Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

6 articles on this Page

CROWN COURT—WEDNESDAY.

News
Cite
Share

Before Mr. Justice Williams and Mr. Justice Talfourd, Henry Bailey, Esq., High Sheriff. These assizes commeneed last Tuesday. Early in the horning the church bells began to utter forth their merry peals, and the town presented a lively appearance. About 11 o'clock a great number of gentlemen and tradesmen from Monmouth and its neighbourhood, in vehicles and on horseback, were seen going along the Abergavenny road to meet the Sheriff. Amongst others we noticed J. E. W. Rolls, Esq., of the Hendre; Jj^ptain Rolls, of Croft-y-bwla; Captain Dickenson, of the -lump; J. Davies, Esq., of the Garth; Captain Kane, &c., &c. v of the King's Head Hotel, in the spirited manner yhich is so characteristic of him, had put on a brake with four In hand, in which he conveyed about twenty of his friends, gratis, to meet the Sheriff and his retinue. Having proceeded al°Qg the Abergavenny road as far as Mitchel Troy, the Mon- mouth party met the Sheriff, followed by about sixty carnages lr°m Abergavenny, Nantyglo, and many other places in that Quarter, accompanied by a great number of persons on horse- ack, Xhe cavalcade being formed, presented a most imposing appearance as it approached and entered the town, and extended frllr,a Trov to the town. Having partaken of a luncheon at the Beaufort Arms Hotel, the Sheriff and his numerous retinue aWt two o'clock, proceeded along the Ross road, to meet the fudges. On their return, and arrival in town, their lordships immediately proceeded to open the commission; when after the usual formalities had been duly observed, they adjourned the court till ten o'clock the next morning. There were not a £ reat number of persons present in addition to Henry Bailey, ^sq., High Sheriff; Rev. J. D. Rees, Blaina, his chap ain; Crawshay Bailey, Esq., M.P.; Thomas Brown, Esq.; Samuel fiomfray, Esq.; George Homfray, Esq.; Launcelot Powell, Thomas Davies, Esq.; Edward Davies, Esq.; Thomas -»va!rex> -Esq., &c., &c. Their Lordships shortly after attended Divine Service at St. Mary's Church, when the Rev. D. J. Rees preached a very eloquent and impressive sermon. Dinners were given by the Sheriff at the Beaufort Arms and ■King"s Head Hotels. CROWN COURT—WEDNESDAY. (Before Mr. Justice Williams.) The court opened at ten o'clock. His lordship having taken his seat, the proceedings commenced in due form. The follow- ing gentlemen answered to their names as magistrates, and the Majority also served on the Grand Jury :— Majority also served on the Grand Jury :— Sir Charles Morgan, Bart., foreman. Octavius Morgan, Esq., M.P. Capt. R. H. Fleming, R.N. ~aptain Somerset, M.P. James Greenfield, Esq. rawshay Bailey, Esq., M.P. Samuel Homfray, Esq. £ °hn Maurice Herbert, Esq. George Homrray, Esq. *vchard Seamark, Esq. John Russell, Esq. P- Biiekdale, Esq. Captain King, R.N. lH. Willaughby Rooke Alexander Rolls, Esq. ft. Bosanquet, Esq. F. H. Williams, Esq. John E. W. Rolls, Esq. Thomas Wakemau, Esq. Thomas Brown, Esq. John Conway, Esq. j M. Clifford, Esq M.P. James Davies, Esq. • J. Cordes, Esq. Fenton Hort, Esq. eorge Cave, Esq. Henry Marsh, Esq. George Cave, Esq. Henry Marsh, Esq. T MAYORS. °hnPewles, Esq., Monmouth E. Jones, Esq., Portreeve Iggulden, Esq. Newport of Usk. H,, CORONERS. nomas Hughes, Esq. William Brewer, Esq. Bradford, Esq. His Lordship addressed the Grand Jury as follow:-Gentle- men of the grand jury, this is the first occasion on which I ave had the honourable duty to perform of addressing a grand jury of the county of Monmouth. I have, therefore, especial Pleasure in being able to congratulate you on the lightness of e calendar which will be presented to you. It contains but 30 cases, and none of them are of a heinous, and few of a very erious character. But among the latter class belong a case of ^Manslaughter, one of burglary, and a case of robbery, which is •"O. 8 and 9 in the calendar. The last certainly is a very grave charge; and I have reason to believe that two indictments ^dl be preferred with respect to it—one for stealing from a dwelling-house, some one therein being put in fear, and the °ther an ordinary indictment for robbery with violence and Probably in neither case will you have any difficulty in finding a true bill. Out of the whole number of CJSJS which will be placed before you, there are no less than six charges of felonious assaults, varying, certainly, in the degrees of enormity, but most, ifnot all, attributable to the lamentable effects if drunken- Hess. There are also two charges of bigamy, one of riot, and Orle-one only of highway robbery, and that by no means of o^etw1SKe-Stnptli0n' 1 bave Particularly to congratulate you whl w.!?em? y, a sin?le ca3e of this class in the calendar, contrast tf'fv, ln respect a striking and most satisfactory gaol deli-e .nui»erous lists we have had before us in other ■whole of the\s« \C0^rSe ^ie c'rcu^- This, then, is the remainder thev f,nKs proper for this county. For the intervened betwee™5 .f 'T cases of larceny which have committals Alt U i occUrrence of the sessions and their population nf +1 °S er having regard to the extent of the Dortinn r.c county and the manner in which a large °/the population was employed, 1 have,J^>w^ grounds for felicitating you that the laps^ tn „Pr uce(l so meagre a catalogue of tefon'ous assaults, I may say that it is'w. fR ^1C ac'; done which constitutes the offence a uthcient evidence is laid before you of the intent Vnicfi io puted, you ought not to find a bill; and in this, and in other -tefii3' li trU° ru^° ^hich ought to guide your enquiry, if you Wll allow me to remind you of it, is to consider the evidence tbi\ f, before you, without reference to any expectation tin i IG ma-' ljc strengthened or weakened by any addi- evidence, or shaken by cross-examination; and after considered the case, you will judge whether a petty ry could convict without impropriety. If you think that to fin j0" n0t' *'0u ignore the bill. I have not been able commcT^' CfS° lIPon which I consider it necessarry for me to siskino-v' therefore, at once dismiss you to your labours, in ord-rtb t° J"cturn somo short cases as speedily as possible, time Ti petty jury may get to work without loss of grand jury then retired. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. Thorn T> HAM STKAI;1-NG- stolen on 3 >-Vau ari(^ Thomas Brady were charged with having March th m an<^ a teaspoon, at Newport, on the 16th of pleadinT 6 P.0Pcrty of John Southall. Thomas Ryan declined COuldl"" guilty, or stating that he was so drunk that he for the n° account of the transaction. Mr. Skinner appeared Hare and^'f*30011^011' J°lm Southall examined: I keep the minmesh 'freJ'hound Inn, Commercial-street, Newport; live else wa • re they entered the house I saw the ham no one late wb ln 100m j went in to send them away, as it was a few m^11 On0 the prisoners said, If you will go away for back T f11111*'08' get my companion ready when I came 8aid it pushing tlic ham into Brady's clothes, who sent f ^as. own property, which he had bought; I then been °l police; when the policeman came the ham had and tVpUt un<l°r the seat, and the prisoners standing aver it, ja ^teaspoon was found in Brady's bosom. Prisoner: It cut eUri°US thing to put down a fellow's trousers; the prose- utor tojd congtal)ie t0 i0t us go afterwards, as it was only Vkylark; and a gentleman had been fined £ 5 over the ham already. p C Morgan Ryan wanted to pay for the ham; a gentleman named Carroll had been fined S5 for interfering and i to rescue the prisoners Mr. Southall did not tell me to ser.-rT6 pr!sonors go, but his wife did, fearing that something nis(-ght take place in the affray. The spoon was recog- sent inL nms Hk,e the one ^hieh the landlord had previously SSrnt a glass of gin and water for a The defendanK Wh° had Previously been in the house, spoken to bv So ^"n'at03 i11 the army, had their charac e s character J°ha Mead- ^ho gave the former a bad baclc, and the i"f. ? hcen previously convicted some time good for honeatr T?8 !iaving been addicted to drink, though a verdiet of fni^t Jur^> after a short consultation, found Brady to his lnrrM^>a*nst Pr"soners, but recommended °ne year's imnri 8 S cc|nsideration. Ryan was sentenced to and Bradv #v.i + SOnment in Monmouth gaol, with hard labour, two calendar months at Usk. Simeon Kil h CHAR«E OF BIGAMY. Snowies hiaV^ ^"as charged with feloniously marrying Eliza aPPeared'for ormer wifo being then alive. Mr. W. Millman P.O. Bath K • prosccution. a^° ^ngsworn, said: He apprehended the prisoner; yife» she has ifnn 1Colcs tbe person named, as his former heIla,, been living with her sister, who keeps a brothel- ,lving in Newport » teen years; have known the prisoner Ann Coles; he tnij05"seven years or more spoke to him about had been separated v1116 8^° had been his wife, but that they Cross-examined b ^r' the magistrate. years; she now prisoner Have known her for 13 tie streets that I°L?S t'ie hrothcl-house; she does not walk thirteen years oe i rW -°^' 8^° ^as a h°y about twelve or ^te child] Lwhich the prisoner said was an illegiti- had the^ri^^6-1 am Superintendent of the Newport Police; 8eeond wife had v^if• bigamy; had told him so his of assault, and t>wL°Ug m to the station-house on a charge «he was alive, but tw^ \G told mc that vhe,kncw Unmarried them. Frost, the magistrate, had since SQdfcSer mnWid°Wt °f the late ^athanie1 RoHs; on the tas SeCemi°'' v °0' church with the prisoner and told me that he had been previously ^r^UVhat WaS n?t to be Rubied with his forme? o' 48 Mr. Frost, the magistrate, had sepcrated them sentence: Two calendar months in the house of correction T MVNTZ'S METAL STEALING. hav and Michael Wilton both pleaded not guilty to of W^Jrt0*en 33 P°unds weight of Muntz's metal, the property ""ham Wilmett, at the borough of Newport. Mr. W. Millman appeared for the prosecution, who, having stated the case, called upon Samuel McCullock, who, being sworn, stated. I am a ship-builder in the employ of Mr. Wilmett, and on Thursday week was shipping a vessel of Muntz's metal; no other vessel had been shipped with the same kind of metal in the neighbourhood; I know it by the stamp to be Mr. Wilmett's property; have seen the prisoner Barrett about the yard for the last twelve months; and Wilton on Good Friday last, whom'I chastised and sent away. Cross-examined by the prisoner: There was a vessel shipped of the same kind of metal a month ago, about a quarter of a mile higher up, which was also Mr. Wilmett's. George Lloyd: I am police sergeant in Newport; went to Mr. Grant's, marine store-house, in consequence of information I had received; found 6s. 6d. on Barrett and 7s. on Wilton at the store-house; they both said they had picked it up in the river on Monday last this took place. William Morgan, marine store-house keeper, to whom the property had been sold, said Last Monday morning they had it in my scales when I entered the store only Barrett spoke to me about it, and said he had pickcd it up in the river gave them 6d. per pound for it; 16s. 6d. in all it was in silver. Cross-examined by prisoners: There was mud all over it; there was half a sovereign, the rest in silver. John Ponsford examined: I have a marine store-house in Newport; at eight o'clock on Monday morning last, saw Wilton with some Muntz's metal, which I saw afterwards at the P!)!ice station house turned him away, supposing it to have been stolen i' had very little mud on it; it appeared as if it had been wa-htd. The jury returned a verdict of guiity. The former prisoner having been previously convicted, was sentenced to one year's imprisonment with bard labour. The latter to six calendar months. FIRING WITH INTENT. James Price pleaded not guilty to a charge of having, on the 9th of November, at Caenveut, attempted to discharge a pistol with intent to do grievous bodily harm to John Arnold. Mr. Cook appeared tor the prosecution and Mr. HudJlestone for the defence Mr. Cook having stated the case to the jury, called several witnesses, who were afterwards cross examined at considerable length by Mr. Huddiestone, who concluded by ably addressing the jury on behalf of the prisoner. His lord ship in summing up, directed the jury first to say whether the attempt was unlawful; whether what the prisoner did was an act of self-defence whether the pistol was loaied whether the prisoner auempted to discharge it and wite htr-ttie great and final question—by discha ging the pistol, supposing he knew or thought it was loaded, the prisoner reallyiiitended to do any grievous bodi y harm. The jury found the prisoner guilty of a felonious attempt to shoot. Sentence deferred. The grand jury were discharged at about three o'clock Mr. Huddlesiotie mentioned ihat Price had been fined CS by the magistiates for the same offence. His lordship said he would take notice of the fact, if it was certified in fie proper way. HOUSE BREAKING WITH VI0I.LNCE AT LLANOVEIL UPPER. Dennis Higgins. 20, and Thomas Murphy. 27, were charged wi h having stolen two pistols and one wa'ch, the property of George Winrfotv, and by menaces and threats put John Kvans, clerk, in bodi y fear. and stolen from his petson twenty pounds, the property of the said John Evans. Mr. Huddiestone opened the case for the prosecution. Daniel Higgins pleaded giiilly. The several witnesses were examined, and gave testimony similar to that published in the MERLIN at the time of the robbery;l iiitt after an elaborateladdress from Mr Cooke, who defended Murphy, the jury found the prisoners guilty. Higgins was sentenced fp transportation for 15 yeas; Murphy 10 years transpoitation. William Howells 50, and Ebenezer Howells, 22, charged with having stolen one sack and three bushels of oa's.the pro perty of John Wil iams. Buih prisoners were found guilty. Wi liatn Howells was sentenced to one year's, and the other prisoner to two monthly imprisonment. CROWN CO U R T-TJoIURSDAV. (Before Nlr. Justice Williams.) George Williams, 22, John Davies, 32, and Wa'ter Powell, 23. were acquitted of the charge of the manslaughter ot Edward Gwiilim, at the parish of Llanwenarth. John Regan was sentenced to a fortnight's imprisonment for a riot, and assaulting Sergeant Hodder, at Trevetbin. Ann Eynon was sentenced to a week's imprisonment, for staa'ing coal, the property of Thomas Brown, Esq., and others, Blaina Samuel Greening. Newport, was charged with shooting at Martha Etheridge, with intent to do her bodily harm, &c. The prosecdtrix gave her evidence with considerable reluctance, and manifested much emotion in her glances towards the pri soner. The judge, before the evidence for the prosecution had closed, put it to the jury whether they wished the case to proceed, as there wasevidently iiis- iticient evidence o convict. The jury wished to hear another witness; and Mr. H. Webber, Mr. Pother, and others, afterwards gave prisoner a good chnrac er. The judge summed up, and the jury i-n;nedia-ely returned a verdict 01 acquittal. Henry Time and David Evans were transported for t'n years, for committing a hurg'ary at the house and thop o' Mr Hi*-—— ■■Xfioit and Eliz?Uu»l> w»s acquitted J x. J. TRANSPORTED yCare?- Thomas Watkins Was charged with having, on the 5th day of March, 18531 at the borough of Monmouth, maliciously and l feloniously stabbed and wounded James Jones, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. Guilty. Four months' hard labour. „ MSI I llILS COURT. Before the Hon. Mr. Justice Talfourd. CAUSE LIST. 1. Ex j. G. George- Swift v. Conway and others-E. B. Edwards. 2. Ex C. Jones-Cathcart v. Jenkins-E. T. White. 3. C. P. Devan and Co-Sutton ex. r, Webb-Prothero and Fox. C.P. isaacs ancj others—Pro- thero and h ox, and Llewellin. CRIMINAL BUSINESS, •The leav'^cd judge d:id not enter the court until ten minutes to eleven o c en proceeded with criminal business of tic E? ,viti thc re<l™st °f The first prisoner placed on her trial was fcoaj' "the J°' Wlw was (,-h'l,'gcd with stealing 501bs %Cltj of J™ Brown and others, I C'^vit}i'felonious! v r > ?arc'^ '> and another count charged !r Locution staged Vln&"—^r- Huddiestone, counsel for SMfSffi hcttt«r'ana ""nici the Ebbw Yale trams, at the TV01*0'' T four children of tender V ? v Tf °V one of the trams. Tho° e takl" £ (lown thc, coal from away and havin^ (1 w«ness said he drove the children prisoner beckoning ( hlf 1°- ^oncoaled himself, when he saw the and she then gathered {.h'cn back aSain- They returned, and the remainder'in1 COa1' placed some 0n her hcad' -the children before t)^1' ^r',n' with which shc Sot off> vnth geant Lon^ 'th0 d»,k n«WltIl08S could get round t0 hCT--SOT" told him she was sm^?Cer',appre,lcndecl the Pns<mer> who the officer would f f di she liad dono; but sllc hoped for th( 3; forgive her.—Mr. Yaughan Richards, counsel The lenrn madu an ingenious defence on her behalf.— soner S^mmed UP a'1(l the jury found the pri- convietpri nious'y receiving Mary Haley having been a Previ°us felony, was sentenced by the learned that of o charaeterising her offence as a very serious one— months' hard^abo ^rCn ^1<3 comm^'s^ou °f crime—to six weigh^of1 ironlritvIy' 36' was charS'Gd with stealing 7libs, 11 11 and Canal ComnanvPr?Cwy of the Monmouthshire Railway Mr. Vaughan Itirl' J ewport, on the 26th of March.- Thomas Roberts for the Prosecution, called broken into twopiec!, t .two chairs' wlnch had bccn searching, witness foUndTv^m^se(l on Saturday last; and on saw the prisoner vh! ftPie,ces m the hcds°' near which by Mm r™ a ^SSlJfSS SXrWZ S whom^tatafSSa» Wt". pfded the fix The prisone > i orts s presence, that he had con- cealed the chain in tlie hedge on the previous eveninc: — Charles Rowland, pi^ved the, .,pprehensi0p fron was the Pr°Pe •, prisoner on named. Superintendent Hill stated tha havine'hidd^an^ed over to his cus- tody, acknowledged hav £ <Jden the iron in h d Friday evening; and "f £ d ^fveness, saying this was his first offence. urisoner K6 8aid a HSht sentence would be passed upon tire prisoner, because of never having been "in trouble" before.-Two months' bard labour. 8 Richard Spooner was charged with having) 0n the 28th day of December, 1852, at the pans:h of Bedwellty, feloniously wounded Alfred Williams, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. A witness proved that Spooner did not strike prosecutor on the tramroad, and proved that the prosecutor there drew a knife on prisoner, and attempted to stab him. -Acquitted. The Court now proceeded with the NISI PRIUS BUSINESS. CATHCART V. JENKINS. This was an action of trespass, brought to try the title to about sixteen square yards of land, on the Fair Oak estate of Newport Freehold Land Society; the parties on the record being Mr. R. J. Cathcart, the solicitor of that society, and Mr. E. V. Jenkins, chemist and druggist, one of the founders'! of the said society. The case mainly depended on the mea-|l surementa of the ground in question, by the surveyors on each j side, and the several points at which those measurement? were commenced the plaintiff contending that sixteen square yards of his allotments had been taken by the defendant, in erecting a boundary wall; and the defendant setting up that instead of taking land, he had actually given several inches. On the panel being called, numerous jurors were objected to on either side. Mr. Phipson opened the pleadings, and stated the declara- tions, —which were that the defendant had trespassed on the plaintiff's land, and taken away his fence, built on the plain- tiff's land, and had kept it ever since. The defendant, in reply, said the wall was built as a party wall on the land of both parties, as a boundary wall; and built according to an agreement mutually made between plaintiff and defendant. Mr. Sergeant Allen said he appeared for the defendant in this action, which, from the opening of his learned friend, would really appear to be a serious case of trespass but, which, on examination, would resolve itself into aye or no whether the defendant had trespassed on a few inches on the plaintiff's land, consisting in allotments made to the latter by the Newport Freehold Land Society. He (the learned ser- geant) was almost afraid-as it fell to him to open the case that he would be unable to explain the exact cause of action, so minute was the question involved and it really appeared to him, unacquainted as he was with matters of the kind, in this part of the country, that if the parties in this action, had found a gentleman to go upon the land with a tape or chain, who should measure the distances in question, the whole affair might have been settled without coming into court at all. Parties might naturally inquire, then, why the action was brought. He (the learned counsel) had made this in- quiry and the answer he had obtained, as to the reason why the gentlemen of the jury, and his lordship on the bench, had this case to try, was because the plaintiff was an attorney. (Laughter.) Mr. Cathcart, it appeared, was one of the mem- bers of the Freehold Land Society, at Newport; as was, also, the defendant, Mr. Jenkins; and the latter gentleman had, in 1851, as the trustee of that society, purchased the Fair Oak estate for the members. This estate was afterwards allotted to the several subscribers of the society. Mr. Thomas, the society's surveyor, a gentleman of great skill and experience, had measured out the ground and made allot- ments. The plaintiff was apportioned certain of those lots. As his lordship would, perhaps, have much difficulty in following him (the learned counsel) in detailing the numbers of the lots, and other matters-for it was a most ambiguous case- Mr. Whateley We think it a very plain case. Mr. Sergeant Allen It was anything but that. However, the plan handed up to the Court would make matters plain, perhaps. The learned counsel then described the land in question, and particularised the position of the different allot- ments of the plaintiff and defendant, from which it appeared that it was deemed advisable by the parties at issue, to build a boundary waU between the lots of the plaintiff and the de- fendant. Io effect this and to preserve a line-as the boun- daxy of the lots did not form a line-it was mutually agreed that defendant should sell 10 feet 9 inches of his ground to the plaintiff; and the plaintiff sell 6 feet 5 inches of his gt mnd to defendant. An agreement was also made, that dc- fendant should build the boundary wall to divide the property. This was to be IB inches^wide, and o feet above the ground, and be built at defendant s_own expense; one half on his own ground, and the other half, nine inches, on plaintiffs. The plaintiff was to pay £ 10, for his saaro of the wall, at the end of five years; but before that period had elapsed, if, in the interim, his land was used for building purposes. That there might be no error or disagreement in the transaction (the learned counsel proceeded to say), the defendant had written to plaintiff, desiring him, previously to the commencement of the boundary line, to come upon the land and satisfy himself as to the measurement, &c., being all correct. Mr. Jenkins, said the learned counsel, had no desire to arouse the anger, the terrible anger, of Mr. Cathcart; and, therefore, took ex- traordinary precautions to be most ti-curate in his proceedings; and, in requesting plaintiff to come upon the land, and ascer- tain the measurement, also named certain days for that pur- pose. Plaintiff, however, did not then go OIl the ground and the wall—after actually allowing two indies extra of the 100 feet of land belonging to the plaintiff-was commenced and built by defendant. It had been found, by a later mea- surement, that four inches extra had actually been given by defendant; and not two inches alone, as at first thought. On the 2nd of March. however, plaifttiff wrore an angry3letter to the defendant, denouncing the mode in which the measure- ment had been made, and the distances ascertained; and on the 14th of March, defendant, and even his innocent bricklayer, were served wi-itit, summoning them to her Majesty's superior court at Westminster. Mr. Jenkins, who was not a lawyer, and consequently had a wholesome dread of the law—(laughter)—would, of course, have been glad to have avoided such a process; and, of course, would have been glad, had any proposition been made to him, to arrange what- ever mistake might have been made. No proposition of the e kind, however, had been made to him; he would have been too happy to have acceded -te, it: But Bo,—sfiid the learned -,oounsel,-wc are not prosperous in the law we have not \'l(iuch o do; the port is deserted and here is tho chance of In action! An action, did he say? Why here was the chance of two actions: not only that against the defendant but, if that were now successful, another against the unfor- tunate bricklayer, about this time next year. (Laughter.) However, the learned counsel would not pursue that part of the subject any further. From the moment defendant had received notice of action, he had spared no expense or trouble in ascertaining whether he had exceeded the bounds of his property, and intruded upon that of plaintiff; and Mr. Thomas, and other witnesses, would to-day slate the result of their measurements, by which it. would be found that the plaintiff had not only had every inch of the land he was entitled to, but three or four inches more. This was the defendant's case; and the learned counscl, in conclusion, said he could offer no other suggestion, as tho reason why this action had been brought, than that which he had already stated to the jury. Mr. Gray called and examined Mr. Robert George Thomas, engineer and surveyor, who had measured the land on the Fair Oak estate, purchased by the Freehold Land Society, and made several allotments. He minutely described these allot- ments, and particularised those held by the defendant and the plaintiff, between whom an arrangement was made to give and take" certain portions of the land. The measurements repeatedly made by the witness of the land in question, enabled him to state distinctly that the boundary wall erected by defendant, was properly placed, according to the agreement entered into between defendant and plaintiff and that the plaintiff actually had two inches of defendant's ground, in addition to the 100 feet 9 inches agreed to be taken. Mr. C. E. Bernard, engineer and surveyor, Cardiff, stated as the result of his measurement of the ground in question, that it amounted to 100 feet, llf inches, or 21- inches more ( than Mr. Cathcart was entitled to, according to the agreement with defendant. Mr. Price, builder and contractor, Cardiff, gave a measure- ment similar to that given by Mr. Bernard. Mr. Edward Knobs, assistant surveyor, Newport, in the evidence given by him, corroborated that given by Mr. Thomas. Defendant examined: I am a chemist and druggist at New- port. For some time after the agreement to build a wall, I did not proceed; but Mr. Cathcart made an application to me to proceed. I cannot find the letter in which that application was made and I believe it was destroyed. The purport of the letter was, that as the fence was being destroyed, he wished the wall to be proceeded with. A second application was made on the 23rd of February last, by Mr. Cathcart. It was a peremptory order to proceed with the wall. That letter I gave to Mr. Knobs, to make some memoran- dums from. Mr. Knobs recalled On handing the letter back to Mr. Jenkins, he crushed it up, and I believe threw it away. Mr. Jenkins: I did throw the letter ttway. Its substance was a refusal on the part of Mr. Cathcart to abide by a previous agreement, and demanding that the wall should be proceeded with at once. I wrote a reply to that letter, after proceedings had been en. to commence the wall, and asking him to come on tho ground to ascertain the measurements, &e. Mr. Cath- cart did not go on the land with me and I- commenced the wall. Subsequently, in March, plaintiff wrote to say he would be on the land; but I was not present when he went there. I then received a letter from Mr. Cathcart, complaining of his fence being removed, and the wall commenced, in the absence of himself. It also stated that I had encroached on his land, and demanded that I should desist from proceeding, until the matter had been investigated. [The letter was read.] The original value of the land in dispute, was 9s. or 10s. I was served with the notice of a writ on the 4th of Maroh. On the 6th of March I was served with the writ. Mr. Griffiths erected the wall. I was not present when he was served. The expense to me, of erecting this wall, was £ 40. To Mr. Whateley I should say a third of the wall was built when plaintiff objected to my proceeding. I did not send to him before the foundation of the wall was cut out; nor did I receive any complaint of his being dissatisfied, directly nor indirectly. My letter to Mr. Cathcart was written on Saturday, and the work was not commenced till the following Wednesday morning; the masons having made all their pre- parations before. I had plaintiff's letter at one o'clock on the same NV ednesday but I did not. send the men any instruc- tions not to proceed, on receipt of that letter. I was present when the fence was put up; but I did not object directly to its being done. I did make some objection to James Jenkins, the man who laid it out. It was not then arranged that the fence should be outside the wall, on the plaintiff's side, that I remember. I said Jenkins might put the fence where he pleased, as it was only a temporary one. I took no objection t ————————————————————— to it; but allowed it to stand. I was never the trustee of the land in question. There was an action against me in Chan- cery as the trustee. I bought the land in my own name. I have been very unluckily obliged to pay the cost of the Chancery suit. I have, I should say, 60 allotments. The rules allow six, but I have bought the others, and have the conveyances. To Mr. Gray He made no other overture to me than the overture of the writ. (Laughter.) The men had finished a third of the wall when I received Mr. Cathcart's letter; and they finished the whole in three days. I am certain Mr. Cath- cart has the full measurement of his land. Mr. John Griffiths, builder: I agreed to build the wall in question; and on arriving on the land, I did not search for pegs, because I saw none on Mr. Cathcart's boundary line. I found a peg at a stone wall, the boundary of Mr. Jenkins's and Mr. Bowman's lots. It was the original peg, I believe. I measured the ground out, and gave Mr. Cathcart the full quantity. Cross-examined: He did afterwards object to my proceeding with the wall. This was the case for the defendant. Mr. Whateley then addressed the jury on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr. Cathcart, the plaintfff, examined by Mr. Phipson, stated the terms of agreement entered into by himself with defendant, as to the quantity of land to be sold and taken by each, the building of the boundary wall, and other matters. A model, which had been prepared of the ground in question, the fences, and the position of the pegs marking the original boundary, was stated by Mr. Cathcart to have been made by the witness Jenkins, who had put up the fence on his land. The model was now exhibited on the table. Mr. Sergeant Allen: But I am not going to take that as a model. Mr. Whateley: You will make a muddle of it, if you don't mind. (Laughter.) Mr. Cathcart proceeded with his evidence showing that the original pegs had been removed by his directions, and larger ones placed in the same holes; and on having the ground measured, from those pegs, it was found that it was 99 feet 3 inches at one end, and 99 feet 9 inches at the other; making sixteen square yards encroachment by the defendant. He had not gone on the land at the time appointed by the de. fendant, being then engaged; but bad done so as soon as possible; and had objected to the defendant's proceeding with the boundary wall. He had also given the builder notice not to proceed, but that notice had been totally disre- garded. At the time he was on the land, he asked %I r. Thomas, who was there with defendant, what measurement he had made but Mr. Thomas refused to inform him. Mr. Sergeant Allen cross-examined Mr. Cathcart at consi- derable length: eliciting more amusement by his questions, and the plaintiff's answers thereto, than causing damage to the evidence in chief. Mr. James Jenkins. wheelwright, who had put up the fence for the plaintiff, and prepared the model on the table, gave evidence in support of the plaintiff's case. The brother of I this witness, also gave evidence on tho same side. d Mr. Henry Williams, land-surveyor, Maindee. stated that he had measured the land in question. He was on the ground with Mr. Cathcart when Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Thomas were a!so present. Alr, Cathcart asked Mr. Thomas wh"t he had made of the measurement; but the reply was: "Bh would not state, fearing it might be brought against him in court." Witness made the measurement 99 feet six inches. ftJr. Nathaniel Webb, surveyor, Newport, also stated hat on measuring the ground, ho found it to be 99 feet, 6 inches. This was the case for the pl-tintiff. The jury, after a few minutes conversation, returned a verdict for the defendant. This case lasted from twelve o'clock till nine. (To be concluded in our next.)

MERTHYR.

RAGLAND.

RISCA.

Family Notices

THE CHASE.