Monmouthshire Merlin

MONMOUTHSHIRE LENT ASSIZES. SATURDAY, MARCH 23. To-day, the Commission for these Assizes—the last but one of the Oxford Circuit—was opened at Monmouth. The High Sheriff of the County, Thomas Gratrex, Esq., of Newport, being officially required to attend her Ma- jesty's Judges at Monmouth, his co-directors conceded to him the honour of first travelling the whole distance by railway. Therefore, with a numerous company of gen- tlemen, including several members of the Corporation of Newport, the High Sheriff left that town on Saturday morning, at nine o'clock. Long before the train was due at Monmouth, thousands flocked to the vicinity of the temporary platform at Troy. The fine weather brought numbers from the country, anxious to see the poweis of a locomotive engine. Upon the Gibraltar Hill and other commanding eminences, expectant crowds were clustered; and no sooner were the novel but welcome shrill notes of the engine-whistle heard, and train of half-a-dozen carriages, decorated with flags, discerned, than loud and hearty cheering burst from the assembled multitude. c The burst of congratulation and welcome which greeted the worthy High Sheriff as he stepped from his carriage, will not soon be forgotten. In him the townspeople recognised their former mayor and town-eotfifcillor, and energetic inhabitant. A band of music (composed of mem- bers of the Militia and Saxe-horn bands) was in attend- ance, and struck up a lively tune; while the fine bells of St. Mary's Church rang merry peals. The Corporation of Monmouth, who were waiting in carriages, cordially greeted their old townsman, whose entree into Monmouth' was most enthusiastic. The handsome carriage of the High Sheriff (drawn by four grey horses) being in attendance, that gentleman took his seat, accompanied ,by his Chaplain (the Rev. Edward Hawkins, of St. Woollos, Newport). A proces- sion was formed, comprising about forty horsemen, and between thirty and forty carriages, in which were gen- tlemen and tradesmen from Monmouth, Newport, and various parts of the oounty, and preceded by the borough mace-bearerers, the trumpeters, and the javelia»men. The livery of the High Sheriff was blue, with silver lace, the retinue being apparelled in CQat^^Mid trousers of dark blue, with silver gilt butjons bearing the family crest. These suits were provided by,Jlr. Lewis, of High- street, Newport. [. The cavalcade drew up at the Beaufort Arms Hotel. Dinner was served in the spacious room. About 150 gentlemen, at the invitation of the Sheriff, partook of a sumptuous rep3st. The wines were both abundant and good. The High Sheriff presided, supported on the left by hil Chaplain; the Rev. E. F. Arney, Vicar of Mon- mouth; Thomas Powell, Esq., of The Gaer; and John Russell, Esq., Chepstow; and on his right were the Mayor of Newport, (Charles Lyne, Esq.,) the Mayor of Monmouth, (Thomas Watkins, Esq.,) Charles Williams, Esq. Charles Conway, Esq. and John Lewis, Esq., Tydee. The Under Sheriff (Henry John Davis, Esq., of Newport,) acted as Vice-Chairman. Among the guests were— The Rev. Chancellor Williams Tom Llewellyn Brewer, Eaq.; G. R. Greenhow Relph, Esq. W. Conway James, Esq.; G. R. Hookey, Esq. Thomas Morris, Esq. W. T. Kees, Esq.; S< Campbell, Esq. Thomas Woollett, Esq., Town Clerk of Newport; Horace Shepherd, Esq., Portreeve of Usk; Samuel Homfray, Esq. Thomas Daries, Esq., Llangattock Court Edward bavies, Esq Llangattock; Rev. William Davies, Risca; Rev. J. Watherston, Monmouth Rev. W. Evans, Usk; T. Powell, Jun., Esq., The Gaer; David Jones, Esq.. Raglan; Colonel Yolland, London Philip Williams Esq., Mon- mouth; W, Lawrence, Esq Pontypool Henry Dyke, Eaq.. Monmouth; E. Isaacson, Esq., Monmouth W. A. Willi.ma, Esq Monmouth G. Blakey, Esq., New- port; T. Dyke, Esq., Monmouth; Richard Leybourne, Esq., Newport; D. G. Owen, Esq., Newport T. J. A. Williams, Esq Monmouth T. Fisher, Esq., Wonastow John Mayou, Esq Monmouth — Cave, Jun., Esq., Hil- ilton; —Millard, Esq.. Whitchurch; W. W. Morgan, Eaq., Newport; P. E. Wanklyn, Esq., and W. Wanklyn, Esq., Monmouth; H. B. Dowling, Esq., Llantarnam Abbey; F. Justice, Esq., Belle Vue; and Messrs. T. Wanklyn, Hadnock J. Middleton, Newport; James M'Gowan, The Hill Thomas Holman, Governor of the County Gaol; Parrott, Amberley; T. S Williams, Dry- bridge John A. Hall, Monmouth John Harrison, New- port; John Embry, St. Weonards James Lewis, Gar- way; Edwin Richards Monmouth; James Williams, Usk Price, Newport; Edward Weils, Newport Fir- bank, Newport; Webber, Newport; John Powell, Mon- mouth; Henry Probert, Osbaston; John Coates, Mon- mouth James Powell, Monmouth; Charles Burton, Monmouth; William Sheriff, Treworuan Wm. Vaughan, Monmouth; Humphries, Bockholt R. Court, A] on mouth; G. Tippins, Wyesham; T. Beckingham, Mon- mouth Thomas Lewis, Newport; J. Williams, Mon- mouth; W. H. Bosworth, Usk House of Correction; John Morgan, Pontypool; J. Brewer, Machen — Wat- kins, Pwlltycwm J. James, The Steps; C. Parsons, Wonastow; R. Scott, Monmouth; T. Courteen, Red- brook John James, Monmouth John Worgan, Cherry Orchard; George Masters, Newport E. W. Morgan, Lantarmm J. Strachaii, Lanvetherine; E. P. Meredith, Monmouth, &c. After the cloth bad been removed, the HIGH SHERIFF gave "The Queen, Prince Albert, and the rest of the Royal Family," which was duly honoured. The next toast given from the Chair was "The Bishop and Clergy of the Diocese." The High Sheriff observed that he was glad to see so many dignitaries of the Church, such as Chancellor Williams and others, present- (cheers)-but as it was on these occasions to connect this toast with the name of the vicar of the parish, and as he was glad to see the Rev. E. F. Arney present, he would couple his name with the toast. (Cheers.) The Rev. E. F. ARNEY said that he felt great pleasure in returning thanks on behalf of the Bishop and Clergy of the Diocese, and was very glad to see so many of his brother clergy present. He congratulated the High Sheriff upon this happy event, and thought that to see himself surrounded by such a large number of his friends in the high position he now occupied, must be highly gratifying to him. When the High Sheriff was an inhabitant of Monmouth, all in the town had reason to be very proud of him, and when he left that was a dark day for him (Mr. Arney). He begged to con- gratulate him on the high position which he nON occupied. (Cheers.) The HIGH SHERIFF next gave The Lord Lieutenant of the County," which, having been responded to, | "The Army and Navy" was proposed. The Sheriff was sure that what had trans, ired during the late war would be considered by all an ample guarantee for the courage and bravery of the army and navy. (Cheers.) With this toast he begged to couple then inaes of Colonel Yolland and the Mayor of Newport. (Cheers.) Colonel YOLLAND, acknowledged the toast in neat and appropriate terms, in behalf of the army and the MAYOR of Newport, in responding for the navy, snid that that branch of the service had had great difficulty in pleasing the House of Commons. In the Baltic the navy was ac- cused of having done too little, and now, before Canton, they were accused of having done too much. (Chetrs and laughter.) Mr. S. HOMFRAY proposed the health of "The High Sheriff," a toast he was sure they would receive most cordially. (Loud cheers.) The time was too short to allow him to say much, but he would remark that they all. and more particularly the people of Monmouth, looked upon this day as a very auspicious one. The High Sheriff had arrived at Monmouth by railway, a fsct which must be looked upon as a consummation of the boroughs of Newport, Usk, and Monmouth. (Loud cheers.) As to the High Sheriff, he must feel much gra- tified in seeing around him so many old faces hailing his honourable position. (Cheers.) The HIGH SHERIFF said he felt a derp emotion of joy at seeing so many of his friends from all parts of the county and the adjoining- counties around him, some of them young and some old, some whom he knew from his youth, and some whom he had the pleasure of forming an acquaintance and friendship at a later period. (Cheers.) His life had been one of toil, but he was glad and thankful that he had risen to his present position. (Cheers.) With great satisfaction did la3 also, as one of the directors of the Coleford, Monmouth, Usk, and Pontypool Railway, witness their being ab'e to come from Newport, through Usk, to Monmouth, by rail, and that these boroughs had been united in reality. He hoped that by the aid of the inhabitants of Newport, this union would prove a great benefit to Monmouth. Having at some length spoken of the benefits that would be derived from the railway when brought into working order, the High Sheriff said that ti.is was a very proud day for him, surrounded as he was by the Mayor of Newport, the Mayor of Monmouth, and the Portreeve of Usk. (Loud cheers.) He was sorry to be tied to time, and he begged to than. taem or the hearty manner in which they had drank ais healt (Cheers.) After dinner, the procession was rc-formc 5, and ac- companied the High Sheriff to meet the Judge3 of Assize -the Hon. Sir Richard Budden Crowder, Knt., and the Hon. Sir James Shaw Wiiles, Knt. Their Lordships were received by the High Sheriff at Dixton, a mile and a ];1:£ from the town, about three o'clock. On their ar- rival at the SHIRE Hall, the Commission was opened in ordinary form. The Learned Judges then retired to their lodging. Tho assize sermon was preached on Sunday in St. Mary's Church. The Rcv. Mr. Hiking, of St. Woollos, Newport, officiated. Mr. Justice Wiiles attended divine service, the congregation b' :mg very numerous, notwith- standing the boisterous and disagreeable state of tho wether. The Rev. gentleman discoursed from the tex,, Isaiah'sxxiii. G-" And wisdom and knowledge shall be the stability of thy times, and strength of salvation the fear of the Lord is his treasure. In speaking upon these words, the preacher remarked that they were ad- dressed by the 'Piophet to the Jews, wnen they were troubled and dismayed at the hosts of Sennacherib, by whom they were threatened. The Prophet not only pro- mised them a triumph and a victory, and foretold for their enemies a signal and iguominous defeat, but took [ occasion to impress upon them the power and glory of I Him to whom those events would bo done, assuring them that if they were faithful to God and trua to them- s -Ives, He would stand by them, and give them that wisdom and knowledge which would be their stability- that wisdom and knowledge which would be ever ready to sacrifice private interest to the public good, and mani- fest itself in endeavours for the welfare of the people, in mutual confidence at home and success over foreign enemies. After discoursing eloquently upon the doctrinal points of the text, the Rev. Gentleman observed that a national religion-the recognition of it in every department of the State—was an essential to our national well-being and t greatness. It was of importance that its value should be felt by the Sovereign, the administrators of the law, and by every person connected with and anxious for the welfare of the State. None better knew how to appreciate the truth and importance of these remarks than those who, upon such solemn occasions as the present, went forth to the practical administration of the laws through- out the kingdom. None had such frequent opportunities of observing what little hope there was of meeting with integrity and upright dealing, control over the passions, or social and personal security where religion was absent and unheeded. Truo it was, there were other branches of human knowledge-the sciences, the arts, &c.—which it was desirable and commendable to cultivate, being productive, in many instances, of good to others; but without religion the intellectual faculties were worthless, and tended to divest our minds of that humility necessary to bring our souls into subjection to God. The great truth he wished to impress upon them was, that the true patriot who, in a nation like ours, must not be separated from the true Christian, would seek the honour, s. fety, and welfare of the country and her institutions by a steadfast adherence to the principles of the gospel and obedience to God. Where there such patriotism, there would be honouc-rendered to the Queen and all in authority under h £ r; tribute would be rendered to whom tribute wasjjwe, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, and "honour to whom honour. Let us, then, each one aim liter the acquirement of that knowledge then should there be amongst us a desire to know the Lord, who would not merely give us strength, but the blessings of peace, quietness, .and assurance for ever. Happy the people in such a case. Yea, blessed the people who have the Lord for their God. (The discourse, of which the above is merely an outline, was eloquent and eminently practical and edifying, and listened to with great attention by the congregation.) CROWX COURT.—MONDAY. The Court opened this morning at ten o'clock, before Mr. Justice Crowder, for the trial of prisoners. The calendar contained the names of 23 persons. Three were charged with wilful murder, three manslaughter, one concealment of birth, one violation, one arson, one burglary and assault, one burglary, eight assault and robbery, one horse-stealing, one forging an order, and two with larceny. Seven were classified as able to read, five as able to read and write imperfectly, and six as neither able to, read nor write. The remaining five were not stated, as they were on bail. The customary proceedings having been gone through, The following Magistrates answered to their names:- Sir Charles Morgan, Bart., Sir G. R. Walker, Bart., J. F. Brickdala, Esq., S. R. Bosanquet, Esq., George Cave, E.«q E. U. Cnrre, Esq., James Davies. Esq., R Brinsley Dowling, Esq., Thomas Falconer, Esq., Thomas Fother- gill, Esq., John Arthur Herbert, Esq., Samuel Homfray, Esq., Fenton Hort, Esq., John James, jun., Esq., Fred. Levick, Esq., G. R Hookey, Esq., John Lewis, Esq., W. H. Little, Esq., Octaviu3 Morgan, Esq.. Godfrey Morgan, Esq., G. R G. Relph, Esq John Roberts, Esq.. William Vaughan, Esq., Thomas Wakernan, Esq., C. H. Williams, Esq and the Rev. Robert Jackson. Mayors—Thomas Watkins. Esq., Mayor of Monmouth; Charles Lyne, Esq., Mayor of Newport. TIIK GRAND JURY. Sir CHARLES MORGAN, Bart., Foreman. Sir G. R. Walker, Bart. Samuel Homfray, Esq. Octavius Morgan, Esq. J. Arthur Herbert, Esq. J. F. Brickdale, Esq. G. R. Hookey, Esq. S R. Bosanquet, Esq. John James, jun Esq. George Cave, Esq. W. Conway James, Esq. E M. Curre, Esq. John Lewis, Esq. James Davies, Esq. Frederick Levick, Esq. R. Brinsley Dowling, Esq. J. Edward Leigh, Esq. Thomas Fothergill, Esq. W. H. Little, Esq. Thomas Falconsr, Esq. Joseph Latch, Esq. Fenton HOlt, Esq. | Godfrey Morgan, Esq. The learned Judge charged the jury to the following effect :—He was sorry to inform the n that the calendar which then lay before him presented features which in- duced him to think their 1 ibours would not be of a very light nature. He had not had the opportunity of compar- ing the calendar with that of the last spring assizes. He had been informed, however, that it was not exceeded in number. With respect to the nature and character of the offences, he had no means of ascertaining what they were on the former occasion but he regretted to say that the present calendar contained crimes of the deepest dye. They woul,1 have brought under their consideration two cases of wilful murder, two of manslaughter, one of arson, four of robbery with violence, one of concealment of birth, a case of horse-stealing, two of burglary, and one or two common cases of crime. One case had been just brought charge of assault with intent to commit a rape, the depositions in which he had not had an opportunity of perusing. Those cases were undoubtedly of a very serious nature. He was informed that no winter assizes had been held in Monmouthshire, which was the case in the other counties through which be had proceeded up to the present time. Therefore, he was unable to state, looking at the calendar with reference to former occasions, whether there bad been au increase or a diminution in crime in the county of Monmouth. Upon some of the cases hp felt it his duty to make a few observations for their guidance. And first, as was but natural, he begged to draw their at- tention to the two cases in which murder was charged as having been committed. One of them, No 3 in the calen- dar, was th,t of Eliz ibeth Oram, who was accus d of having produced the death of her child, George Williams a boy about the age of nine or ten years, by starvation. He had gone through the depositions with care, and had found that there was strong evidence to show that the woman had an illegitimate child by George Williams, and that before his marriage and sine her marri ge, she had continued to ill-treat and abuse the child,, and to deprive him of food. That course seemed to have been pursued for a considerable period of time, according to the evidence of a number of the neighbours before the coroner, and who woul,l probably come before them upon the matter. el- timately the child died. The post mortem examination of the surgeon satisfied him. and he deposed upon oath that the child died of starvation Now, he (the learned Judge) need hardly say that if that were established, it was clearly a case of murder. It was not a case, as appeared from the depositions, of common neglect or criminal neglect to at- tend the child, and furnish it with sufficient foo 1; but, according to the depositions, it was a wilful and deli berate attempt to injure the child's health-an attempt of a most malignant and horrible nature. The unna'urd mother's determination was to be the death of her child. It did not appear to him that any question of law would arise, because, according to the deposi- tions, there was no doubt whatever that the woman Oram had from her husband ample means for providing food for the whole family, and that to her was entrusted the charge offeeding the family, consisting, among others, of tho unfortunate child, George Williams. Consequently, it would seem to be not merely neglect, but the whole evidence showed a determination to injure him. If an act-if a wilful act—be done for the purpose of injuring the health of another, which may probably result in death, that, no doubt, constituted the crime of murder. Were there any reason to suppose that the woman was not provided with sufficient food by the husband, the case would assume a very different form. and the circumstance would cause a very different view to be taken of it; be- cause the law required that, in order to constitute the crime of murder in such a case, the woman must be provided with proper food, and have the means of offering it to the child but, as far as he could ascertain from the depositions, he saw nothing to induce him to b. lieve there was any want of—any difficulty in obtaining food, but a deliberate intention to destroy the child's health. If the evidence of the surgeon, as to tho state and appearance of the stomach, convinced them that the child died from want of food, he (the learned Judge) did not see that they had. any alternative but to return a verdict of wilful murder. The next case to which he would make illusion was of a peculiar nature. The charge included Nos. 12 and 13, Sarah Thomas and Henry Mutter, being accused of the wilful murder of the child of Sarah Thomas. The ftcts, as he gathered from the depositions, were these The woman, Sarah Thomas, was a widow. She was living apparently respectable in a parish at Newport, and attending a congregation, the clergvman of which seemed to be anxious for the morality, good conduct, and welfare of his parishioners. She being pregnant, and, as evidently turned out by the prisoner Mutter, in order to avoid the shame she must incur if confined where she was known, proceeded to Bristol, hired an apartment there, sent for a doctor, and was delivered of a fine healthy child. She continued to pay every at- tention to the child for a period—about a fortnight; and up w that time there was not any reason to suppose that the woman bad any wicked intent against the child. She then took a passage by the boat from Bristol to Newport, being attended to the boat by the woman at whose house she was connned. i he woman went on board with her, and, accidentally turning asula the shawl of the ac- cused, perceived the child to be very black in the face. She made some remark about it. "Oh," said the prisoner, "I am afraid I gave it a little too much brandy when I gave it some to quiet it I will cuddle it and keep it warm, and. no douot it will como round." She then told the woman to go away. Sho pro- ceeded on her voyage to Newport. From the time that the child was seen in her arms, it was never seen alive again. It appeared from the evidence, that upon her arrival in Newport she went in an oiainibui to her own house, and was seen by the neighbours, but notning was said about the child—not until some considerable period bad elapsed, whei some suspicion arose that she had had a child, and that it had been disposed of. Upon inquiry and an attempt to find Mutter, who appeared not to have been forthcoming for some time, she said the child had been seized with convulsions, and had lived but two hours after her return from Bristol, and that to avoid shamo and exposure, she had given the dead body to Mutter, who had thrown it into the canal. Search was then made, but ineffectually. That occurred in Novem- ber. When Mutter was discovered in January, and charged with the murder, he said he knew nothing a.bout it—the dead body was given to him, wrapped up in a napkin and a basket, and he had buried it. The spot he indicated was examined, and the body found carefully wrapped up as he had described. It was examined by the surgeon. That was the whole of the case affecting the prisoners. The evidence of the surgeon might be of great importance, or it might not. If the body was in such a decomposed state that no feasonable inference could be drawn, or some conclusion arrived at, as to the cause of death, then the medical testimony would, of course, assist them but very little. Before the coroner, in cross-examination, the surgeon said be did not see any- thing to show that The child had not come by his death by any natural means. If ho had the means of forming a judgment, they might rightly fin,l a bill for murder against the woman, but in the absence of such testimony it was not improbable, as she had previously borne a good character, and was known to have treated the child well —it was not improbable that the child had really died in the course of nature, and that the course adopted .as really to avoid exposure and shame, and to conceal the fact of her having had an illegitimate child. That would be a case for their consideration. He thought the matter would turn upon the evidence of the surgeon. They would inquire whether be had the means of ascertaining whether the child came by a natural death or not. If he had not those means, they would consider whether the circumstances presented any ground for arriving at a conclusion as to whether the prisoners together, or either of them, were guilty of the crime of murder. There was next a case of arson, which might be disposed of very shortly. A stick was burnt, but no evidence whatever existed as to the criminal, except the confession of the prisoner, who gave himself up. If they were satisfied that the man was in his senses, and that the policeman made no mistake, quite sufficient grounds were afforded them for re. turning a true bill. He thought those grounds did exist. He found two cases of manslaughter—one certainly very peculiar. The least peculiar of the two was that regard- ing the death of a person named Barnes—No. 16 in the calendar-and which was alleged to have been caused by Thomas Davis. From the evidence, it appeared that Barnes met bis death by a stone thrown by somebody in a mob who were following a man by whom some coals had been stolen, Barnes in some way or other interfering with them as he was going home with his mother. They could not see more than twenty yards from them. A brickbat struck him, and in ten days he died, evidently from the effects of the blow. The only evidence against the prisoner was that of one man who deposed to having seen him raise his hand, though he could not say he saw anything in it, and immediately hearing Barnes cry out that he was killed. If they were satisfied that a. stone from Davis's hand struck the deceased, it was a case of manslaughter. Because, although Davis had a right to go out for the purpose of apprehending the supposed thief of coal, he had no right to throw a stone against Barnes. That being an unlawful act, if death ensued from it, that was an act of manslaughter. The other case-and as he had said the more peculiar-presented some very remarkable features for their consideration. It was one which had been very much talked of. He alluded to the railway case at Nanty- derry. No doubt existed that an accident did occur on the Newport, Abergavenny, and Hereford Railway, near a place called Nantyderry, by reason of the engine jumping off the line. The express train had overturned; and shortly after the luggage train, without any proper noti- fication of the occurrence, came directly on the express train, two or three deaths resulting from the collision. The charge in the indictment was for the manslaughter of the two persons killed on that occasion. Two men were charged wilh the manslaughter-^one, Nathan Sargent, the driver of the engine. The other was George King, who, it seemed, upon the day in question, had taken the place of one Jones, who was what was called a foreman, and whose duty it was to soe the engine properly provided with appliances and fitted to proceed. Upon this day, having taken his place, he appointed Sargent to drive. He had driven once or twice before, but never an express engine, though he had been a fireman, and gone through the course ne- cessary for an engine driver. The charge against these two persons was of this description :-It was said each of them contributed to the death of the unfortunate de- ceased—that King contributed to it by neglect of the duty which he had to perform in seeing that the engine, when sent out, was perfectly correct and in working order, and with the requisite and proper appliances to it, and also to see that the driver was a fit and proper man to drive it upon the occasion. Sargent was charged with being actually the driver who, by his neglect and gross misconduct, caused the upset of the train. H. (the learned Judge) had looked carefully at the evidence affecting both the parties. There was some difficulty, he thought, in arriving at the question why George King had been put upon his tri J. In order that the offence of manslaughter should be made out, the neglect of duty must be gross negligence-the omitting of a clear and obvious act of duty which any reasonable man must know ought to be performed by him. An error of judgment, although re- sulting in an accident, was not sufficient to sustain a charge of manslaughter. It was said that King did not appoint a proper driver. He appointed a man not much experi- enced certainly, but one who had driven before, and had undergone the necessary training for a driver-having been a fireman. The charge of manslaughter he (the learned Judge) imagined could not be supported against King. Then it was said, as no doubt was the truth, that he ought to have looked to the engine to see if it was in proper order. That, it would seem, he had done. There was great difficulty with re- gard to the depositions taken before the coroner, for the two men whose evidence was the most voluminous, and went most fully into the matter, were now charged with manslaughter, and could not be brought as witnesses before the grand inquest, who would be deprived of their mony. There seemed to be some difficulty in ascertaining the origin of the accident. The immediate cause was al- legell to have been the fracture of a plate of one of the leading springs. The train was on a curve when the acci- dent occurred and some of the witnesses had attempted to show that there was something wrong in the laying of the rails and the canting of the curve but as far as. he could see, the accident appeared to have happened in con- sequence of t ie plate having broken, and the train going on, jumped off the rails-the probable result of such a fracture. When did that plate break ? It seemed that when the engine started from Hereford originally, it was perfectly sound. If so that exonerated King from any charge. It would rather appear that the plates broke at Abergavenny or some intermediate part. Sargent's at- tention was drawn to it. He mentioned itio the guard, who said it was not his duty to interest himself about it. But it was clearly the duty of tha driver not to proceed with an engine in a dangerous state—a state which would lead to such an accident. If they found that to be the ease-that Sargent, though perfectly aware of the con- dition of the engine would not insist upon having another, but chose to run the risk of going on, and that the accident arose from that—that it was the neglect of a clear duty which caused the accident-their duty would be obvious. Another point in this very complicated case was that Sargent had with him an implement or tool proper anti necessary to be with engines, and called a "jack." If he had had a "jack" with him, he would have been able to pack the engine, and render it perfectly safe. There was some evidence to show that Sargent asked for it but if King neglected to provide one for the engine, that breach of duty upon his part and the accident were too remote for the latter to be charged upon him because, if Sargent bad only taken the other alternative, and find- ing he had no "jack" have stopped the engine, as was clearly his duty, or not have gone on with a broken plate, the accident would not have occurred and he (the learned Judge) did not see how a verdict of manslaughter could stand against King, whatever might be their opinion with regard to Sargent. The calendar also contained a case of rape, to which his Lordship, in very brief terms, referred. There was also a case of highway robbery of a singular character. Two men were charged with robbing another. Almost as soon as the robbery was committed, Parry, one of the accused, was there with a policeman, abusing the man who had been robbed. Parry was charged with the robbery, and, being asked to show what he had in his pocket, produced a number of notes, but they were not recognised as any of those which had been stolen. It certainly appeared that he and the other man had squabbled about something or other; but they (the grand jury) would judge as to whether a robbery had been committed or not. The only other case to which his lordship would adude, was one of burglary, with respect to which he directed the grand jury that breaking a pane of glass, and opening the window, with intent to obtain admission into the house, although entrance might not be gained, and not a single article be moved, constituted in law the crime of burglary. His Lordship concluded by expressing his regret at being compelled to offer such lengthy remarks as he had found it necessary to make, and by dismissing the grand inquest to then- room, with a. request to takeOfirst into their consideration some short case, with which the Court might as soon as possible proceed to business. The Grand Jury then retired, and in the course of a few minutes the Learned Judge commenced trying prisoners. STEALING WHEAT AT GWEHELOG. Edward Edwards was convicted of stealing wheat, the property of G. R. G. Reiph, Esq., by whom he was at the time of committing the crime employed as a win- nower. Six months' imprisonment. ST. MELLOWS: INCENDIARISM. Maurice Brian pleaded guilty to setting fire to a stack of wheat belonólng, to his employer, Mr. James Timothy, on the 3rd of September. Four years' penal servitude. The prisoner, after his arrest, had informed his employer that he had not yet done with him. ASSAULT AND ROBBERY. Michael Welton (20) and John Donovan (18), two rough-looking young men, were indicted for feloniously assaulting Mary Lingham, and stealing from her person 3s. 9jd., a brass token, and a handkerchief, at Newport, on the 16ih of March last. Mr. Skinner supported the charge. The prosecutrix deposed I ana a travelling hawker, and, on the day in question^ had gone from Monmouth to Pontypool. I went to the R idney Arms, Cross-street, Newport, about seven o'clock in the evening I then had 6s. 2d. in my possession, besides a pocket-piece, a farthing, and some pawntickets. After staying about a quarter of an hour I left, but came back again, and saw the prisoners there drinking. I went into another house and had a glass of beer. When I left there I saw the two prisoners, who offered to sho.v me the way to my lodgings, at the Brickyard. They came with me. Donovan asked me if I had any money. I s»id no." He said, "Y Oll have." I said, If I have. it is my own." He said, "You are a liar, it will be mine presently." He then upset me, and the taller prisoner, (Welton) took 3s. Gd. from me. Donovan returned, and while Welton held his hand over my mouth, took from me my handker- chief and my pocket. They then expressed a desire to have my boots and, in answer to my cries for mercy, one of them said, smothei the b- A policeman thm came up and took them into custody. [Welton here asked the prosecutrix how she became possessed of her money.] I account for 4s. of the 6s. 2d., because I pawned my shawl to fill my basket. I paid for four or five pints of beer that night. I did not ask Welton where he was going, nor invite him to accompany me. It was not Welton's pocket-piece. I had had it for six months before. I do not know where I got it. I knew where I was going to lodge but, being a stranger in the town, I had missed the turning. I had never seen the prisoners before. I did not notice that we passed any policeman. I wasn't tipsy, nor I wasn't I was just in my right senses like. P.C. George Windmill stated that, while on duty on Stow-hill, about twelve o'clock on the night mentioned, he saw the prisoner Welton and another man going up the hill towards the church, in comp .ny with the prose- cutrix. I heard the prosecutrix say, I want to go to the Brickyard this is not ti,e way." Welton then took her hand and led her on. I did not know whether that was the way to the Brickyard. She did not appear willing to go. P.C. Richard Samways was next called, and said About one o'clock on Tuesday morning I heard a cry of murder. I ran in the direction of the sound, and heard some one say, Smother the b- I went a little further, and saw the prisoners rise off the woman. I gave chase, and Donovan fell into a ditch. I know him, and told him to lie there, and I would come back for him, and I secured the taller prisoner. I returned to the woman, and found her nose and mouth bleeding, her boots unloosed, and her bonnet doubled up. There were some pieces of a comb on the ground, and marks of a severe struggle. On seeing the prisoners, the prosecutrix recognised them. She told me she had 3s. 9|d., a pocket-piece, and a crooked farthing, when she was robbed. That was in the presence of Welton. She also mentioned a pawn-ticket, and a silk handkerchief. I met Windmill, and, with his assistance, took Welton to the station-house. Welton made a good deal of resistance. At the police-station I searched him, and found on him half-a-crown and a shilling. I ascertained Donovan's lodgings the same morning, searched him there, and found on him 41d. in coppers, a crooked farthing, and the pocket-piece produced. I went back to the ditch where I left Donovan, and there found part of a pawn-ticket, and, about ten yards distant, a silk handkerchief. The handkerchief I produce it is not the one I lost. Donovan (to the policeman) It is not likely you would have caught me in the house that night, if I had been in the ditch. The prosecutrix identified the pocket-piece, &c., pro- duced, as her property, but disclaimed the handkerchief. Welton, in defence, alleged that the pocket-piece belonged to him, and that prosecutrix had it from him. To support this he called his mother, Ellen Welton, or Brickley, who alleged that she had seen the token in her son's posspssion on the Saturday previously, and had mistaken it for half-a-sovereign. Mr. Skinner commented on the finding of the token in Donovan's pocket, while Welton had sworn it had been his. He would also remark that the part of the pawn-ticket was found at the ditch where Donovan fell, and where the woman had never been and that Welton's mother bad been particular in making her statement as to the value of the coins seen in her son's possession, agreed with the value of those alleged to have been stolen. His Lordship, in summing up, laid great stress on the statement of the prosecutrix as to the particular coins she had lost before those coins were found on Donovan. As for the willingness of the prosecutrix, and the purpose for which she went with them, as alleged by the prisoners before the magistrates, that was riot at all in accordance with the state in which she was found. That they must have been rifling her, was proved by the pieces of pawn- ticket which had belonged to her. The jury returned a verdict of guilty against both pri- soners. A previous conviction, in March, 1853, as well as other offences, was proved against Welton and that Donovan had been seven times convicted on serious charges. They were then sentenced each to 18 months' imprisonment. ASSAULT WITH INTENT, &C. Dennis Sullivan was charged with indecently assault- ing Mary Ann Harrington, at Michaelstone-y-Yedw, a servant girl in the employment of Mr. John Brinn, on Sunday night, the 22n(1 ult. [The subject-matter of tho case is fully detailed in our report of the proceedings of the Newport Police-court of Saturday.] After the evi- dence of the girl and the lad Broome, the Judge, in course of addressing the jury on the statements of the accuser, 1 observed that the principal thing against the prisoner < was that she cried out; and, therefore, however much she might have exaggerated her statement, she was much alarmed. Had he persisted in his endeavours to induce her, on promise of marriage, to submit to his wishes, there would have been no case of violence; but the ques- tion was, whether he intended to carry out his object by force. In the indictment there was another count, that of indecent assault, which is very different from that on which the prisoner was now arrainged. The jury would, I therefore, decide as to the extent of his guilt. The jury, after a short deliberation, found the prisoner guilty of the second count. The Judge, commenting t upon the dangerous position in which the prisoner stood, and the leniency of the verdict, pronounced a sen- tence of nine months' imprisonment. The prisoner re- s turned thanks to his Lordship, asserting his innocence. CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH AT TREVETHIN. Catherine Tobin, 19, coke-filler, was indicted for and pleaded guilty to endeavouring to conceal the birth of her female child on the 18th of December. His Lordship passed upon her a sentence of two months' hard labour, as she bad previously been in prison a similar period, and no suspicion whatever existed of foul play having been used towards the child, who was still born. HORSE-STEALING AT ST. MELLON3. Henry Jones, 32, pleaded guilty to stealing a horse, the property of his master, John Thomas. The prisoner had been in the employ of his master about a week, was sent for the horse, coolly rode off upon it, and sold it for £ 12. Sentenced to eighteen months' imprisoument vith hard labour. BURGLAJtY AT MONMOUTH. John Scanlin, 21, mason, pleaded guilty to an indict- ment, charging him with burglariously entering the dwelling-house of James Price, and stealing a pair of boots and some small articles. Having been confined since September, he was ordered to be imprisoned for twelve months, and kept to hard labour. CHARGE OF VIOLATION AT ST. MELLOXS. Philip Lloyd, who had been on bail, surrendered, and was put upon his trial for violating the person of Mary Ann Willinms. Mr. Davies for the prosecution, Mr. Skinner for the defence. Having partially opened the case, the prosecuting counsel intimated that he had just been informed that the surgeon-a most material witness -had left Monmouth under the impression that the trial would not come on until the next morning. Some con- versation then ensued between the court and the learned counsel as to whether the jury should be discharged or locked up. His Lordship questioned whether he had the powerto direct the former course, and consulted Justice Wiiles upon the subject, after which the learned Judge expressed his determination not to have the jury locked up, as no evidence had been given, but required the same jury to be in attendance on the following morning. The bail of the prisoner was enlarged. ASSAULT AND ROBBERY. Charles Stephens, 20, labourer, and Esaias Pritchard, 18, labourer, were indicted for stealing from the person of John Williams a cap and two shillings, on the 11th of January, 1857, and at the same time assaulting him.- Mr. Skinner prosecuted.-On the Sunday night men- tioned, prosecutor was at the Farmers' Arms, in the parish of Llanthewy Vach. The prisoners were also there, but had no conversation with him. He left between six and seven o'clock, and returned about nine with his face covered with blood, a wound on the eye, his pockets turned inside out, and his clothes torn and besmeared with dirt. Maria Prothero, a"rvant at the Farmers' Arms, stated she saw Stevens knock the prosecutor down in a field near the Farmers' Arms. Pritchard was present, but did nothing. She then went away. Prosecutor said he had been drinking at several places, and could not give a very clear account as to the money in his possession, and which probably amounted to one or two shillings, but he felt hands in his pockets while on the ground. A boy, named Brown, deposed to seeing Stephens assault the prosecutor; and afterwards he met Pritchard at a "bidaIB," with the cap taken from the prosecutor. The jury first returned a verdict of guilty of a common assault against Stephens. The learned Judge requested them to reconsider it, there being no such charge in the indictment. Stephens was then found guilty of assault- ing with intent to rob, and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment with hard labour. Pritchard not guilty. HIGHWAY ROBBERY AT ABERGAVENNY. William Dark, 2G, and Mary Dark, 24, were indicted for assaulting Henry Harris. Mr. Cleave prosecuted, and called tho prosecutor, who stated that he resided at Gellydeg farm, Trevethin. He attended Aber gavonny I fair on the 19th of November. Ho left the Butcher's Arms to go honic about six o'clock in the evening. He had four £ 3^notes and three sovereigns in a purse, and some silver in his pocket. About half a mile from the town, near the Spitty, the female prisoner and another woman came up to him, one on either side of his horse. They took hold of the bridle, and tnen seized him by the overcoat. They wanted to drag the mare into a road by the side of the Spitty. He desired them to looso the marc. He struck the woman on the right-hand side of the horse on the arm with his whip. She called out Jim." He was immediately struck on the head and knocked off his horse. While on the ground, the two prisoners and the second woman got upon him. The notes, gold, silver, a knife, spectacles, &c., were taken from him. While on the ground the man said, Let us rob old Harry." The women then went away, and pro- secutor went to the station-house, Abergavenny, and gave information to the police. Prosecutor was confident that Mary Dark was the woman he struck. William Dark, he said, he knew very well, from having repeatedly seen him. Cross-examined by D uk: Well, I was half drunk; and at Abergavenny I said I would put on a paper what I drank, by the time I come here again. I am sure there were others besides you in partnership. I did not give two other men into custody. I did not give you in charge. Both of you were discharged at first before the magistrates, but before I had the opportunity of saying a word. Hendrick, ostler at the Butcher's Arms, stated that the prosecutor, when he left know what he was about. He was merely a little fresh. Superintendent Whaeldon, of Abergavenny, examined: On the 19th November, just after the robbery, he saw the prosecutor, who did not appear to be in drink, and from whom he received information of what had taken place. Witness found the itbrse at Llanellen. Appre- hended the female on the following day. She had a bruise on her arm, as if she had received a blow. Wit- ness had information of two other persons, but did not succeed in apprehending them. lie took the two pri- soners before the magistrates at Monmouth. Prosecutor said several times be could not swear to them, and they were discharged. He then stated he was sure th.-y were the robbers but witness refused to take them into cus- tody again without a warrant, which prosecutor imme- diately obtained. The learned Judge intimated to the jury that the evi- dence adduced was scarcely safe to convict upon. Pro- secutor was by no means certain who had robbed him and in the absence of other testimony, he should not re- ommead the jury to convict. The prisoners were there- upon acquitted. Dark My Lord, I have been in gaol these eighteen weeks, and could bring parties to prove where I was. Now, can't I bring an action against him for the loss of my work ? His Lordship. Yes, you can bring any action you think proper, but I should not recommend anything of the kind. You had better take care of yourself. When the Grand Jury are dismissed, you can go. CHEPSOW FORGING A NOTE. Catherine Chard, (45' hawker, was indicted for forging and uttering a note, with intent to defiaud John Lewis. Mr Skinner appeared for the prosecution. Guilty. She was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, having been already five months in gaol. The Court rose at six o'clock. TUESDAY. Mr. Justice Crowder sat at nine o'clock. ST. MELLONS. — EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE. Philip Lloyd, on bail, was indicted for violating the person of Mary Ann Williams, a girl 14 years of age. Mr. Davies prosecuted; Mr. Skinner defended. Mr. Davies stated the facts he proposed to call in evi- dence, and spoke of the difficulty attaching to the prose- cution, in consequence of the absence of two persons whom it had been endeavoured to subpoena. Mary Ann Williams, 14 years of age, deposed to having waited with her mistress (on the night when the alleged crime was committed) for the return of her mas- ter. After tea, prisoner ordered witness to go to bed, and the mistress to go to the same bed. I told him I would not go to the same bed as the mistress; he said D- your eyes, if you don't I'll split your skull open with the knife." He held a carving-knife over my head. I went upstairs; he came after me; he made me and mistress strip stark naked, except our shifts there was a light in the room. We then went to bed; the candle was still burning; he brought the carving-knife and a toasting.. fork he put the carving-knife under the pillow, and the fork between me and mistress. He then undressed and came into bed, having first put the candle out. He got into bed on the side that I was. [Prosecutrix detailed what followed, stating that she resisted, but ineffectually.] The assaults lasted half-an-hour. Mistress was crying. He said he had a pain in the stomach. She then said— Philip, shall I go down and light the candle for you, my dear." He had said, when he got into bed, that if he should not have his own way, lie would split my skull open with the carving-knife. When my mistress asked if she should light the candle, he said Yes." As soon as she went downstairs, he left me, and I jumped out of bed, and said—" I will tell all the people in the village, and John Morgan, the next-door neighbour." When mistress returned with the light, almost immediately, he thre.v me on the bed, and said to my mistress, Sit down on the bedside while I do it again." She was crying all the while, and sat and held the candle. [Witness stated that the prisoner again succeeded in assaulting her. She endeavoured to push him away. He again threatened to aplit her skull open, if she did not be quiet.] Afterwards he let me go, and I went to my own bed in another room. Mistress called me about seven o'clock. I com- plained to her of being poorly. The prisoner, after break fast, went out as usual. He did not return till be- tween two and three o'clock on Sunday morning. I wished to leave the house; I told my mistress I should 50; she said I should not, and 1 rermined. When the prisoner came home on Sunday morning, I was sitting up again with my mistress. Mistress went to the door. He previously called out, Ah I do see you little do you think of me." When the door was opened, he raised his walking stick and struck mistress. Sha cried, and said, "Pl1ilip, what is the matter with you, my dear ? He 3aid, D—— your eyes, you had better go out of the house." He had a piece of beef on his shoulder, which he threw on the table. She asked if she should put it out. He said, No, you d-d scamp,, you shan't." He then went to the back-kitchen, and told my mistress she had better be out before he came back. Mistress and myself went out at the front door, and stood on the green. While we were outside, he came from the back-kitchen into the kitchen, and threw a chair at us. It struck me on the lpg. I and my mistress then went to the well, and sat down there about half-an-hour. We afterwards went to Mr. David Wdlliams 3 house, about half a mile distant. Mr. Williams is Mrs. Lloyd's father. We called up the servant, named Ann French, to whom my mistress directly told what had occurred. Ann French is a niece of Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams came to me and asked me if it was true ? and I was ashamed to say. Ann French had previously told Mr. Williams. I after- wards told Mr. Williams it was true. I remained at Mr. Williams's house until Tuesday, when I walked to Cardiff, three or four miles. I got there about seven o'clock in the evening. I went to the house of a married sistar. She was with her husband. I called her out, and told her what had happened. She.took me the same evening to Mr. Paine, surgeon, of Cardiff, who examined me. I had on the same underclothing as I had on Friday. A few days afterwards I was taken before Mr. Williams, a magistrate. [The prosecutrix gave her evidence in a cool and very collected manner.] The witness was subjected to a severe cross-exami- nation, which was mainly to show that she did not avail herself of the many opportunities in her power to tell the neighbours the nature of the crime committed by the prisoner. She did not know whether Lloyd was sober at the time; but she admitted that she did not tell any one until her mistress told Ann French, and that she heard French tell her master about it. Mrs. ) Lloyd is a pretty young woman, a woman of resolution, and knows how to pay off her husband as well as any one. My mistress said that on the Monday before this Friday, prisoner had done the same thing to me twice. Part of my mistress's tale to Ann French was, that after all this he tried to hang himself. He tied a handker- chief round his neck, and went to the children. Mistress said, "Oh, Philip, my dear, don't choke yourself." Ann French's story was, that my mistress dragged him choking into her own room. Besides the carving knife and toasting fork, he carried upstairs a staff. It is true what the wife said—that the prisoner had to do with me twice on the Monday before. That was downstairs. He then had no carving knife. Re-examined for the prosecution: On the Monday night, the prisoner came home between twelve and one. I was silting up for him. A bed was airing before the fire. He came in laughing, and mado use of an oath and indecent expression. He caught hold of me and threw me on the bed. Mistress was in the kitchen then, and heard what he said, and saw him throw me down, and immediately went out. In about twenty minutes, he told me to go after mistress. My mistress came in. He then said, Polly, you are to go to bed." I pulled off my boots in the kitchen, and went upstairs to bed. In about half a minute my mistress called out, Mind, Polly, here's the master coming." I said he had better not come there to provoke me. He threw himself upon me. 1 cried out. My mistress was in an adjoining room. She said, "Hush, girl; he won't be long on you." I tried to prevent him, but he committed the offence. My mistress is a small woman.. By Mr. Skinner: When prisoner camo to me on the Monday the second time, he was stripped. I made a mistake when I said ho was dressed. Ann Pocock, wife of Thomas Pocock, ot Cardiff, and sister to the prosecutrix, deposed that her sister com- plained to her of what had happened on t ae Friday evening. I called at the magistrate s, and afrcrwards weut to Mr. Williams's house. 1 had a coversation with Mrs. Lloyd there. On Wednesday, I went to prisoner's house, and saw him, and said, NN ell, Mr, Lloyd, this is a dreadful thing." I told hIm what his wife had told me. I told him that he had been committing a rape upon the child, He said, 'No all that he was sorry fur was that he had turned his wife and child out of doors." I told him he had made his wifo and the child go up stairs before him, and that lie took the carving-knife and toasting-foric, made them strip before him, and swore he would cut the little girl's head open, and that he got into bed witu tho girl, lie said it was not true—it was a made up thing between his wife and the littte girl. I said, Oil, no, it is not a made up thing, for the doctor cm prove that." Ho said, "You have known me before: if you think it is true, you can have me taken into custody." Cross-eiamined; The mother of the little girl lives at r Newport. I don't know whether she is married to the man she lives with. Mr. II. J. Paine, surgeon, of Cardiff, stated that on Tuesday, the 17th of December, in the evening, Mrs. Pocock brought the girl to him. He detailed the result of his examination, from which he inferred that an attempted connection had taken place, but that it had not been alto- gether effected. It might have happened some few days previously. Cross-examined: It might have happened on Sunday afternoon. I have known the prisoner many years have attended his family, and have always considered him a respectable man. I should not think the prosecutor had been violated three or four times. There were no ex- ternal bruises nor evidence of violent connection. James Parrott, of the County Constabulary, deposed that the prisoner denied the charge on being taken into custody. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr. Skinner then proceeded to address the jury for the defence. He commented upon the good character given the prisoner by the surgeon, his direct denial of the charge when first imputed to him, and the opportunity to escape from the consequences of the trial, had he been conscious of guilt. The story from first to last, he con- tended, had arisen with the wife, who, in a moment of exasperation, caused by ill-usage, had concocted it, and tutored the poor workhouse girl—an easy instrument- to be the means of gratifying" a woman's vengeance;" but who now, probably, if allowed by law, would be wil- ling to stand before them in the witness-box to tell of her own shame in the matter, and to proclaim the utter falsity of the girl's statement, and her husband's inno- cence. He prayed the jury to give their earnest atten- tion to the case, to pay particular attention to the sur- geon's evidence, to contrast it with the testimony of the girl, to remember how easy such charges were made, and generally how difficult to rebut, but which was amply rebutted in the present instance. Upon reviewing all the circumstances which had been laid before them, he did not think they would find a man guilty of such a serious charge—a charge which at one time he would have expiated with his life, and which even now might have the effect of consigning him to heavy punishment and indelible disgrace. His Lordship, in summing up, characterised it as the most extraordinary case he had ever seen brought into a court of justice. It was (the learned Judge said) re- markable that the prisoner should always commit the offence in the presence of his wife still more remark- able that the wife should, upon each occasion, coun- tenance it, and use such expressions as-" Shall I go down for a candle, my dear." The account placed before them was very odd, indeed. In such cases, it was gen- erally expected that immediate steps for redress should be taken by the injured female. But there were cir- cumstances—terror or confinement-which would not allow that course to be adopted. There was, however, in the evidence, no attempt on the part of the prisoner to keep the girl in the house-no attempt on part of the girl to intimate to her female acquaintances what had taken place. The case was filled with inconsistencies and extraordinary improbabilities. The jury expressed a wish to retire. They returned in about ten minutes with a verdict of NOT GUILTY. Mr. Davies then said there was another indictment against the prisoner for an indecent assault; but with regard to that he would be guided by his Lordship's opinion. His Lordship remarked that that depended upon the ground upon which the jury had returned their verdict. In reply to his Lordship, the jury said they discredited the statement of the girl. Mr. Davis said he would abandon the second indict- ment, with regard to which a verdict of acquittal was taken. The prisoner was then discharged from the bar. [The Grand Jury were discharged from their duties shortly after 10 o'clock.] THE RAILWAY ACCIDENT AT NANTYDERRY. N athen Sargent and George King were indicted for the manslaughter of Edmund Henry Hands and Mark Hicks. Mr. Skinner and Mr. Huddleston for the prose- cution Mr. Smythies and Mr. Barrett for the defence. The Grand Jury having thrown out the bill, with the cons-nt of Mr. Skinner, King was discharged, and the trial of S-argeant was proceeded with as regarded the death of Mark Hicks. Mr. Skinner, in opening the case, stated it was brought forward for the protection of the public travelling by rail. Mr. John Williams, station-master at Nantyderry, William Lake, engine-driver, Williams, (the stoker), and Mr. Henry Griffiths, station-master at Pontypool, de- posed to a few minor incidents connected with the occurrence. John G. Rogers, guard to the down express train, of which prisoner was the driver,deposed to prisoner inform- ing him, when they arrived at Abergavenny, that he bad loat a spring bu-t witness did not know whether it was safe or not to go on without springs. William Carter, signalman an 1 pointsman at Aberga- venny, and Frederick Barrett, chief officer at the station, spoke as to being informed of the broken spring after the train left, and Superintendent Lipscombe, of the Aberga- venny police, produced the spring. Mark W. Curr, resident engineer and superintendent of the locomotive department on the line since January, 1855; prisoner bad been on the line some time, and been raised from stoker to the rank of spare driver and turner. He had driven trains five or six times between Hereford and Newport. On the 12th of November, the regular driver of the express train being absent, prisoner was appointed. The speed of the express is about that of ordinary trains but there are fewer stoppages. When a spring is broken or lost, there is a simple means of providing for the safety of the engine. A screw-jack is necessary to do it. The withdrawal of the spring causes the flanges-wheel liable to rise, and the engine to run off. When the engine is skilfully packed, the weight upon the wheel remains about the same. The rules are given to all the servants, and provide for all circumstances which may arise. By the Judge There is no rule for the course to be prescribed when a spring breaks. That is not an un- common event; but losing a spring certainly is. The Judge: It is very remarkable that when the fracture of an engine is of every-day occurrence that there should be no rule applicable to it. Mr. Huddleston said there was a rule which provided that a screw-jack should be carried. Witness (to Mr. Skinner): It is the duty of the driver to stop if his engine is out of order. It was his duty to hnve a screw-jack. The engine could have been packed with levers. I saw the wheels of the engine after the accident. The flanges were perfect. I can assign no cause for accident but the withdrawal of the pressure from the wheel by the loss of the spring. That is quite sufficient cause. In cross-examination, the witness said the prisoner had never driven the express train before. To the Judge I think it was the imperative duty of the driver not to go on with an engine in a disabled con- dition. He ought first to have endeavoured to pack the engine, and then consulted the authorities at the station as to the best means of getting on the passengers. Cer- tainly, he uilght not to have gone on with a disabled engine. Mr. Smythies Have you ever heard of an engine running off the line with the loss of a spring ? Witness I never heard of an engine driven with the loss of a spring. To the Judge: Such an accident was probable unless considerable caution were used, and the speed much slackened. Colonel Holland, one of the inspectors of railways appointed by the Board of Trade, s tid On examining the line, I found it right. The engineer oui-'ht always to have a screw-jack. A careful driver would not have started with a spring deficient. Had the train been taken slowly round the curve, an accident would not have been so likely. Cross-examined I have known many engines run ofl the line with a fractured spring, which would be a much lees cause than the absence of the spring altogether. Cross-examination continued: My opinion would depend upun the circumstances detailed at the time. I have 110 personal knowledge of his efficiency, but from what I have heard in evidence to-day, I do not think ha was a fit person to be employed on a passenger train. Mr. Skinner then called Thomas Curran, who deposed that the prisoner had travelled Tith Lim as fireman for six months, and that on all occasions he was steady, care- ful, and cautious. The Judge, in ADDRESSING the jury, alluded to the absurdity of giving books of rules, containing ninety-five pages, to a man who could neither read nor write, and advised an acquittal (the man bring incompetent), with which the Jury immediately complied. Ihe prosecution in the case of Edmund Henry Hands was abandoned. CilAilGE OF CHILD MURDER AT NEWPORT. Sarah Thomas, 42, laundress, and Henry Mutter, 23, -*cmaker, were indicted for the wilful murder of the infant female child of the former. Mr. Huddleston and M). Somerset fur the prosecution^ and Mr. Banett for the defence. Mr. Huddleston opened the case, and observed that the offence imputed to the primers was one of the most serious known in our law, entailing, in case of conviction, the naost serious consequences. Mr. Iluddlestone then went into a narrative of the proceedings of the prisoner (with her child) in taking leave of Mrs. Sully in Bristol, her arrival In Ne-.vport, and subsequent strange and suspicious behaviour—proceedings which are sufficiently familiar to the minds of our local readers, and which were commented on by the Judge while addressing the Grand Jury. Mr, Huddleston, in con- clusion, stated that the prisoner bed written a letter from Newport to her former landlady (Mrs. Sully) speaking of the child in atfectionate terms, and stating that it was alive, but in a failing state, and she was prepared to meet with resignation any thing that might happen tuu. Subsequently, from some iniormation which c-ime to the ears of the [ clergyman* ta whom the woman had. become an. object of