The Glamorgan Monmouth and Brecon Gazette and Merthyr Guardian

0^AA,ORGANSHI,LE SUM!WER ASSIZES. Hi- l°nday 'asL 'he Marquess of Bute and a nu i to,>nt S con,Pany °f t!ie principal pen try of tlie I *'tli tlie high sheriff, H. I. Grant, Esq. I comPany to diuuer, at the Angel Inn, > preparatory to their accompanying him to I M;ljr lbe Right H on. Sir James Parke, Knt., his I' bpr y's judge, into the town. Although the nnm- the i'le cavalcade was considerably diminished by ,elteH state "le weather, yet it pre- i >o^ > a_ splendid and honourable cortege. Owing to ni'L,ta'{e> ''ie judge waited for the sheriff, at WítÏ[,e.town, while the sheriff and his fiiends were I w lnS for his lordship near Rumney-bridge; con- l°«'dsliip did not arrive to open the lijS .j'1." neS? nine o'clock at night, when he opened ■>esty,s Commission, and then adjourned the lie^.a Tuesday morning, Mr. Baron Parke, the Lord- «trv.e"ai)'> the high sheriff, &c. &e. attended divine I (ji,e Ce at St. John's Church, and heard a most do- ty ar'd impressive discourse delivered by the Rev. ty ri and impressive discourse delivered by the Rev. l(j(i ^"ybeare, from GO Isaiah, part of 17th and Wti^0,Sies—w'" a'#° make l''y officers peace, I n0f, "e exactors righteousness. Violence shall no I 'leard in the land, wasting nor destruction 'ion ln th.v borders,but thou shall call thy walls salva- i Fh S'a,cs praise." ,r?»ed atlli beamed Divine, with his usual ability, I 'h(jjr, the legal ordinations of civil society derived ^Ssi security f:<yn iheir true subordination to the *ufljJn^s °f religion that human laws were altogether in- Kfeatent their penal sanctions, and he quoted the I ''ill?™ ^e speech of Diodotus from Thur.ydides Uji, ostrat'on of his argument. •' Desire and hope" said I are ever presen', the one promoting the at- l'1nisk other suggesting the probability of escape from .rnc'nt-" Here the Learned Divine quoted with ad- I r0|i wf f;^ect from the Holy Scriptures, I will forewarn *ied I*11 s^la" fear: fear him, which after he hath I power to cast into hell: yea, I say unto vou, I Inth'n'l2th f'«ke,v.5. ho'y book chance and fortune were terms without i>h '"S- and it had been elegantly said by a poet of our Co. try, Mow small of all that human hearts endure «« £ lie part that laws or kings can cause or cure. '1 Qziid leges sine nioribus ranee projrciunt ?" for it was I le Private saiicttiary, into which the individual and his 'here ne c°uld enter, that the purest laws originated. Co,|lro ^eie numberless ties over wliich the laws had no u • the tics of marriage alike enduring and en- l*le l'es filial affection, from religion alone can l*le l'es of filial affection, from religion alone can as these derive congenial support. The hal- Pf ?Uns^'Ile innocence could by tiiese means only biC^d 'n the bright domestic circle. The Learned *'JPlieH k'6 ^atetl on the exquisite portrait of Christianity Paul to his Christian converts. The law, ^4se could not enforce virtue, which, if it could, would |l? ,n° he virtue evil example, what law could punish words," punishment" and "fear" would ex- ^'ator whole catalouge of legal means. The Rev. | ?tl(j e then pointed out, with great felicity of conception 1(1 PfOffre-SS'°"' l'ie baneful effects pioduced by beer-shops I 'Ul'es UcinS depravity of morals and neglect of religious | rguCl'. 'hat Christian states were bound to diffuse I PRINCIP'es and that if the legal property of the Nit] as invaded, the voluntary principla would be M(;l|io').rt'Pablv inadequate. He stated, thatthe Wesleyan I d who held the most favourable position as a third ^lil(j 'terested party, were well aware of the dangers be "hat l° an(' Smith, a most accredited writer J ^Persuasion, had ably argued that all efforts to over- j c religious wants of an increasing population would 'ent, if this property was successfully attacked. Sa^S would be the result of voluntary contri- tvii Infideiity, profanation of the Sabbath, and every 'r°ii ^?ncy-" "The Church, says the same author, has j the time of the Saxons, a limited copartnery with j Hicfncicrt proprietor; she is supported by her own share, I p1 "lay well be called the property of the nation and VJ0pert}lof the poor. The resident clergy were tlie great Ihy Us,°f our rural civilization the total amount of their Uie incomes was nearly double that of their stipends, which was annually spent most beueticially ^rjv^Ir respective neighbourhoods; and if the day should hg, w''en the misled poor, deluded by political dema- i ]S* should unhappily succeed in overturning the I bit ,nient they would have to lament, when too late, $,nj(^r tears, their miserable destitution." ]\Jr. Pyc Smith I l"ll0Ulie» a^ds "those whom God honours let us delight jit) ^our. Wc ask the law, said the Learned Divine, for I "'avpW Supplies, but to give us legal protection and to Sst "S the actual means of existence. lie concluded a i 1w1?l'erest'n6 discourse with the following impressive I "Moti I> I 1,0 l,iy walls- atlil prosperity within thy I p j *iy p r ,ny brethren and companions.' sakes I will now | jieacc* ',e within thee. lo ,i eeause of the house of the Lord our God, I will seek ^Wgood." i\\ e never remember to have listened to any discourse "ch produced a more deep and salutary impression. j Lordship afterwards proceeded to the Town Hall, I fe a'ter the business of the court had hi on opened with Hf, accustomed formalities, the following gentlemen were rri on the Grand J try. JOHN BHUCE BRUC13, Esq. Foreman. Starling Benson, Esq. Thomas Charles, Esq. Cardiff. Walter Coffin, Esq. Llandaff Court. Kobert Entwisle, Esq. Crossways- Hugh Entwisle, Esq. Llanblethian. Richard Franklen, Esq Clemcnstone. Frederic Fredrics, Esq. Dyffryn. Watkin Homfray, Esq. It. F. Jenner, Esq. Wenvoe Castle. William Jones, Esq Glanl>rane. F. Edwards Leach, Pisq. Kilybebill. Henry Lewis, Esq. Park. John Dillwvn Llewellyn, Esq. Penllergan. John Nathaniel Miers, Esq. Cadoxtou. John Moggridge, Esq. Gabalva. J. Al. Richards, Esq. Roath Lodge. Richard Fowler Rickards, Esq. Lantrissent. Robert Savours, Esq. Cowbridge. Nash V. Edwards Vaughan, Esq. Uheola. Francis Wheatley, Esq. jj. William Williams, Esq. Roath. lordship then, in a very luminous and elo- <ii, address to the grand jury, congratulated them '< e light state of the calendar, which in BO large ,)q. "Ufltcttlllil I county was highly creditable. The or^f* on the calendar, except one, were all cases 1^^ ^'tiary and every day occurrence, cases not of Mpf ut of fact, which unhappily multiply with the lr0^at' °f civilization, and called for no instructions to gentlemen of their experience and dis- lfaa elll, He would simply make one observation, Lill *'le province of the grand jury was not to find but" uP°n circumstances merely of strong suspicion V>0ulH^erever ev'('ence Was not such, that they 5- convict upon it if no other evidence came 'Ho. °St '*» the ends otjustice were promoted by throw- ivajJ0ut t :e bill, and impeded by adtnitting it. There case °f a very painful nature for their con- 1011, of a husband charged with an attempt to hc away the life of his wife. The law on this sub- <»t|e ,Vas> that under Lord Ellenborough's Act, an ,r,t>nt to take away life, if committed with an instru- Purposely made for cutting-, and under circum- \v0n?es'n which, if death had ensued, the homicide tl)is *1 have been murder, was a capital crime. But if« 0 had been improved in its efficiency by what req~ Lord Lansdowne's Act, by which it was not -,8'te 'he instrument be one tnade to cut, but 4 p lll,ent of the action was the object of enquiry, and or the angular part of.an iron bar, was 'y the instrument of a capital crime. In a case *'iror°.a ,nan had wilfully attacked human life, by it);, a. sledge hammer at the head of a IIgiftrate in Wiltshire in another, where one by a"empted the committal of wilful homicide jttc) 'aillpling a man under his heavy shoes, the ru'ed lhat the penaltres of Lord ^ig8 V"e s vvere incurred. The question in «r, Case for the grand jury was, whether if death had the crime would have been murder. The law t>Ui 'tiered all cases of homicide, prima facie, murder tXLeks njiglit be proved upon which it recognised slq sa'de homicide, justifiable homicide, or nmn- liol ,ei'' •iW.v^slaughter was death inflicted under VoJ1?' P'ovocation: but then it must be instant pro- l0,l> not distaut provocation on which passion '•»SD*iaC' l'l,,e to cool, and judgment to return and to Poto, re f'eliberate motive. It was indeed in the Pm _r °f a wife to ii.flict a provocation the most \t ul to which human fortitude can be exposed, and 5veri human infirmity scarcely can endure but CQ^I lhen the law does not permit the vengeance of JVbl"°ded premeditated homicide. Tiie learned lu^j?n 'hen proceeded to some extended and very n°Us comments on several of the recent amend- ci imiiia 1 law, which we much regret that £ ont|lln'ls w'" no1 allow us to copy, and dismissed the Ili C/nen °f 'he grand jury to their chamber. 4 (.(j ^ai'd Jones, aged 41, was indicted for forging 4oh 'or 3."?/. lis. 3d. purporting to be signed by avis,on Messrs.Walters,Voss, and Co. bati-kers, Mrsea, with intent to defraud, &c. S0ckett S!ated the case. The prisoner was Joh„ f°r forging a check with intent to defraud ~:av's> and in another count, with intent to Prigo Messrs. Walters and Co. In August last the oUer took up bin abode at the house ofjohuWilliams, a shoemaker, at Swansea, in which house i>!so resides J >hn Davis. John Davis had formerly lived at Aber- ystwith, at which p ace he had saved some money and placed it in the savings bank at that town. His savings bank l ook, showing the balance due to him, had lain in a basket in his room, from which the pri- soner had abstracted it, and had carried it to Messrs. Walters and Co. representing himself to be John Davis, and requesting them to obtain directions fro:1I the savings bank at Aberystwith to pay him the money. The gentlemen had accordingly dOlle so, and paid him the money upon his signing a check with his mark, as John Davis,tin the presence of a witness. The facts were fully proved in evidence, when Mr. E. V. Williams, for the prisoner, made a very ingenious defence. He contended that the indict- ment was misconceived, as the oltcnce W;}S the ob- taining money under false pretences from the Aber- ystwith Savings Rank, through the instrumentality of Messrs. Walters and Co. who were made a medium. Mr. Sockett quoted in opposition u case, Rex v. Evans, in the Oxford circuity in 1833, and the objec- tion was over-ruled. Mr. V. Williams then contended that the indictment called the justi-uiiielit a warrant and order. In the law a warrant and an order were distinct things, and the indictment ought to select one or the other. Mr. Sockett replied that thia instrument was both a warrant and an order—an order to pay and a warrant for paying.—Objection over-ruled. Mr. V. Williams then conte.ided that the party de- frauded was not cither John Davis or Messrs. Walters and Co., but the Aberystwith Savings Bank, who would eventually be responsible to John Davis for his balance. This objection was also over-ruled.—Verdict Guilty. -I'i-aiisportai ioti fui- lit'e. Mr. Evans applied for expenses to witnesses in the case of conspiracy to conceal the effects of Badger, a bankrupt, and said that the case could not be brought forward from the want of evidence of a material wit ness who had died (John Thomas.)—Expenses granted. John Smith, farmer, aged 25, was charged with stealing a ram, the property of John Jenkins. Mr. Sockett stated the case. Prosecutor was a farmer at Oystermoutlij and he prisoner, till within eight months, was a labourer in the same parish. Prisoner had then taken a farm called Black Hill, at at Loughor. In December the prosecutor had missed this ram, which had particular marks on the horn, from his flock at Cline Common. He went the latter end of December with Thomas Evans, a constable, to the prisoner's farm, and there saw his ram with an alteration made in the mark. This statement Was confirmed in evidence, as it was also that when the prosecutor aid the constable came to the prisoner's farm he showed them the field in which the ram was depasturing openly with his other sheep, and that the prisoner said the ram was his own and resisted the removal of it, with violence. He took up a stone to attack the constable, who deterred him by the display of his staff of office. The case for the prisoner, elicited by Mr. Whit- combe, was, that the prisoner had bought seven sheep, of which this was one from one William Watkins, at a public-house iu Swansea and had paid for them, and that the alteration on the horn was made before he received the animal. A good deal of merriment was excited from the conversation, about the sale, between the prisoner and Walkills, who said thai a woman was going to afliliate a child to him, and that he wanted to turn every thing itito cash and get out of her way—Not Guilty. The same prisoner was charged with stealing two ewes, the property of Daniel Watkins, the brother of William Watkins, above-mentioned. The same evidence was repeated, with the addi- tion of another witness to the conversation be- tween prisoner and William Watkins, and the far- ther circumstance that Wi'l'3"1 Waitvius was not called, even by his owu brother, to refute the defence -Not Guilty. John Philip and John John, Lisworney, were charged with burglary in the house of Kitty Tnomas, and stealing a crown piece, two handkerchiefs &c. Mr. Micholl, for the Crown, called evidence which clearly proved that at seven in the evening of 22nd of December, Mrs. Thomas left her house well he- cured and returned at nine and found the house broken open and the robbery parpetrated. William Jenkins, overseer of the parish apprehended Joan Phillip, from whom he learned that the other prisoner was paiti- ceps criminix. John John being apprehended made further disclosures, and on being brought before the magistrates, the two prisoners made declarations amounting to a full confession. Guilty —Death re- corded. The leamed j uuge said they would be both transported. James Chisholm a young man, a private in the 75th foot, was charged with stealing on the night of the 2d July five sovereigns ten half crowns &e. the property of Win. Rose, oue ilk handkerchief Ihe property of Samuel Porch, two hatf sovereigns and tell the property of James May, in the house of the said Win. Rose. Mr. E. V. Williams stated the case.—Mr. Will, Ruse was au innkeeper, landlord of the White Lion Inn, iu the town of Cardiff, and the prisoner was a private soldici- billetted it, liis house. Alout flji-ce o'clock in the night between Tuesday and Wednesday last, Mrs. Rose awoke and saw or thought she saw a man standing in the room. Site woke liei-liusbatid and said there was a man standing by the bedside he answered, nonsense, you must be dreaming, when the figure of the man glided away. Alarm was given and search made through the house; the prisoner in this search was found in his bed apparently in a heavy sleep. The next morning Mrs. Rose found that five sovereigns and 30 shillings in silver had been ab- stracted from her pockety It was also found that a silk handkerchief belonging to Mr. Samuel Porch, a coachman from Bristol, who slept in the house, had been abstracted, as well as some money belonging to James May, ostler of the inn. On the following | morning the prisoner missed attendance at the parade. Some keys belonging to Mrs. Rose were also after- wards found in the prisoner's bed j and the prisoner, on being followed and apprehended, when he was taxed with the robbery, said that he knew nothing of any money but Mrs. Roses. This statement was fully confirmed in evidence, ill which it also transpired that the prisoner, when ap- prehended in plain clothes at Newport, by Sergeant Keddy of the 75th regiment, had in his possession the silk handkerchief ot Samuel Porch, several sovereigns and some silver, and a farthing with a hole through it, which wasidellufied as the property ot James May. Guilty, stealing above the value of Z;l -'I'iitisi)urted for life. Daniel Jones, of Coychurch, was indicted for bur- glarionsly breaking open the house of David Thomas, of Coychurch, on the 4th of March, and stealing 50 pence, 50 halfpence, some hats, stockings, &c. Mr. James stated the case, and examined the wit- iiesses, fi,(Illl which it appeared that the prosecutor duly fastened his house at 10 at night of the 4th of March, and was woke at four o'clock next morning by his servant, when he discovered that his shop win- dow had broken open, and the articles recited stolen. He traced footsteps, made by a shoe with nails in a particular position, by which means the prisoner was apprehended. The prisoner acknowledged to the constable, that lie, in conjunction with another, (who is unknown) effected the robbery, the prisoner steal- ing the things, and haiiditig them to his confederate, who stood outside. He also acknowledged that a hat found on the premises of the prosecutor belonged to him. His examination before the magistrates was put in as evidence, aud proved that he there also con- fessed his guilt. Being called on for his defence, he said that the confession was fictitious, that they made him drunk with beer, at the time it was said to have been made.-Guilty. Death recorded. Edward Badger, charged with embezzlement of his effects, and the same prisoner, with James Badger, and John Hale, charged with a conspiracy to conceal the etfects of Edward Badger from his creditors, were placed at the bar, when, no evidence being offered for the prosecution, a verdict, Not Guilty, was returned, and the prisoners were discharged. JEALOUSY.—MORGAN Davies,aged 47, of Cadoxton, juxta Neath, shoemaker, was tried on a charge of hav- ing on the 20th of February, wounded and maimed Elizabeth Davies his wife, with a poker, with intent to kill and muider her • another count charged him with intent to do her'some grievous bodily harm.—- The trial excited intense interest, and the court was crowded to excess. The prisoner, till the moment of the trial, was without counsel and during about 30 minutes thatMr.E.V.Wiitiamswas examining on the brief, only then put his hands, the most profound silence pervaded the whole court. Mr.Whitcombe, in a lucid and temperate address to the jury, stated the case, and called Elizabeth Davies, who deposed as follows :—t am tbe wife of Alorgaii Davies, tije prisoner, and lived in February at the Abbey, near Neath. 0(1 a [hursday night in February, my husband came 10 tcll lite to come home from a house where 1 had been to wash. After we got home and were in bed, he grumbled with me, said, "d you, you are a I'll inaketbee say what 1 ask thee." He said afterwards. he wanted a pipe of tobacco. 1 asked, should 1 light one for him i1 He said, no, I will light one myself. He got up and went to the fire, which was in the room, and took hold of-the poker, and stirred the fire. ,file cli,e ol He lit his pipe, I do not know whether at the fire or by the poker. He put ihe poker iuto the fire, and smoked his pipe out while the poker was in the fire. Then he got up, took hold of the and brought it toward-* the bed to me. He said, if I did not tell the truth of what he asked, he would thrust Ihe pokcr through my hcart. 1 told him to beware what he was doing. He said, dost thou say w hat I am asking you?'' I answered, "1 will never tell alia upon what you are asking; it is enough for me to have the truth without having a lie." lie Paid, "it thee say." I said, "1 will not say what thou asked me" (if I was to John Griffiths) when he threatened to strike me with the poker; he then said he would make me say that I was a to John Griffiths. I said I will not tell a lie on myself." He then raised the poker and struck me on the face till I bled. He struck me only once on the f:ice, aud on the back, of the head I can't say how many times. Afterwards I lost my senses. The lIext thing I remember was that he drew the poker through my lips backwards and forwards once, aftcr I had 10.t my senses. The next thing I remember was that iii'ter I came to myself 1 begged of him to cail somebody to come and tie up my head. He was then oil the fiooi-, and said, stop y-oti, I'll lie it niyseli. He tied it, and sat dovwi for a time in the house. lie asked me many questions but-I did not answer him I was afraid for my life to give him all answer. I believe he sat from auout olle Jelcek till four. I re- ceived the blows between twelve and one. About four he If ft the house. I know Hecs Powell and Edmund Mathews j they arc masons. Hees Powell was the first person I saw after this, and Matthews came in afterwards. After speaking to me they went away, a little before ix o'clock. Soon after, Mr. Powell, the surgeon, came in to see me. Cross-examined by Mr. H. V. Williams.—My hus- band has had a paralytic attack. lie has had cause of jealousy before that. Counsel- lias,c you been guilty of infidelity to your husband before and since that misfortune ? Judge—-Witness, you are not obliged to answer that question n you do not choose. Witness—-I had rather not answer. The witness C-O:Itiilued-I know John Griffith very well: I have lu>vel. been improperly intimate with him; my husband charged me with being so, but I denied it. j\ly husband did say (on the night that he beat me with the poker).tbut it was no use denying it, that he had seen me in company with John Griffiths on Tuesday three weeks. The ptisoner was not aware that I llatl i)een taken once before a magistrate to affiliate a child to another maa. My husband did not tell me that he had been drinking that night at the Star, but at the Abbey. He had not refused to speak to me for some time previous on account of John Griffith. He told me that when drinking at the Abbey he had spoken to J. Andrews, who had boasted that he had often been familiar with me and that he might be so whenever he pleased. 7 |,e prisoner had not drank much, as far as I know j he drinks too much now and then. In his discourse with me he was vioientiy angry about John Griffiths and J. Andrew when I denied it he got into a violent passion when he went to light his pipe he beat the fire with the poker und then stirred it. He said nothing from the time he got up to liglit his pipe till the time he brought the poker to bed. Ihe vvituess gave her evidence in Welsh, which was interpreted to the court by Mr. Powell. H 2r examination having been closed, she prayed the court, that whatever punishment were inflicted, her husband's life might be spared. John Davies examined by Mr. V\hiteontb J atn a constable at Neath. About half past four en the morning of Friday the 21st Feb. I was knocked up by the prisoner, who lives about a mile from my house. When I opened the door he came in and sat down Oil a three legged stool which lie had brought with him. L asked what he came there ior, disturbing me at that time. He said he had Coiue to give hilliselt, up, in the room of my having the trouble to look after him. I asked what he had been doing ? He said there was something between him and his wife. I said you have not niurdercdyour wile I hope ?'' He said "110, I've not iiiui-dei-eci her, there's breath in her, and that 's all." I took him iillo custody, and lodged him in the dark house at Neath. Cross-examined by V. Williaitis-The pri- soner brought the S, Uol beeittise lie was so weak he couM not stand. He said his wife had been false to him that there were reports ill the neighbourhood that v.oulu come to my ours 011 that subject. Edward Matthews, a mason, examined by Mr.Whit- comb—When the prisoner was put into the dark house, I went over and spoke to him through the window. Piisouer said to witness that he had done ''worth hanging for," that he had killed his wife. 1 asked should I mention it to the neighbours and senu somebody to her r Prisoner said yes, do. 1 went on and overtook. Rees Powell, and told him what I had heard. I weut 011 and knocked at the door, and got no answer. I got a liht next door and went into the house. By this time Rees Powell came up "e went into the house, and found Elizabeth Davies in the room with blood on her face and ou the wall and on the bed. By Mr. V. Williains—she was seiisible and able to talk. It was from () to û o'clock. Rees Powell confirmed what was stated of him 1)) the last witness. Mr. John Powell, menahcr of the College of Sur- geons, examined by Mr. Whitcombe.—-Atiended Elizabeth Davies between 0 and 7 o'claek on the morning of t he 1st of February. Her head was, extensively lacerated the scull was bare to the ex- tent of five or six inches in one continuous lagged cut on the right side of the head, from the back of it to the forehead, which was caused probably by several blows there were also three wounds on the forehead; her hands were contused and her fingeis lacerated 'he blows were with a blunt instrument, probably a poker; she continued a patient under my care from 21st of rebruary to 71h of April; I con- sidered her lite in danger from 2lst of pebruaiy to 5th of March. Cross examined by Mr. V. Williams.—The wounds were all lacerated there arc three sorts of wounds incised, with a sharp instrument; lacerated, with a saw or jagged instrument; contused, with a blullt instrument. Mr. V. Williams—O' then this wound, which you call lacerated, was pioduced by a blunt instrument. Witness.A lacerated wound may be produced by the violent application even of a blunt instrument. By the Court. J here was a slight appearance of burning, but a led hot poker would produce a much greater appearance of burning; her lips were very slightly hurnt, there Was 110 vesication a red hot poker would have produced vesication; a red hot poker would have produced much greater effect than there was. The prisoner in his defence said his wife was a bad woman, or nothing of this would have happened' After a very able summing up from the learned judge, the jury upon a short consultation returned a verdict,-(iuilty of maiming with intent to do grievous bodily injury. Mr. Whiteomb reminded his lordship of the in- tercession of the prosecutrix in behalf of the pri- soner. His lordship said he wstild consider it, and pags sentence on the following day. NISI P!aUS.-JuLY \). C. R. M. Talbot, E.I.q. v. Samuel Lewis, John Williams, Christopher Lewis, and 1-1. This was an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff as lord of the manor of Landyinere, in this county, against the defendants, tor a trespass, for having dug on the lands within the said manor, between high and low water mark, in search of dollars, which were part of a wreck ot a Spanish vessel stranded on that coast many years ago. The plaintiff 's case was fully made out to the satisfaction of the learned judge, and the defendants called no witnesses. The jury, however, returned a verdict for the defendants. Mr. Wilson and Mr.Whitcombe, counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr.Vaughan Williams, for the defendants attornies, Mr. John Jenkins for plaintiff, Mr. John Davies for defendants. Thomas v. Thomas, Executor, 4rc.—This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant (his brother), as executor of their father, to recover a sum of money, the balance of an account settled between the plaintiff and the deceased, shewing a balance of 821. 5s. 7d. to be due to the former. After some conflicting testimony, as to the genuine- ness of the account put in on behalf of the plaintiff, the case was summed up to the jury, who, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the de- fendant; upon the announcement of which the judge stated that it was a very proper one. Counsel, Mr. Williams and Mr. James, for plaintiff, and Mr. Whitconibe and Mr Nicholl, for defendant; attornies, Mr. 11. Morgan, for plaintiff, and Mr. Redwood, for defendant. Williams, v. Lcwk-This was an action for the seduction of plaintiffs daughter. it appeared in "7"LO evidence that the plaintiff kept a public house, w hich was principally managed by his daughter; that de- fendant had paid his addresses to liei,-fer iii,e years and upwards, and that an improper intercourse took (dace between them, which was continued until about ten months ago, when she became in the family way. Upon her cross-examination, it turned out that the defendant refused to marry heron ac- count of her flirtation with a soldier and other persons. The surgeon (Mr. D. W. Davies) was called to prove the expense of the accouchement,and the nurse of the lying-in, which amounted altogether to £ 7 14s. The judge in summing up said, that the defendant was entitled to a verdict for the amount of the expenses, but it was for the jury to say whether such a father wasentitled to any damages for wounded feelings, who countenanced the visits of different persons to his daughter. The jury retired, and re- turned a verdict for the plaintiff, 71. damages,- Counsel, Mr. Evans and Mr. Mr. Williams for plaintiff,Mr. Sockett and Mr. Nicholl for defendant. J.L. 10th. upon the juuge taking his seat this morning, he passed sentence upon Morgan Davies, and trans- ported him for lite. His lordship said that if the jury had found hill] gtiiltv upon the Orst cotint oftile indictment, charging him with having committed the wounds upon his wile with the intent to kill her, he should have felt it his boundendnty to have le;t him lor execution. The case of 1)0 en;, on several demises of D.Lewis, Fvg. flnd others v. Earl Cawdor, was then calh'.d on, which was tried before a special jury, and which was an action of eject- 'nf-nt, brought to recover certain Lead Works upon a piece of »round called "The Hook, alleged to be part of a farnl c^i led IVn rhos Va *vr, belong in -j; an estiJt e called 'l'h e Straddy Jv.tate," the property of the lessor of the plaintiff. 1 he lesser of the plaintilf having proved bis title to the ■^tradily Estate,as the heir at law of the late Thomas Lewis, Esq. a solicitor formerly of Landilo, who came to the property under the will of one Ilary Ann Mausel, widow —-The plaintif fthen produced witnesses to shew that this ,1-01 vas of tjic piece of ground was part of the Penihos Vawr farm, by- proving that while they were in possession of that farm, they had driven off cattle trespassing upon that part of the farm called The Hook," and by producing au award, with an endorsement tiicrvon, lv the late Lord Cawdor, to which there was a plan annexed, describing The Hook'' as the property of the said Thomas Lewis. The. defendants, in answer.to the plaintiflV case, con- tended that this piece of ground formed part of the wastes in Llanelly, over which the burgesses of Llaneily had a light of and of which Lord Cawiior was the Lord of the Manor, anil the defendants shewed that the late Mr. Lewis was .the confidential agent of the late Lord Cawdor, and received his rents, tkc. and as such agent thev proved that he superintended the erection of Smelting Works upon The Hook" to the amount of several hun- dred pounds, and they put in annual accounts finally settled between the late LOld Cawdor and Mr. Lewis, by which it appeared that Mr. Lewis had debited Lord Cawdor with the money so expended in the erection of the btiiidings that he never charged his late lordship with rcnt of the said piece of ground, neither was there any- rent proved to have been paid for the ground at all. —The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff.