Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

7 articles on this Page




Monmouthshire Summer Assizes.


Monmouthshire Summer Assizes. Thursday, the 31st ult., (as stated in our paper last week), being the day appointed for opening the assize commission for this county, at three o'clock on that day, Mr. Justice Patteson was escorted into Monmouth, by the usual cavalcade of the High Sheriff, his chaplain, javelin men. &c. At four o'clock the learned judge proceeded to St. Mary's Church, where an ap- propriate sermon was preached by the chaplain, ihe Rev. Daniel Joaes. Lord Denman arrived at a late hour in the evening. The calendar of prisoners presented but few charges of a se. rious nature, and the cause list of the Nisi Prius Court, after de- ducting several cases which were arranged out of court, left only seven common jury cases for liial. FRIDAY. At ten o'clock on Friday, the Hon. Sir John Patteson, Knt., one of the Justices of her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench, opened the business in the Nisi Prius Court; and at eleven o'clock, the Right Hon. Thomas, Lord Denman, Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, took his seat at the Crown Bar. CROWN COURT. On the opening of this court, the usual preliminaries having been gone through, the following gentlemen were sworn as the GRAND JURY. The Most Noble the Marquis of Worcester. Foreman. Lord Granville Somerset, M.P. G. Cave, Esq. S. R. Bosanquet, Esq. O.A. Wyatt, Eaq. W. H. Little. Esq. T. Wakemao, Esq. O. C. S. Morgan, Esq. I T. Tudor, Esq. W. H. Little, Esq. T. Wakemao, Esq. O. C. S. Morgan, Esq. T. Tudor, Esq. E. H. Phillips, Esq. F. Turner, Esq. John Roberts, Esq. John Butler, Esq. J. F. Vaughan, Esq. T, Daviei, Esq. W. A. Williams, jua., Esq. T. Gratrex, Esq. J. F. Vaughan, Esq. T. Daviei, Esq. W. A. Williams, jua., Esq. I T. Gratrex, Esq. Percy Galiudo. Esq., Mayor of Monmouth; Edward Dowling, Esq., Mayor of Newport; and Aler. Waddington, Esq., Port- reeve, of Usk, answered to their names as did also the following coroners-Wm. Brewer, Esq.; Wm. Hughes, Esq. The officer of the court having read the usual proclamation against vice and immorality, his Lordship addressed the Grand Jury as tollow. Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—I consider that I shall be fully justified in congratulating you upon the lightness of the present calendar. I am decidedly of opinion that there has not been for many years one less marked with serious offences and I hope, gentlemen, that this improvement in the character of the calendar may be regarded as an evidence of an improved state of society; indeed, I think I may unliesitat.ngly exp,ess my con. viction, arising from long experience on this circuit, that this improvement is now progressive. I have come 10 this conclusion, gentlemen, from observing that it has gone on for some time, and I hope that 1 may in future have to congratulate you on its continuanre. The means to promote this desirable object, as you are aware, gentlemen, are in the hands of those to whom is en- trusted the moral and religious education of the people, and to them we naturally look for the improvement we contemplate. We have, cettainly, the utmost confidence in their endeavours to promote public improvement in their particular sphere, believing, aa we do, that nothing but effective moral and religious training can produce such a diminution of crime as we all desire to wit- ness. H. however, gentlemen, this happy result may not so speedily follow these means as we could wish, still there are othera which may help to facilitate this desirable consummation viz., the extension of good sound education which will, doubt. less, be instrumental in the formation of moral and exemplary habits. 1 need not temind you, gentlemen, that this is necessa- J ily and naturally the case with everything which directs the atten- tion of the community from merely sensual pleasures to those which are of a more ennobling and elevating character; and this remark is applicable, as you are aware, to other pursuits than tho;e which are purely educational-it being now sufficiently obvious that the encouragement of manly sports, of an innocent description, may tend to the same object. We may, therefore, gentlemen, safely recommend the encouragement and sanction of fuch exercises, inasmuch as they are eminently calculated to di- vert the minds of the people from pursuits of a sensual and debas. log kind. Gentlemen, I cannot but congratulate you upon the absence of any evidence in this calendar of crimes resulting from poverty; poverty, unhappily, as is known to you, sometimes pro- ducing indirectly, though inexcusably, crimes of the worst de- scription. We have need to be thankful, however, that there are no offences in this calendar which can be traced merely to po- verty, and we may well regard it as an indication of the improve- ment to which I have before alluded. Gentlemen, little obser- vation will be necessary from me, as to the cases which will come under your consideration, the criminal law being now rendered so plain as to relieve the judge from the necessity of any length. ened explanation of it. There is one case, however, No. 14, in the calendar, in which, from reading the depositions, I am dis- posed to think it possible that the full offence may not be made out; and, gentlemen, I wish merely to inform you upon that case, that if you are not satisfied with the evidence which will be sub- mitted to you, that the more serious crime was committed, then it will be your duty to throw out the bill, it not being competent to find a true bill for an assault merely, if you are not satisfied that the more serious offence of assault, with intent, was perpe- trated the case must be then investigated, if at all, under another indictment. I shall not occupy your time, gentlemen, with any further observations, but must now request that you will proceed to your duties, and return some of the bills to the court at your earliest convenience. The Grand Jury having retired, the following gentlemen were sworn as the PETTY JURY. Edward Baker I William Hodges John Davit James Howelis John Davit James Howelis Thomas Edwards William Iggulden William Edwards William Jamea William Farr John Lane John Holmes John Lloyd TRIALS OF PRISONERS. MALICIOUS WOUNDING. The first case proceeded with was that of John Jones, who was charged with having, on the 12th of June, at Malpas, feloniously stabbed and cut Henry Morgan, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. Henry Morgan, sworn and examined by Sir T. Phillips: I had a field of vetches in Malpas. in June last in consequence of losing vetches, I watched the field on the 12th of June I saw the prisoner come over the hedge into the field, having a reaping hook with him He began cutting vetches, and I went up and took hold of him, and said, Hallo, my man, I've caught you now. He struck my neck with the reap hook, and called David Jones, who was near the field. David Jones came, and took hold of me round the neck, and asked me to let the prisoner go I said I would not; the prisoner wished me to let him go, and when he found I would not, he drew out his knife and stabbed me in the side, saying I'll make you let go." The knife pene. trated my clothes, and my side; David Jones had hold of me round the neck, and on getting him off, I knocked him down I afterwards threw down the prisoner; soon after some person came, and the prisoner was taken into custody. John Powell, examined I live at Malpas; on Thursday the 12ih of June I heard cries of murder, and, in company with another man, went towards the spot whence they proceeded in a field I found the prosecutor and prisoner scuffling I took a knife from prisoner, and afterwards gave it to the policeman; I saw the prosecutor stripped, and saw a wound on his body. Henry Williams said I am a labourer in the employ of Mr. Morgan on the 12th of June I went into Mr. Morgan's field of vetches, and discovered that the vetches bad been trodden; I found a hook there. George Harris: I am a police-officer, at Newpott; John el Powell gave me a knife, and Henry Williams gave me a reaping hook and the clothes that were said to have been worn by Mr. Morgan when he was stabbed. [The knife, clothes, &c., were produced, and were found cut through in the part corresponding .ith the part of the prosecutot'a body, on which the wound was inflicted.] Mr. E. J. Phillips, chemist, Newport, said the prosecutor ap. plied to him on the 13th June, saying he had been wcuoded In a laufflo on the previous night; he examined the wouad, and it was about a quarter of an inch deep and half an int h long, and might have been inflicted by a knife like that produced. His Lordship, in summing up the evidence, remarked to the jury that the ptisoner had been charged with having slabbed the prosecutor w th a knife, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, and to prevent his ( prisoner's) being apprehended and he was sorry to find, that this crime was far from being an uncom- mon one. The jury rerurned a verdict of guilty, and, after a feeling address from his lordship, the prisoner was tentenced to 15 years' transportation. CHARGE OF MURDER TWENTY YEARS AGO. Richard Christopher, a man tottering with age, and who ap- peared to be very deaf, and almost insensible to the serious charge brought against him, was indicted for the manslaughter of Thomas Powell, in the parish of Llaovihangel Crucorney, on the 16th of April, 1825; another count in the indictment charged the prisoner with the wilful murder of the said Thomas Powell. The evidence in this case did not show the cause of the prisoner having been go long a time exempted from procecution for the crime la d to his charge-the testimony of the witness John Wat- kin constable of the parish, given below, (and which is the only tvdencein which allusion is made to his detection), merely showing that some time in the month of April he was discovered 'o have been the person supposed to have caused the death of Thomas Powell, twenty years ago. In the address of the coun- sel for the prosecution, however, it was stated that the prisoner hal come bark, after so long an absence, to seek parish relief. 'f. Edwsrd Bevan, who was the first witness called, deposed to having seen the prisoner quarelling with deceased at the time laid in tl e indictment, striking him with a stick across his head, and other parts of his body and stated that the deceased died on the morning after ti,e quartet, and was supposed to have died of tte wounds so inflicted. Margaret Edwards I was the widow of Thomas Powell, and have since married Morgan Edwards the evening before the day on which my late husband died, Bevan, the last witness, came to fetch me I went to a field with him, and found my husband there lying on his side I sent for a workman to take him home I sent to Abergavenny for a doctor, and Mr. Lowe, an assistant of Mr. Batt, came my husband died about six or seven the following morning; I know there was a person called Richard Christopher living at the Cefn house, near my house, at the time when my husband died, but I cannot swear the prisoner is the man. Thomas Jenkins I was sent for the evening before Thomas Powell's death, but did not see Richard ChrUtophei that even- ing; J believe prisoner is the man who lived at the Cefn House 20 years ago I have had no conversation with Christopher since. Thomas Batt, surgeon, uid I lived at Abergavenny twenty years ago on the evening after being sent for to go to Powell's house, I went, and be was dead; I examined his body, and found a compound fracture of the skull, and a portion of the skull driven into the brain, but cannot say with what kind of instrument it was done. John Watkins, constable, deposed to having seen the prisoner a short time since in the parish of Lanvibangel Crucorney, and finding, 00 inquiry, that be was Ihe person who was supposed to have caused the death of Thomas Powell twenty years ago. His Lordship summed up the evidence against the prisoner, reo marking that he did not think it sufficiently conclusive to convict him of the serious charge laid in the indictment. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty, and the prisoner was at once discharged. CHARGE OF SHIRT STEALING. Mary Ann Scott, a decent looking woman, was charged with stealing a shirt, the property of Elizabeth Sutton, in the parish of Chepstow. Elizabeth Sutton being the first witness called, said I live at Chepstow, and take in clothes to wash. On the 22nd July last, I missed a shirt which I had left in a pan to soak, prepa. ratory to washing. I went the following morning to Mr.Curtis's (pawnbroker) shop, and said I had missed the shirt; he showed me a shirt which had been pawned, which I knew to be the one I had missed. The shirt was here produced, and identified by the prosecutrix as the one she had lost. Mr. Curtis, pawnbroker, was called to prove that the shirt was pawned at his shop, but there being no evidence to show that the prisoner had taken the shirt, or that it was pawned by her, the jury, after a short consideration, returned a verdict of Not Guilty, and the prisoner was accordingly discharged. LEATHER STEALING. Elita Pond was charged with stealing a piece of leather from the shop of Mr. John Giles Bryant, ia Chepstow. Edmonds, a shopman of Mr. Bryant, said The prisoner came to my master's shop, on the 15th July last, to return a pair of tips which she bad bought there. I had occasion to go out of the shop whilst the prisoner was there, and on returning found that some pieces of leather, which I had left on the counter, were gone. I then followed the prisoner, and found her not far from the shop. I asked her what she had done with the leather she had taken from the shop. and she denied having taken any. A piece of leather was produced by the constable, and iden- tified by the witness as one of the pieces he had left on the counter, while the prisoner was in the shop. The constable was next called, and said I went, from infor- mation I received, to a place called Clement's Court, and in a sort of recess or cupboard in the passage leading to that court, I found the piece of leather which I have now produced. Thomas James said: On the 15th July last, I saw the prisoner in Mr. Bryant's shop, and she appeared to be putting something under her apron I observed the prisoner from the time I saw her put the artide under her apron until she left the shop, which she did soon after. On her leaving the shop I saw some leather projecting from her pocket-hole; and I tod Mr. Bryant's apprentice what 1 had seen. The prisoner, on leaving tbe shop, went towards a place called Clement's Court. William Wheele, a shoemaker, of Chepstow, said he saw the prisoner go into Clement's Court on the 15th July; be was stands in his shop at the time. John Giles Bryant, the prosecutor, said: I am a cuuier, living at Chepstow. In July last I sold the prisoner some tips, but never sold ber aDY leather like that produced. I believe the leather produced is my property. Magtll, head constable of Chepstow, said On the 15th of July the prisoner was given into my custody on this charge. Edmonds, Mr. Bryant's shopman, recalled, said I did not see any leather with the prisoner when I was in the shop with her. Mr. Curtis, pawnbroker, recalled at the request of the prisoner, said, he never knew anything against her previously to this charge. The jury, after a brief consultation, returned a verdict of Guilty, and his lordship sentenced the prisoner to one month's imprisonment, at hard labour. BIGAMY. John Dugmore was the next prisooer anaigned and this un- fortunate wight, with a visage expressing the most wolu) gravity, pleaded guilty to « charge of bigamy having married Mary Friend, in the parish of Bttssalleg, on the 17th of Nov. last, his former wife being then alive.—This unhappy victim of unstable pllliislon was sentenced 10 two imp., with bard labour. BURGLARY. Thomas Jones, a man whose appearance gave DO evidence in his favour, was charged Wllh having feloniouely broken into Ih8 dwelling-house of the Rev. John Prite, in the parish of Aber- gavenny, on the 9th of April last, and having stolen tiierelrom it pieceof bacon, four silver Ubla spoons, one silver tea-spoo¡¡, a silver sugar-tongs, a pair of snuffers, two books, and a knife, the property of Mr. Price. The first witness called was Caroline Walking, a very decent lookiug female, the servant of Mr. Price. She said On the 8th of April last, I slept in the house of my master, Mr. Price, and I believe that the doors were all fastened as usual in ihe evening, before we went to bed. I got up between five and six on the following morning, and on going into the parlour, 1 found the things there had been turned upside down. but I did not miss anything. I was the first down stairs. Rev. John Price examined, said 00 the morning of the 9:h of April last, being called by my servant, I went to examine some of the rooms in my house. Ongoing into the parlour, 1 found that the window, which I had fastened the night before, had been opened by a pane of giasshaving been taken out. A person could, with the gieatest ease, have entered the house through the open window. The pantry window had also been opened. On examination of my things, which had been very much thrown about, I found that four spoons, a knife, a book, (Robinson Crusoe) and other things, were gone, and 1 gave information of the robbery to the police- man Cusack. Patrick Cusack, a sprightly Irish officer. being in himself the entire police force of Abergavenny, on being called upon to pro. ducethestoten properly, jumped into the witness box with his characteristic agility, and, with no small savour of the Irish brogue, said, I received information of the robbery that had taken place at the house of Mr. Price, and subsequently James Richards gave me a knife, which had been given to him by the prisoner, in exchange for other things. James Morgan also gave me a book, which he had puichased of the prisoner. Cusack here produced the book and knife, which were identified by Mr. Price as his property. James Morgan, sworn, said In April last, I was working in Llanfoist parish, and on the 13tb I saw the prisoner there; he had a hook in his hand, which be said was the history of Robin. son Crusoe, and which he offered to sell for 8d. 1 bought it, and afterwards gave it to P.C. Cusack. The book which he has produced is the one 1 bought. James Richards confirmed P.C. Cusack's evidence as to having given him a knife which he had received from the prisoner about three months ago and The learned judge summed up the evidence, when the jury, after a brief consultation, returned a verdict of Guilty. ANOTHER BURGLARY BY THE SAME PRISONER, The same prisoner, Thomas Jones, was further charged with feloniously entering the dwelling-house of Elizabeth Gardener, in the parish of Lanover, on the 15th of AprU tast, and stealing apiece of bacon, a book, two snuff boxes, a pair of spectacles, and various other articles, the property of the said Elizabeth Gardener. John Evans, being examined, said: In April hat, 1 was in tbe service of Elizabeth Gardener, and on the 15ih I came down stairs about half past four in the morning, and found that the pantry door, the cellar door, and the front door, had been opened during the night. 1 immediately called my mistress. Elizabeth Gardener, the prosecutrix, said Oa coming down stairs between five and six o'clock on the 15th April last, being called by my servant, John Evans, and examining the things in my house, I missed several articles, a book, a snuff box, and other things. The things were here produced and identified. James Richards, a witness in the last case, said I saw the prisoner some time since, and he offered me a snuff box, which I took. Some days after I saw him, and he had a book with him, which he offered to sell me for 2s. 6d. I said I had not money enough to pay for it, and could not buy ft. He then allowed me to have it, with the understanding that I was to pay for it some other time. I look it bcrme, but afterwards returned it. P.C. Cusack, being examined, said On tbe 4th May lust, I was at the inclined plane, at Abergavenny, and there look two persons into custody. There is a wood near the inclined plane, in which I found some books, &c. I saw tbe prisoner on thu day, at the inclined plane, but could not take him into custody then, because he ran away. The remainder of the evidence merely showed that the prisoner had been subsequently taken into custody, and that an investiga- tion of the case bad taken place before the magistrates. The jury, with very little hesitation, returned a verdict of Guilty upon this charge also, and the prisoner, aftei some moni- tory remarks from his lordship, was sentenced to ten years' transportation. ANOTHER BURGLARY. John Prothero and William Jones, two fellows in whose countenances the most hardened villany was depicted, were charged with stealing a moleskin jacket and a Bible, the property of Walter Prothero. Walter Prothero, who gave his evidence in Welsh, deposed to having lost a jacket and a Welsh Bible-the former from the chaff room, and the latter from the hay loft, of William Lewis, his master, on the 1st of May last, having seen them safe on the last day of April. P.C. Cusack produced a jacket and a Bible, which were iden. tified by Walter Prothero, as those he had lost. Cusack said he bad found the jacket produced on the prisoner Jones. William Lewis, farmer, said Walter Prothero is my servant. I saw the prisoner JaDes, and I think the other prisoner, near my house, about the time of the robbery. This being all the evidence whtch went to establish the charge against the prisoners, the jury consulted for a few minutes, and returned a verdi tal Guilty against Jones, acquitting Prothero. A -e:ond iulictment charged the prisoners with stealing, on .the 1st day of May last, at the parish of Llanfoist, seven stiver spoons, one silver sugar longs, one tea caddy, one tobacco box, one i-air of breeches and leggings, one waistcoat, a piece of bacoo, a piece of cheese, three loaves of bread, and two silk handkerchiefs, the property of Sarah Lewis; and also with stealing a petticoat, three pair of stockings, a silk handkerchief, a pair of boots, and sixteen shillings and four pence ID silver, the property of Mary Rosser. Mary Rosser, a servant of Mrs. Sarah Lewis, and from whom part ot the property had been stolen, said On the 30ih April lut, I was last up in the house of my mistress, Mr. Lewis, and fattened all the doors and windows before I went to bed. On coming down the following morning. I missed a number of things that I had seen safe in the house the night before—some cheese, bread, butter, lard, silver tea epoon and table spoon, silk handkerchiefs,etc. P. C. Cusack was here called upon to produce the stolen pro- perty, and the things were all identified by Mary Posser as the things which she had missed, Mary Rosser. continued I saw the prisoner Jones near our bouse on ti e day before the robbery. I cannot swear that Pro- thero was there, nor do I think be was. P. C. Cusack stated I got the black silk handkerchief which I have produced from Jones's neck, on the 4th May; aud I found another handkerchief on Prothero, aDd the boots on Jones's feet. I found a bag in a cabin by the side of the inclined plane, with a number of things in it. The prisoner Prothero said the things in the bag belonged to him. There were shoes and boots in it. I afterwards found a tea caddy, which I now produce. The iea caddy, and other things having been identified by the parties from whom they had been stolen, his Lordship pioceeded to recapitulate the evidence, in the course of which he was in- terrupted by the Welsh interpreter of the court, remarking thdt it was strongly suspected that the prisoner Prothero had theo a pair of boots on his feet which had been stolen from Thos.Davies. At the diiection of his Lordship, the boots were taken offand Thomas Davies, after examining them, swore that they were a pair which be hehadtott. The learned judge then concluded his summiog up to the jury, who returned a verdict of Guilty against boih prisoners. They were sentenced to seven yens' transportation each. BOOT 81 EALING. Ann Rets, a decent looking woman, who seemed deeply con- scious of the disgrace of being arraigned as a prisoner, and ex. preased much contrition for her offence, pleaded Guilty to an in- diitment charging her with having stolen, at Abetsychan, a pair of boOtl, tbe property of Thomas Spittle. His Lordship addressed a few cautionary observations to the prisoner, and sentenced her to one month's imprisonment, at hard labour. ROBBERY AT MR. LEIGH'S QUARRY, NEAR PONTYPOOL. Charles Probert and Thomas Knight were charged with having stolen a pickaxe from the quarry of Capel Hanbury Leigh, Esq., near Pontypool, on the 24th July last. Probeu pleaded guilty; Knight, nol guilty. George Taylor, police officer of the parish of Trevethin, pro. duced a pickaxe, which he had received from Mr. William Rogers, on the 25th July. JOlh. Daniel, an agent of Mr. Leigh, being examined, deposed as follows: Mr. Leigh has a limestone quarry and a coal yard near Pontypool. On Monday, the 21st July, j was fit the quarry, and saw a pickaxe there, near where the work was being carried on the same pickaxe I saw afterwards at the Pontypool station boule. In cross-examination, and after having examined the pickaxe produced, the witness admitted that there wao no particular mark by which he knew it, but he considered it was Mr. Leigh's from its general appearance. John Williaml. a quarryman employed by the last witness, staled that he had missed a bar of iron from the quarry at the time the pickaxe was stolen. Elijah Arnold, a labourer working at the colliery, said, I saw I Charles Probelt at the quirry, on the 24th July, about Á 2 o'clock. He took up the pickaxe which has .iu-t beto ptoductd, aod broke tttnto two pieces it was cracked before. When he had broken it, he put the pieces into his pocket. I told him to desist, but he would not, he saui he woulil take the pickue, and he did so. John Corbelt, a fellow who had worked at the quarry, and who was now brought up as a witness for the prosecution, said: I know Probert, and on the 24th July, 1 went with h m, to his house; we took some iron to the house. We went there in the night. The pickaxe produced was not amoug the iron then taken to Probert's house. William Jenkins, a boatman on the Monmouthshire canal, said On Friday, the 25th of July, Thomas Knight ca ne to my boat and asked me to take some iron and rags to Newport for him. I took the iron and rags into my boat, at his request, and brought them to Newport; when I arrived there, the prisoner Knight was waiting at the lock to receive the things. He began to take the things out of the boat, when William Rogers, the constable, who was there, stopped him, and took him into custody. William Rogers, policeman, stated that he had taken Knight into custody alongside the boat at Newport, that he ha 1 iron in his possession, which he said was his property and that the pieces produced were among the iron which he then claimed. Incross-examination by the prisoner's counsel, Rogersadoiilted that, after he had taken the prisoner Knight into custody, he released him the same night on his promising to be present at the magistrates' meeting the next morning and that he attended that meeting according to his promise, and without being sent for. An address of some length from the prisoners counsel closed the case, and his lordship having summed up the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The same prisoners were then furlher charged with stealing iron bars from the works of Capel Haobury Leigh, Esq., near Pontypool, to which charge both pleaded Not Guilty. George Taylor, policeman, being called, ptoduced the bars of iron which the prisonors were charged with having stolen, and which he had received from the other constable Rogers. John Corbett, in examination, said On the 24!h July, I saw Probert, on the road near Mr. Leigh's quarry, he asked me if 1 was going his way. I said I didn't mind. We went up to Pontypool, aDd soon afterwards returned to the same place where I had first seen him and then proceeded to Mr. Leigh's quarry and kiln. When we got to the kiln, he asked me to help him to take some old iron. He then picked up one piece, and I took another piece. We carried them away to Charles Probert's house. I should think this was just after two o'clock in the morning. When we were at Probert's house, Knight came, and wanted to purchase the iron. He gave me 2s. 3d., but we had very little conversation about the iron. I soon after left the house, leaving Knight and Piobert there. Knight said he should t;o and get a boat to take the iron down to Newport. Cross examined I thought when I was going with the prisoner Probert, that there was someihing wrong going on. 1 did not know that I was to have my liberty for making this state- ment heie to-day. I was taken into custody, as well as the prisoners, on this charge. Joseph Daniel, agent of Mr. Leigh, identified the iron pro. duced as the property of that gentleman, describing also for what purposes Ihe bars were used. John Williams said he was a quttriy-man at Mr. Leigh's, and that 00 the uight before the lobbery he saw the iron bars at the quairy the nt-Itt moruing at si" o'clock they were gone. William Jenkinr, boatman on the canal, said I saw Knight at six o'clock in the morning on the 25tth July, and he asked me to take some old iron and rags to Newport. I did so and when the prisoner was taking it out of the boat, Rogers, the constable, cam" aod took him 1010 custody. William Rogers, constable, confirmed the testimony of the former witness, as to his having taken the prisoner and the iron, as he was taking it out of the boat. Theeounaetforthe prisoner Knight, ably addressed the jury in his defence, his lordship clearly summed up the evidence, and the jury found both prisoners Guilty. They were sentenced to twelve calendar months' imprisonment each, at hard labour. CHARGE OF MILK STEALINO, AT GOITREY. Luke Griffiths, a rather decent looking man, and having an honest and artless exptession of countenance, was charged with having stolen, at Goiirey, on the 20th July last, a quantity of milk, the property of William Charles. Sir T. Phillips appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Cooke for the defence. Daniel Williams, who deecribed himself as a labourer, living at Mamhilad, said On the 20th July last, I was watching Mr. Charles' fi\1ld, to see that no robbery was committed. After watching some time. I saw Luka Griffiths, the prisoner, eoter the field and milk one of the cows. He had some vesael with him to cany away ihp milk. Mr. Cooke subjected the witness to a lengthened and severe cross examination, in which he was reluctantly compelled to make the following admissions I was employed by Mr. Charles to watch the field, and it I could detect a thief, I was to be paid for my services if not, I was to receive nothing. I was at the Wain-y-clear beer house on the night of the robbery. I know John Lovett, and he was in the house when I was there. I was sober, but not quite sober. I bad only drank a few pint*, and was not so drunk as to see two men instead of one milking the cow. I had been at a bidale that night. I don't know Thomas Morgan, Bod don't remember having had any quarrel wiih any one that night. I did Dot want to fight James Williams at the beer house. I know James Holloway's house. 1 am not known to be oftener drunk than sober, and am Dot kopwn by the nick- name of Drunken Etan." Sarah Williams said 1 am in the service of Mr. Charles. At a quarter past ten in the evening of the 20:h July, I saw the last witness at my master's house and he said something had taken place in my master's field. The next morning I milked the cows, and found one cow yielded less milk than usual. These being all the witnesses for the prosecution, Mr. Cooke addressed the jury on behalfof the prisoner, contending that with so strong an inducement as that afforded to the first witness, as to the success of his watchings, he (the witness) was not likely to be long without finding some specious pretence for a orosecu- tion against some individual, whether innocent or guilty, being a matter of little moment to him, After some other remarks on the want of evidence to support the case for the prosecution,Mr. Cooke called the following witnesses for the defence :—- John Lovett said On Sunday, the 20th July, I was at the Wain-y-ciear beer house, and saw Daniel Williams there, and heard him call for cider, which was brought. He was drunk, and quarrelling with James Williams. After many cross words had passed between them, Daniel Williams stood up, and was going 10 pull off his coat to fight James Williams. I don't know a' whit time I left, but I left Daniel Williams there. The Wain y-clear beer bouse is about two miles from Mr. Charles' field. Cross-examined by Sir Thomas Phillips: I had drank about a fifth part of ten quarts that evening. Thomas Morgan, examined by Mr. Cooke: I was not at a bidale on the 20th July last, but was at my own house, near which the bidale was held. I saw Daniel Williams coming from the bidale, but don't know whether he then went to theWain-y-clear beerhouse. I saw him thereafter: he appeared very drunk, and wanted to fight James Williams. I looked at my watch just after I came out, and it was five minutes to ten. John Davis corroborated the testimony of the former witness. Mary Holioway, wbo lives next door to the beer house, said she saw Daniel William3 there at ten o'clock she also said that she considered the beer house two miles from Mr. Charles's field. Mary Griffiths, the mother of the prisoner, was called to prove that her son was at home before ten o'clock on the night of the robbery, and went to bed early. William PUster gave the prisoner a good character. Sir T. Phillips addressed the jury for the prosecution, and the jury, after a lucid recapitulation of the evidence by the learned judge, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. This case closed the business on Friday. SATURDAY. The court was opened this morning at nine o'clock, and the first case was that in which Edward Price was charged with a RAPE. This crime was said to have been perpetrated on the 18th July, at Abergavenny, and a child named Ann Hall was stated to have been the vic"m °f 'he hoary prisoner. Sir Thomas Phillip5 and Mr. Greaves appeared for the prose- cution and Mr. Cooke defended the prisoner. Edward Price, a man 66 yeats of age, of most determined ftp- pearmce, and seeming lather anxious to escape detection, than conscious of the disgrace attaching to the crime with which he was charged, on being placed in the dock, and desired to plead to the indictment, said, with an undaunted air, Not Guilty." Mr. Greaves staled the case 10 the jUlY, and Sir Thomas Phillips called the little girl, upon whorn the outrage had been committed. She was a child of interesting appearance, about 12 years of age, and gave her evidence in a straightforward manner, nevenheless, appearing sensible of the revolting nature of the disclosures she WHS called upon to make. In reply to the examinanon of Sir T. Phillips, shedetailed, in simple, butseem- iogly honest, terms, the particulars of the unmanly and savage assault that had been committed upon her by the prisoner. The statement of the child was substantially as follows:—That on two several occasions the prisoner had eniiced her into his house, when she was passing, selling cakes, under the pretence that she had better come in to dry herself; and on the second occasion, having succeeded in getting her inside • lie door, dragged her up stairs, and accomplished his foul purpose. Mr. Morgan, baker, of Abergavenny, stated that the child had made complaint to him of the assault which had been committed upon her by the ptisoner, and he had forbidden her to go again to the prisoner's house, saying he was a person of very bad character. Susan Morris, mother ot the last witness's wife, deposed, that on a recent occasion, she rematked to thechtid that she seemed stupid and agitated. The child then complained to her of the conduct of tbe prisoner towards her. She afterwards went with the child to the prisoner's house, and lemonslrated with him on ihe charge which the little girl had brought against him and the prisoner, on being charged with the assault, took a horsewhip and threatened to whip ibem out of doors. She then left the house, and on the following day, having returned to Whitchurch, where the parents of the child lived, she related to the lather what had passed. Ht., however, did not then go to Abergavenny to enquire about it, but went there some time after. Mr. Richard Hall, rather of Ann Hall, said—On going to Abergavenny, last Sunday week, I saw my little girl, and she took me to see the house of Price, the msn who, she said, had assaulted her. I asked her « hat he had done to her, and she desctibed to me the behaviour of the prisoner towards hei. Sarah Reef, Caroline faylor, and Mr Steele, surgeon, were called bur the nature of the evidence precludes us from going moie ioto detail. Mr. Cooke was about to addiess the jury on the evidence, when I His Lordship said he considered that the more serious offence had not been made out, and he. therefore, thought that the jury had belter find the prisoner guilty merely of a common assault. The jury returned a verdict accordingly, and the prisoner was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment. UTTERING COUNTERFEIT COIN. Joshua Rus, an unfortunate wretch, whose haggard face afforded decisive evidence of his debauched life; and Thomas Lucas, who exhibited the contour of an immitigable scamp, were charged with having, on the 22nd July, at 1 rcdegar, unlawfully uttered counterfeit coin. Mr. Daniel and Mr. Rickards appeared for the prosecution. The prisoners were undefended. Elizabeth Evans, servant to Mr. Richard Spooner, who keeps a shop at Tredegar, on being examined, sajj—prjsoner) Thomas Lucas, came to my master s shop on the 19th July last, to buy two faggots; he gave me sixpence in payment. I thought the sixpence was a bad one, and showed it to IV1 r. Joseph Jones. I then took it to prisoner, and he gave me another, saying he would try to pass the bad one somewhere, and should think him- seifafoo) f he didn't. Sarah Woodward, a shopkeeper at J fedegar, said On the 19th July last, the prisoner Lucas and a man like the other pri- soner came into my shop, and bought a cabbage, and gave me a shilling to pay for it. I discovered it was a bad one, and Lucas said he had just received it; but he gave me another, and I gave him the change. Lucas, with a savage scowl upon his face" rather shrewdly croM-emtrntned the witnesses, but elicited nothing in his favour. I William Braio, said: lam a servant to Mr. W. Woodward, who keeps the globe at Tredegar, The two prisoners came to my master's house together on the 22nd July last. Joshua Rees asked me for some beer, which I fetched e then gave me a shilling to pay for it i took the shilling to my master, and brought him back into the room where the prisoners where. Joshua Rees went out for about ten minutes, and Morgan the constable came tojust at the time. William Woodward, Jandtofdof the Globe, said On 22nd July William Brain brought me a bad shilling, and took me into the room wheretheprisonerswere. I asked Rees why he gave me sunbathing as that instead of a slulling, and took the beer which be had, from him. I gave the shilling to my son, and told him to fetch the constable. Rees then went out to the back place for about ten minutes. Morgan, the constable, came soon after, and just then the prisoner Rees returned and sat where he sat before. Lucas then went out, aod on the conslable saying he would search the prisoners, Lucas refused to be searched. Bad money was afterwards found under the table where the prisoners sat. Mr. Woodward was cross-examined by both prisoners, but nothing exculpatory was proved. Richard Woodward, son of the last witnes, said my father gave me a shilling to take to the constable, and I took Itlo him. Elizabeth Jones, said I was at the Globe, at Tredegar, on the 22ad July. I saw the prisoner! coming out of that house, in custody of a constable. I afterwards went into the house and found a bad shilling under the settle: I saw William Banihorpe find two bad shillings in the house. William Banthorpe I saw the prisoners at Ihe Globe on the 22nd July, sitting on the settle together. I saw Thos. Lu-as hand something over to Rees. J saw Rees soon afterpay for some beer. The constable who was there wanted to search Lucas, but he would not be searched. I heard a jingle, as if money wasfalling on the ground, near where Lucas was sitting. Lewis Lewis I was with the prisoner on the 22nd July, and went with them to the Globe. Joshua Rees and I sat together. Rees asked Lucas for the loan of a shilling. While 1 was sitting on the bench in the Globe I did not lose any money. Witness was fruitlessly cross-examined by Rees and Lucas and a great deal of lecrimination ensued. David Morgan said 1 am a constable at Tredegar Richd. Woodward brought me a shilling on 22nd July, and 1 went to the Globe, when Mr. Woodwatd showed me the man that had given him the shilling. I searched Lewis Lewis, and went to search Lucas, but he would not let me; afterward when 1 was standing in the yard, Lucas came by me with a bundle under his «rm: he threw a lot of mould and turf out the bundte he then went out of the house by the front door, and I biought him back, and searched him. [The witness here produced the base coin he had received.] Mr. Dubberly, silversmith, on being sworn, said he had no doubt the coin was all counterieil. Rees made a rambling and unavailing statement in his de- fence. The learned Judge perspicuously analysed the evidence, and the jury returned a verdict of Guilty against Thos. Lucas only. HIs Lordship sentenced him to twelve months' imprisonment, at hard labour. MALICIOUS WOUNDING AT NEWPORT. George Jenkins, a surly and savage-looking fellow, next pre- sented himself at the dock, and, with an air of reckless hardihood, pleaded Not Guihy to an indictment, charging him with having assaulted Maria Meyrick, with intent to maim and disable, or to do her some grievous bodily harm, in the borough of Newpott, on the 18th day of May last. Mr. Rickards appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Smythies for the defence. Mary Jane Higgins, the first witness called, said-I live at Newport, and, on the 15th May last, I slept in the same house with prisoner and Maria Meyrick. It was in Friars' Fields. I was disturbed in the night by screeches. About ten minutes after I awoke, Maria Meyrick came up to my room. There was a little light in the room, proceeding through the cracks io the floor, there being a fire in the room down stairs. George Jen. kins came up to my room after Maria Meyrick, and lold her she bad better come down, or it would be worse for her. He then fetched a poker, and struck her with hit whole" beft." He then let the poker fall, and I took it away. The t.ext rooming I gave it to a constable. Maria Meyrick threw herself down on the bed in which I had been sleeping, but the prisoner afterwards in- duced her to go down stairs. When they were goue down, I luard blows a .d screams below. I went down, and found Maria RJeyrick sitting on the bed, and ihe prisoner was there. Maria night-gown was bloody, and ulood W19 streaming fiom her head. The prisoner ihen asked lor his cravat, and went away. Maria Meyrick asked me to go and see if the prisoner was gone, and she soon af'er went away to go to the station. house. A cross-examination by Mr. Smythies, showed that the wit- ness, Mana Meyrick, the prisoner, and another man, had been altogether at the fair at Newport, on the day in question that they had drank together; and that, after a day of jollificaiion, they had all resorted to a wretched brothel io Friar'sFields, to luxuri- ate in nocturnal debauchery. The witness aiso admitted that she had been twice commit ed for trial, but the grand jury had in both cases thrown out the bills. [Thiswitneos. in giving her evidence, seeming to fancy that nothing less than an attempt at fainting could give sufficient proof of the overwhelming distress undei which she professed to labour, in having to give such a disgusting exposition of her own and others degeneracy, suddenly began to droop, and was allowed (doubtless contrary to her expectation), without any assistance being proffered, "tn fade and fall away," till she found herself reclining on the bench fixed io the witness-box, for the accommo- dation ol-such fainting witnesses. A short pause in the proceed- ings was the consequence; duriug which, the witness,with an air of sentimental squeamishness, highly amusing to those around her, hid her brandy-coloured face with her hands, till the symp- toms of returning life were sufficiently obvious to induce the counsel to resume the examination ] Jane Edwards was the next witness called. Being examined by Mr. Rickards, she said: On the night of the 15th of May last, I was at the house of Lewis Rees, in Mill-street, end Maria Meyrick came there in the night, baiefooted, and having on only her night gown. I saw blood about her there was a cut in her head, and there were bruises on her right arm and right leg. She remained there, and on tbe follo»ing day I saw Mr. James Haw- kins dress the wound. Cross-examined by Mr. Smythies: I have heard of Maria Meyrick being a person of bad character and violent disposition. Samuel Harlow, a police-sergeant of Newport, said I was sent for on the 16th of May to go to Lewis Rees's house, in Mill- street, and I saw Maria Meyrick there. Her head seemed to be bleeding, and her night gown was bloody. She seemed much exhausted, and was lying on a chair. On going to a house in Friars' Fields, in which the prisoner was said 10 have slept, I found some pieces of a broken chair, a poker, &c., about the lower room; and observed that the bedclothes weie bloody." The witness here produced a poker, some pieces of legs of chairs, &c. Mr. James Hawkins, said On the 16th of May I was called, about four o'clock in the morning, to attend Maria Meyrick. 1 examinedher person, and found a wound on her head; also seve- ral bruises in different parts of her body. I think the wounds might have been inflicted by a poker or a boot. The bruises may have been produced by other means, but I cannot say by what kindofinatrumenttheywete produced. Thewoundwasabout two inches long. In C'oss-examination by Mr. Smythies, Mr. Hawkins stated that the wound upon the head of Maria Meyrick was not so deep II to be likely to be attended with serious results, and that he merely stitched the skin together, considering that to be all that w. s necessary. She recovered in a few days. Mr. Hawkins beiug the last witness called for the prosecution, Mr. Smythies proceeded to address the jury in defence of the prisoner, arguing that they should hesitate about giving credence to the testimony of the first witness, upon whose evidence alone it was sought to fix the charge upon the prisoner. She had been, doubtless, in company with the ptisoner and Maria Meyrick on the day of the fair at Newport and it was reasonable to suppose that they had been drinking and carousing together durino the day. At the close of their out-door festivities, they all strolled together to a house in Friar's Fields, (the witness, by this time, having secured the company of anolher man) there intending to spendthenighttogether. In the course of the night a quairel took place between the woman Meyrick and the prisoner, and there could be very little doubt that this girl Meyrick, being, as was stated by ODe of Ihe witnesses, a penon of very violent tem. per, had assauhed the prisoner, and that he. iu self-defence merely,had pushed herlrom him. and sbeaccidenlallyfell against ihe bed-post, and cut her head in the manner described. Was il not much more likely, he would ask, Ihllt the wound had been inflicted in that wfy, than by a blunt round instrument like the poker prodllced by StHgeallt Harlow. This bting the calle. what could be more paltry, more contemptible, than to institute Ihis prosecution, and then to try 10 bolller up the charge IigillDSI Ihe prisoner by the testimony of such a person as the woman Higgins. It also appeared to him (Mr. Smythies) that this woman's evidence should be discredited from ihe inconsistent and unreasonable nature of it. What could be more preposterous than the statement that there was sufficient light proceeding through the cracks in the floor from the fire below, for her to dis tinguuh who were in her room, and how the blows were inflicted upon the woman Maria Meyrick. These considerations, he trusted, would divest the minds of the jury 01 any impression likely to have been made by the testimony of the first witness, and that being the only evidence that at all inculpated the ptisoner, he confidently looked to them for a verdict of acquittal. At the conclusion of the learned gentleman's address, His Lordship commenced summing up the evidence to the jury. He remarked as follows:—"Gentlemen cf the jury, I cannot, from the evidence, but come to the conclusion that you must acquit the prisoner ftom the charge of assaulting with inlrnt to maim and disable but I certainly think it admits of very lit- lie doubt that the prisooer inflicted the injuries described by the witnesses, with intent to do Maria Meyrick some grievous bodily harm. That he has acted in a most brutal and violent manner, and has savagely assaulted that woman, is plainly made Oilt, Ihe evidence upon that point being as clear as evidence can be and the question for you to determine will be whether he inflicted the wounds and bruises described, upon the person of Maria Meyrick, with the intent to which I have alluded. If you are of opinion '.hat he was, at the time of assaulting the woman, (and of which, I think, iherecan be no doubt) sufficiently self-possessed to know that ihe infliction of such wounds as were likely to be given by a poker like that produced, would, very probably, be attended with serious consequences, or would, at least, produce some grievous bodily harm, then it will be your duty to find him guilty, upon th.t par: of this indictment which charges him with that iment. With regard to the evidence before you, and the remarks which the learned counsel has thought proper to make upon it, I will address to you two or three observations and, in the first place, I must say that it does not appear to me so preposterous as the learned counsel has represented that the witness, Higgins, should have said that she saw by the light proceeding through the crevice in the floor who the persons were that came into her room, and what they were doing. Surely, gentlemen, you have seen floors in which there were crscks or crevices large enough to admit a great deal of light ] and as the witness was accustomed to see the prisoner, and the girl, Maria Meyrick, she is very likely, in my opinion, 10 have known their figures, though, iheie might not have been light enough to enable her distinctly to perceive features and if there was light enough for her to discover who they were, surely she could see whether the wound upon the head of Maria Meyrick was produced by a blow or by her having been thrown back against the bed post; besides, if the wound was inflicted in the way last mentioned, that does not account for the bruises upou different parts of her body. I certainly think, gentlemen, that if there be any ihing absurd in the case, it i. the supposition that you could admit as probable that view of the case which the iearnedcounse) has eodeavoured to establish, especially when it is found Ihat thcle is blood about the poker produced by the policeman, Mr. Smythies: No. my lord, there is no blood about the poker; it has noi been stated in evidence that it was bloody. Lord Denman, seeming rather displeased: 1 thought I per. ceived a mark of blood upon tt. Mr. Smythies: No, my lord, there is no such mark. Turning 10 the jury, and holding up the poker, Mr. Smythies said, You will perceive, gentlemen, that there is no mark of blood upon it," Lord Denman, with much warmth Don't interrupt me, sir;— it is unusual for gentlemen to address the jury in the midst of the charge from the judge. Mr. Smythies It is necessary to interrupt, my lord, when the evidence is misrepresented. Lord Denman: Well, sir, you can take any course you may think becomiug you; but I beg you will not interrupt again, whilst I proceed with the charge to the jury. His lordship then proceeded with his observations to the jury, remarking that he did not see, because the witness Higgins had acknowledged that she was twice committed for trial, and that she was with the prisoner and Meyrick on the day of the fsir, that, therefore, she must necessarily be unfit to be a witness, especially as it did not appear that she could have any improper motive fur speaking against the prisoner at the bar or for speaking other than the truth concerning him. After some further observations, his lordship concluded by informing the jury that nothing which had transpired had altered his opinion that the prisoner had committed the assault with the intent to do the woman Meyrick some grievous bodily harm, and he there- fore hoped that the gentlemen of the jury would find a verdict accordingly. After a few minutes consultation, the jury returned a verdict of Guilty of assaulting with iotent to do some grievous bodily harm. The learned judge, in passing sentence upon the prisoner, said-George Jenkins, you have been convicted by the jury, of a most violent and outrageous assault, and though I may, on this occasion, have heard the details of this case, perhaps, with more warmth than a judge ought ever to feel, yet I cannot but observe that the aggravated and cowardly nature of the assault of which you have been found guilty, warrants the expression of more warmth of feeling than would be justifiable upon ordinary occa- sions. You certainly acted towards this unfortunate woman in a most violent and brutal manner; and it may be attributed to the mercy of God that you are not now being tried for her myrder inslead of for the crime laid to your charge, wlen, perhaps, yonr own life would have been forfeited for the offence. Under these circumstances, I cannot excuse myself from passing upon you a sentence of considerable severity, and that sentence is, thai you be transported for the term of fifteen years. The prisoner left the dock apparently unaffected. BURGLARY, AT CALDICOT. William Pritchard, a sullen and insensible-looking fellow, Henry Johnson, a man of colour, with a savage expression 01 face, and Richard May, whose appearance fUlnished a volume of evidence against him, were charged with breaking inlo the dwel- of Charles Arkwell, at Caldicot, and stealing three caddy spoons, a pocket-book, three gowns, &c. Mr. Cooke conducied the prosecution, and Mr. Huddleslon defended the prisoners. Chas. Arkwell, examined by Mr. Cooke I live at Caldicot, in this county, with my wife, in a detached house. On Suuday night, 20th April, I and my wife went to bed about half-pllst eight o'clock. My wife boiled the door. About two o'clock ] was disturbed by a noise at the dool. On getting up, 1 found that Henry Johnson, Pritchard, and May, had bursted the dour open. II was au outer door, but it opened into my bed-room. Johnson and Pritchard came in. Both said they wanted money, and would have it, or they'd blow our brains out. The moon was shining bright enough for me to see the prisoueis. Johnson came and pushed me backwards on the bed, putting his hand on my mouth. I said he should have every thing, if he would only spare our lives. Johnson soon let me go, and he and Pritchard said if they could not manage us, there were enough outside who would. They then turned the things out of my box, in the room, aDo took what they chose. They afterwards asked my wife tor the key of the other room; she gne it, and they went to that room. They had to go out of the house to go to the other room. 1 then got off the bed, and found they had locked us in. From tht window of my bed room I saw two ot the men outside. Johnson and Pritchard went into the kitchen, and were there, perhaps, a quarter of aD hour. 1 got the iron har to open Ihe door. Ou examining my things, I found that some b icon, caddy spoons, bread, See., were gone. Cross-examined by Mr. Huddleston I went to bed about hall-past eight; and my wife and 1 had been asleep. We were very much alarmed when we saw the two men in the room. The curtains of the bed were a little open. Ann Arkwell, wife of former wituess, corroborated her hus. band's testimony, saying also-Towards the morning on the night when the robbery was committed, I heard my husband shouting. ''Hallo! Who's there 1" The door was soon alter bursted open, and in came two men one laid hold of my husband, and asked foi money and said he would have money, or he would lake our hves. I wanted to get out of bed, but Johnson prevented me from doing so. Another man was by my husband. My husband and I agteed to make no resistance. Johnson remained to watch me and my husband, while the other two searched the boxes and ransacked the other things in the house. Johnson asked the others if they could not find anything? The others said—"Ob, they have something, and we will have il." I know distinctly that Johnson is the man who stood over me and my husband. I gave the prisoners, at their lequest, the key of the other room. I thought thev were gone for something to kill me, and was very much (tightened. Samuel Matthews, farmer, at Ifton Hill, said On Monday morning, the 21st of April, the prisoners worked for me. My house is about four or five miles from Arkwell s; Arkwell s house is between my farm and Magor. I saw the men at work on my farm about six o'clock in the morning of the 21st. They worked all that day, but did not come back the day after, nor at any other time. Mr. Huddleston cross-examined the witness, but elicited nothing in favour of the prisoners. J John Hall: I am a police-oiffcer of Chepstow. The prisoners were placed in my custody at Chepstow hy Thomas VVi^more, on the same day they had been before the magistrates. Whilst rhey were in my custody, a man named Samuel Thomas, spoke to the prisoner Pritchard, saying, "How came you to be SJ footishas to do iH" Pritchard said They didn't think it any harm — the two old people had spoken false about the bacon—that they (the prisoners) had only had about a pound and a half. Mr. Huddleston cross-examined the witness, but without benefit to the prisoners. This evidence closed the case for the prosecution; and Mr. Huddleslon addressed the jury for the prisoners, calling the fol- lowing witnesses:— Ann Johnson, mother of the prisoner Johnson, said—I remem- ber my son coming home on the Sunday evening before the mor- ning on which the buiglary was committed, about nine o'clock, and going to bed soon after. A woman, named Ann Williams, lives in the house with me and my son and no other persoo. 1 slept in the same room witb my son. About four o'clock in the morning of Monday, he was called by Pritchard to go to work. I called tohim, and said—" Why don't you get up, Pritchard is calling you 1" I don't know what time they left the house. I heard on the Tuesday evening that my son was taken up for a burglary. On the Wednesday, I went to Chepstow to the ma- gistrates' meeting; but we did not give our evidence, because we were not called. Cross-examined I didn',t know what time it was when my son and Pritchard left my house we have no clock in our house but I fancied it was about four o'clock by the light. William Matthews: ] live at Magor, and sleep in the same bed with Richd. Pritchard: he went to bed about nine o'clock on the Sunday evening, and got up the following morning between four and five. Cross-examined by Mi. Cooke: I had DO clock or watch in the house where I slept, but judged, from the light, that it was between four and five. John Davis: I live at Magor, and sleep in the same house with Pritchard and last witness. On the 20th April I was ill with rheumatic. On that night Pritchard assisted me in my ill- ness. He got upon Monday morning, about four or five o'clock, to go to work. Crossexamined. I judged the time from the light, because we had no watch or clock. Ann Pember: I live at Undy, about one hundred yardg from Magor. On Monday morning, about five minutes past four, I SJW Prilchard passing my house: I looked at the clock at the time. It is a good clock it regulates itself, and goes by itself, lis time corresponds with the time at which people go to c impel. Richard May said I live at Magor—the prisoDfr May is my son. On Monday, the 21st April, Win. Pritchard c^me to call my son. My wife and I slept down stairs, and my son up stairs. My son got up about four or five o'clock. I don't think he could jjo out without my seeing him. Mr. Cooke addiessed ihe juty at some length, his Lordship lucidly summed up, and the Jury returned a veidict against all the prisoners. On being called upon to show cause why the Court should not pass judgment upon them, for the crime of which they had been convicted, the Pllsonersseverully declared thatthey weieinnocent, and (reiterated the statements made by the witnesses, who had been called to prove the alibi. His Lordship then addressed the prisoners at some lengih, re- marking that he was perfectly satisfied that the jury had come to a correct verdict. The attempt to prove an alibi was too common in cases 01 this description, for the court to place much reliauce upon it. The evidence of the two respectable persons, upon whom the attack had been made, had satisfactorily convinced his lordship that the evidence adduced to prove an alibi in this case, was not wi rthy the confidence of the jury. There was only one redeeming quality about the case, and that was the fact that there had been no personal violence u<ed on the part of the prisoners; but still it Wtl8 a case which !I1tHt be marked with 80me severity in the punishment inflicted. The sentence of the court, therefore, was that Pntchard and Henry Johnson be transported for fifteen years each oDd that Richard May be imprisoned twelve calen- dar months—one week at the end of each three months to be in solitary confinement. CONCLUDED IN THE THIRD PAGE.