Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles
2 articles on this Page
NISI PRIUS COURT, ....,
NISI PRIUS COURT, TUESDAY, JuLY 18. J AMES V. ROBERTs.-This was an action brought by Mr. Chris- topher James, of Swansea, against Messrs. Roberts, hotel-keepers, Rhyl, North Wales. Mr. Pulling opened the pleadings, and Mr. Richards stated the case. The plaintiff had an interest in a sloop which stranded on the coast of Rhyl. The interest of the plaintiff was sold to the defendants. A note was gives for £;40, but which was never paid. A witness was called to prove the handwriting of the de- fendants. He had many opportunities to witness their signature in the custom-house. He had no doubt of its being theirs. Mr. Grove declined addressing the j ury for the defence. Mr. Richards applied for an execution, which was granted if the sum is not paid within a fortnight, with interest of £2 5s. CHARLES V. EDWARDS.—Mr. Chilton, Q.C., and Mr. Richards conducted the plaintiff's case. It seemed that the plaintiff is a carpenter and builder residing at Aberdare. He sought to recover the sum of £ 26-3 17s. 2kl. for building three cottages in July, 1846. The defendant is a farmer residing in the parish of Mynyddishvyn. The sum of £ 60 has been paid. Failing to get his money the plaintiff had called in competent surveyors and appyalsers. Mr. Chilton addressed the jury for the plaintiff, and claimed a verdict from them for the whole amount, subject to deduction of the C60 already paid in. Mr. Wynne, of Treforest, was examined as to the value of the work done. He was cross-examined by Mr. Grove with the view of showing that many of the items were excessive. As Mr. Wynne's estimate was different from that of Mr. Saunders, the first surveyor, considerable time was taken up in going through each item separately. He admitted that he had not been to more than two of the houses, and that he had only measured one house, and assumed that the rest were completed. Mr. Saunders, of Pontypool, was also examined on the same point. He had made the first measurement. Defendant had called on him, and said that he thought it a great deal too much. Mr. Grove addressed the jury for the defendant. He principally rested his case on the fact that a contract had been made by the parties to have four houses built for £ 5S each. The contract fur- ther provided that the plaintiff was not to have the houses mea- sured by any sworn appraiser. He would also prove that instead of £60, £ 164 had been paid. The fourth house had not been built, and the other three were not entirely finished. On behalf of the defendant, Llewelyn Elias was called, who proved that an agreement had been made and signed between the plaintiff and defendant. Mr. Chilton objected to the agreement. It was on a paper stamp for 2s. fid., whereas in January, 18-16, a £ 1 stamp was necessary. Mr. Grove proved that the act repealing that part which would require a*E I stamp had been repealed in 1844. The agreement was then put in and read. The witness Elias deposed that the houses were not completed as Lewis Thomas's houses, which had been taken, as patterns. He had paid Charles at different times the following sums; August 29, 1848, ;CIO September 4, t-20; September 12, £ 20 October 10, flo; October 15, no; Nov. 3, £ 10 Nov. 15, E40 Nov. 23, £ 3 December 26, f5; January 23, 1847, LG 10s.; January 30, £ 10; Feb. 11, £ 1 Ð; in all EI64 10s. The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Chilton with the view of showing that the parties were not acting under the agreement. Mr Chilton replied, and endeavoured to show that the agree- ment had been abandoned, and that the real defendant was the witness Elias," ho had overstepped himself in providing that no measurement should be made by a sworn appraiser. The learned gentleman took some pains to prove that many men who could write their names and some common words in business transac- tion could not read atall. He also endeavoured to show that the sums of money, said to be paid by Elias, were entered in a very su^iicious manner. 3S,e learned judge summed up, and laid particular stress on the contract, which been made, and that the specification was Lewis Thomas's house. He was really a,t a loss for any proof that the contract had been abandoned. Perhaps the plaintiff thought he had made a hard bargain, and was desirous to give it, up. The sum of money paid was quite, as much as he was en- titled to qnder the contract. The jury gave their verdict in favour of the defendant. John. Norris was then put up to answer to the coroner s inqui- sition of the wilful murder ot John illiams.and Jenkin Ji,Yan. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty to both charges. Mr. Grove, on the part of the Crown, proposed to offer no evi- dence. The jury returned a verdict of No "'Guilty. MOSTYN V. R. LL. REECE.—This case occupied the attention ( F the court for the greater part of the day..The plaintiff was Ms- Thomas Mostyn, late superintendent of the police at Pontyp-'uld and the defendant Mr. Richard Llewelyn Reece, solicitor, oT the same place. The actiou arose from a series of letters written by the defendant to Captain Napier, superintendent of the Glamor- ganshire constabulary force, imputing drunkenness and other im- moralities to the plaintiff. The defendant had first pleaded the general issue, and secondly a justification of some portions of the libel. Mr. Richards and Mr. Chilton were for the plaintiff, aisd Mr. Lloyd Hall and Mr. Evans, Q. C., for the defendant. Mr. Chilton opened, with along address, on behalf of his client. He read such portions of the letters as were considered libellous, and commented upon them with great severity. The charges against Mr. Mostyn were, that he was habitually drunk—that he had had adulterous intercourse with a Mrs. Anne Jenkins, of Wrexham, alias Mrs. Wynne, and several other minor particulars. After the defendant had written to Capt. Napier, it seemed that, in consequence of an investigation into the conduct of Mostyn. instituted and conducted by two superintendents, Mr. Reece wrote again, and said that the inquiry was a humbug and hun bugging concern, as he had not been called upon to produce hi, witnesses. He also threatened to have his letters published weekly in small print, such type, the learned gentleman supposed. as the Cardiff and Merthyr Guardian would condescend to pub- lish the defendant's letter. Upon this Mostyn commenced an action for libel and Mr. Richard Lewis Reece, of Cardiff, the defendant's brother, wrote a letter to Mr. Montague Grover. the solicitor for the prosecution, offering on behalf of his brother to make an apology, but refusing to give S-SO damages and costs which were claimed. It turned out however that this letter was written without the defendant's authority, though he did not object to it afterwards when his brother told him about it,. Mos- tyn, in consequence of this, resigned his office, and brought this action. The learned counsel, in concluding his statement, thought the jury ought to give the plantiff, not £ 60 damages, as he once proposed, but £200. Mr. Dalton, clerk of the peace, was then called to prove the handwriting of the defend i it. [Several letters were examined by him.] With the exception of some marks on the sides, he thought they were all in his handwriting. R. L. Reece, Esq., was then called, and said that the letter written by him was not written at his brother's request, nor by his authority, that he did it of his own accord after hearing of the action from Mr. Montague Grover, the solicitor for the prosecution. His brother did not object to it when he told him of it afterwards. Mr. Evans, Q. C., addressed the jury at great length, and with much eloquence, for the defendant. He complained that his learned friend Mr. Chilton had drawn largely on his imagination, and had deseribed Mr. Reece in terms ten times more abusive than the defendant had ever employed towards the plaintiff. He dwelt strongly on the fact that defendant had received no provo- cation whatever, and that whatever he had done was done as a duty due to the public and to Captain Napier. His letters, there- fore, should be regarded as a privileged communication. It was necessary for the public good that they and similar communica- tions should lIe held so. He would call witnesses before them who would prove not only particular instances, but habitual drunkenness, on part of the plaintiff, and total unfitness for the situation he held at the time. He would also ask why Captain Napier was not called to give evidence ? He (Mr. Evans) would have asked him some questions, tending to show who and what Mostyn was; but he was not allowed to do that—his learned friend had wisely abstained from calling any witnesses. The learned counsel then went over all the transactions minutely, and argued that the defendant had done a service to the public, as it was not every one that would venture to bring charges against persons in public office, such as the plaintiff then was. He be- lieved the jury would see that he was actuated by no malicious designs, and that they would protect him.. Walter Edwards resided about 3 miles from Newbridge, in 1840. He had a pie in his house on Monday, 9th November, 1846. Plaintiff came in. He saw him going away; he mounted his horse without assistance. He came back in about twenty minutes without his hat, and had his head cut. Asked me to go for ins horse and his hat. Witness met the horse at some distance the hat was found just by our garden. He ordeied me to. give the men 2s. worth of beer. He drank with witness. He left my house in a manner capable of doing business. Left about nine or ten at night. The learned judge This dpes not touch the justification. Mr. Chilton: I think it does, my lord, in, a most important manner (loud laughter). Edward Griffith examined by Mr. Evans Lives at Wrexham. Knows Anne Jenkins; she is a married woman living in lodgings; her husband does not live with her. Saw her at Swansea at the last assizes. Communicated to Mr. Rees wha. happened when he had an interview with her. Mostyn was in the police force at Wrexham.—The examination of this witness was objected to. William Morgan Is a smith, lives at Newbridge. Remembers going to Mostyn to bail his brother, on the Monday night in ques- tion, about half-past nine. Did not find him at half-past eleven; found him at twelve o'clock. Saw him in his lodgings at that time. He was drunk he could not speak plainly he did not stand upright. Brought me a paper to sign. Witness was there from half-an-hour to three-quarters of an hour. He, spoke to me in Welsh. This witness was cross-examined at some length by Mr. Chilton., but without shaking his testimony. Wm. Patty, of Newbridge, deposed that he lived at that place in 1846. Mr. Mostyn, the plaintiff, was then superintendent of police in that district. He had seen him several times under the influence of liquor, so as to be unfitted for transacting business. It was a subject of general conversation in some circles. Cross-examined Had been in the police force himself. and was discharged. It. might, have been on a charge of beiiig intoxicated. but it was a false report, Arthur Owen Davies, mineral surveyor, of Newbridge, 1. said he recollected plaintiff being appointed superintendent, of police. From, February to August, 1846, he had met tli3 plaintiff .at the New Inn and the Tredegar Arms inn sometimes he was under the influence of liquor. About the 1st of June in the above year, a lady, who gave the name of Mrs. Wynn, went to reside at plaintiff's lodgings. His lordship here interposed, and said there was nothing about this, or about any lady in the libel. After some conversation, The witness's examination was resumed. He said he asked permission of the person who lived on the opposite side of the street to that on which plaintiff's lodgings were situated, and out of curiosity watched the parties, and on one occasion saw, Mr. Mostyn kissing Mrs. Wynn on the sofa. Robert, Morris said in 18.46 he was clerk to Mr. Phillpotts, soli- citor. He had been his clerk for several years, and in that ca- pacity used to attend the Llantrissant petty sessions. Mr. Mostyn also attended there. Witness had many opportunities of knowing Mr. Mostyn's habits; he was rather too fond of drink; and he remembered on one occasion he was so far ijjT toxicated that. he was unfit to go home. Witness advised- him not to do so; but he went. He rememberod Mr. Mostyn .hav- ing a fall from his horse, and on expressing astonishment that such should have been the case, Mr. Mostyii said he was ra- ther top-heavy, referring to Monday night. Witness still ex- z!1 pressed his surprise, when plaintiff remarked, "The fact is, I was rather in fur it the night before. Cross-examined Witness was living at that time at Swan- sea as clerk to Mr. Phillpotts. ite liad now virtually ceased to be clerk to Mr. Phillpotts for two or three months, although he had been occasionally employed on his account since; He believed however, now, that his connexion with Mr. Phillpotts had closed. William Price, Esq., cf Newbridge, surgeon, deposed to meeting the plaintiff one evening in October, 1846, as he be- lieved 111 a state of intoxication. Witness spoke to him, but only heard an attempt to articulate in reply. The witness was cross-examined as to his qualification to uct as a surgeon by. Mr. Chilton, in so humourous a style as to call forth repeated bursts of laughter from the audience. T. G. Phillpotts, Esq., solicitor, of Cardiff, said he had fre- c.a2 quently occasion to go to Llantrissant, and had seen Mr. lIp- tyn there. He had occasion to go to the West of England branch bank one day, when he met Mr. Mostyn there, and told him that Mr. Rees had charged him with putting a bill, cir- culation which he ought not to hare done. He said he had oc- casion for some, money which he intended to raise on -some property of his, and Mrs. Jenkins had remitted him. the "bill instead." Witness said it would then be very easy for- him to produce the bill. lIe said that unfortunately he had destroyed it. Witness said that was an extraordinary circumstance,' :and nineteen people out of twenty -\yould say it was a forgery. c Plaintiff said that could all be made right. Edward Hart said he was a clerk in the West of England bank, and recollected a bill of exchange for E37 lO.being brought to their banking-house in June. It was made "payable at the London and Westminster bank was accepted b £ Mrs. Jenkins, and endorsed by Mr. Calvert. When the nour .came to maturity it was paid by the pl-,iintiff. Cross-examined: The bill would not have been. dIScounted had. it net been for the name of Mr. Calvert. v
PRESENTATION" OF A PUBLIC…
only judged, of it from hearing John Roberts saying so, and seeing the knife in Martin's hand. I went up to them, and Roberts asked me if I had seen it. They had been quarrelling on the Saturday before. That's all Martin told me. Roberts did not go to work that day he said he was afraid. There were about 25 men only in the gang. I never quarrelled with Martin. I was taken befoie the magistrates on suspicion of the murder. I told this tale on the following day. I was bound over to appear at the coroner s in- 'quest. Re-examined by Mr. Grove I was taken before the magistrates to give description of the persons who had been discharged at Lly- ehwr. Martin was present when Roberts told me this story. Evan Davies examined by Mr. Benson: Lives near the scene of the murder; remembers being called by Mrs. Ruth Evans, on the 8th. of May; went with her to this cottage; saw Jen- kin. Evan dead on the floor, and some persons holding up his head. Mr. Sergeant Jones objected as these were matters touching the death of Jenkin Evan, to which they were not inquirers. Z, Mr. Grove explained that they would pass on to John Wil- liams, and not lay any stress on what the witness said in regard ■to Jenkin Evan. The learned judge acquiesced in this view. Examination continued :-Found John Williams dead; went to Swansea for a doctor; on his retumfound a bundle of spades and clothes. Police-constable John Price examined by ilir. Grove Is police-constable at Neath remembers apprehending Thomas Martin, on the 10th of May, on the top of a mountain near Red Jacket works; it's within five miles to Swansea, and about three to Neath; there was no road on the mountain searched him and found fourpence halfpenny on his person he had a dark coat, a light waistcoat, a fustian trousers, a hat, and a pair of shoes, badly wcrn; he had stockings m his pocket which were wet; he said his name was. Tom Rearclon. On being identified at the station by a person c-f the name of Gray, who said, here is Tom Martin, he said, I am called Tom Martin, or Tom Reardon on the works, I have done a bad job." This was immediately after Gray identified him. On the fol- lowing morning when I took him some water, he said, "I must tell you the truth, I was in the house, near Swansea, and drank some noggins of beer; some Welshmen rushed out and attacked me, and I did my best to defend myself and then ran away I would have told you my right name at first only I :was afraid the people would have killed me the cut on my finger was done by a knife in the row." There was no knife on his person. Police-constable John Price, Llangyfelach: Apprehended Patrick Leary coming up a hill between Bridgend and Cow- bridge, and Michael Leary, John and William Norris, at Cow- bridge; found a knife on Michael Leary, a bundle of clothes, and fifteen shillings in money. There were a coat and-trousers with marks of blood on them in the bundle; delivered, them to Dr. Bird, and Mr. Michael; they tested them in my presence told prisoners Ijappreliended them on a charge of murder, near Swansea. John Norris asked when. I said yesterday morning. Michael Leary said in the cell, "we shall all be hung." In removing them to Swansea, he said, If I shall be executed for this, it would not be for the first;" he asked, how many were dead, I said two. He abused the man that was with' me for coming to apprehend him; I told him to be cautious he sail, that his betters were hung before him." Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Jones: These words he said at Cowbridge, as I was taking him from the cell. They are the exaet words to the best of my knowledge. I swear that these were the words, and not, If we shall be executed for this, it will not be the first for a wrong cause." William King, examined by Mr. Grove Recollects seeing Michael Leary at Llychwr, on the 7th of May; he said he had an instrument with him that would let the inside of a man out." Never saw a knife with Patrick Leary; knows nothing. about Martin being called- by another name. 0 Inspector Rees, examined by Mr. Benson: Remembers Evan Davies delivering to him; a bundle, shovels, and a knife nobody claimed the knife. These are the shovels l shovels pro- duced]. Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Jones Martin has not been in custody with me; Patrick Leary has been in my charge. On the following day we searched the road about the cottage, and found no instrument. Patrick Leary recalled—[knife, produced].—This knife I have seen with my brother Michael; it is not the one that Martin sharpened; I never heard Martin called Tom Reardon on the works. He always went by the name of Tom Martin. Dr. Bird examined: Had made a post mortem examination. There was a wound on the left breast below the nipple, between the fifth and six rib. It perforated through the lung to one of the cavities of the heart. There was a quantity of hloorl on that side of the chest. That wound was the cause of death. It may have been made by any sharp instrument, such as this knife. It would not require a long blade;, a knife of two ot- three inches in length or less would do it. The wound would produce almost instantaneous death. Examined the clothes delivered by P.C. John Price; there were spots on. various parts of them. They were chemically examined, and the spots in question were.blood to the best of my knowledge. Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Jones: In the examination after death he saw nothing but the wound in question to account for death. It was announced that Mr. Michael was ready to give medical evidence, but it was thought unnecessary to call him.. Great many witnesses for the prosecution, whose testimony was'not thought to be material, were not examined. The Court then adjourned for a few minutes. On its resuming, Mr. Sergeant Jones addressed the jury on behalf of the pri- soners. He commenced by imploring their most earnest, attention, as the case was grave, momentous, and important in its bearings in regard to the two prisoners, and in regard to their ownoaths. This w,as not a case to appeal to their passions. His learned friend had fairly, stated it at the onset, and he hoped to preserve the same calm and dignified, bearing. In his opinion the Crown'had. entirely failed to make out 'Lts case against the prisoners. He then recapi- tulated the evidence in regard to the Irish leaving Llychwr, on the 8th of May. The Norrises were going back to Llansamlefc, and the other three went in search of work. They had some beer at. the Trap, and then went on afterwards. The distance of I chwr from Swansea is about 7 miles. The ciorw bach was held within about 2 miles to Swansea. They drank'at the Trap until the landlord would not give them any more. At the Marquis's Arms they were refused. Then they met Mary Bowen, who in- formed them of this corw bach, lie must express his ueep regret and grief that the authorities did not interfere and suppress such gatherings as these, which were common at the time of weddings, which set order and law ai defiance, and occasioned much immo- rality and crime. When the Irish went in nobody knew them, as all the witnesses spoke of them as "strangers." They sat on a bench not far from ihe door, until one of them went to the unfor- tunate man, John Wiliiams. a sub-contractor or a gaffer as he was called. It was important the jury should bear in mind that Wil- liams promised him work immediately. Up to this time all seems to have proceeded harmoniously, as two of the party danced as well as two Welshmen. The Irishmen had engaged to work for 2s. 8d. a day. This had given offence to a Welshman, who up- braided him for working so low, as lie himself had left that work on account of the price being so low. A scuffle ensued, and if the jury believed Patrick Leary, they both went out; or if they be- lieved Norris, they both fell to the ground in the house. One or both fell to the ground, out of doors, if they believed P. Leary; both fell in the room, if they believed iVorris. If they believed Leary, they came out. alone, and he called his companions to come and save him five or six Welshmen came out, and Martin was the first of the Irish that came out. If they believed William Norris, they all went out as "quick and as thick" as they. could. This evidence was confirmed by that of William Davies, who said they all went out in a troop. Then came the important part of the in- quiry—by whose hand had the unfortunate man John Williams met his death? If the jury believed Patrick Leary there could be no doubt but Martin was the person who struck the fatal blow, because if his Evidence was excluded there was not one tittle of evidence to show by whose hand deceased had met his death. He begged the earnest attention of the jury to the position which P. Leary occupied in the transaction. He was the party that was most responsible of all the others, much more so than either of the prisoners at the bar. It was with him that the fatal affray had commenced. lIe had been engaged in it himself his angry feel- ings had been excited, and he therefore of all others had most cause to be angry. It was clear that there was no malicious de- sign in their going to the house whatever was done, was done on account of angry blood being excited. He hoped to satisfy the jury that Patrick Leary was the person most likely to do a wrong act. on account of the insult, offered him by the Welshman. Then they were to took at his coriditcfc next morning. Instead of going to his wdVk as'he had agreed, he runs away and as far as this is con- cerned he was to all Intents and purposes on more unfavourable tftid" than the others. Then the jury had to bear in mind that he was-an accomplice coming to give evidence, and does so. under the most unfavourable circumstances The laws of England had "Wisely aird mercifully provided that the testimony of accomplices must be confirmed by other witnesses. They require that the crime .■ire. proved by a'fact or facts which brings the case home to some person or other. 4erc interposed, and said that Patrick Leary was not an accomplice, and that the learned sergeant's line of argu- ment was irrelevant- His lordship concurred in this view. Mr. Sergeant Jones resumed The fact of Leary's evidence how- ever was such as to authorise him in calling him an accomplice, though he would not use that term in its legal sense. If the crime was committed by one of the five, was not Patrick Leary the person most to be suspected P He was arrested on the charge brought before the magistrate, and knew the danger he was ih. Was it therefore not natural for him to try to save himself? The learned gentleman then quoted the opinions of Mr. Justice Patte- son and Mr. Baron Alderson, in confirmation of his doctrine, that the evidence of implicated parties should be corroborated on ma- terial points. It was essential for the jury to determine by whom the blow was struck. He then went over the evidence given on this point. The only evidence was that of Patrick Leary, and that was very improbable. Leary had had all the provocation, Martin had none, and it was not reasonable to suppose that he would stab the man who stood next to Patrick Leary, and who had given neither any provocation whatever. The story was too improbable for the jury to believe, in his opinion. He did think they could bdieve Martin to be so diabolically wicked as to be prepared to stick anybody that stood in his way. He passed on to inquire what was the evidence that induced them to believe that Martin could be so diabolically wicked ? The first piece of evidence was that of Goodenough, who had given in hearsay re- port that he had threatened to stab one Roberts. But Roberts was not there to speak for himself, and the evidence and the man- ner in which it was given by Goodenough was not such as to en- title him to credence. The man himself was apprehended on sus- picion of being concerned in the murder when he told this impro- bable story. Not a word was heard of Roberts it was not proved that he had gone away, or that he could not be found and brought there. The jury were also told that Martin had sharpened his knife on the road on the night in question. This story was ex- ceedingly improbable, as it was proved that he ground the knife on the 1st of May, and did not want sharpening at that time. Leary swore also that the knife had a black and white haft, and was dirty; but how could he see it, as he himself had admitted that the night was dark and misty. There was nothing to show that the two unfortunate deceased had met their death from either of the prisoners. He confidently submitted that if they did not believe Patrick Leary there was no evidence whatever against Martin. In regard to Michael Leary the presumption was very strong that as he was said to be using the shovel that he did not use the knife at. all. Dr. Bird had also proved that the wound received by the stab was the only one that had caused death. It is proba- ble therefore that he used no other violence than the shovel. As no knife was found on the person of Patrick Leary, the probability is that he was more guilty than Michael, as it was natural for every working man to have his pocket-knife with him. The ac- count which he gave of his own knife was also unfavourable to him. The circumstances connected with the knife in question were altogether suspicious. A knife was seen with his \vife on the morning after the murder, and which she would not give up to him to go away and though he had engaged to work in that neighbourhood, still he was next found within two or three miles s to Cowbridge. The learned sergeant then argued at considerable length that too much attention should. not be given to the evidence given by police-officers. Their mind is led by habit to regard every man as a criminal; and they may also not hear every word in the statements of prisoners, which may give a most material turn in regard to the evidence. So it was in this case. The policeman swore that Michael Leary had said, if we shall be hung for this our betters were hung before whereas it was very probable he said, if we shall be hanged for this we shall not be the first hanged for a wrong cause. The learned sergeant then quoted Sitnons's case in corroboration of this, in which one witness swore that he had overheard Simons saying to his wife after his committal, keep yourself to yourself and don't marry again but another witness swore that he said, keep yourself to yourself and keep your own counsel." This gave an entirely different meaning to the words, and the alteration he had suggested might do so on the present occasion. Nothing was more common than that the Irish who had come to this country had two or three names. It wav not therefore a matter of surprise that Martin said his name was Tom Reardon, and he knew he had been in the house and that they were all' more or less implicated in the sad transaction. The jury should also bear in mind thai, there was no good feeling between the men of Cork and the Tipperery men since the Tipperary militia had been in the former couniy. Martin was a Tipperary man, whilst the, other four were Cork men. It was also natural that Patrick Leary should favour his own brother. It was clear however that all the connexion which Martin had with the unhappy affair was, that he had been drawn into the house against his will, and he (the learned sergeant) was instructed to reiterate to the jury in the most solemn manner that he knew nothing whatever of the mournful transaction. 'If they believed the evidence in regard to Martin they were also bound to acquit Leary. The learned sergeant in conclusion again referred, to the avowal of Patrick Leary at Neath that he would not have bought his new boots if he had known of this unhappy occurrence, and beseeching the jury to throw all these things into the scale, and not rest satisfied that the blow was given by one of the par- ties if they could not trace it to Martin himself. From anything that appeared in evidence the blow might have been given by one of the Welsh, who were drunk and heated with passion. He said not by whom it was done, and submitted that the jury must acquit the prisoners. 1-1 The learned judge then summed up in a very lucid manner. After generally stating the importance of the inquiry in which the jury were engaged, he said that one of the most remarkable diffi- culties of this case was that though there were so many persons present no one had witnessed the giving of the blow if Patrick Leary was excepted. His lordship then explained the state of the law in regard to homicide, pointing out the difference between manslaughter and wilful murder. In all cases of homicide the first presumption of the law was that it was not wilful and ma- licious. If it could be shown that it was not malicious though perhaps wilful arising from a great provocation, the heat of passion or some sudden offence. Before, however, a. man could lawfully use deadly weapons, it must be proved that he had to do so to defend his own life from imminent jeopardy or in de- fence of those that were near and dear to him. In the present in- quiry they had to bear in mind that all parties were present, and it wasbevond all doubt that the crime was committed by one of them. The principal stress lay on the testimony of Leary. He certainly was not to be regarded as an accomplice because he de- nied all participation in the deed, which was not the case with an accomplice. His lordship then recapitulated the material points in Patrick Leary's evidence, and pointed to the jury the positive manner in which he spoke of the death of John Williams. The evidence of Norris was then read over, the learned judge observing that this evidence established a presumption that Michael Leary had only used the shovel. A knife was produced by E, Davies, but it was clear that that knife was not the instrument that committed the offence, as it did not fall from the bundle till the affray was over. Then the several admissions made by the prisoners were read over, and commented upon. His lordship further said that it was for the jury to say if they were satisfied with the evidence which had been given to prove that Martin had struck the fatal blow. If they were, they were then to consider whether there was any understanding or concert between him and Leary to defend each other unto death, or whether the deed was done without any malicious design on their part. They would, if so. find one guilty as principal in the first degree, and the other in the second degree. On the other hand, if the jury were satisfied that the blow was st-uck without any malicious intention, it would be their duty to find them not guilty. The learned judge concluded by expressing his hope that he had made himself intelligible, and that he had succeeded in drawing the attention of the jury to the material facts of the case. The jury then retired, and the prisoners descended from the dock, to the cells below. Many persons left the Court with the impression that Mr. Sergeant Jones had succeeded to throw so much doubt on the evidence of Patrick Leary as to secure a ver- dict of acquittal. During the absence of the jury, many and va- rious were the speculations of those present in the Court of their probable fate. We believe the opinion that they would be found guilty of manslaughter prevailed. After an interval of about 40 minutes, the door of the room opened, and the jury made their appearance. A few of them appeared greatly affected, whilst a so- lemn sadness pervaded the countenances of all. The prisoners ascended from the cells with a light and firm step, and presented themselves in front of the dock with apparent con- fidence, though evidently with distressing anxiety. On the naiwes of the jury being called over, the foreman deli- vered the verdict of GUILTY successively against, both prisoners. The prisoners were then asked if they had anything to say why sentence of death should not be passed on them. Thomas Martin I have nothing to say. Michael Leary: Nothing, but what my counsel has said for me. Proclamation was then made that all persons should keep si- lence in the Court whilst sentence of death was passed on the pri- soners. THE SENTENCE. His lordship having.put on the black cap, addressed the pri- soners as follows :—Thomas Martin and Michael -Leaty, the jury, after a very careful consideration, have come to the conclusion that you are lpoth. guilty n of the deepest and jjftpit serious offences against society known in this realm. The very solemn circumstances connected with this case are, as regards both of you, highly important. Though you differ in point of guilt, it is evi- dent that you are both of a bloodthirsty disposition. I deeply regret the perfect apathy and indifference which you seem to have maintained, not only in regard to the nature, but also of the con- sequences of your crime, which is now about to hurry you to an untimely grave. I have said already that there is a difference in legal guilt between you, though you have both used deadly wea- pons of violence which has resulted in consequences the most solemn to you. Let me most solemnly intreat you to make the best use you can of the little time you have to remain in this world. Let it be spent in earnest prayer and sincere repentance, and in supplications for that mercy from heaven which this world cannot grant you. It is no part of my duty, nor is it my inclina- tion, to aggravate your sufferings by any observations of my own. I have only one duty remaining; but before I do it, I cannot but express my earnest hope that your untimely end will prove an awful warning to others that they may not follow your course in this world. The sentence of the Court upon each of you is, that you be removed to the place whence you eame from, and taken from thence to a place of execution, and be hanged by the neck until you are dead, and that your bodies shall be buried within the precincts of the prison; and may the Lord have mercy on your souls. Martin then exclaimed, You have passed sentence upon me for what I am as innocent as the child unborn. I am as innocent as the child unborn." Leary began to sob aloud; all the mus- cles of his face being strongly convulsed. Martin had turned deadly pale; the perspiration oozed out from his brows and cheeks in great profusion.' As they were descending the steps, he turned to Leary, and said that he (we understood him to refer to Patrick Leary) had done it all. The cries of Michael Leary could be heard for some time. A female relation of the prisoners too had commenced screaming in a frightful manner directly after the verdict was announced. FORGERY.-Anne Davies, aged 18, pleaded Guilty to an in- dictment charging her with having obtained money under false pretences, to the amount of 7s., the property of William Anthony, in the parish of Llangynwyd. She also pleaded Guilty to another indictment charging her with offering, uttering, disposing of, and putting off, a certain false forged and counterfeited request for the delivery of goods, with intent to defraud Thomas Thomas, of the parish of Llangynwyd. She was sentenced for the first offence to four months' imprison- ment with hard labour, and for the second to three months' im- prisonment with hard labour. Henry James, aged 15, who had pleaded Guilty to the charge of stealing 50lbs. of coal, was, after having very good character from several respectable persons, sentenced to one week's im- prisonment—the last two days to, be kept in solitary confinement. This concluded the criminal business. SECOXD COURT.—BEFORE MR. CHILTON. A second court, was opened a little after ten o'clock, and Daniel Davies, Moses Bryant, and William Ilill, who were acquitted all Saturday, on the charge of the manslaughter of David Davies, were now brought up, charged with being illegally assembled to the number of three or more, on the night of the lath of March, being armed and with having entered a certain cover, the property of W. W. Lewis, Esq., at Lisvane, for the purpose of taking game and also with having assaulted John Lewis, the keeper. Mr. Morgan appeared for the prosecution; and Mr, Carne for the defendant. John Lewis, gamekeeper, was the principal witness, and his evidence (the substance of which will be found in our account of Saturday's trial), went to identify the prisoners as having been seen to come out of a cover at Lisvane, after several shots had been fired; to following them to some distance to the prisoners having threatened to fire upon the keepers, and to the apprehension of the prisoners. Thomas Thomas, gamekeeper, and Thomas Thomas, groom, also gave evidence to the same effect, and John Emanuel proved searching the prisoners, and finding five pheasants upon. them. Barry Wride, agent to Mr. Lewis, described the situation of the plantation or cover from whence the prisoners issued. Mr. Nichol Carne addressed the jury in a very ingenious speech for the defence. His lordship then summed up, and the jury, returned a ver- dict of Guilty. W. Lewis, Esq, the prosecutor, recommended Moses Bryant to mercy OR account of his previous good character, and the governor, of the gaol gave evidence of the general good charac- 11 z;1 z;1 ter of the whole of the prisoners since they had been in his custody. Davis and. Hill were sentenced to six months'imprisonment to hard labour, and Bryant to one month. The court then adjourned.