Monmouthshire Merlin

evening. THE day is dying! on the frowning hills, Where sleep the shadows, and where dfih the riils,, A few faint sunbeams play; Like t:ose which liuger on the good man's face, ■\Vl.ui death o'ertakes him in his weary race, And palls his earthly day. And, softly, with a wild ^Eo'ian note, The wliUp'ring breezes through the forest float, And sigh a funeral song And Nature's minstrel's on the leafy spray, The requiem of the sodly fading day, In me.low strains prolong. And far off, on the ever lestless sea, .The billows roll an answ'ring symphony, A grandly solemn dirge- And st rs, jnst peering through the lofty skies, With dew drops sparkling in their liquid eyes, Seem list'ning to the surge. Another day is o'er-its joys and woes, And heedless mln betakes him to repose; While through the watchful skies, The many voices of Creation call, As evening shadows like a curtain fall The day is done! Time flies!" Ye sou's who dream that earth's your home and clime, Ye feebly totter on the vergeot time, Your transient day is fleet; And like a broad and ever restless sea, The solemn ages of eternity Are rolling at youi feet. HER. EBNEST FRY.

ittrAturt. Books and publicationsl intended for review in this journal may be sent through Messrs. Kent and Co., Paternoster-row, London or direct to the Office ) RECEIVED. Chambers s Household Juiittcn of the Works of William Shakespeare, pari 7. Chambtrs's Encyclopaedia, part 33. Bee ton's Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine, No. 16. .Beeton's Boy's Own Library, No. 4. Beeton's Boy's Own lJlagazinefor August. Beeton's Illuminated Family Bible, part 1. The Art Journal, part 80. James S. Virtue. Cassell's Popular Natural History, part 29. Gnsseli's Illustrated History of England, part 19. Cassell's Illustrated Family Bible, part 27. Casseirs Illustrated Family Paper, part 44. Zlie Cornhill Magazine, No. 20. Smith, Elder, c% Co. Reynolds' Miscellany, part 157. Family Herald, part 219. Previous issues of all the above mentioned works, ikcepting the sixth, have been noticed, from time to time, in out columns; and, as large demands are this Week made upon our space by assize reports, &c., we are unable to find rocm for more than a passing reference to them. Our previous notices will have conveyed an idea De paper, and plentifully illustrated: indeed there is scarcely a page upon which the art of the illuminator or engraver has not left traces of beau'y. To the large elass who appreciate illustrated copies of the Bible this edition must prove specially attractive.

LLANDAFF CATHEDRAL. The following Report has just been issued. We are glad to find that the new organ is to be opened in the restored Cathedral of Llandaff on Tuesday, September 18th "Deanery, Llandaff, June 29th, 1861. "Four years have now elapsed since the partial re- opening of the Cathedral, on the 16th of April, 1857, and as the principal pprticn of the subscrlp* *ioris so liberally promised on that occasion towards its entire Mstoration, has been both collected and expended, it seems but right at the present season to state the results of the movement which was then inaugurated. The once ruined sec ion of the nave has been thoroughly restored—its arcade and its western front upaired-its clerestory and its side aisles rebuilt—its walls plaist ered-its windows glazed, and a new roof thrown over its whole span. The partition wall, whkh so long severed it from the portion still in use for pub;* c worship, has been removed, and from the western entrance the original design of the architect is once me: e manife,;t in all its beauty. "Ihe roof of the side aisles of the eastern end has also been restored, with the exception of the two bays which extend beyond the Chapter House, and which are separated from the others by a small vaulted chapel. The Bishop's throne is nearly completed, and a portion of the stalls, with the screen on one side, has been erected, while contracts have been entered into for another section of the work. "The progress of restoration has indeed now ad. vanced so far that only those who have actually seen the Cathedral in former years can either realize its extent or picture to themselves the half-ruined condition of the febric but a short time ago. Much, however, still remains to be done.-the re-construction of the roof of the two bays alluded to before-the completion of the atalls with their appropriate canopies-the permanent ioori::g of the western portion of the nave, and of the two side aisles-the repain of the monuments-the finishing of the parapet of the southern aisle-the pro- vision of new doors for the great western entrance, and for the two Norman doorways in the northern and MotLthern aisles. 11 The rebuilding of the southern tower may perhaps fce looked upon as a separate work and as one which admits of temporary delay but it is deemed very desir- able, both for the sake of appearance and for construc- tional reasons, that the building should be advanced another stage so as to reach the height of the clerestory wall. The chapter room again which, if not an integral portion of the Cathedral, stands to it in something like the relation of a transept, requires a considerable outlay and the entire re-construction of its windows and its io J. F r the cost of these two works no estimates have as y been made it has, however, been ascertained, that finish the roof of the side aisles-to complete the parapet of the southern aisle-to lay the flooring—to j rovii.'e doors-and to finish the sta Is-all works which shou'd be immediately undertaken and which would, when ucmpliahed, almost crown tho work of restoration, WOLL; I voive an expenditure of but £ 1,200. But the De n -till Chapter have no funds applicable to this purp-i, as the contracts already entered into will more than < x',aust all the resouroes which they can at present antic: a e, and leave indeed a debt only to be cancelled by tr s, contributions. I Aii organ is being constructed by Messrs. Gray and D Lcn at a cost of LI,000, "00 of which have been a.ieady subscribed with a readiness and generosity which call for grateful ackn jwledgment. The icstru- iBent is to be ready for use by the end of August, and it is intended to celebrate its erection and the further Mstoration of the Cathedral by a full choral service on Tuesday, the 17th of September. Where so much has teea so liberally and so cheerfully given it may perhaps seem importunate to ask for more but the Dean and Chapter are well assured that there are many who feel, tike themselves, & common interest in the work, and who Will never be content until it shall have reached its last atage, and the Cathedral Church of Lland ,ff shall have jegained, from tower to foundation stone, its ancient character and beauty.

TilE POPE AXD THE CONFBSSOR OF COUNT CAVOUR. mA" correspondent of the Times writes that the Pere jCtques, who assisted Cavoui in his last moments, kaving been called to Rome to explain what had taken place in the last moments of the great minister, had an sjkdience of the Pope, during which the Pope endea- voured to elicit from him what had taken place. The "iar resolutely declined to divulge the confession, on the plea admitted by the Church that such secret com- munications are never to be divulged. Next day the •onfessor was handed over to the Holy Office, to give an aeeount of his conduct; and is, as I am informed, con- ,¡a the apartments of the Inquisition.

COUNTY OF MONMOUTH. SUMMER ASSIZES. The commission for holding these assizes was opened at Monmouth, on Saturday last, before Mr. Justice Hill and Mr. Justice Keating. Oil Sunday morning their lordships attended divine service, at St. Mary's Church, the sermon being preached by the Sheriff's Chaplain, the Rev. C. Ranken Hall, M.A., rector of Shirenewtou. The public business was commenced on the following Monday. CROWN COURT.—-MONDAY. [Before Mr. Justice HILL] His Lordship took his seat at ten o'clock precisely, and the following gentlemen were sworn upon THE GRAND JURY. OCTAVIUS MORGAN, Esq., M.P., Foreman. Col. PoulettSomerset, M.P.T. Wakeman, Esq. « R. Bosanquet, Esq. F. C. Williams, Esq. J. M. Herbert, Esq. J. F. Bnckdale, Esq. John James, Esq. James Davies, Esq. W. W. Manning, Esq. Thomas Falconer, Fsq W Partridge, Esq. Joseph Latch, Esq. G. R. G. Relph, Esq. J. C. Wilson, Esq. G. R. Tyler, Esq. J. C. Wbeeley, Esq. J. F. Vaughan, Esq. The proclamation against vice and immorality having I been read, his Lordship delivered his CHARGE TO THE GRAND INQUEST His Lordship said Mr. Foreman and Gentleman,— The calendar which is about to engage your attention affords room for congratulation and thankfulness, as well from the small number of prisoners as from the character of crimes. There is no case, so far as I can glean from the depositions, involving any serious legal difficulty or re- quiring any lengthened observations from me to you. There a& two charges of manslaughter. You are well aware that to constitute the crime of manslaughter, there must have been an unlawful act done by the party charged, and that act must have occasioned, or accele- rated, the death of another. In each of the cases which will be brought before you charging a prisoner with man- slaughter, you will fin 1 some difficulty with regard to the latter point—namely whether death wasoccasioned by the act of the party charged; and, of course, unless you think a prima facie case is made out upon that point it will be your duty not to bring in a bill. There is a charge of violating a female child of tender years, to which I have no doubt you will bestow great attention for you are well aware that inquiring into the details of such cases in open court, unnecessarily, is undesirable, and ought not to be done unless the ends of justice re- quired it in order to punish a criminal. There is no other case in the calendar upon which it is necessary I should make any observation. May I request you to direct your attention to some of the shorteet cases, in the first instances that the time of the court may be oc- cupied as soon as possible. The Grand Jury then retired, and immediately re- turned a true bill in the following case, with which his Lordship at once proceeded. FELONY AT ABERGAVENNY, James Prichard (on bail) was indicted for stealing 26ibs. weight of flour, the property of Wm. Tucker and others. Mr. Somerset prosecuted. The prosecutor stated that on the 15:h of July, a number of sacks of flour were given in charge of the prisoner, to be con- veyed to Pwllddu; the sacks were tied in a particular way, so that witness could tell whether the sacks bad been opened each sack contained 280 lbs. prosecutor went to Pwllddu, and arrived before the prisoner the first of the sacks taken out upon being weighed was found 13 lb-. deficient in weight; on examining the tie of that sack prosecutor found it had been altered; the next bag also was found to be deficient, and the tie had been altered four or five of the remaining bags were examined, the knots of which had not been touched, and the weight of those bags was found correct; prosecutor then charged prisoner with tampering with the sacks this he at first denied, but subsequently confessed that he had taken some flour, and offered to pay the cost of it by instalments.—Mr. Powell defen- ded the prisoner, and cross-examined prosecutor with a view to show that by being jostled abJu, the sacks were liable to become untied.—In answer to the Learned Counsel, the prosecutor said there had been no deficiency discovered in the sacks since prisoner's committal.— John Pestell spoke to having weighed the sacks taken by the prisoner the sacks were weighed in the mill, and then trucked a distance of sixty yards to be tied.— Mr. Powell addressed the Jury for the prisoner, ani- madverting upon the conduct of the prosecution, in not bringing forward the man who had trucked the sacks from the place to where they were tied, co»t<v?',5"n' u.6„cu, wuen it was re- membered that the sacks had been considerably shaken, and that therefore the tie might have been loosened, rendering it necessary to retie it, the point was not worth consideration. The Learned Counsel further contended that difference of weights might account for the deficiency. Having concluded an able speech, the Learned Counsel called evidence as to the good character of the prisoner.—His Lordship, in summing up, in- structed the jury to bear in mind that there was no evidence to show whether the flour had been taken while being trucked or while in the waggon, remarking that the difficulty of the case was that the man who trucked the sacks was not called.-Guilty, with a re- commendation to mercy.—The prosecutor also preferred a like recommendation.-His Lordship said he would take into consideration the prisoner's previous good character, and inflict a light sentence, namely, three months' imprisonment with hard labour. FELONY AT NEWPORT. Sarah Davies was indicted for stealing from the person of Evan Price, a gold breast pin, at Newport, on the 14th of July, 1861. Mr. Somerset prosecuted. On the day named the prosecutor was returning from Maindee about eleven o'clock. Prisoner asked him to accompany her home, and took hold of his scarf. He refused, and she then left him. Immediately after he missed his gold breast pin, and went in search of the prisoner, wh)m he met within a few yards. He charged her with taking his pin. She denied the charge, and he gave her into custo,iy.-His Lordship questioned the prosecutor as to how he knew he had his pin when he met the woman, and he replied, he felt it when buttoning his coat. His Lordship having summed up,—the jury, having ascer- tained t!,at the pin was not found, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. BURGLARY AT RISCA. John Rosser (44) and Ellen Rosser (47) were indicted for feloniously and burglariously entering the dwelling- house of William Gower, and stealing forty pounds weight of bacon, at the parish of Risca, on the 17th of July, 1861; and the male prisoner was also indicted upon a charge of receiving the same knowing it to be stolen. Mr. Vaughan Richards prosecuted. Mr. Smythies de- fended the male prisoner. The prosecutor stated I am a forge manager, and keep the Silurian beer-house, at Risca; on the night of the 17th of July I retired to rest about eleven o'clock; before going to bed I locked the front door, and my wife the back door of the bouse the windows were all fastened; no one was left up in the house; I had in the kitchen some bacon hanging up in t-Aro parts, one on a hook and one by a string; about the break of day witness fancied he heard a noise, and after a short time he went down stairs, and found one of the windows open; he went through the house and found the bacon missing, and also the hook upon which it had hung; the bicon missed weighed about 40 lbi. he then gave information to the police; the bacon and hook produc d were his property, and the holes in the bacoi flittd the hook. In cross-examination the prosecu o. lid he could identify the hook by the rust upon it.—Elizabeth Gower, prosecutor's wife, corroborated her husband's statement, adding that the woman had been in the house several times on the evening of the 16th. She was also in the hou8 a few hours after the robbery.—Harriet Sajallwood said her husband kept a shop at Pontymister on the morning after the robbery the female prisoner went to her shop and asked her to buy the bacon produced; she (prisoner) said the bacon was her own curing; a Mrs. Bevan, on behalf of the witness, purchased the bacon for 10s. in money, and 2s. in shop goods; the female prisoner had on a previous occasion sold a piece of bacon to the witness and had then said she had another piece at home she would sell if the works were not good.—Sarah Bevan gave corroborative testimony. Thomas Limbrey searched the ash-pit of prisoner's house, and found there the hook produced. P.S. Hale examined prosecutor's premises on the 20th of July, and found that one of the windows had been forced open, by means of a knife in- serted in the woodwork and thrusting back the asp; he subsequently apprehended the prisoners he also searched their house, and found the piece of bacon proiuced under the bed; before the offioer searched the house he was told by both prisoners that there was no bacon in the f house; when charged with the theft, the prisoners said they knew nothing abont it.—Mr. Smythies addressed the jury for the male prisoner, contending that there was no evidence against him beyond the fact of the bacon being fqund in his house, and argued against the proba- bility of two persons entering a house and simply taking away a piece of bacon. The Learned Counsel then called David Jones, who swore that he and the male prisoner were working together during the night of the I?, I between the hours of six the previous evening th« nrrJp«HftneXtmo^in8--Th0 Learned Counsel for the prosecution examined the witness as to why he had not altendeJ to evidence before the magistrates, and he replied that he was not called—George Hilev gave testimony corroborative of the last witness, and added that he accompanied the male prisoner from the works on the morning of the robbery they went by the Silurian beer-house about fire o'clock, and saw one of the windows down.—Cross-examined: I was present whea this case was heard by the nagiatratos, but was not called; the magistrates said we had better wait till to-day.—David Nurse, manager for Messrs. Bankes, had known the male prisoner eleven years, and he had always borne a strictly honest character.—Mr. Richaids addressed the jury for the prosecution—His Lordship, in summing up, fully recapitulated the evidsnce, remarking that the testimony was much stronger against the female than the male prisoner. In laying down the law, hiaL'srdship observed that if the jury were of opinion that the bacon was in the house with the knowledge of the male prisoner that it had been stolen, then they might return a verdict that he was guilty of feloniously receiving The jury returned a verdict of acquittal against the male prisoner, and of guilty against the female.—A previous conviction against the latter was proved.—Sentenced to twelve month's im- prisonment with hard labour. STEALING FROM THE PERSON Ar ABERGAVENNY. Elisibeth Thomas (20), was indicted for felo. niously stealing from the person of Frederick Floulkes S»vanwick^ the sum of £1 2s. at Aberga- venny, on the 27th of July, 1861.—The prosecutor met the prisoner in the street, and accompanied her to her house, where he sent the prisoner for some beer while she was absent he put a portion of his money into his waistcoat pocket—one sovereign, half- sovereign, and two shillings shortly after leaving the house, he missed his money he then went in search of a policeman, and when the prisoner saw the prose. cutor she ran away he subsequently gave her in charge between placing the money in his pocket, and missing it, he had been in the company of no person beside the prisoner.-P.C,. Onions took the prisoner into custody, at her mothei's house upon charging her with the theft she denied all knowledge of it on being searched at the police station, two shillings, sixpence, and a four-penny piece, were found upon her. Her house was searched, but no sovereign was found.— Mr. Pritchard prosecuted.—His Lordship having sum- med up, the jury immediately returned a verdict of Not Guilty. FELONY AT ABERGAVENNY. Frederick Foulkts Swanwick (22) schoolmaster, pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with stealing a gold watch, chain, and other jewellery, the property ot Cornelius Lloyd at Abergavenny, on the 29th of July.— His Lordship, in passing sentence, animadverted upon the aggravated circumstancts under which the offence had been committed by the prisoner, he being at the time the guest of the prosecutor, and having embraced the opportunity afforded by the hospitality of the prosecutor to plunder his dwelling.—Sentenced to eighteen months hard labour. BREAKING OPEN THB RAILWAY STATION AT MAGOR. John Hopkins (21), bretikiman, was charged with feloniously breaking and entering the Magor railway station, and stealing the sum of L15 2a. 5d.t the moneys of the South Wales Railway Company, at the pariah of Magor, on the 5th of July, 1861.—Mr. Clay prose- cuted the prisoner was undefended.—Mrs. Clarke said the prisoner stayed at her house on Thursday night, the 4th of July, and in the morning when he left he said he was going to look for employment.—Henry Morris said on Thursday the 16th, defendant went to him at Newport, and asked him if his foreman wanted any workmen; witness is employed as a carpenter on the South Wales line he told prisoner he had better go to Magor in the morning and see the foreman the next day the witnjss saw the prisoner at Magor, and he di- rected him where to see the foreman the prisoner went, and when he returned, he told witness the foreman had promised to give him work ia a few days witness was engaged at work on a bridge, and prisoner took up the tools, and appeared to be amusiBg himself with them in the evening they went together to Magor station; borne men were being paid, and the prisoner remarked that there seemed a good deal of money at the station prisoner afterwards inquired what time the money was sent to Newport; and whether there was a night porter, and at what time he came on duty and went off; witness told him prisoner then asked if he put the tools in the station, and witness replied, No, he kept them in the shed prisoner then put them away in the spot indicated by witness witness was waiting for the 8 p.m. train to Newport, and prisoner remained with him; the money with which the men was being paid was at that time on the counter in the station it con- sisted of gold and silver prisoner left witness at the station, and said he would go to the village, and have something to eat, and that he would then walk to New- port prisoner told witness that he had been in the Artillery, and his money being nearly all gone, he wanted work witness identified the tools produced; one hammer and chisel were placed in the shed by the prisoner the whole of the tools had been considerably damaged between the time they were. put away on IhA night of the robbery and the following morning.— by the last witness prisoner saw the witness place" A;15 odd in a drawer, and shortly after left the office not long after that witness saw the prisoner looking in at the office window the money was kept in an iron safe, which could be seen plainly from the window witness did not see prisoner after about eight o'clock when witness went away he left in the office about X17 with the exception of 3s. or 4s. in the till the whole of the money was in the safe-in bags; witness locked the till and safe and took away the keys about half-past eight about half-past three the next morning, he was called by Hopkins, the night porter, and on going to the station he found the front door of the office, the iron safe, and the till had been broken the cash box was lying about in three separate parts; on the floor in the station witness found X2 odd; the re3t of the money was gone— £ 15 2s. 5d., about 33. of which was in coppers the witness t.hen minutely described the position in which he found the safe, the cash box, the tools which had been identified by the former witnesses, and also the marks upon the various locks, which corresponded with impressions caused by the chisels produced. —Samuel Joseph, publican, Magor, said the prisoner was at his house about eight o'clock, on the evening of the 5th July, had some refreshment, for which he paid with sixpence, and hired a bed he left there about half- past nine o'clock, but never returned, and witness did not subsequently see him until he was before the magistrates at Newport.—Joseph Hopkins, night porter at Magor station, stated On the night of the 5th July, I went on duty about eight o'clock, and remained till half-past eleven about eleven o'clock, I saw the pri- soner walking on the down platform I crossed over to him, turned my bull's eye full upon him, and from the view I then obtained of his features, I have no doubt prisoner was the man. I ordered prisoner off, and he went I then locked the office door, took the key, and went home, leaving the lamp burning in the station I returned about two o'clock, and found the office door had been broken open I then went and called Wellington. The remainder of witness's evidence was corro- borative of that given by Wellington.—P.S. Wilcox saw the prisoner in High-street at Newport about four o'clock on Saturday morning, the 6th July, and his ap- pearance seemed to indicate that he had been out all night in reply to the officer prisoner said he had been lying down on the Maindee road Maindee road was in a contrary direction to the Marshes road.—Alfred While spoke to the prisoner visiting his house, the London Tavern, Baneswell, Newport, at an early hour on Saturday morning, the 6th July, in company with some of the workmen from Dos Works he called for some drink altogether the prisoner paid for beer and spirits to the amount of 5s., 3s. 6d. of which was paid in coppers he represented that he came from Glou- cestershire prisoner did not drink any beer, but a litte brandy and some gingerade prisoner pressed the others to drink they did not wish him to pay for what they drank; prisoner said he had been to Lucknow.— John Richards, one of the men who was at the London Tavern with the prisoner, corroborated portions of the evidence of the last witness witness saw that prisoner had three or four shillings of copper with him, E10 or X12 in gold, and a quan- tity of silver. Prisoner expressed a wish to hive a cup of coffee, and witness took him to his home. The prisoner seemed to be very free with his money. His boots were dirty.—Samuel Little spoke to the prisoner purchasing at his shop a quantity of clothing, to the value of about L6. Amongst his purchases were a suit of black, a suit of moleskin, an umbrella, and a carpet bag each article was paid for separately; the goods were packed in two carpet bags, and prisoner asked to have them addressed "John Williams, passenger to Chatham, vid Bristol." — Thomas Alford, inspector of police at Magor station, spoke to the condition of Magor railway station, on the morning of the 6th July, as de- scribed by the witness Wellington subsequently the witness in company with Inspector Fowler, M.C., ap- prehended the prisoner in Bristol.—Inspector Fowler, in company with the last witness, apprehended the pri- soner in Bristol, and charged him with breaking into Magor station and stealing £ 15 prisoner replied You have got to find that out;" witness took him into a public house, and upon searching him found upon him I Z2 13;. 9d. and a silver watch, with gold Albert chain he was dressed in a black suit, with kid gloves, and 4 carried an umbrella in case witness asked prisoner ( where he lodged, and the latter took him to several j places, but at each nothing was known of the prisoner. —Joseph Kirby said he bad written a letter for the J prisoner at Mrs. Clarke's, on Thursday, the 4th of July 1 on the following evening he was taken into custody for stealing a raz )r on the 10th, the prisoner was brought @ into the day room where witness was witness asked j what prisoner was there for; he said on suspicion of j breaking into Magor station, and that he was taken in Bristol; in the course of a conversation, witness ( remarked that it must be difficult to get in such a place, and asked prisoner if he carried his own tools; prisoner replied, CI No, he had helped the workmen with their tools, and he selected what he wanted for his purpose"; the prisoner had I said further that the safe caused him some trouble, but < he opened the till pretty May, and that out of the suk box, which was in the safe, he took about JE15 witness asked if any one had seen him, and prisoner replied, not after half-past nine," prisoner had then described to witness what he had purchased with the money, and remarked that the only evidence that was against him was that he had requested the tailor from whom he bought the clothes, to put a false name on the direction the witness had had no idea of appearing against the prisoner.—The prisoner addressed the jury, strongly avowing his innocence.-His Lordship carefully and at considerable length reviewed the evidence, his summing up being throughout against the prisoner. His Lordship concluded by observing that the case, circumstantally, was so complete, that the prisoner's confession might be altogether thrown over.—Verdict, Guilty.—Two previous convictions were proved, the former of which was prior to the prisoner attaining his fourteenth year. The prisoner on both occasions passed by the name of John Sladen.-His Lordship, in passing sentence, said it had pleased God to give the prisoner considerable ability, which he had misused. It was apparent from the clever manner in which the last offence had been planned, that he was a dangerous person to be at large. It was therefore necessary for public safety that he Ishould' be sentenced to a long term of confinement, and his Lordship would therefore sentence him to six years' penal servitude. MANSLAUGHTER AT NEWPORT. The following bill was ignored by the Grand Jury :— Michael Mahoney (28,) labourer, fur feloniously killing and slaying Mary Mahoney, at Newport, on the 2nd of July, 1861. Mr. Somerset, for the prosecution, said with his Lordship's pesmission he should nout support the charge on the coroner's inquisition with any evi- dence, and the prisoner was according acquitted. FORGERY AT ABERYaTRUTH. Thomas Harley pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with feloniously forging certain orders or requests for the payment of money in the name of Wm. Griffiths, with intent to defraud John Jayne, at the parish of Aberystruth, on the 8lh of April, 1861, and was sentenced to two months in the HOUM of Correction. The Court rose shertly before six o'clock, TUESDAY. His Lordship took his seat precisely at nine o'clock. ASSAULT WITH INTENT, &C., AT NEWPORT. William Turner (22) labourer, was indicted for felo- niously violating the person of Frances Cane, a child eight years of age, at the parish of Christchurch, on the 31st of May, 1861. Mr. Vaughan Richards prosecuted. Mr. Powell de- fended the prisoner. The full details of this case are wholly unfit for publi- cation but briefly the circumstances deposed to were as follows :—The little girl was going into Newport from Maindee about noon on the 31st of May, when she met the prisoner, who used an improper expression to her, and then offered her a penny to go into a field. In the evening the child, with a companion, Rhoda Allen, was playing in Mr. Farmilo's garden, and upon the defen- dant entering it, both children ran from him into a water closet. The prisoner ran after them, and the girls then ran out of the closet. The prisoner attempted to take hold of the child Allen, but failed, whereupon he caught the prosecutrix, dragged her into the closet, and, as alleged, there effected his purpose, detaining her about a quarter of an hour. The prisoner came out of the closet first, and the little girl followed, and went to play for some time, but found that in so doing she hurt herself. While the prisoner and the girl Cane were in the closet, Rhoda Allen was in the garden, and heard Frances Cane scream. She then went into the closet, and saw the prisoner in an indecent position with Cane, and said Shame, Wil- liam Turner." Rhoda Allen heard the prisoner say to Frances Cane, If you don't hush your noise, I will push your head down the closet." When Turner left the garden he asked Rhoda Allen not to say anything about it. John James, a little boy, who was playing on the garden wallo heard the prisoner using the above threat. On the Saturday morning the mother of the child discovered that the child's under garment was con- siderably discoloured. Circumstances prevented the mother examining what was the matter with her daughter until Monday, when she found her suffering very much, and took her to a medical man. The garments bad been taken to Monmoath, but while in that town the parents had lost them. Mr. James, surgeon, of Newport, described very mi- nutely the condition of the child, and was subjected to an exceedingly close cross-examination by the Learned Counsel for the defence. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr. Powell then made a powerful and eloquent speech on behalf of the prisoner. Having referred to the iden- tity of language in which the girls had given their evi- b/aJCr{",1flApd>at length to dwell upon the improba- stances. He had heaid of girls going into a lonely place, far away from any person by whom their cries ooulil be beard, being attacked by villains and grievously violated; But had the jury ever known a man take a child iuto a closet, leave the door wide open, with only a road between the place and the girl's residence, in the presence of other children, and there commit the offence complained of, and having done that,—having so pained the girl that she had screamed aloud, be so indifferent as to ask her to remain till he returned. To imagine- such a case was preposterous. Then as to the time. It was not late at night. It was six o'clock in the evening, and people were close at hand in their houses. Very carefully and with much minuteness, the Learned Counsel then reviewed the circumstances attend- ing the alleged offence, as jstated by the witnesses. In the strongest language possible the Learned ,,e Counsel animadverted upon the conduct of the mother 'u child for two or three days after the offence was alleged to have been committed. In the course of his address the Learned Counsel further remarked upon the absence of the garments, observing that if they had been stolen, he looked upon it as a very unfortunte thing for his client, and complained that they had not been given in charge of the police. Recapitu- lating the evidence of the medical gentleman, the Learned Counsel designated it as most inconclusive. The Learned Counsel then remarked that he was in doubt about calling two medical gentlemen, who had examined the child some days after Mr. James had examined her, as such a course would render him liable to an elaborate reply from his Learned Friend. His Lordship remarked that if the Learned Counsel had witnesses to prove important facts, he ou,,bt not to hesitate to call them. ° The Learned Counsel replied that he would, after his Lordship s observation, call his witness, and also put in tha deposition taken before the magistrates; between which and the evidence given before the jury, the Learned Counsel said there were discrepancies. The Clerk of Arraigns then read the whole of Frances Cane's deposition and that of the boy James. Mr. D. G. Owen was then called by the Learned Counsel for the defence, and stated that some days after Mr. James had first examined the child, he, with Mr. James and Mr. Yorath, examined the child. From the evidence of Mr. Owen, some difference of opinion as t8 the causes of the child's ailment appeared to exist be- tween the medical gentlemen. Mr. L. W. Yorath's evidence accorded with that of Mr. Owen. Upon one point the evidence of Mr. Yorath was flatly contradictory of that of Mr. James. This was the case for the defence. Mr. Richards made an able speech for the prosecution. He contended that Mr. James's medical testimony ought to be regarded as most weighty, inasmuch as he examined the child a day or two after the alleged offence had been committed, whereas eight days had elapsed before the medical witnesses for the defence did so. He defended Mr. James against the vituperation and charges of dis- courtesy to which he had been undeservedly subjected from his Learned Friend; and argued that it would have manifested sounder judgment on the part of the attorney for the defence had he selected other gentlemen to con- tradict Mr. James's evidence-one of those brought for- ward having the disadvantage of comparative youth on his side, and the other, that of being a relative of the attorney. The Learned Counsel contended that the dis- crepancies in the depositions were very immaterial— indeed, that the alleged discrepancies to some extent proved to be no discrepancies at all. He carefully re- viewed the evidence, and concluded by observing, that he had no doubt the jury would return a proper verdict between the crown and the prisoner. His Lordship summed up in a most lucid manner, and at considerable length. He first instructed the jury that there were three conclusions, at either of which they might arrive. First, they might return a verdict of acquittal; secondly, they might return a verdict of guilty; and lastly, they might, if they were not satisfied the e felony bad been committed, but only an attempt made bring in the prisoner guilty of the lesser crime. There were, his Lordship continued, several painful circum- stances connected with the case. It was most painful to think ot a man being guilty of the crime laid to the cha»«> of the prisoner. It was also painful to conceive of chfl- dren concocting such a story as that embodied in the evidence, which must have been the cass if the prisoner were innocent, and then supporting the charge by per- 1 jury. His Lordship then read the evidence, commenting thereoa aerhe proceeded, and indicating the facis for and againat the prisoner. His Loidship expressed a rather strong opinion upon the ciroumstance of the mother not 1 examining her child on the Saturday morning when she e first discovered the stains on the garments, but leaving it till Monday. His Lordship concluded by again laying down the law upon the oase. 1 After deliberating for a few minutes, the jury re- s turned a verdict of Guilty of attempting to commit the felony. His Lordship, in passing sentence, observed to the 11 prisoner:-The jury, having carefully and patiently ( considered the evidence, have arrived at a conclusion in < which I wuiifly agree. It has not beeu satisfactorily j made out that you have committed the felony, but that you attempted so to do. Your conduct, as proved in the evidence laid before the court, shows you are a filthy- minded fellow, and will not hesitate to gratify your passiona even upon the person of a child, of such tender years as her whom you have atte mpted to violate. The law cannot allow such conduct to pass unpunished, and it would be a disgrace to any civiliz.,d country if it did. You will have for many a weary month to bear in mind that indulging your base desires can only lead to misery and suffering, and when you come out of prison, I hope you will put some curb upon your base passion, and respect those whom you cannot illtreat with impunity. The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned for eighteen months in the House of Correction at Usk. The prisoner during the address of his counsel, and also during the summing of tho Learned Judge, was observed at times to weep bitterly. The case occupied the Court about six hours. FALSE PItETENCB AT NEWPORT. Lydia Price (14) pleaded guilty to an indictment charging her with obtaining by false pretences, from Henry Gardiner, at Newport, on the 15:h of June, a pair of boots, and was sentenced to two months' im- prisonment in the county gaol. FELONY AT NEWPORT. Eliza James (37) was indicted for stealing twenty yards of brown Irish cloth, the property of Alfred R. Bear, at Newport, on the 9th of July, 1861.—Mr. Boughey proseouted; the prisoner was undefended. Prosecutor keeps a draper's shop in Newport; on the day named in the indictment, he h,,id a quantity of goods at his door, among them being some brown Irish he missed it about half-past nine o'clock.—Charles Thomas, assistant to the last witness, saw the brown Irish about eight o'clock about half-past it had dis- appeared he had not sold it.—Martha Watts, in passing prosecutor's shop about half-past nine, saw the prisoner taking something from the shop door, and gave infor- mation to Mr. Bear's shopman she knew the prisoner well.-Ann Probert knew the prisoner, and on the occasion referred to, saw the prisoner take a piece of brown Irish from the prosecutor's door.—P.S. Curtis received information of the robbery about ten o'clock on the night named from information he received, he afterwards went to Birmingham, and there apprehended the prisoner, who said she knew nothing of the charge. -7Guilty. A previous conviction was proved. Sentence, nine months' imprisonment with hard labour. MANSLAUGHTER AT NEWPORT. Patrick Donovan (19), was indicted for feloniously killing and slaying David Williams, at Newport, on the 24th of June.—Mr. Cleavp. prosecuted; the prisoner was undefended.—Samuel Roberts said, on the day named he was in company with the deceased and ano- ther had been following a rifle band, and when by the drill room in Dock-street, the prisoner pushed against them some words ensued between the deceased and prisoner, which resulted in the prisoner striking the de- ceased in the left side the deceased placed himself in a fighting attitude, and then fell; he was conveyed into the Hope and Anchor and was dead in a fe.v minutes. -By His Lordship The deceased was a fireman.- Charles George was one of the three pushed by the prisoner on the night named in the indictment; upon being pushed, deceased said, What the are you doing ?" prisoner said, Go on," and struck him in the face deceased squared at him, and prisoner struck de- ceased in the breast; he staggered and fell down, and was carried into a public-house; when witness next saw Williams he was dead.—George Evans saw the prisoner strike the deceased, and heard him say, You are not my match, and I don't wish to fight you prisoner then walked away the deceased afterwards fell down; and some water was obtained for him, but he never rallied.- Mr. L. W. Yorath was sent for to attend Williams on the night named, but found him dead on aniving wi ness subsequently made a post mortem examination o e o y, but found no mark of violence externally or internally the heart was much diseased; he believed the deceased died from a diseased heart; be might have died apart from any blow; witness believed death was accelerated by the blow. P.C. Knight went to the prisoner's house on the night named, and saw the prisoner witness asked if he had not been fighting in Cross-street; pri- soner denied that be had done so, but added that he had been pushed by a lad, and that thereupon he had shoved him from him the offioer told the prisoner he must go with him; prisoner asked. Is there anything the matter ?" and when the officer told him the lad was dead, he seemed much distressed, and said nothing more. —This was the case.—The prisoner made a few remarks to the jury, stating that he had only pushed. the de- ceased from him in self defence, and had no idea that the lad was hurt uutil he was apprehended.—His Lord- ship summed up in favour of the prisoner, and after a short deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. ou/tft j.iuuyn kzij, was indicted for stealing a hlf-sovereign aud other moneys, belonging to George Dixon, at Monmouth, on the 30th of July. Mr. Somer- set prosecuted Mr. Powell defended. Prosecutor stated that on the 30th July, he went to the Redstreak Tree Itin he called for four glasses of gin, and tendered a sovereign in payment; the prisoner was in the room near to the p, osecutor at the time other men were present: the landlady placed the change on the table, and witness was in the act of pulling out a big to put ia the money, when prisoner took it up prosecutor did not see it any more prosecutor bal been drinking, and shortly after was taken to bed; he had not since had his money.—Cross- examined the prisoner had been ostler at the Beaufort Arms Hotel he is not an acquaintance of mine; I have seen him beoe; dare say he is well known in Mon- mouth.—Elizabeth Jones, of the Redstreak Tree Inn, said the prosecutor and prisoner went to her house on the night named, and prosecutor wanted a bed; witness placed on the table some change for prosecutor, the pri- soner standing by the prisoner took it up and she told him to give it to the man to whom it belonged he rep lied It's all right," and returned the money soon after the prosecutor was taken to bed, and witness asked prisoner for the change; after some time he denied that he had it; witness said the man was in her care, and she would like to have the money prisoner then said ho w uld make it all right in the morning if she would go to the Beaufort; she went for the police.—In cross-examina- tion the witness said she did not think the prisonar intended to keep the money.—Charles Price gave corro- borative testimony.—In reply to his Lordship, Mr. Powell said the money had been given to the policeman —His Lordship instructed the jury that if they thought the transaction had been a practical, albeit a stupid joke, on the part of the prisoner, they ought to return a verdict of Not Guilty,—which they accordingly did, after a moment's deliberation. This boncluded the business of this court at twenty minutes to five p.m.

NISI PRIUS COURT. — MONDAY. [Before Mr. Justice KEATING.] LEWIS V. GRIFFITHS AND ANOTHER. Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Mr. Gray were counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Huddlestone, Q.C., nnd Mr. Phipson for the defence. Mr. Gray, in opening the pleadings, stated that James Lewis was plaintiff, and Blanche Griffiths defendant. This being a will case, James Watkins came in as in- tervenor, and was also a defendant. The question was to try whether a certain document executed on the 3rd of May, 1860, was the last will and testament of Jacob Watkins, of Whitehouse Farm, in the parish of Llangen, in the county of Brecon; secondly, whether it was executed according to the provisions of the statute; thirdly, whether the testator was in a sound state of mind, memory, and understanding, when that document was signed and fourthly, whether it was executed by the testator under undue influence. Mr. Sergeant Pigott stated that this cause was to try the validity of a will of Jacob Watkins. Such actions were generally tried in London, but to suit the con- venience of the parties this case was brought forward at Monmouth. There were a good many questions at issue, but they resolved themselves into one, tho real question I of the validity of the will of Jacob Watkins. Jacob seems to have been a farmer; and he died on the 31st of August, 1860, after making this will in the previous May. He le!t a good many legacies, £ 50 to this one, £100 to that one, L19 19s. to the other, and so on. But on the part of two persons it was said that this was not the right will. Those two were Blanche Griffiths and James Watkins, both legatees he supposed Blanche was not satisfied with the amount left to her, and that James Watkins was discontented because he was not residuary legatee, as he was under a former will of the testator. Jacob made a will in 1855, in which, after giving a number of small legacies, he left the residue to be divided between James Lawis, the plaintiff, and James Watkins, the intervenor. Ia March or April, 1860, Jacob determined to make another will; he told Mrs. Lewis in Welsh what he wanted to be done, and she con- veyed it in English to onb David Pritchard, who drew up the will. After that will was made, a little boy; to whom Jacob left X200, died; and consequently another will was drawn up in form by Mr. Price, solicitor, of Abergavenny, David Griffiths acting as messenger. At the house of James Lewis, in the presence of James Lewis, his wife, his daughter, and three farmers of the neigh- bourhood, who were called in as witnesses, that will was read over to old Jacob, who said he was satisfied with it and signed it. Jacob went away, and meeting one of the legatees, told him that he had left him a sum of money. The learned counsel said the defendants, however, alleged that old Jacob was not of sound mind. In an. swet to that, it would be shown that he continued to at- tend his chapel till within a short time of his death, transacted his business as he had always done, and a short time before his death executed a deed connected with the sale of some property. Then it was alleged that the will was not duly exeouted: but how could that be, seeing that the will was attested by three vitaMMe, 4Q9 mor9 Um the law requirod. Thou *A defendants alleged that the will was made through the undue influence and importunity of James Lewis. No- thing of the kind. The will was made at Jacob's request, and at his request the witnesses were called in. The first plea was, that this was not the will of Jacob Watkins. 3tit he would call witnesses, after whose testimony he t.honght there would be no doubt of the validity. Thomas Pritchard, farmer, of Cwmyoy, deposed that he knew the late Jacob Watkins. One day in May last, witness was called to come to the house of James Lewis, the plaintiff, who lives in the same parish. He went-, and found there Jacob Watkins, William Thomas, and David Pritchard. Plaintiff's wife and daughter were also there. Jacob Watkins was getting on in years, but witness saw no diffrence in his usual health. James Lewis told witness he was wanted to sign Jacob Watkins' bill. Believed that Watkins heard that. D.ivid Pritchard gave witness the will to read, but witness could not read, not having his spectacles, and gave it back. David Pritchard then rerd the will aloud, in the hearing of Watkins. After the will was read, witness saw Jacob Waikins sign it. Did not re- collect that Watkins said anything, or that any one said anything to him. Believed the other persons present saw Watkins sign the bill. After Watkins signed it, witness signed it in the same room, and in Watkins' presence. All three of the witnesses there signed the will. Cross-examined Should thinlr Jacob Watkins was not 90 years of age; but had not seen his tombstone; had seen Watkins during his life often, but knew little about him. Witness spoke to him perhaps six months before the will was made, merely giving him the time of day witness was fetched to the will-making by James Lewis, the plaintiff; that was on the 3rd of May, but witness did not recollect what day of the week it was; no one came with James Lewis James Lewis was pre- sent when the will was made James Lewis told witnesi in English he wanted him to witness the will; heard the will read by David Pritchard, in English, while sitting down, but witness could not recollect what wai in it; while he read it nobody spoke after it was read through the old man signed it, without saying anything to any. one, or anyone saying anything to him, that witness re- collected Jacob Watkins made his mark, and David Pritchard gave him the pen; could not tell whether there was ink in the pen, or whether he dipped it ipto the ink himself; did not see any one alter a part of the will as soon as the will was signed witness went away. Witness could read, with spectacles; he had his specta- cles that day; he could write a large hand, but not a small one David Pritchard made no observation, while reading the will; the old m'ln was sitting in the chair, about two yards off, all the time. In answer to Sergeant Pigott, witness said that Jacob Watkins could speak English, but not so well as Welsh. The will was then put in and read by this it appeared that Blanch Lewis was cousin of Jacob Watkins. William Thomas, farmer, of Cwmyoy, deposed that he had known Jacob Watkins nearly forty years, and was well acquainted with him Jacob attended chapel after he signed the wi:l, twice, witness believed; witness was fetched in May in last year to go to Lewis's house, by James Lewis when he went there the will was read and signed; (the account was the same ss that given by Pritchard) the mark on the paper now produced was made bv witness at that time; witness was in the habit of talking Widsh with Jacob. Cross-examined by Mr. Huddlestone Witness always spoke Welsh with Jacob, when they had a long conver- sation but occasionally they had a word or two in English; Jacob was a liitle deaf, but was not blindish he was an old man of perhaps 80. Blanch Lewis, wife of the plaintiff, deposed that she vas first cousin to Jacob Watkins, who was in the habit of coming to their house almost daily. He lived about a mile and a half off; and mostly walked there. He was very anxious about making his will, and spoke to her about it, about the latter part of March in Isst year Jacob told her in Welsh what he would put down, and she told it in English to David Pritchard, who put it down. Mr. Watkins executed, in the presence of witnesses, that first will, in March or April. Some time after that, Jacob said he put the little child, Jamet Pritchard, in that will, for £ 200. That child died the last day of April, after the first will was signed; and Jacob begged to have the will oddzed (altered) dirrctly, to have the child's name out, because he was dead. Witness told that to David Pritchard, and gave him the paper first signed, in her own house. Jacob desired that David might be fetched, and her husband went for him. Had never seen that paper since she gave it to David Pt itchard. David took it away, and brought another paper on the evening of the 2nd of May. Next morning, Jacob Watkins came down on his horse, and signed the will. After he signed it, he said he was glad it was done. The will was read loud enough for Jacob J»car. Jacob contiiuj^^ft £ 9"Sensibfe W* brfb're* "SH talk English plain enough, but Welsh Was WuUuaUr spoken by him. Jacob was twice mamVri i. a child by either of them rWifn«. u' ? D? as tn who n, j./r." LVVltness was then examined will 1 Tam TO- !il^erent persons mentioned in the will'- he ^eS atkln? (lhe i&tervenor)4was not in the eh jren Z C°^in t0 Jacob- He has four gentleman mJe «>• old James Watkins's name was.! ? witness that and the child's to go in the Marrh'^ t u wi"» was to be the same as the 1855 wtii ex°!^that witness told David Pritchard, and hat hfj Jacob. He thought all present heard him say he was satisfied with making the will, They 8mo/ed 8nd talked a good bit. Jacob ta.ked while the will was being read. David Pritchard generally gpoke in Eng- lish, but understood Welsh. In the will 0f March Jacob said £ -50 more was to ba put for David WatkinsJ £10 for Thomas Watkins, and dES for Margaret Lewis. L^ri)'*am Fnce, solicitor, of Abergavenny, <Je- posed that in April in last year, about the 24th, David irntchard caiae to bim, and gave him instructions to prepare a document. Witness did so. Pritchard called Witness read a draft over to Prit- chard, and afterwards got it engrossed. Gave it to Pritchard on Tuesday, the 2nd of iliav. Had seen the old man Jacob about 10 years ago, but not in reference to this will, or that of 1855. James Lewis, husband of Blanch, the plaintiff in this cause, deposed that in the latter end of April, Jacob Watkins bade him go and fetch David Pritohard to make his will. David did not go at that time, but said he would go to witness's house to do so, as that was nearer. He did come to witness's house and witness fetched testator to his house, before David Pritchard arrived. There was a will before, and witness's wife gave it to him to see what was in it. Witness also fetchtd the witnesses, by J arob's direction. Cross-examined: Had he rd people ask David Pri- chard in Welsh how he was, and he answered in English. The old man could speak English, but preferred Welsh." David oniy read the will over; he did not remember his explaining it, or the old man saying anything. Margaret Lewis, daughter of plaintiff, deposed that she was present when the will was executed. David Pritchard asked the old man if he understood it; and the old man said -&'Yes, I am willing." Tnat was in English that David asked but wi ness was not certain whether Jacob answered in English or Wrlsh. David Watkins, labourer, who bad ben servant to Jacob Watkins for 40 years, deposed that he worked for him up to the time of his death. The old man was not confined to the house for above two or thre days before his death. The laud was let to Mr. DJdd twelve montf S ago, and witness worked for Mr. Dodd, and lived with the old man. In May, the old man came home, and and he had made his will, and left witness 415o, and Jane Burgoyue LIOO. Witness said he was very thank- ful to him, and the old man said he was glad it weg settled. After that the old man went to chapel as often as he could he was not able to go every Sunday. Cross-examined: The old man never told him to iiaddle his horse, in a rage, after seeing James Prichard, s lying they had been making David Prichard, of the Garn, trustee to his will. That was quite a wrong tale. The old man told witness that James Lewis was truatee that was, he did not tell witness, but witness knew James 4ewis was to be the trustee, for the old man u.ed to send for James Lewis when he wanted anything done. He did not remember who told him Lewis waf to be trustee, perhaps the old gentleman did so. No one told blm that Daviù Prichard was trustee. Walter Willialll Lwis Dodd, farmer, who took the land ot old Jacob Watkins, twelve months last autumn, eposed that he did not know who owned it no w ha never paid any rent for it; he bought it twelve months last June the old man then knew what he was about. Mr. Huddlestone asked if the witness knew what he was about ? After some hesitation, witness said he did and in answer to other questions said he was to pay X540 for the farm there was stock worth that on the farm at Llandilo Bertholy had not paid anybody a half-penny yet, and did not know whom ho had to pay the old gentleman never asked him for payment; he was tv pay E4 10 a year for interest per hundred witness had a piece of parchment, and signed a note of hand for payment, drawn up by Mr. Jones had paid James Lewis ZAO for stock bought of the old man, in eight X5 notes, but had no receipt. To Serjeant Phipson Got the parchment signed in June in last year; the money was left on mortgage on the place. Morgan Lewis, officiating minister (Baptist) at the chapel frequented by the old man, deposed that Jacob's state of mind was strong, considering his age. This witness gave his evidence in English very fluently, yet at the beginning asked to be examined in Welsh In cross-examination witness said that the old man was troubled with opthalmia and with deafness, but theM did not weaken his mental powers. William Williams, surgeon, of Talgarth, deposed Out he atteaded Jacob Watkins, Saw him in Jane fait, ttiH he appearei to bg g( thoroughly d mM,