Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

7 articles on this Page

THE NORTH VVAUS SUMMER\ .ASSIZES.

News
Cite
Share

THE NORTH VVAUS SUMMER ASSIZES. CARNARVONSHIRE. Lord Justice Brarnwell arrived in Carnar- von from Dolgelley by fch^jjj^emoou train, and Was met at tlie railway station uv the High Sheriff (Mr G. D. A. Smith, Vaynol),theUnder-Sheriff (Mr J. Bath Allanson. Car .arvon), and a magnificent retinue of javelin-men, &c., splendidly attired. Having opened the assizes with the usual commis- sion, his lordship attended divine service at Christ Church, where an excellent assize sermon was preached by the Rev H. Edwards. Lhuifaerisgaer, the high sheriff's chaplain. The of the assizes was commenced at ten o'cloc" on Wednesday morning. Mr Cromp- ton, the c ,;rk of the court, having read the Queen's proclamation against vice and immorality, the following gentlemen were empanelled on tlie GRAND JURY. '¡'he lIon, ':k01'ge io3holto Douglas Pennant. M.P. (foreman), Messrs Hugh John Ellis Nanney, John Griffith Wynne Griffith, Owen Evans, Edward Seymour Greaves, Robert" Davies, Robert Carreg, Benjamin Thomas Ellis, Edward Windus Mathews, John Dicken Whitehead, Major James Legh Thursby, Messrs Edward Griffith Powell, Jeffery Parry de Winton, Wat-kin William Robert-A, Albert Wood, Francis William Alexander Roche, Lieut.-Col. William James Holt, Messrs Hugh- Pugh and Griffith Robert Rees. THE CHARGE: His Lordship, in charging the grand jury, said that with the exception of one sad case which was Contained in the calendar, the state of the gaol was one of great congratulation. Th! was the third Welsh county he had visited iu the circuit. In the first there was only one prisoner, who was acquitted in the second there were two prisoners, but he did not think Wales was responsible for them from their names, he thought they came from the other side of the Severn, or from the Channel,—-hs was not qnite certain; and in the third county, there was one prisoner only. who was a person whose mind, it would probably be found, When she came before the petty jury, was con- siderably affected. In the three counties therefore, there was so little crime that he thought it ought to be a matter of congratulation to the gentlemen of the Principality. It was particularly remark- able that there was so little crime in the county of Carnarvon. Of course in rural counties,—and in England it was true, -they did not expect to find much crime of a serious character, but the county of Carnarvon was not simply filled with a rural population. The population in Carnarvonshire was much more varied, as there were ports and quarries of considerable size in the county. He was rot aware that there was anything in the occupation of the people who followed those callings which necessarily led to cnme, but it was an undoubted fact that in populations following these callings, either from the circumstances of there being more adventurous .pirit.or from the fact that large wages were earned, more crime was often found in such places than in places where the population were engaged in simple agricultural pursuits. His lord- ship then referred to the case on the calendar in which a person was charged with murdering her child. He did not see how they could do other- wise than nd a true bill. The medical evidence W -it to sh".v that the child diedfrom strangulation f- suffocation, and the prisoner stated twice that s' Gornir fed the deed. He might mention that h mind in a peculiar condition. When the case C;' le before the petty jury, they might acquit her on the ground of insanity, but that was a matter with which the grand jury had nothing to do. They should l..twc the question of insanity to be dealt with by the petty jury.—The grand jury were then dismissed to their duties. THE LLANLLYFNI MURDER CASE. AX INDIFFERENT HUSBAND REBUKED. A true bill was found against Catherine Wil- liams, a farmer's wife residing at Llanllyfni, for murdering her child. At the request of the judge the prisoner was called up, and on being charged with having wilfully murdered her child, replied, Yes." His Lordship (to Mr Pugh, the interpreter): Tell her that she must either plead guilty or not not guilty. The question being asked, the prisoner pleaded guilty. The Judge: Ask her whether she knew that she was doing wrong at the time. The Interpreter: She says she did not know at the time that she was doing anything wrong. The Judge: Then tell her to plead not guilty, and ask her if she is defended by counsel. The Interpreter She does not know- The Judge: Is her husband here? A person in court: Yes. The Judge Has he provided any counsel for his wife ? The Interpreter (conversing with the husband) No, my lord. The Judge Ask him why does he not get some one to defend his wife ? The Interpreter: He says he did not know which was the best way to do it. The Judge: Tell him the best way is to get some gentleman now to defend his wife. The Interpreter: He says if the charge is high he has no meaas. The Judge: What is he ? The Interpreter: A small farmer. The Judge What is the size of his farm r The Interpreter: He lives on a small quantity of land. The Judge: What rent does he pay r The Interpreter: About £35. He is afraid he cannot find the money to pay for counsel's advice. He had been told it was better for him not to get anyone. The Judge And I tell him otherwise. The Interpreter: He says he wants to be advised by someone. The Judge Remind him of what he swore when he married his wife. The Interpreter: He wants to consider the matter. His lordship ultimately adjourned the hearing of the case till the following day, in order to allow the professional gentlemen engaged to have suffi- cient time to prepare a defence. The grand jury were afterwards dismissed, with the thanks of the county 'for their attendance and service. A PWLLHELI BANKRUPTCY CASE. This was a civil cause, in which the plaintiff sued the defendants for thp recovery of j653 18s 6d for goods supplied. Mr Marshall (instructed by Messrs Breese & Co.) appeared for the plaintiff, and-Vr Higgins and Mr Swetenham (instructed by Messrs Turner and Allanson) for the defen- dants.—Mr Marshall, in opening the cane, said that the plain tiff in this matter was John Harri- fion Fletcher, who became entitled to the amount claimed (j653 18s 6d) from John Walter Davies, who had. been in business as grocer at Pwllheli. For some years prior to 1875, Mr Davies supplied the defendants with goods, to the amount of C58 18s 6d. Mr Davies afterwards became bankrupt, and Mr John Edwards, Pwllheli, appointed his trustee, who assigned the debt, J658 18s 6d, less £ 5 received, to +ho plaintiff. The simple question for tne jury to decide was whether the goods had been supplied to the defendants or not. Payments amounting to £5 only had been made to Mr Davies,in several sums. The goods had been supplied in rice, meal, and var- ious other things from 1(563 up to 1875.—Mr Davies was examined, stating that he was adjudged a bankrupt. Up to that time, he had supplied the dei, adant with goods the particulars of which were entered into the account. All the payments he had received had been receipted.—Cross-examined by Mr IIiggins Mr. Davies admitted having dealt at first with the senior plaintiff—the father—and that the transaction with the son commenced in John Owen was a small farmer, and was assisted by his son.—Mr Higgins handed in a bill dated 10th May, 1*71, for £ 4 9 s" 2d, which Mr Davies contended was sent as £ 45 9s 2d. That was the amount due, and for that amount the bill was made.—His Lorsliip expressed his surprise that Davies had credited the defendant with such an amount of goods during so long a period.—Mr Davies, continuing, said he had copied the accounts from the day book. After being adjudged a bank- rupt, the accounts were all sent to Mr John Ed- wards, the trustee. They were not incorrect.— Mr Higgins, for the defence, said that the defend- ants, father and son, had had dealings with the bankrupt for a number of years, and thatJhe course of their dealings was this—that in taking goods on credit, they paid for what had previously been received. The defendants would tell the j ury that they had paid a great deal of cash to Davies. It was rather curious that they should have an account running from 1803 to 1875—12 years, although they were only farmers in a small line. He applied to their common sense whether they were satisfied that such a state of things was allowed to go on between the parties for such a considerable time.—Both defendants were ex- amined, and each denied having scraped the figure 5 from the bill.—His Lordship, in summing up, .referred the jury to the fact that according to the bankrupt's book there was an account for jEi5 9s 2d due to him from the defendants in May 1871, and if the jury would look at the bill sent, they would see that the figure 5 had been scratched. He would make no comment upon that. It was maintained for the defence that the scratch had been caused by the file, but if the jury doubled the bill up they would see that the holes of the fil c were not in the neighbourhood of the scratch at all.—The jury retired, and after a consultation found a verdict for the plaintiff for £ 53 18s (id, less -422 12s paid into court. ALLEGED DEFAMATION" OF CHARACTER AT PENYGROES. William Jones, grocer, &c., Penygroes, r. Robert Griffith, and his wife. Elizabeth Griffith, of the same place. Mr Swetenham and Mr Higgins (instructed by Messrs Turner and Allan- son), appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Marshall (instructed by Messrs Roberts k Thomas), for the defendants,who were sued for damages for having, it was alleged, used certain slanderous words to the plaintiff on the 1st of May last.—Mr Swetenham, in opening the case, said that William Jones, the plaintiff, was a grocer residing at Penygroes, and also dealt in building materials, and lived opposite to Robert Griffith, and his wife, Elizabeth Griffith, the defendants in the case. Mr Jones, the plaintiff, had, up to the present time,borne the universal respect of his neighbours there, and was a member of the Methodist connexion as well as deacon. It was a very serious matter for him in his business to be subjected to the imputation made by the defendant's wife. It would appear that on the 1st day of May a wedding party came up to Penygroes, and a number of persons were collected to see the party, who had come by train. The defendant's wife and daughter came out of their own house and stood opposite the plaintiff's shop, and made use of the most disgraceful words. Prior to this, the plaintiff had been oblige 1 to issue a county court summons against Robert Griffith, for the non-payment of the balance of account for building materials supplied. This, it seems, made the defendant's wife exceedingly angry, and on the day in question, she came out of her house, stood iii the middle of the road, and in the presence of a great number of persons, called out to him ''You wicked rogue, there's thedirtv old whore- monger, you wicked limping old thief." She also went on to Ray" You better get another old prostitute as you had when coming out of society." Plaintiff then asked one or two persons if they heard that language, and they say "Yes." The defendant's daughter also called the plaintiff a dirty scamp, rogue, and other words to that effect. Plaintiff therefore claimed such reasonable and fair damages at the hands of the jury, as he was entitled to from the defendants for the words made use of on the occasion. -William Jones, the plaintiff, said that he was a grocer and builder, and lived at Cambrian House, Penygroes, where he had resided for 30 years. He was a member of the Calvinistic Methodist persuasion, and was a deacon. The defendant was a joiner, and lives opposite to him, and had dealt with him (plaintiff) by purchasing groceries and building materials. In June last, Griffith owed him £ 1 14s., and as he refused to pay, a summons was issued against him on the 1st May, but plaintiff could not say whether he was served on that day. A wedding party came from the railway station on that day, and a crowd of people collected about. The defendant's wife also came out and stood opposite the plaintiff's door. Plaintiff was in the shop at the time, and his wife and daughter were standing at the door. After coming out. plaintiff's heard the defendant's wife say There's the dirty adulturer and lame rogue (hegla roglyd). John Owen, Henry Jones, and others were standing about at the time. Plaintiff went to them, and called their attention to the words made use of by the defendant's wife. He believed that because of the expression made use of by the defendant's wife, his business had decreased, people having ceased to deal with him.—Cross-examined by Mr Marshall, plaintiff admitted that he went to a solicitor on the day the defendant's wife made use of these words, before his business decreased. His rec -ipts were not half as much as they were before the row took place. He has ascertained that during the last five or six weeks his receipts were less than they have been from £10 to L15 per month.—Mr Swetenham intimated that the plaintiff's witnesses had not arrived, but he would allow the case as it was in the hands of the jury, of whom he asked whether the plaintiff was not entitled to fair damages, his only object in coming there was to reinstate his charac er.-Ur Marshall, for the defence, said that the use of such expressions were daily occur- rences in Carnarvonshire. The woman, whilst in a rage because of the county court summons had called out" Oh, you nasty old rogue," or some- thing to that effect, and if actions were taken on account of such occurences, they might have fifty to sixty of such cases at each assizes. He (the learned counsel) concluded that the words made use of by defendant's wife could not be made the subject of an action for slander.-His Loidship, addressing the jury, said that the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages for any loss he allegel to have sustained in business, because he brought the action before lie lost his business at all. He confessed that one small coin would meet all the verdict, but the question was whether they would give a verdict at all. There are many words which maybe made use of toabusea person, which in point of law are not slanderous. To call a man a "thief, liar, swindler," &c., was not actionable, unless they were spoken of in connection with his trade. It was for the jury to decide whether the defend- ant's wife really meant to say that the plaintiff was a rogue in his business as grocer, or was it mere abuse. If the words referred to his trade they were actionable, but if not, they were not actionable. He thought the plaintiff might have really passed this trumpery matter, as the words made use of were only mere abuse.—After a short consultation, the jury found a verdict for the defendant. ACTION AGAINST LIVERPOOL ESTATE AGENTS. Messrs Bell Williams, Son, andLoke, house and estate agents at Liverpool, were sued by Mr Tysilio Johnson, a gentleman living at Bangor, for damages, laid at £ S70. for negligent preparation of an agreement for letting a house of which the plaintiff was lessee. Mr Swetenham and Mr Marshall (instructed by Mr W Jones, Conway) appeared for the plaintiff: and Mr M'Intyre, Q C., and Mr Higgins (instructed by Messrs Wilkms. Blvthe, and Forshaw, London) for the defendants. The cause was heard before a special jury. From counsel's statement it appear that the plaintiff in May, 1875, was desiroua of sub-letting a residence called Glynissa, near Conway, and the defendants fjund him a tenant in Mr Miers, who took the place under an agreement prepared by the defendants, for five years, at an annual rental of £250. Mr Miers in the following November gave six months' notice, and it was then found that the deed prepared by the defendants had not been sealed, and was therefore invalid.- -^Before counsel had concluded the reading of the iii correspondence, the judge stoped the case, remarking that- he had no t hesitation in saying that the agreement was a t biudhig one as against Mier.5 for five years, and the I plaintiff might have proceeded against him for its t specific performance or damages. The agreement t compelled Miers to take a lease for five years, and t it was the fault either of the plaintiff or his ( solicitors that such lease was not tendered as i provided by the agreement. There was no fault i whatever on the part of the defendants, who had done all they were. bound to do by providing a 1 tenant. The judgment- would therefore be for 1 the defendants, and he should certifv for a special jury. A lil'ILDIN'G TRANSACTION WYNNE r. RO HERTS. This was an action in which the plaintiff, Thomas Wynne, builder residing in Hill-street, Carnarvon. sought to recover from the defendant, Laura Roberts, Helen Vaults, Twthill (lately of the Prince Llewelyn, High-street), the sum of £131 6s 4d, balance of account in connection with certain works executed at the defendant's premises. Mr Swetenham and Mr Clement Lloyd (instructed by Messrs Turner and Allanson), appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Marshal and Mr Higgins (instructed by Messrs C. A. Jones and Roberts) for the defendant. Mr Swetenham, in stating the case, said that the defendant required certain alterations to be made to her premises in the Helen Vaults, Twthill, Car- narvon, and she applied to the plaintiff to do the same. The first contract, lie believed, was a verbal one, and the plaintiff was to do the work for C82 10* Additions being required, the plaintiff was asked to name another sum, and he replied £ 170. Mr Thomas, an architect, was named to prepare the document to carry out the agreement between the parties, and this document was pre- pared and signed by the plaintiff on the 10th March, 1877, who undertook to complete the con- tract on or before the 28th May. The plaintiff eould not read English very well, but it appears that his wife was a much better scholar, as on examining the document she found that the amount was only £ 70, and she informed her hus- band of this. The plaintiff took the doeumen: to the defendant, and requested her to correct it. However, it was last agreed upon that the altera- tion be carried on by daywork, and the previous arrangements were broken through. All that the plaintiff sought to recover now was the amount paid by him out of pocket in doing the work, viz., £ 154 6s 4M, giving credit for the sum of £ 25 paid 2 to him. This would leave a balance of £ 134s 6s Id. --From the plaintiff's evidence, it appears that in the beginning of February, 1877, the defendant sent for him at Llandudno he came to Carnarvon, and saw her at the Prince Llewelyn Inn in High- street. She requested him to tender for altering the photographic gallery 6f Mr Hushes, Twthilh and convert it into a spirit vaults. The plans were prepared by Mr Thomas. After having examined the plans, plaintiff agreed to do the work, w,th the exception of glazing and painting, for S82 Ds, which was accepted. On the 9th instant, plaintiff saw the defendant with reference to the construc- tion of a cellar, and on that occasion she asked him to make another tender. A portico was a:80 required, and he agreed to do the work for about £ 80 in addition to the previous tender. This was not to include glazing and painting. The defen- dant then asked him to take all upon himself, and he then replied that he was willing to do the whole work for -0170, providing glass and all other materials except the grates. They afterwards went to see Mr Thomas, who made some sort of an agreement, but nothing was said about the price. When ho signed the agreement, plaintiff never thought he was undertaking to do the whole work for £ 70. On the 15th March, Miss Roberts, the defendant, brought him a document, and as he did not understand English, he asked her to ac- company him to his wife, so that she might read it for him. The document (produced) was not right, because the contract was to be completed on or before the 28th, and the sum was incorrect. Plaintiff refused to do the work for £70, and in- formed her that the price agreed upon was £ 173. On the 16th, plaintiff saw Mr Thomas, and subse- quently it was arranged that he should finish the alterations by day work. The work was then pro- ceeded with, and £ 25 was paid to the plaintiff by the defendant on account. When the work hed nearly been completed, the defendant refused to give him any more draws," without the consent of Mr Thomas, who was then ill. Several letters were pasted to Mr Thomas, but no reply was sent. Plaintiff had taken some windows from the house before the agreement was broken. He now only charged the defendant what lie had really paid out of pocket for materials and in wages to the men em- ployed by him to do the work. Plaintiff was obliged to relinquish the work because the defendant refuse! to give him any more draivs. "-Cross exaininel by Mr Marshall, plaintiff denied having told the defendant he would do the work for JE70 rather than she would let it to Mr David Williams, another builder.—In reply to his lordship, Mr Marshall said his defence was that the plaintiff undertook to do the whole work for £70, with the extras.—Cross-examined by Mr Marshall, plaintiff denied having worked for other parties in the defendant's yard, at the time he was proceeding with the alterations. — Mr Marshall produced several letters sent by the plaintiff to the defen- dant and to Mr Thomas, in which the word contract" was continually made use of. Plaintiff said that he thought any arrangement would be a contract.—At this juncture of the proceedings, his lordship informed the court that he would hear no more evidence that day, and the court conse- quently rose. THURSDAY. The business of the court was proceeded with on Thursday morning at ten o'clock. THE LLANLLYFNI CHILD MURDER. Catherine Jones, the wife of a small farmer reo siding at Llwydcoedfawr, Llanllyfni, was indicted for the wilful murder of her child, Sarah Jones, on the 9th May last. Mr Ignatius Williams (instructed by Messrs Roberts and Thomas), who conducted the case for the prosecution, said that the offence for which the prisoner was charged with was a most serious one. and he hoped the jury would pay great atten- tion to the evidence to be laid before them. Mr Williams having referred to the facts of the case, the following evidence was taken:- Ellen Roberts, domestic servant, said that on the 9th May last, she was in the employ of VV m: Jones, farmer, Llwydcoedfawr, Llanllyfni". About noon on the day in question, witness recollected going into the yard, leaving the prisoner washing in the house. The deceased, Sarah Jones, aged eighteen months, was in the house at the time. Witness returned to the house in about ten minutes after- 1 wards, and found her mistress absent. She then went out to inform her master this, and subsequently they both returned to the house. The prisoner came into the house in about ten minutes afterwards through the back door. Her master went to meet her. Witness saw the i little girl in prisoner's arms. Witness' master 1 took the child from her. Witness observed that the little child was dead. Her eyes were open, 1 and her tongue black. After noticing this, she went to the next house, and called Catherine I Jones, a neighbour. After returning, the child c was placed in the cradle. The prisoner then took I her up, and tried to warm her by the fire. The prisoner was at the fire for 'only a very short time. Her husband re-placed the child in the cradle. I Witness recollected the body of the child being x washed. The prisoner was then sitting in the I bedroom. In going to bed. prisoner called witness t and asked her if she would be hung. Witness 1; asked what had she done to the child, and she r. replied that she had smothered it, showing how she t had done the deed by placing her hand on her t mouth, and closing the lips. Previous to this, b witness had noticed a great difference between the b prisoner's conduct and that of other women. She c had struck witness twice with a kettle, although c she had not done or said anything to her. After ii knocking her with the kettle, prisoner appeared to v be very wild and excited. Cross-examined by Mr Swetenham; Had been s< in service at Llwydcoedfawr for three months prior it to the death of the child. Witness noticed that the prisoner was different to other person, and had been informed of her conduct by the husband before entering his service. Prisoner ate more than ordinary women, and was thoughtless in everything. She would not prep u-e food for any- one in the house, and complained that she had nothing, meaning that sliewas in poverty. Wit- ness had heard her say to persons in the house, when requested to make food, that she none in the house, although there was plenty. The reason why she went to tell her master that the prisoner was not in the house was because she thougat it to be a rather strange thing. Ann Williams, wife of William William?, who resides near Llwydcoedfawr, said she recollected going to that place on the 9fL May, when she saw the prisoner and the little tlanghter Sarah, who was dead. The prisoner was then sitting on a chair in the bed chamber. Witness asked her what she had done to the child, and she replied that she only put her hand to the deceased's lips, adding that she did not intand to smother her. She also showed how she smothered the child, by putting her fingers on her mouth, and squeezing the nose. Prisoner further said that she would give the world if she had little Sarah back. She also told her that the child had lost her shoe, and that she had no means of buying another one. There were no signs of poverty in the house, in which there was always plenty to be found. Witness had known the pris- oner for ten years. At the end of last year, prisoner asked witness if her dress would last for ever, adding that she was now poor, and had no means of getting all other one. Witness afterwards saw the prisoner in a disordered state she could not prepare a morsel of food, and allowed evervthing to drop out of her hands. Prisoner had told wit- ness that she had once drawn the razor across the deceased's neck. Witness saw a slight cut in the neck at the time. Prisoner added that the reason why she had not killed the child was because she became frightened on seeing the blood. In con- sequence of this, witness took the deceased into her own house, and kept her there for nine weeks. She had also been informed by the prisoner that she had placed the head of her daughter Ann in a water-butt. Cross-examined by Mr Swetenham, witness said that she first noticed the change in the prisoner's state of mind about last Christmas. Previous to this, the prisoner was kind to the children, and had always conducted herself rationally. After hearing about what had been done to the child Ann, witness made inquiries and found that the statement was untrue. She did not ask Ann per- sonally, because she was ill in bed at the time. Witness remembered the prisoner say about the time of the death of Sarah, that her husband was killing people, that he had stolen the sheep killed by him, and that thousands of people were dying on her account. She also said, Wp are the Dis- raeli they are continually talking about. It is us they are going to shoot." Prisoner had told her that her husbant used to cut up people with the chaff-cutter, and give them to the cattle to eat. By Mr Williams Prisoner told her that she had just placed Ann's head in the water-butt. The child's head was not wet at the time. By the judge: Prisoner and'her husband were always on good terms. Dr. Evan Roberts, surgeon, Penygroes, deposed that he lived about a mile and a half from Llwyd- coed fawr, the prisoner's house. Witness was called to see the deceased child on the 11th of May, when he observed some frothy nucus escaping from the mouth. The tongue protuded against the teeth, and the pupils of the eyes were dilated. There was blackness on the child's back. He did not observe anything particular about the nostrils. Witness saw Ann Williams describe how the pri- soner had said she had committed the deed, and this was consistent with what he had seen. The symptoms pointed to suffocation. Cross- examined by Mr Swetenham: If he had not heard the account of the witness as to the death of the child, he would not then have attri- buted death to suffocation. No post-mortem examination was made, as the coroner, a medical gentleman, did not think it was necessary. By Mr Swetenham: All the symptoms were con- sistent with death by suffocation. Drowing would have produced similar symptoms. By the Judge: Bloody nucus from the left nostril would not have been produced by drown- ing. Mr Swetenham (instructed by Messrs Hugh Jones and Co.,) for the defence, reserved his address, and called the following witnesses Catherine Jones, wife of Hugh Jones, said that she lived about 100 yards from the prisoner's house. She had known the accused for the last ten years. Prisoner had been very kind to her husband and children, two of whom were now alive. Witness had noticed some change in pri- soner's conduct at the end of August, last year, when she came to her and complained that some- thing affected her head. Witness advised her to change the air. On the next occasion, prisoner told witness that she had nothing to dress the children during the summer, and that she had no means of getting anything for them. Some time afterwards prisoner told witness that she had placed the head of her daughter Ann in a tub of water. She ap- peared at the time to be in a very confused state. The child was then ill in bed, and there were no signs of water upon her at all. In about a month or two afterwards, the prisoner made an attack upon her husband because he brought a woman there to look after her. The husband was not willing to allow her to remain in the house alone. Prisoner's conduct was very changeable at times she was in low spirits, and occasionally wild. Dr. Morris Davies, physician and surgeon, Car- narvon, deposed that six months ago the prisoner's husband came to him with reference to the con- dition of his wife. He gave her medicine and advised him to take her out as much as he could. The result of his examination was that he found her suffering from melancholia, which is one type of insanity. He had no hesitation at the time in coming to the conclusion that her mind was affected. Cross-examined by Mr Williams The evidence given by the witnesses that day pointed a de- ranged mind. Ellen Owen said that she lived about a quarter of a mile from the prisoner's house. She had known her for the last ten years, during which period she had gone there continually for butter. Prisoner had always been a very kind wife and an affectionate mother. Witness noticed a change in her condition last November, when she spoke about a great famine that was in the country, adding that they would all starve. Witness re- collected prisoner's husband buying a cow, when the former said she did not know what her hus- band would do with the animal, as all would starve. Witness then gave evidence as to the symptoms of insanity exhibited by the prisoner up to the time of the ehild's death. Humphrey Davies, a farmer residing not far from Llwydcoedfawr, gave evidence as to the state of the prisoner's mind last Christmas. Wit- ness was convinced at the time that the prisoner was insane. Ann Thomas, another neighbour, deposed to having on one occasion advised the prisoner to change the air. Prisoner replied that she could not, as she had cut the head of her daughter Ann. This was about the time of the deceased's death. John Edwards, farmer, Festiniog, deposed that he knew the prisoner since she was a young woman, and was in the habit of going to see her. He visited Llwydcoedfawr last Christmas, when the prisoner told him It is a very black Christmas here; there is no place for you to sleep, and we have no food in the house." Witness went in, and the husband brought the bread and butter, but the prisoner persisted in cutting it till prevented by her husband. The prisoner stayed in witness' house, after having been advised by the dcctor to change the air. Previous to her departure she charged him with drowning her husband by throw- ing him into the sea, and expressed a fear that he would do the same to her. John Pierce, said that he had married the pri- soner's sister, who committed suicide by drown- ing. This concluded the case for the defence. The learned counsels did not address the jury. His Lordship, in summing up, informed the jury that it was their duty to consider whether the prisoner knew"what she was doing at the time she committed the deed. If they thought that she did, a verdict for murder would be returned by them but if they found otherwise, they would acquit, her on the ground of insanity. The jury, without rearing, acquitted the pri- soner on the ground of insanity, and. his Lord- ship ordered her detention during Her Majesty's pleasure. THE! t-A if NARVON iiriiJIfSO TIt VYSAOTIOV. The "f Wyuu v. Robert-'was next pro- ceeded with. Piuiutiii having been re-called as to certain items in the plan, several witnesses were examined on his behalf. Their evidedce was to the etfect that they were engaged by the plaintiff to do the alterations at the Helen Vaults, and that they worked there for him for several weeks. --For the defence, Mr Marshall contended that the plaintiff had arranged to do the whole work for £70, and that he was now trying to disprove that. He had no business to stop the work because he did not get advances of money, and the defendant was entitled to 10s per day under the terms of the contract entered into.—Laura Roberts, the de- fendant was next examined, and said that ac- cording to the first tender, the plaintiff offered to do the work for .£82 10s, which was not accepted. Certain additions in the shape of a watef-closet, cellar, counter, portico, were required, and the plaintiff ultimately agreed to do all for £70, and signed his name to the document made by Mr Thomas. The plaintiff commenced the cellar before the agreement was signed by him. He en- gaged four men to work during the first week, but she could not say whether they were all engaged during that and subsequent weeks. Wynn, the plaintiff and his men worked now and then at the Vaynol Arms, which was not far from the Prince Llewelyn Inn. Sometimes there was not a single man at her house. The work was stopped alto- gether in April, and she had been obliged to call in men to finish the job which he had left incom- plete. The plaintiff carried away the skylight. Defendant paid t31 in wages, to make good what the plaintiff had done badly and to complete the work, and for materials, in all amounting to £ 75. —By the judge She swore that she never under- took to give the plaintiff £ 170 for doing the work. —Cross-examined by Mr Swetenham: She saw the document being signed by the plaintiff on the occasion.—Mr John Thomas, architect and county surveyor of Carnarvonshire, deposed to having pre- pared plans for the defendant relating to the Helen Vaults, Carnarvon. Plaintiff and defendant called at his office with reference to these plans, and he saw the former sign the agreement to do the work. It was read over to him before it was signed. Plaintiff had the plans and original speci- I r_l fications a day or two before signing the document. The plan was signed by the plaintiff, but the original specification was not. Plaintiff subse- quently came to his office with the original speci- fication, and informed witness that he had agreed with the defendant to do all the work together with the additions for XTO. The additions, with plain- tiff's permission, were then added in pencil to the original specifications, and the document was after- wards signed by him. The defendant was present at the time. After plaintiff commenced the work, witness found that he did not keep enough men to do the same, and called his attention to the stipu- lations and penalty. Witness had also occasion to complain of the nature of the work. He had examined all the work done by the plaintiff, and had made a fair and marketable value of the same. Independently of any contract, he valued the whole work at £ 61 13s lOd but deducting X21 for materials to make good defective work done, the total value would be only dE40 13s lOd. Witness concluded that three-sevenths of the whole con- tract had been made by the plaintiff, to whom he had sent letters stating that unless the work was proceeded with, another person would be employed. —Cross-examined by Mr Swetenham, witness said that the extras would come to about one-third more of the first contract. Witness knew that the plaintiff was to some degree illiterate, and when he informed him of his intention to tender for X-70 he (witness) asked him what he was about, adding You don't mean to say you could do the work for £ 70." Plaintiff then replied, "Yes, I think I could." The document was afterwards signed by the plaintiff. Witness was positive that the S70 was not to be in addition to the JE82 10s mentioned for the first contract. Witness knew that the plaintiff's tender was too low. He had found more objections in the plaintiff's work than were ordi- narily found by him in other contracts.—His lord- ship remarked that it seem.ed to him that accord- ing to the present case the less a man knew the better for him, so it was time that if "ignorance was bliss, 'tis folly to be wise (laughter).—Wm. Williams, joiner, Portdinorwic, gave evidence as to the nature of the alterations done by him to the plaintiff's work, for which he was paid £ 20. As far as the joiner's work was concerned, it had been done very bad by the plaintiff. --Robert Hughes, a plasterer, was also called, but his lordship inter- posing, observed that after what Mr Thomas had said it was now for the jury to say whether the plaintiff contracted for 170 or not. He did not think further evidence as to the nature of the work done by the plaintiff was necessary.—Addresses having been given by the learned counsels for both parties, the jury retired to consider their verdict, and found tor the defendant. ACTION AGAINST A SLATE QUARRY CO Mr AX V. Mr H. J. Ellis-Nanney, Gwynfryn, sued the Carnarvonshire Slate Quarry Company (Limited), for an alleged trespass on his farm called Dolbebi, Nantlle, removing slate rock, the diversion of a stream, and the maintenance of a road across his land. Mr Mclntyre, Q.C., and Mr Swetenham -(instructed by Messrs. Jones & Sons, Portmadoc), were for the plaintiff, and Mr Morgan Lloyd, Q. C., and Mr Coxon (instructed by Messrs. Miller and Miller, London), for the Company. The action, which came before a special jury, was partly heard at the Spring Assizes, and the dispute has been the subject of proceedings at the Warwick Assizes and of a Chancery cause. Mr R. J. Davids, C.E., Carnarvon, was examined as to the trespass by the company. He calculated that 9724 cubic yards of slate rock had been taken on the eastern side of the farm, and 567 cubic yards on the western side. It was impossible to state the actual quantity of land that had fallen into the quarry in consequence of the quarry working underneath. The surface of the land had also been injured, and a crack had opened four inches more since the time witness saw it in March last. The hearing of the cause, which is a heavy one, was proceeded with this morning.

--------.--------DENBIGH.

l BANGOR.

BEAUMARIS.

CORWEN.

CONWAY.

LLANRUG.