Monmouthshire Merlin

CROWN COURT.—WEDNESDAY. Mr. Justice Keating took his seat at ten o'clock. THE SENTENCES ON THE RIOTERS. The prisoners who had been convicted of participa- tion in the Monmouthshire election riots were this morning brought up for judgment, those first sentenced being the men who had been concerned in the distur- bances at Abcrsychaii-viz. Joseph Barry, Edward Brotherick, George Gauntlett, James Haye., John Jones, John Mead, Francis Paid, George Reed, John Williams and Richard Will is. Mr. J ustice Keating Prisoners at the bar, have been convicted of this very scandalous and o&t- [ rageous riet and damage to property committed at Abersychan, on the 24th November last. The part that you took, each of yeu, in this transaction, is xery muck the same—for this reason, that the jury have founcl that all those they convicted participated ia the object of the riot, and were parties to and acting in concert with the rioters1; and where men band them- selves together in an illegal transaction, what one docs becomes for many purposes the act ef all. There was a distinction made in reference to John Jones who though young in years, distinguished himself no doubt upon that occasion. I do not, however, looking into the whole of the transaction, mean to treat him as a ringleader he rather came forward probably at a time when the mob did not contemplate the atrocious acts of which afterwards they were guilty-attacking the house of an unoffending man. Breaking into that house, and the destruction of that man's property, under ordinary circumstances, would deserve the last penalty of the law. And it is well that you should know what you have subjected yourselves to by reason of the acts which you did. The statute makes you liable to seven years penal servitude for that of which you have been convicted, and if I look upon the transaction much more leniently than the law would authorise me to look upon it, it is because I trust that when you are all satisfied that the law must be obeyed, and the law vindicated, that more lenient punishment may satisfy the justice of the case. Of course I take into consideration the time at which this occurred a time which is no jus- tiiica'"ion of what you have done, but which may, in some sense account for men—workmen—not men of a criminal class, thieves and vagabonds—engaging in outrages of this sort, but workmen and labourers, for- getting themselves so as to break the law in the man- ner you have done. I trust anything I exhibit to- wards you under the circumstances, will not be mis- judged but that you will learn for the remainder of your lives—and many of you arc very young, and none your lives—and many of you arc very young, and none very old—that you will learn for the remainder of your lives to respect the law. Some of you have been in prison for a much longer period than others I take that into account in apportioning the punishment. Some of you have received—two, especially, have re- ceived—good characters I take that likewise into account in apportioning the punishment. And the sentence of the Court is that you Edward Brotherick, George, Gauntlett, James Hayes, George Reed, John Williams, and John Jones—who have been already im- prisoned for the space of rather more than four-months be further imprisoned and kept to hard labour for the space of six calendar months. And you Richard Willis, I pass the same sentence upon yeu as the othei s, be- cause, in consequence of the landlord refusing to swear positively that you wounded him on the head, I do not assume that you did that, otherwise your punish- ment would be much more severe. You, Francis Paul, have received a good character the sentence of the Court will be, you having been already in prison four months, that you be further imprisoned, and kept to hard labour for four calendar months. John Mead, you have been in prison for a much less period of time, and the sentence of the Court is, that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for eight calendar months. You, Joseph Barry—I cannot find evidence that you were inside the house, and the sentence is, although you have only been imprisoned for a comparatively short period of time, that you be further imprisoned for six calendar months. The prisoners were then removed. Sentence was then passed upon the Blaenavon rio- ters-namely, Thomas AUlridge, James Ball, George Bailey, Cornelius Blunt, James Bryan, William Bland, Robert Cannon, John Coles, William Corfu •ane, Wil- Ham Cope, Thomas Wells, Edward Currey, John Davies, Jarnes Davies, John Font, William Fost, George Jones, Henry Jones, Charles Jones, Thomas Prutton, John Rendall, John Sheen, John Simmons, George Trollop, dliam Vaughan, Jacob Williams, and Ga- briel Watkins. The prisoner Charles Jones, having obtained per- mission to speak, said this was the first time he had ever committed any crime, and he besought clemency on the ground that he had a wife and family at home, adding that there was a gentleman present who would give him a character if his lordship would hear him. The Judge directed that the witness should be called. Superintendent Mackintosh was then sworn. The Judge You are a superintendant of police ?— A. I am. For the district of Pontypool. Q. How long have you known Charles Jones ?-A. Seven years. Q. During that time what has been his character ?— A. He has been employed by the Ebbw Vale Co. as an engine driver and has always borne a very ex- cellent character. The Judge Prisoners at the bar, you have been convicted of this serious and disgraceful riot and destruction of property at Blaenavon; and when one heard described the scenes that took place there, it was difficult almost to credit that such things could have taken place in a country like ours. To say that a mob of men should sack the shops of the tradesmen of their town, de" stroy their property, carry it away, and throw it into the fire-that they should break into the houses of in- offensive tradesmen, gut them, carry their furniture out, and burn it in the streets-men who had given no provocation, who had done no wrong, but who chose to think for themselves upon a subject upon which it was supposed every man in this country could think for himself and express his own opinio I why, it would be difficult to credit it, if it had not been proved, beyond all doubt, by irrebuttable testi- mony. You have heard what I said to the men who have left the bar, and I repeat it to you that the law does award the penalty of seven years penal servitude to the offence of which you have all been convicted. But it entrusts to the Judges a discretion in lowering that punishment; and I trust that, in lowering it to the extent I propose to do, I am not deficient in the performance of my duty. I take into account the excitement of the time—I take into account that many were led by example of others, and probably at the time were in a state that you did not duly and pro- perly estimate the damage you were doing-the atro- cities you were committing. The damage that was done was marked by a degree of not merely recklessness, but wantonness, that is perfectly astonishing. I trust the sentence I am about to pass will not by its lenity have any other effect than that of inducing you, and per- sons who live at Blaenavon, for the future to recollect that the law must be respected, and that upon any recurrence of any similar proceedings, the inflic- tion of punishment will undoubtedly be much more serious. In this case, there is one among you, namely Thomas A ldridge, whose case is distinguished from others in this respect I cannot with reference to his case for a moment suggest that he was led away by the excitement of the moment. Thomas Aldridge armed himself with a hatchet, and went and used that hatchet to break open the shops of those unfortunate tradesmen, and he was taken with that hatchet under his coat in the Prince rof Wales public-house, at a time when fortunately the soldiers had arrived, so as prevent the mob from going upstairs and com- mitting, probably, greater excesses than they had done. You, Thomas Aldridge, the sentence of the Court upon you is that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour twelve calendar months. There are many of you who have been imprisoned for a much longer period than others, and with reference to those I propose to make a distinction. You James Ball, James Bryan, William Bland, Robert Cannon, William Cochrane, Edward Currey, William Fost, John Rendall, John Sheen, and George Trollop-you have been in prison for the space of rather more than four calendar months, and the sentence of the Court upon you, and each of you is, that you be further imprisoned and kept to hard labour for six calendar months. You James Davies, John Fost, Thomas Wells, and William Vaughan, have been in prison for rather more than four calendar months, but you have received a good character—indeed, some of you a very good character—and the sentence of the Court upon you therefore is that you and each of you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for four calendar months. You George Bailey and Gabriel Watkins have pleaded guilty to the indictment charged against you. I trust your doing so imports contrition for the offence you have committed. Upon looking to the depositions, I do not find any peculiar feature of atrocity in the acts of either and therefore the sen- tence of the Court upon you and each of you is that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour—having already been in prison four calendar months-that you be further imprisoned and kept to hard labour for four calendar months. You John Davies and George Jpne, having been ia prison but a short time, the sentence of the Court upon you is that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for eight ca- lendar months. You li illiam Cope and John Sim- mons also have been only in prison for a short period, but you have each of yeu received a good character the sentence of the court upon you and each of you is that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for six calendar months. You Charles Jones have been in prison for a comparatively short period, and would have been sentenced as John Davis and George Jones had it not been for the character you have just received. Certainly it is an extraordi- nary thing that a young man like you, in rather a better position cf life, possessing some degree of education, having borne to the present time — as stated on the testimony of the superintendent of police—very good testimony—a good character—that you should have conducted yourself in the way you have been proved to have done. I have looked to my notes, and find you were almost a ringleader in the transaction. You were concerned actively in the de- struction of the property of these unfortunate trades- men, Lewis and Ellis, and that there is no circum- stance of mitigation in your case,, except that of having previously had a good character, which I take into con- sideration. The sentence of the Court upon you is, that you beimpr isoned and kept to karcl labourfor six calendaT months. You, lleni"yJoncs, Thomas Pru tton, and J acoh Williams, have been but a short period in prison, and would have received the same sentence as John Davies and George Jones had it not been that, in con- sequence of your good character, you were recom- mended to mercy by the jnry. The sentence of the Court upon you is that you be imprisoned and be kept to hard labour for six calendar months. You, Corne- lius Blunt, have not been in prison at all, and I do not find anything in reference te your character the sen- tence of the Court upon you is as in the case of George Jones and John Davies, that you be imprisoued and kept to hard labour for eight calendar months. You, John Coles, have not been in prison at all, but you have received a good character, and the sentence upon you is that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for six calendar months. The prisoners were then removed, and the a seize was brought to a terminatien.

NISI PRIUS COURT. THURSDAY. [Before His Lordship Judge HANNEN.J The Court opened at ten a. m. SLANDER. Morgan v. Williams.— Mr. H. James and Mr. Baker (instructed by Mr. G. A. Jones, Abergavenny), were for the plaintiff Mr. Brown (instructed by Hr. Lawrence Baker, Abergavenny), for the defendant. — The declaration alleged that the defendants spoke of the plaintiff in slanderous words, whereby he was calculated to be injured in his business.—Defendant pleaded not gt:ilty.-Plaintiff is a farmer, and was employed as a shepherd by the Blaina Iron Company, and the defendant is an iankaeper at Blaenavcn. Plaintiff had been in the employ of the Blaina Com- pany about five years and a half, and during that time had the care of their sheep upon the hills. The defendant had also a number of sheep on pasture about the commencement of last year, and about that time plaintiff recovered one ef the defendant's sheep which had strayed, for which some slight sum was paid him. In March last defendant sent for the plaintiff to the "Grouse and Snipe" Inn, and then accused him of having stolen his sheep. The pLintiff bore with the accusation for some time, but defendant persisted in making the charge at last the plaintiff slightly retaliated, denying that he had stolen his sheep. Defendant continued to make the charge against the plaintiff, not only of his having stolen the sheep, but also other people's aiad told Mr. Griffiths, who was the manager of the Blaina Iron Works, that he had a thief in his employ. He likewise r« peated tke charge to another person. Plaintiff there- upon applied to an attorney, who wrote to the de- fendant, requesting him to apologise for the slander. He refused to do so hence the present action.—Mr. Brown, fer the defence, characterised what took place at the "Grouse and Snipe" as mere vulgar abuse between two drunken men, cne of whom (the defendant) having suffered severely by losing his sheep. He E-ever intended to impute to the plaintiff that he had stolen his sheep, and as to the lawyer's letter, which it was stated was sent to the defendant, he denied having ever received it. Defendant was then called, and stated that plaintiff's dog had killed one of his sheep, and that when they met at the Grouse and Snipe he gave him 5s. for destroying his dog. They sat drinking for some time, and thee, had a "fearful row," during' which they called each other anything but gentlemen.—Defendant denied having accused the plaintiff of stealing hia sheep, and stated that he had lost 30 sheep between Christmas and March. Verdict for plaintiff for 5s. SEKIOUS AU.EGATION- AGAINST A TREDEGAR TRADESMAN. —IMPORTANT ACTION. Worsey and Baxter v. J. Richarb.-Mr. Huddle- ston, Q.C., and Mr. Griffits for the plaintiffs Mr. Powell, Q.C., and Mr. Pritchard for the defendant. ThQ action was brought to recover the sum of f29. value of goods which the plaintiffs, who are woollen manufacturers, at Birmingham, alleged that the de- fendant, a tailor, of Tredegar, had converted to his own use. In opening the case, h. Huddleston stated that in March last the plaintiffs had a customer at Trede- gar, of the name of Edward Richards, the defend- ant's name being Joshua Richards. The plaintiffs' traveller took an order from Edward Richards for goods to the amount of the claim. He did not call on the defendant upon that occasion, although he had previously taken orders from him. The goods were sent from Birmingham on the 23rd of March, but were directed to J. Richards, tailor and draper, Tredegar." The invoice was also sent to "J. Richards," and the goods were despatched by the railway conveyance. During the transit the cover got a little frayed, but not sufficiently to cause any damage. In due course the goods arrived at Trede- gar. They were taken to Joshua Richards, and de-1 livered by the carman Edwards to a person of the name of Jones, who signed the delivery-book, and paid 3s. 7d. for the carriage. A short time afterwards the plaintiffs received a letter from Edward Richards stating that he had not received the goods, upon which they instituted an inquiry, and then found that the goods had been sent by mistake to Joshua instead of Edward Richards. On the defendant being applied to with reference to the matter, he first denied that he had a person of the name of Jones in his employ, but subsequently admitted that he had and then wrote the following letter to the plaintiffs I really know nothing of the goods you wrote to me about, and I have not received anything for E. Richards, Church-street." An action was ultimately brought against the defendant in the Birmingham County Court but as the goods were delivered in Wales the court had no jurisdiction, and the action therefore had to be brought in this court. Evidence was then given to prove that the goods were ordered by E. Richards, and not by the defend- ant, and that they were directed to J. Richards" by mistake. The delivery of the goods to the Mid- land railway, at Birmingham, was proved, as also their arrival at the Tredegar Junction, and at the Tredegar Station, and subsequent delivery at the defendant's. The carter, Edwards, proved that he took the goods to the defendant's shop, and that the book was signed E. E. Jones," who paid 3s. 7d. for the carriage. The defendant, in his examination, stated that he had never received the goods for the value of which he was now sued, and that he had never dealt with the plaintiffs. With regard to the signature of E. E. Jones," in the railway delivery book, the defend- ant said he had had an errand-boy of that name in his employ in March of last year, but he had no authority to sign the book for the receipt of goods. His lordship said it was necessary that E. Richards should be present, and the case was then adjourned to Saturday morning for his attendance. SATURDAY. Mr Justice Hannen took his seat at ten o'clock, and the action, WORSEY AND ANOTHER V. RICHARDS, Was resumed, Several of the witnesses were recalled, and addi- tional evidence was given, the substance of which was restated by His Lordship, who summed up as follows :—Gen- tlemen of the jury, although this is an action for the value of goods sent by Messrs Worsey and Baxter to Tredegar it is in fact a case which involves a charge upon which the defendant if he did receive these goods and has appropriated them, as it is alleged was done, is liable to be indicted if [this case should turn out to be, in your judgment, established against him,—that is-thelfacts which will have established the plaintiff's right to recover in this action would in all probability ensure the conviction of the defendant if he should stand at the criminal dock in the other Court. Of course you know. I say that only to re- mind you of the great importance of the case. You will apply your mind to it with the utmost caution but I am sure you will not hesitate to do your duty either way. When you have considered the evidence with the assistance which you have already received from the learned counsel on the one side and the other, and with such assistance as it may be in my power to give you, it will be found that the turning point of the case lies some distance on in the action. 1 do not think the evidence which has been given to you about the goods coming by railway to the several hands is of much importance. We shall see that the issue depends on what occurred between the carter Edwards, and the person, whoever it was, to whom he delivered these goods. Now, the first witness who was called on Thursday was Jones, traveller for the plain- tiffs and there is no doubt that in March, 1868, he took an order from Edward Richards, the man called this morning, for these goods. There was a little piece of paper produced upon which he put down the order he had received, and from which it appeared, as it ought, to be from E. Richards, and he sent it to his employers at Birmingham. Now, it appears he en- tered it properly enough on the plaintiffs' books, as an order of E. Richards but the clerk who has been called (Shelley) says that he sent off the goods by mistake- looking at the journey book in which the addresses were kept, he addressed it to J. Richards, and that has been proved by other persons who saw the parcel-that it was addressed to J. Richards there can therefore be really no doubt and it is a natural thing, as it is explained by him, that he should have got that by mistake, looking at the journey book, and seeing J. Richards, of Tredegar, and though not exactly the same, yet a similar business, and that he should have put that outside the wrapper of the parcel. But he gives a piece of evidence which, if he can be relied upon, is undoubtedly of importance in the case and that is, he not only sent the parcel, which has been called a truss, but he also sent an invoice by post, which he likewise addressed J. Richards." Now, I think, that alone might be of some importance —but while I utter the words, I remember there is something which I must remind you of, which no doubt qualities the remark as to its importance. He says he addressed it to J. Richards. If he had ad- dressed it to E. Richards no doubt it would have been of very great importance, because then the other, E. Richards, would in all probability have received it, and he would have been able to state not only that he had not received the goods, but that he did receive the in- voice. Then the observation would have been-if you received the invoice, how was it you did not make any inquiry ? No doubt that is also to be borne in mind—that it is a fact he did not make any inquiry after the goods he had ordered. But to return to ad- dressing the invoice. If it was addressed to J. Richards by post, then it is possible that it went by post to the same person, whoever that was, to whom the goods themselves were delivered therefore it is possible when the defendant says that he did not receive the invoice, that that is consistent it is no doubt con- sistent with his story, that he did not receive the goods, because I say it may be, the same address being on the invoice as there was upon the parcel, they may have gone to the same person. The plaintiffs, you know, allege it was the defendant who received the one, and who in all prcbability, received the other. But, as I say, it is open to that observation—that the defendant's case being that he did not receive the goods, it may be the invoice going by post, also went to some. T. Richards or other, or some person who received it although it was not strictly addresssed to In him by his right initials. Now we have disposed of the evidence of Shelley, who says he made a mistake both as to the goods themselves and also with regard to the invoice and sent them off. Now these goods have beec undoubtedly traced through the several officers of the railway companies, and we do not add any force to the case against the defendant by tracing them step by step it is sufficient to say that we have several witnesses whose evidence serves to show that that truss of goods came into the possession of the carter Edwards, for the purpose of being delivered to the person whose name was upon it. Now it is also clear that at the same time the carrier received two cases of liquor-called" spirits"—to be de- livered to another person of the name of Richards. Now, as I say, the issue which you have to deter- mine depends on the evidence substantially of this man Edwards on the one side, and on the defendant on the other, as far as that may be corroborated by his shopman Jones, who was called. Now certainly Edwards is evidently a very uneducated person, and he has conducted his part of the business in a very loose manner, and it is owing to the looseness with which he has discharged hie duty that it has been possible for somebody or other to have become pos- sessed of these goods, and net to pay for them to the present time. No doubt, therefore, the observa- tions which were made on the subject of Edwards by Mr. Powell are entitled to great weight. You will, of c&urse, consider those observations in contrast to the observations, equally well entitled to considera- tion, made by Mr. Huddleston. Now let us examine for ourselves what Edwards said on Thursday. He says on the 27th March he took this truss from the railway to the defendant. "I took it off the waggon," he says, and lifted it in. I put it just where they like to have it." Now, this is very im- portant—the next answer he gave on Thursday, as contrasted with what he said this morning. He said on Thursday, "I don't recollect whether I saw the the defendant. I was paid 3s. 7s. for carriage. I cannot say whether I should know the person who signed for them. There are two other parcels signed for by the same person—J. Richards, one truss È Jones. The truss was a little rubbed, but I do not think the cloth was damaged. I remember some one came out to look at the truss. I gave a receipt for the money paid for carriage." Therefore you see that on Thurs- day his evidence was given with a particularity that led one to think that he had, at least, a recollection of that which he said he recollected, as he was careful to discriminate what he did not recollect. He said on that occasion, "I don't recollect whether I saw de- fendant," but he. goes on to say, as though the book had been signed by the person, E. Jones. on that oc- casion—namely, the occasion of taking the things there—"I cannot say whether I should know the person who signed"—plainly leading to the in- ference that they were signed for at that par- ticular time—" there were two parcels signed for by the same person and so, in fact, there are two others signed for by E. Jones. Now undoubt- edly that is a very different account from what he has given this morning. This morning he has said that now that he has heard the evidence of Mrs. Richards, he remembers going in the first instance to the defendant, and there the defendant signed the book. and that afterwards he went and took a case to Mrs. Richards, but finding later that a wrong re. ceipt had been given in a wrong place he took it back, as Mrs. Richards has said he did, and got it cor. rected, and he went afterwards and got E. E. Jones" to sign for the truss. Now all that is totally dinerent in its character to his statement of Thurs- day. The observation made on the other hand is this -it is very plain he is a very ignorant man who can- not read readily what is put before him, so that there is a great difficulty in refreshing his memory by en- tries on his book, and it may be that he did not recol- lect distinctly on Thursday; and it may be that having now had his memory refreshed by 'Mrs. Richards's statement of which there cannot be a shadow of a doubt, that that has recalled to his mind the order of events as they occurred. But there is also this further observation to be made upon it-the man, stupid as he appears to be, has wit enough to see that he has made a great blunder and it may be that on Thursday, before Mrs. Richards had given her story, he was shielding himself from the accusation of con- ducting his business badly. These are the observa- tions it is due to the defendant to make, as it seems to me, upon Edwards's evidence. Now let us go on and see how the rest of the case fits. In his exami. nation Edwards said that he always got the signature at the time he was pressed by me as to that, and he insisted, that, although the practice differed two or three years ago, yet of late years it had been insisted on by his employers that he was always to get the signature at the time, and he always did so—from which he would have you believe he got the E. Jones signature at the very time he delivered the truss. Well, now, on Thursday also, it is to be observed be said, when under cross-examination, that on the 27th March, when he delivered these two cases of spirits and got the signature—"I delivered two cases of spirits at Richards's in Church-street,"— showing the freedom with which he used words—"it is his own hand writing"-as it turns out not to be as on the first or second occasion, he said he delivered the spirits, but if to master, son, servant, or daughter, he could not tell nor how the letter L" came over the" J" in the signature. So that his memory on Thursday was, to say the least, very imperfect as to the transaction which he has now spoken to with so much more confidence since Mrs. Richards had been called. That was the case for the plaintiff. Then the evidence for the defendant was that of Richards the defendant himself, who, after telling you how long he had been in business and so on, says that these were things which he was not in the habit of ordering all from one place. That I do not think has any bearing on the question unfortunately to be determined in this case, because the theory of the plaintiffs is, that the defendant is a fraudulent person, who,having got these goods desired to keep thew without paying for them and if he was not in the habit of ordering goods such as these from the same persons, or such goods as some of these from any person, the effect would be that his attention would the more certainly be called to the fact that the goods were not intended for him. He says there are two Richards in Tredegar, James and Edwin, the gentleman who has been called this morn- ing. Whether there is a James we don't know. It has been suggested on the one side that there is a David, and on the other that there is a James. We don't know how that is the defendant says the man's name is James because letters dropped by mistake into his box, addressed "J. Richards," had been found to belong to the man whose name was said to be David. Then he says he was in London on the 27th March, and it becomes important in reference to one of the signatures. He says he was in London on the 27th—that he knew nothing of the goods being sent— that the boy, E. E. Jones, had no right to sign at all —that he did not know there was such a person as Jones in his employment—that he had always known the boy by the name of Evans-and that some time after this affair he first discovered the invoice for the spirits on his file. Now there is in this book a signature to which your attention has been directed and, after hearing the evidence of Mrs Richards there really can be very little doubts that the invoice which was delivered to her, and which she noticed was the wrong one- there can be very little doubt, I say, that that must have been the invoice which ought to have been delivered with the truss. There is no positive evidence of it, but seeing but two parcels for persons of the name of Richards—that a wrong invoice was delivered to her with the right goods, so far as she is concerned there really can be little doubt that must have been the in- voice which ought to have been delivered with the truss of goods. And she remembers also that somebody or other had signed J. Richards" on something or other before she signed" L." It appears therefore amis- take had been made with regard to the delivery of the goods and although there is no positive proof, it is very plausible, to say the least, that the truss of woollen goods had been delivered to somebody or other, and that that somebody or other. who- ever it was, had signed for the wrong par- cel, namely, had signed for the goods. And the first question which arises is whether or not that person was the defendant ? Well, now here is this signature. The defendant said on Thursday it was not his signa- ture it was shown to him, and he said he was posi- tive it was not. This morning upon being shown to him again, he says he cannot see what it is-whether or not it was his signature. Mr Huddleston has ad- dressed you with great force upon that subject but 1 think it is due to the defendant that I should remind you that Mr. Huddleston himself, when he first looked at it, mistook it for E. Richards, while it is J. Richards therefore the man saying he cannot see very well what it is, is not so conclusive that he is not telling the truth as if it was a plain signature. There is no doubt considerable obscurity about it, in consequence of one being written over the other at the same time, with the aid of a glass, I can say with perfect certainty, as you will be able to see when you compare it, that it is J. Richards." Whether it corresponds with the other signature "J. Richards" I shall leave with you. Certainly the defendant asserts that he never signed for the spirits, and he never received the woollen goods. Then comes this singular fact: it is no doubt a fact, that this document is here-this invoice of the spirits which in the ordinary course of things would be delivered by the carman with the spirits, and seeing that he has undoubtedly made a mistake with regard to the spirits, and delivered the wrong invoice, then the question is whether or not he did not at the same time that he delivered something or other at the defendant's place deliver this also I have commented on the degree of certainty with which he has spoken of going there there is the fact of the document being found there, of which the defendant says he knew nothing. In the ordinary state of things it would be delivered by the carman, he did make a mistake in reference to the one invoice with Mrs. Richards and this, which in the ordinary course of things would be delivered some- where is found as a matter of fact with the de- fendant. Then outside that, there is the further circumstance of suspicion about this, namely, that the initial which preceded "Richards" on the invoice is torn off. I confess that I don't feel the strength of that observation, because I don't myself see a sufficient motive for tearing off that initial, for the defendant, if he received this truss and did actually sign for it, would certainly know the cases of spirits were not his, and were not intended for him, and it is not present to my mind why he should tear off the initial if it were there, from an invoice of some parcel of goods which he did not have as was ad. mitted by both sides. Why therefore he should be anxious to tear off an initial to show that some goods he did not have were not intended for him or were intended for him, which ever way the intention was, I do not readily see. But the great importance which belongs to the possession of the document itself, is that it was the document which would in the ordi- nary course of things be delivered by the carman— that somehow or other it does find its way into the possession of the defendant, whereas the wrong one found its way into the possession of Mrs. Richards. 'W ell now it is further said that the man was in the habit of getting the signatures of E. E. Jones—that he has got it is clear and I think it must also be taken that he has got it in an irregular way, because after having taken the truss, as he says he did, to the defendant's and getting the signature from him or from somebody else by mistake for the two cases of spirits he ought not to have got the second signature from E. E. Jones for the truss, without some expla- nation given and received from the person who had actually signed for the cases of spirits by mistake he ought not to have taken the signature of the boy without some explanation of the mistake he had made, ml but it does in fact appear he has taken the boy's signa- ture. Now with regard to the evidence of the next witness, Jones, the assistant of the defendant the value of his evidence is this-lirst of all, that he Is not in the employment of the defendant now, that there- fore he is a disinterested person and he says that he must have known if goods of this kind had come into the stock of his master, and that he never knew or heard of such things. That is the value of his evidence but beyond that it does not go. Then this morning we have had the evidence of Mrs. Richards and her husband, and also of Edward Richards the man who had really ordered the goods. Well, now with regard to what he has said. Undoubtedly, I thought on Thursday that it was a plain duty that that man should be put in the witness box, because while the plaintiffs were asserting that the defendant had received these goods which were intended for Edward Richards, and offered no evidence that ( Continued in the sixth page.)

Cashman to 18 months' imprisonment each, and the female prisoner to 12 months' imprisonment. CHARGE OF RAPE AT ABERGAVENNY. Benjamin Jones (on bail), tailor, was indicted for ouiously ravishing Eliza Wilson, a young girl, 14 years of age, at Abergavenny, on 23d Oct, 1868.—Mr. Cleave prosecuted Mr. Browne and Mr. Pritchard defelided.-Aftei the evidence of the prosecutrix, and Mr. Hansby, surgeon (who examined the girl ten after the alleged occurrence, but found no mark violence), the Judge remarked that they generally Quired in these cases, beyond the bare statement of j evi(ience of prompt cries, prompt complaints, of ?.ar^3 °f the offence having been committed all th lc^ were here wanting and he suggested whe- erthe jury considered in these circumstances that a turtter evidence was necessary.—After consulting n minutes, the jury returned a verdict of ac- STEALING FROM THE PERSON AT NEWPORT. Mary Jane Johnstone (27), was indicted for felo- niously stealing from the person of William Preece *"e sum of 7s 6d at Newport, March 9th, 1869 and Tv-mes Baker (47), seaman, was charged with having Irdrae(liately after the robbery violently assaulted and bounded the said William Preece. Mr. Pritchard prosecuted; Mr. Smythies defended Baker —This was a row and robbery in a brothel, the particulars of Which have been reported.-Johnstone was found hi, Lordship, .ons/deriag'Se'Ve «tKS t- aX S"*5 ?[i,0MrS beenm gaoHor This conolnrl em a wee^'s imprisonment, concluded the business of the Court.