Monmouthshire Merlin

NEWPORT COUNTY COURT. The monthly county court for this district was held on Tuesday and Wednesday last, before his Honour, J. M. Herbert, Esq., Judge. 302 cases were entered, and the greater number of these were of the customary unin- teresting, description. Our readers will find reports of the principal trials subjoined. JUDGMENTS. His Honour delivered the two following important judgments in cases adjourned from last Court — SIR JOHN HABERFIELD AND OTHERS, ASSIGNEES OF J. J. JOHNSON, V. SAMUEL HOlllFRA Y, ESQ. This action was brought to recover the sum of 937 9s. 9d., being the amount of a tailor's bill for clothes supplied by the insolvent Johnson, to:Mr. Chas. Homfray, the defendant's son, who was under age when the goods were supplied Johnson commenced business on his own account in the month of June, 1856. Previous to that date. he had been for many years a commercial traveller in the employ of Mr, James Bremner, of Bristol, who, for the last ten years. has supplied Mr. Homfray and his family with clothes, on orders taken by Johnson. Whilst in Mr. Bremner's employ, he used to solicit orders from Mr. Charles Homfray and the other members of defend- ant's family, and the clothes which were supplied on such orders were always paid for by the defendant. In the year 1856, the defendant complained to Johnson of the extra vagant orders given by his son, and this complaint was communicated by him to Mr. Bremner and Mr. Bremner having subsequently received a communication on the subject from defendant's sister, told Johnson not to exe- cute any further orders for Air. Charles Homfray without first receiving the defendant's express sanction and, in accordance with these instructions. no further orders were executed by Mr. Bremner for Mr. Charles Homfray, except upon the defendant's express order. Shortly after commencing business, Johnson solicited the defendant and his sons, for orders, on his own account, The defend- ant and Mr Augustus Homfray declined to give him any orders but Mr. Charles Homfray, who was still resident with his father, gave hm an order. The order was given at the King's Head, in this town, without the father's knowledge and Mr. Johnson never communicated to the defendant the fact of the order having been given, although he was in Newport at the time when the order was given. This order was executed, and the clothes were delivered on the 13th of August, 1856, amounting in value to L7 12s. Three similar orders were subsequently given in the course of the same autumn, and the clothes were delivered on the 10th Sept., the 17th Oct., and the 26th October. Mr. Bremner had, in the course of the previous spring, supplied Mr. Charles Homfray with three entire suite -the orders having been taken by Mr. J. Johnson, It was proved that the clothes supplied by Mr. Johnson, were worn by Mr. Charles Homfrav whilst in his father's company, but it was not shown that the de- fendant had any knowledge of any clothes having been supplied to his son by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Champ, for the plantiffs, on these tacts, contended that the defend- ant was liable—the clothes having been supplied to Mr. Charles Homfray whilst he was living under his father's roof; and he relied on the authority of Baker v. Keen. 2, St*rk, 501 but it was submitted by Mr. Fox, on behalf of the defendant—1st. That the clothes supplied by Mr. Johnson could not be considered as necessary, Mr. Charles Homfray having already had three entire suits in the previous part of the same year, and, therefore, that this case did not come within the authority of the case cited and, 2adly, That Mr. Johnson had express notice from Mr. Homfray, that he would not be answerable for clothes supplied on the order of his son Charles, and, therefore, that he could not be liable on the implied con- tract, even supposing them te be necessaries. I was of opinion that both these grounds of defence were valid, but at the request of Mr. Champ. I reserved my judgment to at th" »u thai J ties. I still adhere to the same opinion. Even assuming that the case of Bsker v. Keen, and the two cases of Blackburn v. ilaokurv 1, C. and P. 1, and Law v. Wilkin, 6 A and E.. 713,—ate law, not- withstanding the doubt thrown upon them by Mortimore I'. Wright, 6, M. and W., 485, and Sheldon v Springett, 11, C B., 454, I consider that these goods were not ne- eeMaries—that the tradesman who supplied them was aware that they were not so and therefore, that no im- plied contract (even in the absence of notice) arose to pay for them and I further think that, inasmuch as Mr Johnson received a plain intimation from the defendant, that he would not be responsible for any clothes supplied to his son without his express orders, no implied promise on his part to pay for them arises, even if they were necessaries. In Mortimore v Wright, Lord A binder says, In point of law, a father who gives no authority, and enters into no contract, is no more liable for goods supplied to his son, than a brother or an uncle, or a mere stranger, would be. From the moral obligation a parent is under oo provide for his children, a jury are not unnat- urally disposed to infer against him an admissaion of a liability in respect of claims upon his son, on grounds which warrant no such inference in point of law." Again —" With regard to the case in the Court of King's Bench, of Law v. Wilkin, if the docisiou is to be taken as it is reported, I can only any that I am sorry for it, and cannot assent to it. It may have been influenced by facts which do not appear iu the renort; but as the case stands, it appears to sanction the idea that a father, as regards j-L for debts incurred by his son, is in a different position from any other relation which is a doc- trine I must altogether dissent from. If a father does any specific act, from which it may be reasonably inferred that he has authorised his son to contract a debt, he may be liable in respect of the debt so contractea but the mere moral obligation on the father *to maintain his child affords no inference of a legal pro- mise to pay his debts and we ought not to put upon his acts an interpretation which, abstractedly and with- out reference to that moral obligation, 'hey will not rea- sonably warrant. In order to bind a father in point of law for a debtineurre1 by his son, you must prove that he has contracted to be bound just in the same manner as you would prove such a contract against any other persou; and it would bring the law into great uncertainty if it were permitted to juries to impose a liability in each par- ticular case, according to their own feelings or prejudices"' Again, in Shelton v. Springett, Jervis, C.J., says, c, It is well settled that a father is Dot, without some contract express or implied, liable for necessaries to his son." He then cite3 Lord Abinger's judgment in the above case, and says, To that doctrine I entirely subscribe." And Justice Maule says, '•People are very apt to imagine that a son stands in this respect upon the same footing as a wIfe. But that is not so. The law does not au- thorise a son to bind his father by his contracts." I have cited these cases at length, not because I consider them to apply closely to the facts of the present case, or as neces- sary to support my judgment—(for my judgment mainly rests on the effect of defendant's notice—which prohibited Mr. Johnson from executing similar orders—rebutting, as it does, any inference of liability arising from the supply of the articles to the son whilst under the father's roof) — but in order that the public may know that whenever a tradesman receives any such order, the only prudent course for him to take is to ascertain by inquiry from the father whether the order is to be executed, and how far in future such orders are to be attended to. The opposite course is not only attended with risk to the tradesman, but is obviously calculated to produce serious mischief and misery, by encouraging in young men habits of reckless extravavance, and loose notions respecting pecuniary obligations. JOHN WILLIAMS v. MESSRS. BEYNON AND WELLS. The plaintiff in this action is a qualified pilot of this port, and he seeks to recover the sum of £ 2 4s., under the 363rd section of the Newport Shipping Act of 1854, for the pilotage of the Lewes Lass." The 303rd section is as follows The following persons-shall be liable to pay pilotage dues for any ship for which the services of a qualified pilot are obtained (that is to say) the owner or master, or such consignees or agents (hereof, as have paid or made themselves liable to pay any other charges on account ot such ship in the port of her arrival or discharge, as to pilotage in wards, and in the port from which she clears out, as to pilotage outwards and in default of pay- ment, such pilotage dues may be recovered in the same manner as penalties of the like amount may be recovered by virtue of this Act; but such recovery shall not take place until a previous demand thereof has been male in writing, and the dues so demanded have remained unpaid for seven days after the time of such demand being made." The defendants are ship brokers, of this town. They cleared the vessel outwards, and they also paid sundry tradesmen's bills and other charges for the ship, amounting in the whole to the sum of £ 261 5s. 7d. The owners re° side at Dover. She carried outwards a car»o of iron the Trede-ar Company being the charterers. °It was not shown that any other person than the defend Ak i agency business for the ship whilst she w« t tff *7 The defendants, however, disputed thoh 1? wv P°^ plaintiff, insisting that a they hid i f'1'1 to th? with the master two or three da vs. !fitlle* the" account their agencv was at an on 1 Kof .H, ef°i"e the ship sailed, were called for T tv before the services of the piloi stiU think tW however, at the hearing, and too to XQ>L of the Act of Parliament is too deal to admit of doubt that the defendants are liable for not only are they, according to the words of the Act. an agent of the ship, who has paid, or made himself liable to pay, other charges in the port from which she clears out," but there is no other person in tho port who fills thai character. Bat it aeeuu to sae thai tho plaintiff has mistaken his remedy in applying to this court; for the Act of Parliament having prescribed the mode of re- covering the pilotage viz., by summary proceeding nrt rirr* ustices, he must pursue that remedy, and has aU. ac^ion for them, at least against an agent with ST h« hRas! .not contracted. In Hem. Bishop of Ro- »n A [1 Ad. 859, it is said, ''When in a anorift i" aa ° ^D' a enforces the performance m a specified manner, we take it to be a general rule that a^oW^atinnT11^0'1 in any othor manner. If an obligation is created, but no mode of enforcing its per- formance is ordained, the common law may ngeneral find a mode suited to the particular naturJof the case." Here the defendants -but for the provisions of the Act of Paihament- clearly incurred no liability to the plaintiff- a*n'l' ,01ng VaWe to t,ie plaintiff solely by force of tho Act, the plaintiff must therefore pursue the statutory re- medy. And there is abundant reason for this in the pre- sent case. The remedy prescribed is summary and of an inexpensive nature, whilst the remedy by action, if pur- sued in one of the Ruperioroonrts-and if the plaintiff has a right of action here, he would also have it in the superior courts-would be very expensive, and therefore might operate most injuriously and oppressively upon shipping agents. There will, therefore, be a nonsuit. Young v. May.—This action was brought to recover the value of 60 tons of coal, supplied by plaintiff to de- fendant at 10s. 61. a ton. Mr. Thompson, manager for Air. Young, proved that an order was received from Mr. May for the coal, and it was delivered accordingly. Ho subsequently wrote acknowledging the debt and promis- ing payment. Mr. Paine, who appeared for plaintiff, said he had written in July last to defendant for the money, and received a reply asking for a delay of six weeks. The six weeks expired, but no money was paid. The debt was not disputed, and an order was made for payment forthwith. Scard v. Phillpottt I Solicitor.—His Honour reserved his decision in this case from the last court. He now gave judgment for the plaintiff, for full amount. A HEAVY DERT.-Kitc v. Phinn.— The plaintiff in this case sued for the extensive sum of half-a-crown, for work done as a carpenter. White handed up what he called u his accounts," but the dirty scrap of paper was so highly perfumed with tobacco, that His Honour de- clared he could not hold it, and accordingly surveyed it at a distance. The man declared he was no scholar, and lIe appeared determined to state the matter explicitly enough having entered the total three sev.-ral times. The defendant denied the debt, but produced no evidence to disprove it, and an order was accordingly made for payment. Cook v. J)utjiÛtl.- The defendant is a farmer, and the plaintiff a labourer, and the action was brought to recover for work done by the latter. For the defendant a set off was pleaded on account of rent. The plaintiff was work- ing for Mr. Dutfield in his fields, and while so engaged he took a house of a man named Thomas, asking Mr. Dutfield to become surety for the payment of the rent. Mr. Dut- field at first objected to this, but ultimately became bound to pay the rent during the time plaintiff remained in his employ. His Honour decided that when plaintiff paid his rent he could recover for his labour, but not before. Mr. Morris for defendant. Drew v. Thomas.—Mr. Morris in this case appeared tor defendant. The plaintiff stated that he sold defendant four lambs in September, 1857, at 15s. 6d. each. He agreed to buy nine, and tonk away four, agreeing to pay tor them when he came for the other five. He never appeared again, however, and had not paid for the four lambs he took away. The defendant now declared that he never saw the plaintiff in his life, but a witness was called to prove that the bargain was made a3 stated by plaintiff, and that defendant was a party to it. Mr. Morris declined to call defendant, the Judge intimating that if he swore he never bought the lambs, he was not sure that he should not order him to be indicted for perjury.—Judgment for plaintiff. Callington and Magub v. Smart.—The action was brought to recover t,50 for demurrage.—Mr. Pain repre- sented the plaintiffs, shipowners, of Newport, and Mr. R. J. Cathcart the defendant—a general merchant of Cardiff. According to Mr. Pain's stitement, the defendant con- tracted to supply plaintiffs with a cargo of coke for the William and Anne. He obtained the coke from Messrs. Price. The vessel entered the Newport Dock on the 12th of November, and loading was commenced on the 21st of the sarao month. The loading was proceeded with on the 22nd, but on the 24th no loading could be carried on for want of coke. On two other days the same delay occurred-the 26th and 28th-and the dock master com- plained of this delay, as the William and Anne occupied the place of another vessel. On the 3rd of December, in consequence of these interruptions in the loading, she was turned out by the Dock Company, under their 33rd Bye-law, which provides that no vessel shall be allowed to remain in her berth to the exclusion of others, unless loading is going on continuously. On the 11th of December, she re-entered the dock, and the loading was proceeded with and enrried out. For this interval between the 3rd and 11th of December, the claim for demurrage was made, it being alleged that the delay in loading was occasioned by the insufficient supply of coke from the merchants.—Witnesses were called in support of these allegations, and cross-examined by Mr. Cathcart, with a view of showing that longer time was not occu- pied than absolutely necessary in loading the vessel.- Mr. Cathcart raised several objections of a technical character to the bye law of the Company quoted by Mr. Pain. He contended that the clause of the Act, empower- ing the co u;)any to pass bye laws, did not justify them in empowering their servants to remove a vessel back- wards and forwards from ber berth. His Honour ruled that if even the company had no bye law, they would be empowered to remove vessels, and moreover, that if the act of removal from the dock was an illegal one, it would not material y affect the case. Captain Foote and Mr. Geth- ing were called, and gave evidence relative to the time usually occupied in loading vessels, and a'so as affecting the reglllations of the company. Mr. Gething, in reply to Mr. Cathcart, said the Wilhain and Anne was a very old vessel, and had the reputation of carrying out General Wolfe to Quebec. She was, notwithstanding, a staunch tight vessel still. Mr. Davis, shipping agent, and Mr. G. W. Jones, gave testimony concerning the general practice of loading vessels. Mr. Cathcart, in replying for the defence, contended that the vessel was always in the possession of Mr. Magub, and that the acts of the Dock Company concerned him alone. He also argued that if they were liable to demurrage at all, it was only for the time which would have been occupied in loading the vessel. He further contended that after all, they had not had more time than was necessary for loading-a fair ratio being 20 tons a day. At this rate, loading 400 tons of coke-the burden of the William and .Anne-would occupy 20 days, and if loaded with coal, half that time. Mr. tsmart was called to prove these facts. His Honour said it appeared to him clear that there had been eight days delay in loading the vessel, for which defendant was liable. In 13 days, at the outside, the vessel might have been loade;, and if reasonable despatch had been used by the charterer in bringing down his cargo, it might have been done.-J udgment for £.50. Lobbett v. Recs.-The claim was for half-a-year's rent, L25. Mi-. R. J. Cathcart for plaintiff, defendant was unde- fended. The plain-iff stated that he let a faim to Rees at £ 50 a year, and he owed for half-a-year up to Decem- ber last. When he left the house nothing was found in ir but an old jar and a "murderous bludgeon." Mr. Sidney Evans, farmer and auctioneer, proved that defendant moved away about 420 worth of hay and straw. By mowing a meadow twice instead of once, he did the farm £5 damage. His Honour decided thattthe rent was due, and gave judgment for X23 Is. lOd. The damages by reason of bad husbandry he assessed at £ 15, and ordered the total amount to be paid forthwith. Rogers v. Sprague.-The plaintiff, a ship broker in this town, had laid out money amounting to £11 10s. lid. for defendant. No one appeared to dispute the debt, and it was ordered to he paid forthwith. Little v. Macbeth.- The action was brought for 17s. The claim was disputed by Mr. Macbeth, and the plain- tiff said that he agreed to supply a pair of trousers for 23s. Mr. Macbeth contended th<it 20s, was the price agreed upon. Plaintiff also contracted to sell a coat for 16the defendant now stating that 10s. was the price. Mr. Macbeth said he was willing to pay any money he owed: he had never been in a court in Wales before. The 1 defendant produced a receipt, signed by the son of plain- tiff, for 10s., in full of all claims. The son was called, and said he was induced by Mr. Macbeth to sign the words in full," but he had no authority from his father to do so. Mr. Macbeth said he hoped His Honour would not imagine that he wished to take an unfair ad- vantage of the receipt. His Honour declined to express an opinion on the point, and gave judgment for plaintiff. Clarke v. Phillips.—The plaintiff sued to recover £2 for damages caused to a Saxe-horn. Plaintiff and three others were thrown off the defendant's omnibus and the injury was done to the horn by the fall Air' nu d the defendant, pleaded that the accident amP' caused by the careless drivin- 0 I 7 WaS not again, that the injury done\ th^ and' great as set forth. Plaintiff pallo^ horn was not so that the defendant was drivini f n.esse3 wh° Proved remarked he had notice 1 th ?■ fun°usly. His Honour wa3 most 1 tlle roafl in Thomas-street Whitehall who I10""1 ? s.,eeP towards the gutter. Mr. k° has repaired musical instruments for j .> years, was called on the part of defendant to prove tnat the instrument had not sustained so much damage as alleged. Henry Sim -ns, boots at the King's Head, deposed that at the time of the accident the driver was not t going above seven miles an hour. The drum capsized first and the men fell after it.—His Honour again ob- served that the last time he was m the town he noticed the state of the road, and expected to hoar of an accident through it before long.—The defendant was called, and stated that the defendant got on the omnibus without the leave of the driver, and he had never received a farthing j for it.—His Honour: Why did your driver allow the men to get up ?—Defendant: I cau't think.—His Ho- nour Nor can I. I cau't distinguish between this case and that of any passenger who may be thrown off. They were there with the leave of the person who had the II charge of the omnibus. With regard to the driving, His I' Honour said the man kuew the road, aad ought to have made allowance in his mode of driving for any iaequa- — lity.Mr. Champ It's a very hard case on Mr. Phillips. -His Honour: It's always a hard case where a master is made to suffer for the negligence of his servants but better that than for the public to suffer, who have no control over the servant. His Honour added that there couid be no doubt that the proprietors of public carriages ( were responsible for injuries done to the public through. the negligence of their servants.—Judgment for 303., f with costs. FIUENDLY SOCIETY CA.SE.—Roberts and others y. » Thomas. Mr. Champ stated that this was an application under the Friendly Societies Act, 46th section, for tha f removal of a trustee, who is the defendant in the action. I The whole of the members of the club, without any ex- ception, had passed a resolution expressive of their dis- approbation of Mr Thomas. He had obtained possession i of certain deeds and money, which he refused to give up ■ and was considered to have abused the office of trustee! > Mr. James Roberts, one of the trustees of the Union Friendly Society, proved these facts. Mr. R. J. Cathcart, y.or defendant), before the production of further evidence, disputed the legality of the Society, and contended that the name of Mr. Tidd Pratt printed, was no valid signa. ture. He required the original signature in writing to e produced. His Honour said that unless Mr. Cathcart h!! ^o^10kS*f° 8 a*)0,?t the Society being duly certified, fntiao a ^ter. n°t raise the objection. It would only thev Cathcart said he thought if lieved th. wli„rLpa:r,°™e "I*" ™ both «id0?.-M,.PObamp'8.S0'i,g„h rSTeLZ11, had the original certificate among the other papers of the society.—His Honour then called upon Mr. Thomas to go home and produce all the papers belonging to the society in Court.—This having been done, no certificate was found, when His Honour remarked that the objec- tion was iatal, but he thought it ought not to be taken.- Mr. Cathcart said if that was his Honour's opinion, he would withdraw it, and tKs was accordingly done. At the same time he asked for an adjournment, that the case might be settled. His client would have no objec- tion to resign tne office of trustee, if he thought the object of the plaintiffs was not to break up the society. He considered that their resolutions bore this appearance. Mr. Champ denied that they admitted of this interpre- tation, and the evidence of Mr. Roberts was proceeded W1. i~7 13 ,^onour considered that the stewards were entitled to all moneys belonging to the society, and Mr. Cathcart said his client was quite willing to give them up if they were properly appropriated.—Mr. Roberts was examined by Mr. Cathcart, and stated that a resolution was passed, after a dinner, to pay X2 10s. to each member, and at that time £ 108 were in the hands of the bankers. Thomas alone did not receive the £ 2 10s. After paying this money, JE82 was in hand. Witness denied that he ever told Thomas it was the intention of the club to vote another £.50 in a fortnight. There were three trustees in the society, Dmd Sturley, Thomas Thomas, and James Roberts.—His Honour observed that there was nothing in the rules to empower the removal of trustees.—At this point Mr. Champ consented to all adjournment, in order to make an arrangement if possi- ble.—Mr. Cathcart said his client was under the im- pression that the society only w,.nted to get the deeds in order to convert them into money, and divide it as they did the society's. He believed this to be one of the mis- apprehensions which an adjournment would remove.— Adjourned.

FURTHER ADVANCE IN THE RATE OF DISCOUNT. The Bank of England on Monday last raised their rate of discount from 7 per cent., which was adopted on Monday week, to 8 per cent. This step is solely in consequence of the American news. According to the latest dates, the rate of exchange, eveu for the best bills, had fallen to a point which would give a very large profit on gold from England, and, although, owing to the possibility of a sudden rebound, speculators on this side might hesitate to undertake the operation to a heavy extent, the amount of biils transmitted from New y ork, with direct orders for returns to be uiade in specie, coupled with the sums being despatched by our capitalists for the purchase of securities, involve the certainty of a further drain, against which the most prompt precautions were requisite. The public were aware that the question of an advance to 8 per cent would depend entirely upon hZ* Ariel had drivel at her expected ment would doubtless have been adopted i ou ^ack, since the later accoants, brought ia Boston, are scarcely so bad as those with which she s arted. lhe rate now reached is equal to the highest known in modern times, and our only experience of it was for four weeks from the 25th of October, 1817, when the railway panic attained its climax, and Consols were down at 80, the Bank bullion having beeu reduced to £ 8,312,1)00, and the reserve to £ 1,547,000. In the present instance it is unlikely that the pressure will 1st even so long as four weeks, but, as our condition must depend upon the course of the American disorder, and it is impossible to conjecture what may be the next turn of frenzy, we must hold our- selves prepared for all contingencies. — Timet.

EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF ROBBERY. On Monday a very respectable looking man, about forty years of age, described as Mr. John Probert, a far- mer of Llanelly, Abergavenny, was placed at the bar of the Marylebone Police Court, before Mr. Broughton, charged with being concerned with another in stealiug property to the amount of £ 100, from the shop of Mr. Stradth, a jeweller, in London-street, Paddington. Mr. Grange appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Herring for the prisoner. The case, from the peculiar circumstances connected therewith, excited no small degree of interest. The first witness called was Sophia Aygott, in the service of Mr. Stradth. Sha said On the 3rd of this month, between eight and nine m the morning, white in the kitchen, I heard a penny iTn Ta' and pickcd il u."> and saw x man looking down, and on my asking him what he was looking for, he said It's down there." I went ui» stairs, opened the door, and gave the penny to a man whom I believe to be the prisoner. He seemed much agitated. He went away, and I watched him as far as the corner of Sussex-gardens. Mr. Broughton: Are you still of opinion that he is the man to whom you handed the penny ?—Witness I am, sir, Witness added that she thought she was doing no more than her duty in giving the prisoner in charge, her master and mistress having been spoken to by her previously. J Mr. Herring cross-examined the witness upon various points in her evidence, and elicited from her that she thought at one time he was not the man. Thomas Augustus Oram, apprentice to Mr. Stradth, said that at half-past eight on the morning of the 3rd instant, the prisoner, he believed he was the person, and in fact, had scarcely any doubt about it, called him out- side tne shop, and, pointing to gold chain in the window, asked him the price of it; he told him he would go and inquire, and at the same moment, Mrs. Stradth, who was in the kitchen, called out to him, Tom Witness immediately afterwards returned to the shop, and thera saw another man, who inquired if Mr. Taylor was there ? He was told that he was not, and after he had lost sight of both the parties, it was ascertained that four- teen gold chains and a gold and silver watch had been. stolen. Mr. Broughton Did the prisoner go into the shop at all? Witness: He did not, your worship. By Mr. Herring I was in she shop at twenty minutest to eight; the other apprentice, whose duty it was to set out," said he was not there; two chains had been left hanging up in the window on the overnight. I brought the box, containing watches, &e., from the nir- lour in the shop. After I had been asked by the prisoner outside the shop the price of the chains, I went in and there found another man. I did n .t see him go in, as my attention was directed towards the chain the price 0f which I was asked. I have told somebody that I thought I might be mistaken as to the Drisoner b»inM» p m 8t spoke to me outside by the windo w I ?, Wh° the servant girl. have s.ad so to Mr. Broughton Lookin, at him now, do you believe he By the man ?- Witness: I am sure of it. By Mr. Hening After master came home, I and the berv 1 i i *° hitn and mistress about the rob- Mr £ the Prisoner is the man. iir. -Broughton: Let Sophia Aygott stand up again. +u witness) Dj you still adhere to it that the prisoner is the person.—Witness: Yes sir, I believe he is. By Mr. Herring: The man who dropped the penny, aad to whom I gave it seemed greatly confused. Some other witnesses were called, and they were very ably cross-examined at much length by Mr. Herring. The learned gentleman, after a protracted inquiry, ia the course of which he pointed out many discrepancies in some further statements made, set forth that the person was a farmer of considerable wealth, and of unblemished reputation he should further be in a condition to prove by clergymen and other highly respectable parties that had been telegraphed for, that prisoner had not been a day from his home until the period of his ge'ti iff into- this trouble since March last; it would clearly be showu to be a case of mistaken identity. Mr. Herring men- tioned a case where some time ago, a jeweller vas robbed of a large amount of property, a person was charged with having stolen the same, and afterwards a great portion of the stolen valuables was found to have been plundered by a relative of the prosecutor. ilr. Broughton considered that the identity had been so sworn to, as to justify him in remanding the accused, but he should order that he be brought up again on luesday. Herring asfed for the prisoner to be liber .ted oa bail, but the magistrate, as the remand was lor a short time, could not comply with the request. He (Mr. Her- ring) was quite sure that there would be full and clear proof adduced as to his respectable client's perfect innocence.

F Ann Evans, 18, and Catherine Evans, 47, to stealing a silver watch from the house of Thomas Phillips, at Llan- wenarth.—Three months and one week. 28, Cornelius Shehan, 22, and Wm. onehan, 20, to a common assault upon Henry Guppy, •1 constable of Aberystruth—Two months each, Roderick in the County Gaol, and the others at Usk. NEWPORT.—STABBING A NEGRO. £ John Walker, 28, an American seaman, was indicted for stabbing Henry Watson.—Mr. Barrett prosecuted.- V ."e. particulars of the case must be fresh in the reeol- > lection of our readers. On being found guilty, the ? k6arn-e^ Chairman addressed the prisoner upon the 'I Rocking, wicked, and dreadful prejudice entertained by the Americans towards people of colour, but the manifesta- tion of which could not be permitted in this country.— Sentence, twelve months' hard labour. BEDWELLTY.—STEALING 'WEAKING APPABEL. Elizabeth Thomas, 19, was indicted for stealing several vr-l8^ea wearing apparel from Mary Davies. Mr. Mil man prosecuted.—In the course of last winter, pro- "ecutrix kindly afforded the prisoner shelter from the Teath^ The latter repaid the kindness showp her by absconding with clothing belonging to the prosecutrix and her daughter. The prisoner, against whom a previ- the jSryvictioQ was readyto be put iD' was ac<iuilted by STABBING A RECRUITING SERGEANT. # xviv"11 Maddigan, 40, was indicted for stabbing >vuilam Missen, a sergeant in the 81st Regiment.—Mr. •, prosecuted, and Mr. Smytbies for the defence. yn "tdnesday afternoon, the 14th inst., the prisoner *ncl another man were taken to the London Porter House the prosecutor, as they expressed a wish to enlist. I -Both, however, were rejected. The prisoner then be- „ excited, created a disturbance, and was ordered to the house, when, producing a knife, he threatened °De w^° 8^ou^ attempt to remove him. ubsequemjy the prosecutor attempted to lead him out. >, v.toiler then struck him twice on the head, one of the be**8 c?ltting ^ia ear-—Guilty of a common assault. To itnprisoned two months'and one week. BEDWAS.—ROBBERY FROM THE PERSON. •Inotnas Driver, 32, labourer, was indicted for stealing °f boots, neck-tie, rule, and pocket-knife, the pro- th o of A,fred Evans.—Mr. Somerset prosecuted.—On 6 3rd of August, Evans, having partaken of too much went to sleep outside the Maesycymmer Inn. He awoke about twelve o'clock, and then missed the npr 8 mentioned, and which had been taken from his Dn-800'. The knife was afterwards found in the prisoner s at and the boots and neck-tie at his lodgings, I. which he arrived between twelve and one o clock on n>ght of the robbery—Guilty. Five months — 4113 died a fortnight ago. T ABERYSTRUTH.—IRON 8TEALING. John JIunt, 34, and Elijah. Coles, 24, were indicted for •tealing i401bs of iron> the roperty 0f the Brithdir Coal r».??a?y—Mr. Somerset for the prosecution. Mr. Bar- '«tt defended. The iron in question was offered for sale *o an individual in the neighbourhood of the Cwm works y the prisoner, but the purchase was not completed, in ti accour>ted for having it in their possession by say- jng they picked it u Qn the road si le, and considered it tLfM6 been abandoned as useles. It was represented snat the prisoners had an opportunity of abstracting the 1, during the recent changes in the works, in conse- f ^eQcc of their acquaintance with the premises, having id °n.eft^rue been in the employ of the company. The •n^J1 k °at'on tbe *ron wa3 D0* satisfactory to the jury, the accused were acquitted. t. ABEKGAYKNNY.— ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT. Isaac Rosser, accountant, was indicted for embezzling *7 14s., the moneys of John Scott. Mr. Smythies pro- f Secuted, Mr. Barrett defended. The prisoner was cam- i^iercial traveller to the prosecuter, a wholesale tea-dealer, Liverpool. The latter, in consequence of becoming acquainted with certain facts leading to a suspicion of the Prisoner's trustworthiness, suddenly demanded of him an account of his transactions. This was rendered, but the item which formed the subject of tne indictment was acquainted with certain facts leading to a suspicion of the Prisoner's trustworthiness, suddenly demanded of him an account of his transactions. This was rendered, but the item which formed the subject of the indictment was t omitted—the court and the jury considered uninten- tionally, and a verdict of acquittal was returned. CUTTING AND WOUNDING AT BEDWELLTY. John Evans pleaded guilty to a common assault.-Sen- fenced to three weeks' imprisonment. KHYMSEY.—IRON STEALING. J Richard Roberts and John Richardt were indicted for f stealing 122 lbs. of iron, belonging to G. P. Hubbuck and others. The prisoners were tried separately, Mr. Oilman prosecuting in each case. Mr. Smythies de- fending Roberts, and Mr. Barrett the other prisoner. Richards lives at Ystrad, in the parish of Llanvabon. Joseph Lee a superintendent policeman in the employ of < the Rhymney Railway Company, stated that, from infor- mation which reached him, he searched Richards's house, fie found a quantity of hitching*, hooks, springs, and other iron, marked with nine different marks. Rlchardli showed him some more in the stable, saying he knew nothing about any of it, except having gone with Ro- if*8 it from a house on the side of the line where the latter formerly lived. Witness showed the lr0n to Thomas Thomas and other peraons. Both pri- soners were apprehended. Roberts said life picked up the iron on the line. He was convicted, and sentenced to months' imprisonment. Richards was acquitted.— The recognizances of William Jones, smith, of Ystrad, *ho neglected to appear as a witness in the case, were ^treated. LLANELLEN.—STEALING BOARDS. William Bevan, on bail, was indicted for stealing three boards, belonging to William Jones. On Sunday evening, the 27th of September, the boards were against a wall on prosecutor's premises. Next day they were missed. -'Prosecutor, in searching for them, went to Samuel Tho- mas's stable, and there found the boards, with one of which the prisoner was mending the manger. The pri- toner afterwards, both to prosecutor, the prosecutor's wife and P.S. Lipscombe, acknowledged the theft. Mr. 'Smythi' s, who appeared for the defence, contended that the confessions were not made, or, if so, under the influ- ence of a promise of forgiveness. A verdict of guilty Was returned with a recommendation to mercy, and a fielitence of one month's hard labour passed. The prose- cution was conducted by Mr. Barrett. NEWPORT.—IMPUDENT ROBBERY. John Lahey (on bail) was indicted for stealing a cask .-nd nine gallons of beer, the property of Edwaid Thos. Allfrey, Mr. Smythies prosecuted. It appeared that on the 18th of May, Robert Blakemore and another man, fjained King, conveyed some beer for the prosecutor to 'he Dock Gates public-house, in Fothergill-street. While carrying it in the cart remained at the door, and from it he prisoner was seen to take the cask in question, with *h"h he coolly walked away. The prisoner stoutly denied the charge. Guilty. Sentence, three months hard labour. BLTLS IGNORED. James Lewis Delingpole, charged with stealing a watch frelon°in<: to Mary Nicholas, at Monmouth. Johr Gubbin, 22, labourer, charged with stealing Inoney from Nathan Tunley, at Bedwelty. James Black, 29, seaman, charged with stealing a gold 11ng from Charles Hansom, at Newport; because pro- secutor did not appear his recognizances were forfeited. Edward Edwards, 43, collier, charged vyith stealing a jammer and other articles, from Daniel Harris, at fiedwelty. James Green, 19, waiter, charged with stealing X3, the money of James Prothero, at Monmouth. Frederick Morgan and Henry Hook way, both of whom had been oil bail, charged with stealing one cask and "{'Ven gallons of beer, the property of Catherine Broad, at Aberystruth. Frederick Barrett, charged with stealing, at Newport, £ 2 14a. 21., from William Richards, prosecutor not 'appearing. Johu Haddock, charged with stealing J625 from William D Jenkins, at Bedwellty.