Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

7 articles on this Page

.....f-&""'.I !Uoiu«o:ithsWre…

News
Cite
Share

f & !Uoiu«o:ithsWre Michaelmas Sessions. ¡U USK.—-OCTOBER 13, 1845. The Sessions for this county commenced on Mon- day last, S. R. Bosanquet, Esq., presiding. At twelve o'clock, the hour appointed for the commencement of the business, the following ma- gistrates took their places on the bench :— F. M'Donnell, G. Cave, T. Prothero, W. A. "Williams, O. Morgan, C. H. Phillips, Tjromas Oakley, — Reece, and F. H. Williams, E^rs. Sir D. Mackworth, Dr. Jones, Captains King and Marsh, Major Marriott, Hon. W. Rodney, and the Revds. J. Coles, J. Probert, and — Evans. The jury lists having been received and read, it was found that the parish of Trothey had failed to make a return, when it was ordered—" That the overseers of the parish of Trothey having neglected to return the jury list for that parish, ordered that the Clerk of the Peace draw the attention of the Justices of Petty Sessions to the omission, with a view to considering whether they think fit to impose a fine upon the overseers. Ordered,—That the treasurers of the connty stock do forthwith pay to the Clerk of the Peace the sum of £228. lIs. 3d., being a balance of his annual account, up to the 31st of Angust last. The orders of the last Sessions were then read, the first business arising out of which was the con- sideration of the report of the visiting magistrates appointed to inquire into the character and fitness for office of Mr. and Mrs. Merrett, the governor and matron of the Usk House of Correction. ?!r. Coles suggested that as the discussion might lesd to the disclosure of some particulars, which had better be suppressed, and which did not affect the public business of the county. The report had better be read in the magistrates' private room. Considerable discussion followed this suggestion, and it was ultimately determined that the report should be read in court, whereupon The Clerk of the Peace, in accordance with the direction of the chairman, proceeded to read it; the following is the substance of the report;— That, in pursuance of the instructions given to them, the committee of magistrates had, in inquir- ing into the character and fitness for office, of Mr. and Mrs. Merrett, examined the gaoler and ma- < tron, and a great many witnesses, from whose tes- timony the following particulars were gleaned:- That no stock-book or inventory had been kept; that the governor sometimes employed the prisoners to do tailoring and other work—but that the rules of the prison had not been violated in this respect that he had not given receipts for prisoners left in his custody at the gaol, as he was required to do that he did not exercise a proper or sufficient disci- pline over the subordinate officers in the gaol; that he did not keep up or encourage moral and reli- gious discipline among the prisoners. The report then concluded by expressing the opinion of the magistrates that Mr. Merrett was incompetent for the discharge of the duties of the governor of the House of Correction—but that there was no cause of complaint against Mrs. Mertett; as matron. Major Marriott moved that the report be received and acted upon. Mr. Prothero seconded the proposition. Major Marriott requested that some clauses of the report might again be read, in order that the magistrates might be correctly informed upon the opinion of the visiting magistrates. Mr. Prothero wished to enquire whether the committee had come to any conclusion as to the course the magistrates had better adopt. The Chairman said, the committee had fully ex- pressed their opinion in the report, and that the re- port contained all that they deemed it necessary to say upon the case which had been submitted to their consideration. Mr. Prothero had understood that there were moral delinquencies of a serious nature proved against Merrett, and he wished to inquire if that was not the case. The Chairman said the evidence upon which the report of the committee was founded, was in court, and could be received if the magistrates wished that it should be. Mr. W. A. Williams said he rose to express his sense of the difficult state in which the magis- trates were placed. At the last sessions many things were publicly stated, and many others hinted, strongly impeaching the moral character of Mr. and Mrs. Merrett; but now, after a committee of magfagratesKh&d been appointed to inquire into the delinquencies then complained of, and about which many severe things were said, their report was entirely sitentvpon the subject. He presumed that whatever the magistrates might consider it right to do, as an ultimate measure, with regard to the gaoler and matroa, they would at least, if they resolved upon dismissing them, allow them to go away without any stain upon their character, as the report presented no tangible evidence against them—and after the many reports which had been mentioned prejudicial to their character, he was ratber astonished that it was not so. Indeed, viewing the matter in this light, he thought he should be perfectly justified in moving, as an amendment to the proposition,—" That a copy of the report of the committee, with the evidence on which it is foanded, be forwarded by the Clerk ofthe Peace to each magistrate of the county, and that at the next sessions, the Court shall take the subject into their consideration." It this conrse were adopted, each magistrate would have an opportunity of deliberately consi- dering the evidence, and judging for himself—and ? at the next sessions, they thought him unfit for his office, then some one should move that at the following sessions he should be removed. Sir Bigby Mackworth seconded the amendment. Major Marriott said he had no objection to the amendment, and he would therefore withdraw the proposition. Mr. Prothero said he would certainly prefer having the evidence read to-day. Serious charges had been made against the governor and matron of the House of Correction, and be thought that some charges had been fully proved and if he was right in that opinion, why Merrett ought certainly to be at once discharged. Mr. Williams' proposition was to continue him in office six months longer— but if the reports which had been propagated re- specting him, and which he had been given to un- derstand, had been proved against him before the committee, were correct, he considered that nothing could be more dangerous—and nothing more detri- mental to the end of public justice. He was very anxious that the evidence should be gone into, either here or as Mr. Coles had suggested, in the magistrates private room. Some cutting irregular discussion followed, when Mr. W. A. Williams explained that he did not, by his amendment, intend to convey any opinion as to Merrett's fitness or unfitness for office, but merely to induce the magistrates to take the right course in coming to a conclusion on the subject. 1 After a further discussion on a matter of no pub- lic interest, Sir Digby Mackworth said there was nothing before the Court which could lead to such an im- mediate discharge, as seemed to be contemplated in the motion which had been proposed, and, there- fore, he should strongly object to such a proceed- ing. — Reece, Esq., said he had known Merrett for 16 years; and, for the last 13 years, he had been the habit of seeing him two or three times a-day, but he had never seen him drunk. On the con- I trary, ho had always observed that he was very attentive to his business. Mr. O. Morgan wished that the real qnestion be- fore the pencil might be regarded; viz., whether the report of the committee were to be received or not. Mr. Coles said, as the matter had now taken the turn it had^he should certainly wish to express his sentiments respecting it. He wished that the re- port might have been read in the private room, in order that thia public discussion might have been avoided. The Hon. Bart., Sir D. Mackworth, and Mr. Williams, would not attend the committee, and the Hon. Bart. would not even vote for the inquiry. The question had now gone abroad; and that being the case, the best thing now was, to investigate, in order to acquit or condemn. He wished the ma- gistrates to consider that justice must be done, as well to the public as to Mr. Merrett. He had cer- tainly signed the report of the committee with re- luctance—4iot because of its severity—but because of the concluding sentence in the minutes of the meeting of the committee, which he would pre- sently read to the Bench. Notwithstanding there seemed to be an impression that the charge of drunkenness had not been made out against Mer- rett, yet he considered that it had been most clearly proved and notwithstanding the difficulty of get- ting evidence, there was, nevertheless, according to his opinion, the most conclusive evidence against the gaoler. He was sorry to have to go into this now but as the thing had been so often discussed, he thought he might properly read a part of the evidence upon which the report of the committee was founded. There were six charges against Mr. Merrett, and he thought they had been proved. Mr. Reece had gone back 16 years and if he (Mr. Coles) were allowed to go back, he thought he could establish some grave charges against the gao- ler.—Mr. Coles was alluding to some points to sub- stantiate his last remark, when Sir Digby Mackworth objected to Mr. Coles going back further than the report went. Mr. Coles: The public would be astonished, did they but know what had been done; indeed, it was a thousand to one that every prisoner had not escaped. Harford, a turnkey who was at the gaol, but who had now gone to Tiverton, said he had repeatedly seen Merrett. Sir Digby Mackworth said he thought Mr. Coles should not be allowed to go into those statements now, A lengthened discussion followed, as to the propriety of the evidence taken before the committee being read to the Court, which terminated in Mr. Coles proceeding to read the evidence, when Mr. W.A. Williams said he thought it was unnecessarily occupying the time of the Court to read the evidence now, and it was particularly inappropriate when a motion for furnishing each magistrate with a copy of the evidence was before the Bench. Mr Prothero urged the reading of the evid ence. Sir Digby Mackworth thought the other magistrates were certainly entitled to the same advantage which Mr. Prothero has enjoyed, in having an opportunity to read the evidence. He (Sir Digby) could not come to a conclusion on the sub- ject, merely by hearing the evidence hastily read over in court, but should like time to think deliberately upon the subject. Mr. M'Donnell expressed his concurrence in the senti- ments of Sir Digby Mackworth. The Chairman remarked that he was anxious to avoid a public expression of his opinion on the subject at present. It must be known to many of the magistrates that some of the evidence given before the committee was rather contra- dictory and he, therefore, considered that they could not do better than act in accordance with Mr. Williams's amendment. If they prolonged the discussion now, and then came to no conclusion on the subject, he feared that injury might be done, as well to the character and prospects of the gaol, as to the interests of justice. Mr. Prothero thought, considering the remaiks of the Chairman, that the magistrates had better come to a conclu- sion at once. If it were true, as he thought it was, that Merrett was in the habit of frequently getting drunk—that he did not maintain the proper discipline of the prison— that, rather than encouraging morality and religion, he scoffed at the.serious i^ressions made upon the minds of the prisoners—and that he was, as the committee of magis- trates had stated they considered him to he, incompetent for the discharge of the duties of his office-then he thought they could not do better than at once remove him. Mr. M'Donnell said his faults had been principally those of habit, and the visiting magistrates ought, therefore, to have discovered his incompetency before. He certainly was of opinion that it would be improper to remove him hastily from his situation, merely because he now appeared to the committee of magistrates incompetent, when it was remembered that that incompetency arose principally from habits which, as he had before remarked,onght to have been observed before but which, nevertheless, afforded no reason for so sudden and harsh a dismissal as that remarked by some of the magistrates. Mr. Coles remarked that, whatever the other magistrates might think on the subject, he was unshaken in the opinion that the charge of drunkenness had been clearly proved against Merrett. The Chairman then proceeded to submit the amendment proposed by Mr. Williams to the Bench, which was carried by a small majority. Mr Prothero then remarked that he thought it of impor- tance that it should be distinctly understood what course would be pursued lespecting Merrett at the next sessions; and after some discussion as to the necessity of coming to a conclusion at that time, it was resolved, "That the Clerk of the Peace write to E; Harford, inspector of police, at Tiverton, to request his attendance at the next Quarter Sessions, and to inform him that his expenses will be paid." Mr. Prothero then gave notice that he would move, at the next Quarter Sessions, for the dismissal of Mr. Merrett, the keeper of the House of Correction. The report of the visiting justices as to the best use which can be made of the land belonging to the county, adjoining the House of Correction, was the next matter brought before the Bench; but upon this, the visiting magistrates asked for further time for consideration. 1.UNATIC ASYLU)I. This being announced as the next subject for the consideration of the Court, Sir Digby Mackworth said he had received. letter from Lord G. Somerset, requesting him to bring the matter before the ma- gistrates, in order to put it in train for future consideration. To effect this, he should occupy the attention of the magistrates only a short time. The Act of Parlament affecting the subject re- quired that we should erect a lunatic asylum, either exclusively for this county, or in connection with some other county or counties. The magistrates were also bound, without any option, to appoint a committee to attend to the erection and maintenance of the same. Lord G. Somerset, in the letter he had sent him, but which be did not thiok it necessary to read at present, strongly recommended that they should take measures for the erection of an asylum immediately,—and not leave it till they were compelled to do so by the Secretary of State. He advised that they should not erect an asylum for this county exclusively, but to join with Glamoiganshire and Breconshire, in building an asylum for the use of the three counties and for this purpose he would recommend a spot somewhere near Abergavenny, as most central, and therefore best adapted to answer the purpose of all parties concerned. Sir Digby then proceeded to read a clause of the Act of Parliament, authorising the erection of lunatic asytums, and concluded by moving the following resolution :— That, in compliance with the Act to amend the Laws for Lunatic Asylums, 8th and 9th Vic., pap. 1*23, 3rd clause, public notice be given, within ten days, by the Clerk of the Peace, in the several county newspapers, of the intention of the Justices of the County to appoint, at the next Quarter Sessions, a Com- mittee of Justices, either to superintend the erecting or providing a Lunatic Asylum, for this county, or to treat with the Justices of some other County or Counties, for the erecting or providing such Asylums, in conjunction with them." 1 hat proposition being carried, it was ordered— That the Clerk of the Peace write forthwith to the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of Glamorganshire, and enclose him a copy of the above resolution." TROTHY BRIDGE. The report as to the liability of the parish of Monmouth to keep the Trothy Bridge tn repaij, was the next subject foi the consideration of the court. A lengthened discussion followed the reading of the report, which terminated in the passing of the following resolution That the magistrates are of opinion that the county is not liable, by law, for the repair of the Trothy Bridge." LOCK-UP HOUSE TOR THE PARISH OF BEDWRLTY. On this subject Captain Marsh appeared to represent the magistrates of Bedwelty. He remarked that the parish was a very extensive one, in which there was a dense population—prin- cipally composed of persons employed in the iron works of the district—this being the case, he considered it was essentially necessary, in order to the interests of justice, that a lock-up house should be provided for the parish. He would, therefore, move that the magistrates take such steps as might be necessary for the accomplishment of that object. Mr. Prothero seconded t" proposition. He said he quite agreed with Captain Marsh, as to the necessity for a lock-up house in the parish of Bedwelty. It was really lamentable to know what expedients the officers, in that paiish, were compelled to resort to, in order to the keeping of prisoners in safe custody they were sometimes kept two or three days in a public-house, and, notwithstanding the vigilance of the police, they frequently escaped, it being impossible that, in all instances, where the means for their security were so insufficient, that they could alwavs he prevented from escaping. The Chairman read a clause from the Act of Parliament, em. powering the county magistrates to build a lock-up house, in any parish, where it might be deemed accessary, and to appoint a police inspector for the management of such district. An estimate of the cost, fo-Jthe erection of such a bouse, was submitted by the inspector for the county, Mr. James. The amount required, he considered, would be £275., .13- After a lengthened discussion on the proposition of Captain Marbh, Mr. Phillips remarked that he fully agreed with Captain Marsh, as to the necessity of a lock up house, in the parish of Bedweity and had he represented that parish, he should cer- tainly have sought for it, by some means, long ago. In the dis- trict in which he lived (Treveihin) there were 5 policemen, and having found that they were insufficient for the protection of the popu'rtion, and for thefull accomplishment of the ends of justice, he had caused forty special constables to be sworn. In that parish, they were as deficient of the means of security as they were at present in the parish of Bedwelty-be saw the necessity for a lock-up house, and, after some time, they procured one, but un 'ir another act from that under which Captain Marsh, now sought to obtain one for Bed welty-he meant the Lighting and Watching Act." He begged further to remark, as the establish- ment of the proposed lock-up house at Bedwelty was contem- plated principally to protect the property of the iron and coal masters in that neighbourhood, that lit would be reasonable to apply to those gentlemen, some of whom were opuleni, and had large interests in the parish, to support the proposed lock-up house, and pay the expense of keeping a police inspector, and otber necessary officers. Sir Digby Mackworth agreed with Mr. Phillips and Captain Marsh, as to the necessity of a lock.up house for the parish of Bedwelty. But it ought to be sought for under the Lighting and Watching Act, and not from the county magistrates,—else all parishes that wanted lock-up bouseswould be soon applying to the magistrates for similar houses, and the county would thus be burdened with immense additional expense. A further discussion followed, in which Mr. Coles, Mr.O. Morgan, and other magistrates, took part; and it seeming to be the prevailing opinion of the Bench that the better course to be adopted was that suggested by Mr. Phillips, Captain Marsh withdrew the proposition. FINANCE COMMITTEE'S REPORT, The Finance Committee reported that they had passed the several bills submitted to them, but thought it necessary to sug- gest to tbeconrt the propriety of inquiry, there being several cases of verdicts of Natural Death in the coroner's account— whether there was any necessity for holding inquests in these several cases. The consideration of this point was deferred. A County Rate of Id. in the pound was ordered. Ordered That the Vicar of Usk become one of the visiting I magistrates for the county. THE SURVEYOR'S REPORT presented no feature of public interest. The report of the Inspector of Weights and Measures slated that the following persons had been fined for using short weights Aaron Brain, shop-keeper, Bedwelty fl 0 Henry Bryant, shopkeeper, Bedwelty .10 David Anthony, innkeeper, Bedwelty 0 10 Reese Price, innkeeper, Bed was t 0 Joseph Watkins, beer-house-keeper, Monythusloyne I 0 George Parsons, shopkeer, Monythusloyne 0 10 Edward Waters, shopkeeper, Monythusloyne 1 0 John Jones, miller, Monythusloyne 2 10 George Lovell, shopkeeper, Bedwelty 10 Isaac Jeokins, shopkeeper, Bedwelty .10 John Hopkins, miller. Bedwelty 10 John Rogers, innkeeper, Bedwelty .10 THE PRISON REPORT Stated that certain alterations were necessary at the House of Correction at Usk, )0 prevent recognition between the prisoners. The general state of the prisons was said to be satisfactory, ex- cept in one particular; viz.: that in consequence of some defect in the erection of the treadmill, an accident had happened to a lad but rhe injury was not of a serious nature, and the boy was getting better. Mr. W. A. Williams stated that this wheel had been taken from the old prison, and had never worked satisfactorily since it had been erected in the House of Correction. In consequence of this circumstance, the visiting magistrates had thought proper to request Mr. Bush, an engineer, of Bristol, to examine the wheel, and furnish them with an estimate of the cost of the necessary alterations. That report had been furnished, and the amount required was said to be £40. The Court ordered that this amount should be allowed for the repair and alteration of the wheel. The County Gaoler's Report, the Report of the Governor of the House of Correction at Usk, the Chaplains' Reports. &c., were presented, but contained no points of interest to the public After other routine business—reporting to the Secretary of State, in accordance with the gaolers' repoits, &c. &c., the Court rose about half-past five. SECOND DAY. The Conrt met at half-past nine and, after the swearing of the Grand Jury, the reading of the proclamation against vice and immorality, See., The Chairman proceeded to address the Grand Jury to the following effect:—Gentlemen of the Giand Jury, — We are happy to observe the small number of cases appearing upon the calen- dar for trial, considering the period which has elapsed cince our last sessions. This is certainly a mailer which affords consider- able satisfaction to the magistrates—and must be equally pleasing to you, whether you consider it to arise from an increase of trade, or from an improved state of the public morals. As well as there being but few casea for trial, I am also happy to perceive that those which are in the calendar are of a very light description, if we except one case, that numbered in the calendar, 16, 17, 18, 19,20, in which the prisoners are charged with having assaulted a man, with a view to commit a felony, by stealing from him some sheep that he was driving. This, gentlemen, is a serious case in the eye of the law, and one which, if you think, from examining the depositions, that the assault has been committed with intent to rob, must be removed to the jurisdiction of a higher court, and will be tried at the assizes for this county. There is, gentlemen, one class of offences which occurs frequently in the present calendar; viz., obtaining goods under false pre. tences. It will be for you to decide, gentlemen, under the direction of the Couit, whether the circumstances of the particu. lar cases which will be submitted to your consideration, are such as will prove that offences of this description were committed, ft therefore now remains, gentlemen, for the Court to inform you what circumstances constitute an offence of this character. Some pretences are of a trivial description, and not at ftll calcu- lated to deceive—hut that is not a question for the consideration of the jury—the matter which you have to consider is, whether certain pretences, not obviously false, are employed in order to deceive a party, so as to obtain from that party, anything ic the possession of that party, with a view to deprive him of the same. You will remember, gentlemen, that it is not a naked and obvi- ous he which constitutes the offence, according to the statute ;— for example, if a man say that any parcel of goods weighs 161bs., when it is obviously 201bs., that ts not an offence of the desciip- tion of which I am now speaking. To constitute the offence named, the pretence must be respecting some fact or circum- stance otherwise unknown to the party, and by which pretence it is intended so to deceive as to obtain from that person something in his possession, to which the other has no legal claim. There is one other case, upon which I think it necessary to make two or three observations—and that is the case in which the prisoner is charged with obtaining goods under false pretences; and the crime is said to have been perpetrated by his presenting a note, signed by the daughter of a workhouse keeper, to a shopkeeper, and thereby obtaining a pair of boots,—the Court thinks, that in case a question may arise in your mind as to whether the pri- soner should be eonvicted of the crime laid in the indictment, or of forgery but to constitute the latter offence, the parly whose signature is used to obtain goods, must be a person who would have some authority to obtain the goods but if the signature be that of another person, then the offence laid in the indictment is the one which it will be your duty to find a bill. Gentlemen, 1 do not think it necessary to make any further observations to you on the calendar; but I wish to call youi attention to an Act of Parliament recently passed—an Act which affects you all as rate- payers, and one of considerable importance to the county. Iallude to the Act which provides that every county shall be furnished with a lunatic asylum for pauper lunatics. It is now no longer left to the option of counties whether they will have lunatic asy- lums for pauper lunatics or not. The Act lately passed is com- pulsory, and will, of course, entail some charge upon the county late; but, gentlemen, when YOIl consider the object of this Act, I have no doubt you will willingly contribute your quota to the additional charge which may be thus incurred. The intention of the Act is, that those persons who may be afflicted with madness may be placed under proper treatment on the first appearance of this dreadful malady-the Act providing that paupers, in the first stage of lunacy, may be removed immediately to the asylum pro. vided for their reception. You cannot fail to perceive, gentle- men, that this provision, whilst it throws additional expense upon the county, may be the means of relieving the various pt- rishes in the county from the oharge of some paupers, who, from their being insane, are incapable of providing for themselves; but who, if placed under proper treatment in time, might be re- stored to a sound stale of mind, and rendered useful members of society. These, gentlemen, are all the observations I think it necessary to make to you and I must, therefore, dismiss you to your room, requesting that you will furnish the Court with some of the bills submitted to you, at your earliest convenience. The Grand Jury having retired to their room, the Court pro- ceeded to hear APPEALS. The following were the cases :— LANDIT.0 FAWR, appellants: BEDWELTY, respondents. Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Daniels: for the respondents, Mr. Rickards. Appeal against older of removal. Order quashed, whh;C5. costs. MIDSUMMER NORTON, Somersetshire, appellants TREVETHIN, respondents. Mr. Daniels for the appellants; Mr. Smythies for the respondents. Order of removal. Order quashed, with usual costs. HARTFURY, Gloucestershire, appellants MONMOUTH respondents. For the appellants, Mr. Daniels for the respondents, Mr. Smythies. Appeal against order of removal. Order confirmed. NEWLAND, appellants SHIRENEWTON, respondents. Mr. Daniels for appellants Mr. Ri. kards for respondents. Appeal against order of removal. Order quashed, wtth £5. costs of a respited appeal, and £3. 15,. 3,J. costs of maintenance. David Morgan, James Gill, William Hatill, Abraham Comack, and Ebeneter Jones, charged with assaulting John Grove, with intent to steal sheep from him, near Newport, were brought up, and informed that the gaoler was ordered to keep them in custody, for trial at the next assizes. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. John Richards, a hardened looking fellow, and Ann Jones, a young woman, with a very reckless expression of countenance, and who appeared at the bar with an infant in her arms, were charged with stealing a pair of women's boots of the value of 5> and a pair of cotton stockings, of the value of 2d. the property of Ellen Sweeney. Ellen Sweeney On the 27th of September I slept at my house in Abergavenny, and the prisoner lodged with me ibat night. The same day the prisoners came to my house I saw the boots and stockings, which I afterwards missed, in the room in which we slept. They slept in the room w)th me, and no one else ex- cept a child. Shortly after the prisoners left my house I missed the boots and stockings, and informed the constable of it. Patrick Cusack said, I apprehended the prisoners about three miles from Abergavenny, on the Hereford road. I found the stockings and boots on the male prisoner. He told me he had them from the woman; the woman was close to him at the time he said he had received them from her. The constable produced the boots and stockings, which were identified by Ellen Sweeney. This being all the evidence for the prosecution, The jury, after a brief consultation, returned a verdict of Guilty, and the Court sentenced John Richards to four months' imprisonment in the House of Correction, with hard labour; and Ann Jones to four months' imprisonment in the county gaol, with appropriate labour. John Jonet, an unrelenting youth, aged 17, (read and write well.) was charged with stealing a silver watch, a seal, two watch keys, and a sleel chain, value £4. 13s., the properly of William Davies, on the 5th of August. William Davies,the prosecutor, sltld-The prisoner lodged with me at Tredegar. One morning the prisoner went out early, and soon after I lost my watch. This was on the 5th of August. — Walts, the police-constable, in the employment of the Newport Dock Company, said—1 saw the piisoner on the 6th of August, at the Newport Dock—and found a watch upon him. I asked him if he had a watch j he said he had—but that he had it of his father. He afterwards told me that he had taken the watch from William Davies. The watch was produced, and identified by the prosecutor. After a brief address from the Chairman, the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the prisooer was sentenced to six months imprisonment at hard labour. Ann Griffiths, a very decently dressed female, aged 15, (read imp., not write,) charged with stealing a sixpence, a penny, and a halfpenny, on the 21st of September, the property of George Gotrell. George Gorrell said he lived at Trevethin, and prisoner had lived with him as a servant; that in consequence of suspecting her, he marked some money, and put it in a waistcoat pocket, and hung the waistcoat on a bed-post. On returning from cha- pel, on the 21st Sept., he missed some of the money. The Police-sergeant of Trevethin was called, and proved that he had taken the piisoner into custody on the charge laid in the indictment. She asked him to forgive him and said she had never done anything of the sort before. He took her to the sta- tion-bouse. The prisoner said she had taken the money up from the bed, and not out of the prosecutor's pocket. The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty. After a witness had been called, who gave the prisoner a good character, the Court, after a cautionary address, sentenced her to one month's hard labour in the House of Correction. Mary Ann Norton, aged 23, read and write imp., a decent- looking girl, but whose conduct, as described in the evidence, sems not to have corresponded with that appearance, was charged with having, at the borough of Monmouth, on the 25th Sept. instant, stolen one half-crown, and one shilling in silver, from John Prichard. John Prichard, the prosecutor, said he was at Mr. Owen's office, Monmouth, on 25th September last; and that on the same evening he was passing near the Bull Ring, in that town, when he was accosted by two females, one taking him by one Mm, and the ether by the other, and asking him to give them a glass of beer: he had not, he said, been long in their company when the piisoner at the bar and the other woman placed their hands into his pockets-and 00 their leaving him, he said to the prisoner at the bar, "Youhaverobbedmf." The giils then ran off, Rnd he shouted, II Police, stop thief." He soon after- wards saw several persons running away, but he did not know who they were, excepting the persons who had taken hold of him, On being cross-examined by the prisoner's counsel, Mr. Daniels, the witness admitted that he had been some hours on the Monmouth race-course drinking—but positively and pom- pously asserted that he was sober enough to know whether he was robbed or not. Mr. Daniels pointedly cioss-esamiued the prosecutor as to discrepancies between ihe statement now made by him and the deposition taken before the magistrate, which resulted in the disclosure of some important inaccuracies. Williams, a constable, was the next witness examined: He deposed to hiving ran, when he heard the cry of Stop thief," and taken the prisoner into custody. A cross-examination by Mr. Daniels elicited that some inac- curracies existed between the witnesses's deposition and his pre- sentevidence. These discrepancies in the evidence were fully commented upon by Mr. Daniels, in a lengthened address to the jury—and Mr. Smythies. who was engaged for the prosecution, subsequently addressed the jury, with a view to leconcile these differences. The case was then clearly summed up to the jury by the Chairman, who, alter a short consultation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. George Stanley, a decently dressed youth, aged 19, read and write Imp., charged with stealing nine geese, the property of George Jones and John Harrhy, both of Caldicot. George fones, the prosecutor, being sworn, said he lived at Caldicot, and was, on the 18th August last, in his potatoe field, with a dog—the dog smeit about the field as if he scented some- thing. I afterwards found a bug hid between the potatoes. I then went to a coosiable, and went with him in the evening, to the field to watch the bag I had previously seen there. Whilst waiting there, I heard the hedge crack, and afterwards saw the prisoner in the custody of Adams, the constable. I found that the sack contained geese, four of which were mine the sack was given to me by the constable. The constable Adams corroborated the former witness's testi- mony, and staled that he had taken prisoner into custody. Edward Musgrove, a farmer, said he was in the field with the oiher parties, and that, after hearing the hedge crack, he saw the prisoner come through the hedge, and take up the sack and as he was going away with the sack, he caught him, and asked him who was his company he said one Vincent, a baker, and said he would take me to his house. Witness did not see any oneetse. The witness, on cross-examination, said that he had been hid between the potatoe rows, and that, on the prisoner taking the bag, he took hold oi him, and gave him into the custody of the constable. — Jones, a farmer, said he had been shown some geese, and found that five of them were his property, and which he had lost. He knew the geese by a slit in the outer web of each foot. Mary Harry, wife of John Harry, said her husband's geese four of which she had missed, were marked on the feet in such a manner that she knew them. She knew, therefore, that those shown to her before the magistrates, were her husband's geese. Mr. Daniels addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, and called several witnesses, who gave the piisoner an excellent character. The particulars of the caM were briefly recapitulated by the Chairman to the Jury. who returned a verdict of Guilty.— Sentence six months' imp. in the county gaol, at hard labour. The following prisoners pleaded guilty :— Mary Bryant, a hard-faced creature, who frankly acknow- ledged a former conviction, and lamented, in truly Irish phrase- ology, that she had corne away from Newport now, leaving her dear dead infant" on the bed. She was charged with stealing 100 lbs. ofccai, of the value of 3d., the property of Mr. John Lawrence, coal merchant, on the 14th of June last. Six months' impiisonment in the House of Correction. Thomas Trowbrey, an unfortunate wight, with an unmeaning expression of countenance, charged with stealing a silver watch, at BEdweIty, on the 8th September last, was sentenced to four months' imprisonment, io the House of Correction, to hard labour, Ann J ODes, a decent-looking girl, was charged with unlawfully obtaining, from Ann Jenkins, a straw bonnet, of the value of 4s.6d., with intent to defraud John Jenkins, on the 25th of July last, and pleaded" Guilly, werse luck." Prison at Usk, six months' hard labour. Abel Rosser, charged with stealing 24i lbs. of coal, value one penny, the property of Thomas Powell and others, on the 2nd of August last. Imprisoned one month at Usk, hard labour. Edwaid Collins was charged with stealing a hat, the property of James Ilart, at Trevethin. Two months' bard labour. George Thomas, (who looked horribly frightened at his pre- sent situation, and received a good character from E. Hopkins, policesuperintendent, Newport, and Wm.Lewis,of Abersychan.) charged with embezzling a pair of lasts, four pieces of leather, and a piece of cloth, the property of the said Wm. Lewis, his master, on the 27th September last. Mary Callaghan, charged with unlawfully obtaining, by false pretences, six yards of black Coburgh cloth, and a yard of brown Holland, with intent 10 defraud Mr. Edward Morgan, drapet, of Newport, on the 15 h August, last. Six months' imprisonment, hard labour Thomas Williams, charged with unlawfully obtaining, by false pretences, a pair of boots, of Mr. Luke Horner, of Pillgwenliy, on the 14th August, 1843, was transported for seven years. The indictment, against Hannah Davis, charging her with ob- taining a pair of boots, by false pretences, the property of Eliz. Prewett, was quashed in consequence of an informality.

[No title]

WORCESTER AND MERTHYR TYDVIL…

DREADFUL CONFLAGRATION AT…

[No title]

DIRECT j

[No title]