down the canal side towards Graoville-street. I had had something to drink. I passed a plaee called Batchelor's crane. When near there I met the three prisoners, whom I had known before They were in company. They asked me for some beer. I think it was Yarwood spoke but I am not sure. I said I had no beer to give them. I received a blow on the back of the head which knocked me down, and they laid hold of me and lifltd my pockets. Wyer had hold of my hair. Rees had hold of my jacket. Yarwood had her hand in my pocket. I had 4s there. I last saw the money when I came out of Bob Watkins's, where I had been having some beer. After this I went after them to their house. I asktd them to give me my money back. My fob was turned inside out. My jacket was ripped. When I got to the house they asked me to have a glass ol beer, and said I must think myself well off with that. I think it was Yarwood said this. I went to the station house when I could not get my money back. Cross-examined I had been drinking beer. I had been drinking at the Rodney Arms. I cannot remember what houses I went to altogether. I went lo the Rodney Arms at three and left at ten, when I went to the Crown aud Anchor. I went to Bob Watkins's afterwards, where I sent for a half-a-gallon of beer. I went out and Wyer followed, and wanted me to go along with her. I was not going direct home. I was rambling about, perhaps to get some more beer. I could not walk straight. I have been to Friars-fields. A lot of girls live there. I lived at Friar's-fields about ten years ago. There was somebody there who told me that the sooner I cut the better. Lloyd "brought down the three women, and asked me if I knew that they were the women. I have been in trouble myself for picking up a little lump of coal j I wa» punished for it. 1 was drunk then.—P.C. Lioyd proved having apprehended the prisoners Rees and Wyer. Reel said she had not seen the prosecutor she had been in bed all the evening. Rees afterwaids said "Oh, yes, I did see him in the corner when I fetched a quart of beer, and he came in and had part of it." Prosecutor knew what he was about. Cross- examined Prosecutor came to me in the station house, about half-past ooe or two o clock. He appealed to have been drink- ing. There were other women in the house.-P.C. William Gould apprehended Yarwood. She used a bad word and said it was Sim Jones's doing." He had said nothing about Jones before that. Jones was not in the house.—Mr Scotland made an able and ingenious defence for Yarwood. Wyer said the prosecutor kept company with her, and that on the day in ques- tion he was too drunk to be aware what he was doing. She never called him worse than Sam Joaes," or Sam Jones the fisherman, in her life.-The prisoners were acquitted. BEDWELTY—SAVAGE ASSAULT. Isaac Morgan, Hopton Miller, David Thomas, Morgan Jones, and Joseph Roberts were charged with having, on the 17th day of May, at the parish of Bedwelty, unlawfully and maliciously cut and wounded Evan Jenkins, with intent lo maim and to do him other grievous bodily harm. Mr Smythies prosecuted, and Mr Skinner defended the pri- soners. The prosecutor wag an agent for Thomas Prothero, Esq., coal proprietor; and on the 17th of May was at the Ivy Bush, Bed- welty, drinking in the bsck parlour. The prisoners were in the front parlour, also drinking. In the course of the evening, the prosecutor had occasion to pass through the room in which the prisoners were. One of them asked him to drink, when he said he had been having brandy and water; but he would pay for some beer for them. He did pay for half a gallon of beer; and after he had gone out, David Thomas was heard to say, "D- hnto, (8 nick-name for Evan, such as Dick for Richard, and Jack for John,) he ought to have it." They were then seen to converse together, and afterwards left the room one by one. An attack was afterwards made upon the prosecutor, who sustained very serious and severe injuries. He was beaten and bruised his eye was kicked out; and he was otherwise seriously injured. A table was thrown on his head, and he was beaten with a poker and a stick. The motive for the attack was assumed to be the dismissal of Morgan Jones, from the employment of the prosecu- tor but it was shown that the dismitsal took place 15 or 18 months previously, and that they parted in peace. Several wit- nesses were examined on both sides, aod gave a widely different account of the transaction, the witnesses for the prisoners saying that the row was commenced by the prosecutor, who was con- sidered a practised bruiser," and who acknowledged that he occasionally "took his own part." An alibi was proved for Roberts, and he was acquitted. The other prisoners were con- victed of an assault, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm, and were sentenced to seven years' transportation. MONMOUTH—CHARGES OF VIOLATION. James Price, 24, was charged with having, on the 19:h day of June, 1852, at the borough of Monmouth, violated the person of Ann Brad, a child under ten years of age and further charged with a similar offence upon the persons of Maria Jones and Eliza Brad, children under ten years of age. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr Barrett prcsecuted, and Mr Smythies defended, the pri- soner. The prisoner was tried on the charge of the attack upon Ann Brad. The details of the evidence are wholly unfit for publica- tion. The child gave a very clear statement of the conduct of the prisoner. Dr. Price proved the nature of the injuries sile had received. The prisoner received a good character for decency, honesty,and general good conduct, from the Rev. E. F. Arney, the vicar of Monmouth; Mr T. Prosser, surgeon j Mr W. James, parish clerk and Mr James Biss, merchant. The Rev. Mr Arney spoke of the constancy and regularity of his attend- ance to his religious duties, and said he had remarked his con- duct from a disposition which he had evinced, and the great anxiety he had manifested, to obtain employment or occupation which was compatible with the infirm condition of his body and both himself and his curate were prepared to recommend him when an opportunity occurred. His Lordship, in summing up the case, said, the charge was a most important one as it affected the public. It was so heinous a crime that the law considered that a chi d of so tender an age could not consent to such an attack, and that her consent was no excuse or palliation for the offence, the law considering that one so your.g could not set a proper value on female chastity and most rightly so, because children could not be expected to understand the nature of the attack made upon them. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to 20 years' trans porta ioo, his Lordship rerr.arking that the charac- ler given him by the clergyman and others only showed .r.r- he ¡ was acting hypocritically, while he was demoralizing and corrupt- ing 60 young a child. I LAN WEN A RTH —FELONIOUS ASSAULT. Thomas Hennessey,23, was char-jed with having, on the 31st day of July, 1852, at the parish of LWo,A€0*r<h, assaulted one Emma Winstone, with intent, &c.—Mr M'Mahon prosecuted. —The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. A man named Thomas Harris was charged with attempting to rescue Hennessey, and being convicted of the offence, was sen- tenced to two months' imprisonment. MONMOUTH—GROSS CASE. Thomas Watk'M, 18, was charged with having, on the 21st day of June, 1852, at the borough of Monmouth, violently as. saulted and il.treaied Agnes Holder. Mr Barrett prosecuted, and Mr Skinner defended, the pri- soner. The detai's of this case were very offensive, and quite unfit for publication. Tlu s'ory of the young woman was that Wat. kins had thrust a pencil into ha person and tLe gurgsoo proved that he had taken it from i er. She gave t he surgeon and others different accounts of the transaction, some of which the learned Judge characterized as being "the most preposerous tôLs ever told to the jjreatest simpleton in the world." The jury acquitted Watkms, much to the gratification of a crowded court. The prisoner being very respectably connected, number, of persons had assembled 10 hear the case. On the jury announcing their verdicr, His Lordship said 1 quite agree with you, gentlemen. In all my experience I never remember but one such charge, aDd that I believe to have been quite as unfounded as tnis. Mr Skinner I am much obliged to your lordship for the ob- servation. The charge has been a great family sffliction, hich your lordship's remark will, no doubt, in a great measure, alleviate. His Lordship I don't believe one word of the story. James Shrive*, 26, William Thomson. 24, and Daniel John- son, 22, were charged with having, oo the 5th day of Juiy, 1852, at the parish of Grosmont, feloniously assauked William Clements, while in the execution of his duty as constable, and resrued a prisoner from his custody. Shrives was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, andThom- son and Johosoa to 15 mouths' imprisonment BILL IGNORED. The grand jary ignored the bill against Greenwood Barker, 30, charged with having, on the 14:h of May, 18-52, at the par- ish of Chriatcl.urcii, violated the person of Mpry Evins, a child of the age of 12 years. NISI FRIUS. KEYSE, CORN MERCHANT, V. POWELL, COLLIERY PROPRIETOR. SPECIAL JURY CASE. [The interest which this action bas excited, and its importance, induce us to give a more extended report than, from the late- ness of the hour at which it closed, we were enabled to do in our last publication.] SPECIAL JURY. Mr. James Brown, Jack's Pill, St. Wcollos, merchant. Henry Vennor, Fr ognioor-street Waid, Abergavenny, E = q. John Tyltr, Monk-street, Monmouth, Esq. Mr. Charles Smith, Commercial-sireet, Newport, merchant. Mr. George Hairy, L'.ansaintfred, Hamlet of Uwchlawicoed, banker. Richard Seamark, Mount St. Albans, Clnis'churcb, Esq. Christopher Davies, Mill-street Ward, Abergavenny, Esq. John Lswis, Tydee house, Rojerstot e, E-q. Mr. Thomas Swift, Monk-street, Monmouth, merchant. Mr. Samuel Wd.kioi, Wye bridge, Monmouth, merchant. Two common jurors were added. Declaration in Trespass-for entering two closes of the plaintiff, within the milnor of Abercarn, called G waia Cynlavv. nan and Gwain Vacli, and taking coal therefrom. First plea-A denial of the tresp ss. Second—That the closes ia question were not the propeny of plaintiff. Third-Setling out a title in the defendant, by virtue of a lease granted by Edmund Lewis, father-in-law of plaintiff, in March, 1821, to Messrs. Branthwaite and Prothero, through whom the defendant claimed and justifying the defendant's entry, under an assignment of such lease made to him by Mr. James Morrison. To this thud plea, plaintiff replied the statute of limitations, viz: that Ihe lease was made after the passing of the statute 3 d and 4th William 4th, cap. 47 and that no entry had been made thereunder for the space of twenty years, whereby the right which the defendant otherwise might have had, had become extinguished by operation of law. Mr. Whateley, Q.C., Mr. Keating, Q,C., and Mr John Gray, were counsel lor plaintiff, with Mr George Blakey, of Newport, solicitor; and Mr Alexander, Q C., and Sir Thomas Phillips, were counsel for defendant, with Messrs. Prothero and Fox, solicilors. Mr Gray opened the proceedings. Mr Whateley, Q.C., stated the case. After detailing to the jury the previous proceedings in ihe action, which, he said, had been pending since Juoe, 1849, the learned counsel explained the result of the trial of the cause at the last March assizts, and stated that the Court of Queen's Bench had sent it down again for trial. He then shortly referred to the lease granted to Messrs Branthwaite and Prothero by the father of Airs Keyse, ("Mr Ed mund Lewis), and said, the jury would no doubt hear much from the learned gentlemen representing the defendant, of the great haidship of the present action and would, no doubt, be told that a sum of £500 had been paid for the coal now sought to be recovered. But he (the learned counsel) would submit to the jury (subject, of course, to correction by the Court) that with this they could not have nothing whatever to do. Mr KeyM, the plaintiff, had reasons for the course he had adopted and was legally entitled to institute the present proceedings. The duty now devolving on the jury, however, was simple and cloar-namely, to determine the rights of the parties according to the evidence brought before them; and this, the learned counsel was sure they would perform, without allowing their minds to be biassed or influenced by considerations apart from the merits of the case. He should be able to show them, by evidence of a most incontrovertible character, that the entry alleged to have been made by the defendant, on the last trial, had never been made and as most of the other points in the case were points of law, for the consideration of the Court, the questions for the jury would simply be—Had the trespass been committed by the defendant; and what was the value of the coal he had taken 1 Should. however, the defendant again attempt to prove the entry in 1830, by way of avoiding the statute of limii&tions, he should have another opportunity of addressing them. Mr Keating, Q.C., called and examined witnesses. Mr Thomas Morley Williams proved tbe trespall, and proved that 7120 tons of coal had been taken, from June, 1847, to June, 1849, when the action was commenced. Mr Keyse, the plaintiff, proved bis possession of the Twyn College Farm, during the period of the trespass. A great number of witnesses were then called, in anticipation of the case to be set up by the defendant; and for the purpose of negativing the entry alleged to have been made from the Cwm Dws Colliery, in the year 1830. Mr David Jones, of Dowlaie Iron Works, produced the working plans of the Cwm Dws Colliery, made by the late Mr John Bevan, of Tredegar, dated 1832. 1 Mr Anthony Davies and Mr William Harrhy Harrison, th mineral surveyors aod engineers, were then examined as to the state of the works in Cwm D*s Colliery, at the period of the alleged entry and according to their evidence, it was quite im- practicable to work coal from the plaintiffs land, Irorn any heading then in use at Cwm Dws. The former witness gave evidence as to a survey made by him in 1835 6, when the works had not proceeded within 160 yards of plaintiff s property. Henry Williams, Thomas Lewis, David Davies, John Aurelius, Morgan Lewis, Edward Morgan, and other colliers, working in Cwm Dws ievel, were then called on the part of the plaintiff; and 1111 swore there was but one deep heading in the collitry at the period refetrcd to, and that they had only pro. ceeded in it from about 25 to 30 yards, when they were "drowned out" by the water, and were newer able to resume their work. It appeared, also, from their evidence, that the vein of coal towards the plainuff's ifeld, dipped vc-ry considerably, nearly four inches to the yard; and most of the witnesses fe-.ive it as their opinion, that the heading had never approach-.ci to within 150 to 180 yards of the Gwam Cynlawnan. Mr William Lleiveliin was called to prove that application had been made to him, as steward of Sir Benjamin Hall, the lord of the manor, to work the coal under the plaint ff s farm. This application was made by the defendant, Mr. Powell, in the year 1845, and the first royally rent, received by the lord, was in 1842. Mr Thomas Latch, of Newpor', proved the value of :he coal to be 6;. a ton in 1S47, and from 5s 61 to 4s per too down to IS49 aui also ga.e evidence as to tile cost of winning coal, and the shipping price at Newport. This closed the plaintiff's Mr Alexander, Q.C., submitted variou? points of law for the consideration of his lordship; contending, first, that the pos- session of the minerals had not been shown to be in the plaintiff. The propositions he should submit were, that the rule of law re- quiring entry on the part of a lessee to perfect his title, did not apply to a case of mines: that the lease of Match, 1S21, would operate under the statute of uses, and was sufficient of itself to "estpotsstsion in the lessees, particularly as the plaintiff had never worked the mines, or hud any possession of them, adverse to the defendant's title aDd that possession of the surface was not necessarily potse-sion of the mioetals thereunder. The learned counsel also said he should show that Mr Branthwaite, one of the lessees of the mines, was in possession of the surface under a lease from Mr Edmund Lewis, dated in 1848, for four- teen years and therefore, on the execution of the lease of March, 1821, he should conteod that the possession of suiface and mines became united in the lessees; and that possession having once passed from the plaintiff, and noth'ug having been afterwards done by him to a'ter it, he (plaintiff) had no suffi- cient possession of the minerals, to entitlehim to maintain the present action. His Lordship esquired if the joints of law adverted to by the learned counsel, had not been brought before the Court of Queen's Beach, on the moiion for a new trial. Mr. Alexander replied in the affirmative, and said the Court had given no opinion thereon. His Lordship said the Court of Q leen's Bench must have had a strong opinion with regard to those fomts, or would not have consented to the incurring of the very serious costs of the present tiial, which would have been a useless expense, if the defendant's counsel were correct in the leilal proposition he had laid down. The Court of Queen's Bench haviog sent the case down to him io try on the merits, th= trial must proceed and in case ihe verdici should be against the defendant, leave should be given him to go to the Court above, where the law of the case could be fully argued. Mr. Alexander bowed to the ruling of his lordship, and pre- ceedtd to address the iury. He said the case for the plaintiff had not been rigilily stated -that Mr. Keyse had said he claimed the surface in right of his wife; but he (the learned counsel) would tell the jury that Mr. Powell, the defendant—who was too experienced in matters pert.-lining to the coal trade, to do an unwise thing-wab the rightful owner of the minerals below that surface, and had come into possession thereof legally, Aod he (the learned counsel) could not but express his conviction, that should a verdict be given for the plaintiff, a more unrighteous judgment would never have been deliveted. The fact was, £ 500 was paid by Mr. Branthwaite, to the then possessor of the land, for the mineral property in question, which had coire legally into the possession of Mr. Powell, the defendant; and notwithstanding defendant had pu'ch ised thispioperty, and had incurred not only the first cost, but aiso the expense and trouble of working it, aod bringing the coal to the surface, Mr. Keyse, the plaintiff, wished Mr. Powell now to pay again (or h:s pur- chase—to pay the full amount of the value of the coalso worked, though he himself had not gone to ooe farthing expense in woiking it. [dr. Keyse also, by an attempt to piove that the colliery had not been worked for 20 years, hoped to gain, what otherwise, in justice or right, he had no claim to. But he (the learned counsel) would contend that the statute could not ughtiy be pleaded and would also call evidence to prove that in the year 1830, an entry had actually been mode in the land, ani a too ol coal tbken from one of the fields. The learned counsel also went through the evidence given on the part of the plaintiff and contended that sevesal of the witnesses wete mistaken and that the evidence he should lay before them, he felt satu-fud, would eoti lo him to their verdict. Sir Thornrs Phillips put in the deeds set out in the third p'ea, tracing the tiiie from the lease of March, 1821, down to the defendant, Mr. Powell. A number of witnesses were then called, to prove that in the year 1830, a ton of coal was worked from under Gwain Cyn- lawnan. The witnesses spoke of a second deep heading at Cwm Dws Colliery, in addition to the one spoken of by the plaintiff's witness, and from their evidence, it appeared that this second heading, like the first, was II drcwDld out" by the water just as a single tram of coal had been worked. One of the witneses, David Davies, stated that he had dialled both on the surface and underground, a few days before, and found he was immediately adjoining the plaintiff's !and, and that he had only just time to take a single tram of coal, when the rush of water wrs so great is to prevent any further a'iempt to proceed wiih the heading in that direction. Some evidence was also eiven as to the posses- sion of the surface of the Twyn College Farm, at the time the lease of the mines was granted to Rieasrs. Branthwaile and Prothero. in 1821. Mr. Whateley replied-first commenting on interruptions he had received from Mr. Alexander, who locked at him, and sLarled at him, so as to make him shudder—(laughter)—though he (Mr. Whaleley) was sure he had not a warmer friend on earth than Mr. Alexander. The learned counsel pioceeded foicibly to address the jury, contending that upun the evidence given, be wasclearly entitled to a verdict; and in the course of his speech, making some severe remarks on the evidence given on the part nf ths defendant, which, he said, should be regarded with great suspicion. Not a single word had been said on the first trial, about there being a second deep heading but now that he had proved, beyond a possibility of doubt, that the heading first spoken of, had never approached the plaintiff's land, the defend- ant had attempted to shift his ground, and said there was some other heading in another part of the colliery, from which he had worked the plaintiff's coal. The learned counsel rirli.rl the idea of the witness David Davies being able to dial with suffi- cient accuracy to enable him to swear to a single tram of coal- the point from which it wassaid to be taken, being tlireequarler's of a mile from the mouth of the level. He was glad to under- stand that there were gentlemen upon the jury, possessing practical knowledge of mining operations and with the greatest confidence, he left the case of his client in their hands. The learned Judge summed up very minutely and clearly, first staling the nature of the case, stripped of all the legal difficulties and obscurity which its lepeUtion in a variety of ways, had thrown around it; and then reviewing the evidence offered both on the part of the plainiiff and the defendant. His lordship then pointed out to the jury, that should they find for the plaintiff, i their calculations should be upon this basis :-lst, the amount of coal worked. 2nd, the value of the coal when cut in the mice, but not including the expense of conveyance to the pit's mouth. 3rd, the value of the coal as a galeage only. As there was some difference of opinion as to the law of the case, it would be left for the Court above to decide which price the defendant would have to pay. The jury retired and consulted about half an hour, when they found the following verdict:—We find for the plaintiff, for 5800 tons, at 3s. per ton and galeage, 6,1. per too. The cause occupied the Court upwards of thirteen hours; and there were nearly twenty witnesses subpeeaed on each side. The business of the assize concluded at half-past six o'clock on Thursday evening.

GLOUCESTERSHIRE ASSIZES. GLOUCESTER, AUG. 6-—The Commission of Assize was opened here at a late hour last oighl, the Learned Judges not haviog I arrived from Monmouth until seven o'clock in the evening. Their Lordships attended divine service at the Cathedral this morning, and (he courts were opened at twelve o'clock. There were sixty-two pr doners entered in the calendar, one case of murder, one of highway robbery, six of burglary, two of perjury. two of arson, and one a charge of returning from transportation, Among the cases was one of some interest, in which a miller was charged with setting fire to his own premises. There were upwards of thirty witnesses to be examined in this case. Among the city cases was one in which the late Sheriff of Gloucester, who absconded to America last yesr, and was brought back to this city, was charged with several forgeries. The cause list contained siiteen entries, of which two were special juries. One of these was an aciion of libel brought by a Cheltenham attorney against the proprietor of the Cheltenham Examiner. Sir Cresswell Cresswell disposed of six causes before the tising of the Court at six o'clock this evening, but none of them (with the exception of the subjoined case from Birmingham) involved any point of interest. In the course of the day, Sir C. Cresswell complained loudly of the lodgings provided for her Majesty ,judges-ik source of continual complaint by the Judges of Assize. The only accom- modation provided for her Majesty's repiesentatives, is a small suite of rooms up a passage in Westgate-street. An application being made to fix a cause for nine o'clock next morning, his lordship said that haviog taken lodgings at Cheltenham, be could not take hit scat on the bench until half-past nine. He observed that, notwithstanding the complaints that had been made, and the promises of the authorities to provide better accommodation for the judges, no improvement had been made, and, as the re- presentative of her Majesty, he considered that he ought not to continue to occupy the lodging provided in Gloucester. His Lordship also complained of the difficulty 0' hearing the evidence of the witnesses, and Mr Alexander observed that there had, uniil lately, been a sounding-board erected in the court, which haJ been found of some service; but it seemed to him that be- cause it answered its purpose,it had been removed. His Lordship intimated that the removal of the board was no improvement, although he thought that in most matters in Gloucester, any ei- teration must be an improvement. MASTERS f. JOHNSON. Mr Whately, Q.C., and Mr Phipscn, tor the plaintiff and Mr Keating, Q.C., and Mr Gray, for the dtfeodaot. This was an action brought by a cotumtreial traveller against his employer, for a balance of Salary and expenses. The defend- ant was until lately a Manchester and Scotch v. arc-houseman, in Dale-end, Birmingham, snd in June, IS51, the plaintiff having previously been a mastei iu business, euUrrti into thedefecdant's service as traveller, to travel every alitrcae fori night, at a salary of < £ 450 a year, including keep of horse and travelling expenses. This engagement commence J on J une 24, but iu a short time was altered, the plaintiff undc-rUkir.g io travel throughout the year in the counties of Warwick, Stafforl, Worcester, Oxford, and Gloucester, and he was to receive £ 1 a week extra, for the extra tune he was out. This engagement continued in force until April in the present year, the plaintiff rendering weekly accounts 01 his transactions, nod deducting from his receipts weekly hi. expenses. On the 17th of Aprii last, a firt took place on the defendant's premises, which were burnt down, and the books destroyed. The plaintif fremained in the defendant's employ for another week, and the balance of salary which he now sought to recover was ;L145. Mr Blakeley deposed to a conversion with the defendant, « ho offered him (Blakeley) £ 350 a year as traveller, stating at the same time, he was paying Masters i_450 ayear. Soon after the be the defendant con.poundtd with his creditors, paying them 13s in the pound. I'he defendant's casa was a denial cf any such contract fo' £ 450 a year, and an allegation that 'lit plaintiff had, in fact, ad- mitied that his salary was only one-halt that amount, namely, a weekly salary of £ 4 JOs. A letter was read from the plaintiff to the defendant, demand- ing his salary at the ra'e of £450 per annum, as wouid be found correct on referring to 'he deed of assignment." This was a suggestion with reference to wiiai the defendant bad inserted iu his schedule, when he made an assignment for the benefit of his creditors. In the account of his payments it was alleged that he had entered plaintiff's salary at £ 450, and it was sug- ges ed by the defendant this passage in the letict was a sort of threat to expose the defendant, it he did net pay him at the rate of £ 450 per annum. The defendant's witnesses, including the defendant himself, deposed to the existence of an agreement between the plaintiff sod defendant at weekly %vp,_c-s o! £ 4 10s, with an increase when ihe plaintiff was required to keep two horses. A brolher of defendant proved that on an occasion when he asked the plaintiff how it was that he had sued his brother (the defendant) for i9 a week, when it was only E4 lOs, the plaintiff replied that he knew his salary was only £4 10s, but the de- fendant must adiriit his claim, or he would prove himself to be a rogue to his cie iitors, as he had staled that sum in his schedule." This was on a Siturday evening in May last anJ the evidence was corroborated by another witness, nameo1 Couchman, a time- keeper at Messrs Marshall's, carriane-rnakfrs. in Birmingham. The conversation took place at the Royai E(change Tavern, in D»!e-end, Birir.iOjjhbm. Couchman snid he was not connected with the defendant, but subsequet.tiy admitted tlat William Johnson, the defendant's brother, was his (witness's) biothfr-io-law. Witness said he did not recognize the defendant as any relation to him. Mr Hunt, the accountant who investigated the defendant's affairs, proved that on ano !>ir Saturday, he went through the aocooni betueen the defendant and the plaio iff, in the defend. ant's otfi e. He struck a balance cf £ lb 8< 3d, as due to the plaintiff at £ 4 10* a week. The plaintiff did not objtci to ihat balance. On tbeSih of January, Mas'ers applied towitnessfor i5, saying be was a msn wiih a family, and could not live upon noii icg. Witness paid him £ 3 10s, and took a receipt (produced). The estate realized 13s in the pound; a Mr Haidy tied previously investigated ihe nccounts, and given an opinion that the esiate would realize JOs in the pound. The c,se was remmecJ on Saturday morning, by the production of evidence of the defendant's set-off. It appeared in the course of the nial, thai the plaintiff bad retained in his weekly settle- mertts sun.s varying (rem £3 ;0 £ 7 per week, while the de- fendant alleged that his whole salaiy was enly £ 4 10s per week. The I earned Judge in the summing up said the case was one of great difficulty en account of the contradictory statements made by the two parties, which he feartd cculd only be recon- ciled by assuming that one or other of them had come to the Court, with the intention of wilfully corceahng thettuth. The Jury found that the agreement between the parties was for the larger sum, £ 450 per anauni, and they allowed the defend- ant's set-ofi to the extent proved, namely, £ 171 os. The balance left due to the plaintiff was £ 1C() 5s., from which had to be de- ducted £ 40, subsequently paid, so that the verdict for the plain- tiff was for L 126 bs. CtiESSHYRE v, :CORM,\N.-LIDEL. ?.Ir. Alexander, Q C., Mr Keating, Q.C., and Mr. Fallon, appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Whitely, Q C., and Mr. Pigott, for the defendant. This was an action against the publisher of the Cheltenham Examiner, for a libel on a Cheltenham attorney. The libel ap- peared as an a veitisement, in the shape of a letter from "A Looker on" to the editor. Atiei ailudinc, to two cases of alleged obstruction and assault, brought by a Mr. Biagdon, a county magistrate, arid ihe Rev. Mr. SiiUte, agftinst a nisn earned Hill, and heard t,efore two magistrates, at the petty sissioti, at Chel- tenham, when plaintiff appeared as Hill's attorney, the libel stated that lie, after most unnecessarily having attempted to browbeat Mr. Shute, and seeing that the case was evidently against his client, got up, and instead of making a defence, com- menced a most bitier and unprovoked attack upon the character of Mr. Blsgdon—assailed him with the vilest epithets, and charged him with the meanest motives, by no means restraining hi" obse:vatiüns to the truth of the evidence before him. This conduct, though extremely bad as disgraceful in itself, I do not so much find fault with, and doubtless Mr. Cbesshyre thought it was his proper line of business and, not pretending to be a gentleman, of course he cannot be supposed to have any respect for the feelings of a gentleman. So this point I dismiss. But teally, sir, I think any right-mir.ded man must feel exceedingly indignant that the presiding magistrate could allow an attorney to vilify end asperse the character of a country gentleman, a membei of the bench on which he was sitting, and, 1 may add, who has been a member of that bench for a number of years— that he permiited such slanderous and disgraceful language is most lamentable. Such violent language as Mr. Chesshyre used ought to have been checked at the outset; or,is it to come to this, that a gentleman cannot appear as a witness in a case without being insulted to his face, by an insignificant attorney, who may be entrusted with a vagabond's defence. The presiding magis- trate's duty was ph.in. No such language should have been per- mitted if such infamous conduct were universal, our courts of justice would soon be converted into bear-gardens, and any gen- tleman who may happen to thwart the views of a paltry attorney, might be cilied upon to listen to language which, according to the established rules of society, he evidently could not resent. In conclusion, I am sure you will agree with me, when I say that it auguis badly for our town, when a bench of magistrates will listen to the insulting tirade of a vulgar demagogue, who would court popular favour at the expense of truth and justice. As Mr. Bbgdon very wisely remaiked, such conduct as Mr. Chesshyre displayed may win the applause of the mobility. But, s:r, is the bench to be mobbed ? are our laws to be hood winked? are the ends of justice to be defeated by impudent blusterers ?" Immediately on the appearance of this document, ihe plaintiff desired that the author should be given op; but the defendant declined to do so, and said he should be legally re- sponsible for it. Thereupon this action was commenced. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and a justification to the eflect that Mr. Chesshyre's conduct at the petty sessions warranted the description given of it. » The evidence of the two magistrates who presided on that occasion completely disproved this justification, and showed that the plaintiff's conduct was most proper and becoming, and that the utmost that could he said against him was, that he was irri- tated as well as Mr. Blagdon, and that he did say that the charge was a trumpery one, and that he used the word partisan in reference to Mr. Bligdon. Mr. Whately, in addressing the jury in mitigation of damages; urged that the libel was an excellent advertisement of the plain- tiff, for which he ought to be thankful; that to publish of hIm that he browbeat a county magistrate was very likely to make his fortune; that he must feel so in his heait, and that he would never have thought of bringing the action, if it were not for tne temptation of costs. The jury, after a short consultation, found a verdict tor tne. plaintiff—Damages, 40s.. His Lordship granted a certificate for the costs of a specia jury.

TRAFFIC IN ARMY COMMISSIONS.—The United Service Gazette makes the following startling announcement: We unhesitatingly state that tLere are persons of all classes, in town and elsewhere, putting themselves in commnication with the gentlemen who prepare young men for the army, offering, for certain sums, to get names brought forward some months enrlier than they could otherwise hope for. No less than four individuals, totally unknown to each other, assured a fnend ot. ours the week before last that they possessed this mysterious power. Of course, they were very close as to tne manner in which the thing was done but one of them having demanded three or four hundred pounds to effect a certain object, he was roundly asked into whose pocket such a sum would go J He answered in great confidence, that he was obliged to bribe cer- tain necessitous general officers, who would wait upon Lord Fitzroy Somerset, and on the strength of thejr rank and service# solicit the favour of his speedily nominating the youth who was to pay the amount. The others asked much less for what they proposed to effect, and declined:to state how they accom- plished the end; but that they had the means they were pre- pared to prove by reference to certain successful cases—that ia. to say, certain preferential nominations obtained through their means, at no distant date.

ABERDARE. STRUVE'S MINE VENTILATOR. Mr Struve, in a letter to the Mining Journal, says My ven L 'tors are working most satisfactorily at the Eagles Bush Co!- jlfr.V, near Neath, at the B'ynbo Colliery, near Wrexham, and J '!le Millwood end the Myoyddbach-y Gio Coilierien, near in all, fear in number, the largest of which, at the L. °yddbach-y-Glo Colliery, is able to pump 70.000 cubic Jeet K a'r per minuie and I am erecting another at the Middle ,>ffryn Colliery, near Aberdare, (where the late calamitous f P'oaion took place,) which is to consist of two cylinders o 20 ij i" diameter this machine will be capable of pumping L ^>000 cubic feet per minute, although the ventilation required r Only 60,000 cubic feet per minute. Ttiis coihery is at veotiialed by a 7-ft. furnace, 40 staam jets, and a water. •Ji! of which will be superseded by the ventilator.

TREDEGAR IRON WORKS. Lodges of the Prince of Walas and the B<?e Hive, have t^'aied thi.ir anniversaries this year with great ecid!—the at the Black Priace Inn, Tredegar the latter at the at the Black Priace Inn, Tredegar the latter at the L; '>8 processioa formed aboiit mid-day, and paraded the Qcipa 1 streets—thence to the Wd.h Biptist Chapel, where jf ^cellant discourse was delivered by the Rev. Dipiel D .ivies, |j 'anelly. On their return to the both Lodges, tight good jr°efs were provided them, with the usual careful catering of .j,"313 Jenkins and William..—The cloth being removed, the j |'r vvas ahiy filled by C.S.Joseph K<jy supported on the by the Rev. Wm. Rjberts, aod on the left by C.S, j ''am Powell. The vice-chair, by D. Davies, and on the by Evan Richards, Esq., and on the left by Thomas ^atns Chairman and Vice-chairman opened the proceed")ngsof meeting in etoquem speeches; ar.d the Rev, William |,0erts ably addressed the meeting in the Welsh language. At fart of ths; proceeding a lecture was delivered on pliiian- tcJy. by ihe Rev. Dimel Davies, of Llaotlly, which he |r in a talen ed manner, aod wnich iva3 very in- f n'l0o '0 the whole of the brethren, who numbered upwards '300. £ he usual loyal toasts were given and honoured. ^6 Chairman proposed, the Prinre of Wp.les and Bee Hive ,ps, whidi was responded lo by C.S. Wm. Povveli, Chairman next proposed, Br. 1 iaau Ropsr, of the Vine Lodge, B!ackv?ood, to which he replied la his usual jocular fj r" 4 ;°thers John Harris, David Ti.omaa, Josaph Key, David d'eles, E. an Richards, and other brethren, spoka highly of the 'I' j 1)6 ne,il'h of the worthy host and hostess wa3 proposed and |v°a^ed to io a neat speech by Br. Jenkins; Samuel Hom- j-1 Esq., and thehopie of Bedwelly the Ladies of Tredegar, '°llowed, and the~meeting brokuup at an early hour, highly S;d with the hilarity of the day.

i 10s. and of the Mill quarter, adjoining, to Mr. Iggulden, £ 12.—In cross examination by Mr. Woollett, witness d that the lots were not divided by acreage, but by quarters.—Mr Woolleit read and put in the conditions of le and admitted having a map in his possession, as one of e muniments of trie corporation. The map showed that the .arters each contained 10a. lr. 8p.— Mr J. G. Bland proved e purchase by himself of the grass for plaintiff. Georga ottel proved mowing the grass of Mr I^zulden's quarter," Inch lie and his brother mowers called 14 acres; but Mr. [gulden said he would only pay for 10 acres and had previously tid but for eight acres.—Mr. Henry Williams, land surveyor, loduced a map which he had taken of the Marshes, and the ivisioas of the "quarters." This map agreed pretty closely ith the old map produced by Mr. Woollett. He had been ointed out the lots by the mowers, who cut the reeds on the ank, on Mr. Iggulden's side, but not on Mr. Baker s. There U n grip" between their quarters; and there were portions f a grip to be seen in other parts. His map was taken for Mr. laker, at a charge of one guinea.—Mr. Biker, the plaintiff, said e claimed for two acres and a half; and he considered it the est portion oftheiot which he purchased. He thought it 'ould have produced JM 5s in the rick, less ft 5s. however fo r eing on the ground. He also claimed the guinea for the map, lid to the surTeyor.-Cross-examined by Mr Woollett: I ahvay s lways considered the middle quatter the best. Last year, he 'as the purchaser of two quarters, the boundaries of which he ^fined by the map in the Town Clcik's o&ce.—His Honour tbe right that your client {should have twelve acres, 3d the plaintiff only seven acres.—Mr. Woollett I can show our Honour that the two quarters have always been sold at *idely different prices.—Mr. Mullock proved this, and said that •Wring tbemayorality of Mr. John Frost, grips were cut, denot- es the exact line each quarter was to take, so far as couid be err.embered of the old land marks.—Mr. Love, an old burgess, aVe similar evidence.—Mr. Iggulden, the defendant, stated that e had not cut beyond the bir line which divided his quarter from lr. Baker's. The quarter in dispute was invariably called the irgest and best-the" plum ot the pudding."—Mr. Winnell ave traditionary and personal evidence in favour of defendant. -T— e Judge said he could not suppose there was really such a iscrepancy between the quarters originally. Had ii been an ire or a couple of acres difference only, the matter would be f another character; but here there were six acres difference *tv»een the two lots. His Honour thought that after a dispute r this kind, the corporation would put up stones, to define the °undar:es of the quarters. The sales since 1839 had been put ?>and with the exception of one year, there was but one OCCJ- Ion when the sum varied anything like the difference in the "amities now mentioned.—Mr. Adam Williams here gave raditiJnary evidence in support of defendant's case.—The U'],-e said he had never a more unsatisfactory case before him. "^Ir. Cath :art addressed his Honour for plaintiff.— I he Judse t is a doubtful point and I think, in common fairness, Mr. Gulden ought to have given way. My belief is, he has gone "J 4 grip beyond.— Mr. Wollett There is but one grip. Will a0|ir Honour go on the land and look at it.— I'he Judge: No, I i ly %vill not do tliat. It is not necessary. It appeals to me ''evidence is very strong against the defendant, but I will give Ument at the next Court. I> is very likely, however, that I j "e no jurisdiction and 1 shall escape from giving a judgment 4 can, by uO-S'ii'inK plaintiff.