The Glamorgan Monmouth and Brecon Gazette and Merthyr Guardian

iHTCOitgUtVC BRECON. BHBCKNOCK INFIRMARY.—Mir. 30th. J n. Out. P-Atictits reiii:tiiiiii,- I;tst week 6 ao Admitted sinco 0 4 In. Out. 6 34 Cured and Relieved 6 Dead 0 0—0 6 Remaining 6 28 Physician for the ensuing week Or Lucas. Surgeon ditto tiitt(.) Nir Bttt. At a mating of the magistrates for the hundred of Devynnock, held on Tuesday, the 30th of March, »t Devvnnock. Mr Thomas E%tns, principal-clerk in the office of Messrs Vaughan, Bevan. and Law. ford. of Brecon, was unanimously chosen clerk to the magistrates of the said hundred. BRKCKNOCK. l'SIOS ELECTlOS OF GIMKDIA.NS, The following gentlemen were re-elected ior the town parishes:— Saint Mary's — Philip Vaughan, Esq.; Mr J. Sims, coachmaker. Srdtit Johns—Contested—Roger Thomas Wittkins, Esq Mr William Winston, Struct. Saint David's Mr David VViiilanis, Newton; i\lr Howell Po well, cabinetmaker. Christ's College Contested — Mr Thomas Jones, w atergate. -) BRECON COUNTY GAOL. March SOth, by the Rev W alter do Winton and Henry Allen, JUII., Eq; Thomas Price, of the parish of Hay, tn six moutiis' imprisonment, in delau't of a fine of two pounds and ten shillings for costs, inlficted lor an assault committed oil David Williams, police officer -tiv the Rev Richard Venableaand Tliomas Ilamsden, Esq Catherine Lewis, of the parish of Llangvnog, charged with stealing a duck, the property of Win. P'lgh, for trial at Quarter Sessions. —By Mowell Jones H'illi-.ms, Esq., and Rev Tllos. Vaughan; Howell X%' illims, of the p-irish of St. David's, lor trial at the Quarter Sessions, charged with stealing a gun, the pro perry of Howell Lewis. the younger. STATE OF THE GAOL. Prisoners for trial 2 Ditto under sentence 38 Debtors Total 50 BKEOONSHIRE ASSIZES. (Continued from our last) MONDAV. Thomas Jones, maltster, of Crickhowell, was charged with subornation ot purjury. Tins prisoner was brought up from prison where he *as uiuicrgoinir a sentence «4 iinprisontnent tor the forgery a receipt, and the case of Dauiel Williams. The prisoner said he was undefended, and had only heard (if the indictment thts morning he, therefore, begged the court to give him time to prepare his defence. His lordship said lie could not give him further than Wednesday morning. The case.was then adjourned to that time. James Jones, 20, labourer (neither read nor write), charged with breaking and entering the dwelling house t Sarah Jones, and stealing one cotton handkerchief :and lither articles. The case was one of very petty theft, and presented ho feature of interest except the very great age of the prosecutrix, who was 101 years old, and gave her evidence with more clearness and precision than is usually evinced hy persons of one-fourth her it appeared, from her testimony, that she re- sides at flwlch. with a grand daughter, who was in the habit of going out sewing and washing; that the old dame herself had gone out with the intention of walking to Crickhowell, but her strength (Riiing she returned to a farm house, and on her return to her humble cot she found that the padlock had been -renched off, and her very slender stock of provisions had been stolen. The prisoner made no defence, was found guilty, and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment with 1ard labour. John lewis, 16, labourer (read imperfectly), was ('uvieted of feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling house of Thomas Trew, in the borough Of Brecon, and stealing therefrom 3311hs of fat. Mr Charles Powell conducted the prosecution. Verdict-Guilty. A previous Quarter Sessions conviction was proved against prisoner. His lordship said that in consideration of his youth he would give him one chance more in this country, Hud sentenced him to two years' imprisonment with ■hard labour. TUESDAY. Williams v. Jones. This was an undefended action brought to recover the balance due on a pro- missory note given to plaintiff for £ '290. Mr Janti.ui, «f Rha>adHr, proved the signature to the note as attesting witness- Verdict lor £ 167. Counsellor plaintiff, Mr C Powell Attorney, Mr Yaughan, of Builth. David Williams, David ])avi»s, alias ( David rlm,thy, and John Williams, charged with teto ^ioiisiy assaulting and committing a rape on Susannah Jones within the parish of Llunelly. Mr V. Williams and Mr C. Powell appeared for the prosecution. ,> Susannah Jones—1« « womiU,1; ,od8ed U>C 611, (if February with Mary Matthews, at Bryn ltlawr no on,, lived there besides Mary Matthews nù her two children; the 6th of February was a ^turday went to bed that night about nine o'clock ler bed was down stairs there was one room down flnd another up stairs; there was no bed up stairs; tile passage up was by a ladder, which might removed Mary Matthews and the children slept "Itll her; was disturbed by a noise in about two hours was awoke by it; heard a parcel ot men at the door, hallooing to Mary Matthews to open (he do.or; she said she would not open the JOllr; they Jd they would break the door in then they broke "B; there was no lock upon the door, but it was fasted by a piece of iron and the ladder; tour or five men, strangers to witness, came in; Dai J Iluothy was the first who callie in (pointed lijin out the bar); had heard him called Dai I imothy ^fctore hid seen him once or twice when-going *'> fetch water, but had never spoken to him; did ot kuow h is voice; he next was the farthest from W now at the bar the other itizin was there too; •bout seven men came in the hi st night. (1 ue rL>training part of the evidence is quite unht f<,r pubficatioa. She swore positively to a suc- cpS8ion of criminal assaults by seven men, accom- panied by brutal injuries from blows and kicks.) 9n the I uesday night following she vent to bed j° the same manner, about nine o'clock about an f«ur and a half alter some men came into the "Gflse, and again ill treated her in the same manner; they were four or five in number; she went to rictboiveil before the magistrates on the following rictboiveil before the magistrates on the following Friday. i i The examination was frequently interrupted by ^uvies being seized by epilepsy Mr Armstrong "ulOed with hiui ia the dock during the whole of thy day. Several witnesses were examined in support of the Prosecution and others for the defence- Mr VauMmo Williams replied for the prosecution; urged'that the discrepancies ot the evidence might "turally have been ficcasioneid by the lioirorsyl ttw? .III,ene through which the girl had passed on the two °<ca8ious he also tnude very skilful use of the ev»dence of John Lewis His Lortlship summ<v' (up with great pains, and 'e jury, alter a short deliberation, returned a ^rdict'of Guilty of ABSHHU. Sentence two years labour. r .The trial occupied the whole of the day, from rii It-, in the morning until half past eight in the -eVt'llIng. WEDNESDAY. tiff ore uir Wihon, Recorder of Carmarthen, in tlte Grand fury Ruum. Thomas PhiUpotls, 28. labourer (read imperfectly), charged with iijjoniously breaking the dwelling house Aim Lewits, in the parish of Llapgenny. and steat- Irlg therein, nine five pound uotes of the value of hve ^'ttads each, three sovereigns, one halt crown piece, lW killings, two sixpenny pieces, and tvvo silver f the monies, goods, and chattels 01 the saul IIn is. 1 l Mr E. I,, filebards and Mr Severn conuurted the ^r'>secut\ou. j Miss Lewis identified the watches. 1 Verdict—Guilty. Two years' imprisonment, witli labour.. AtL(ini,.v i,»r the prosecution. 1r Davies, Crick. uveU. Edward James. CO, labouier (read and me a;l,l»erfectlv) charged with having, on the of Janoarj', at the parish of Builtl.. slolen ^ftain wood or s«arters, the property ot Lewis ,'eW!S( KSq. Mr JliH appeared for tite prosecution. Verdict — Guilty with a recommendation to ^^rcy. Sentenced to two months' impi'^o-Gment with illrd labour Attoruey for prosecution, Mr Vaughan, ot Builth- &<ivid Jones, 2t), carpenter, and William Jones, 20, ^terer, charged with stealing a drake from Pendre farm, in the borough of Brecon, the property of Mar- garet Bright, widow, admitted to bail. Mr Nicboll appeared tor the prosecution. Ver(lict-Not Guilty. Attorney for prosecution, Mr T. R. Watkins attorney for defence, Mr Bishop. The court adjourned till ten o'clock next day. Before Ili- Justice Colt/nan. Jones v Jones.—This was an action of trespass brought by the'plaintift lor damage committed !»y de fendant's cattle and sheep, on the. farlll of Nantgwyn Several witnesses weie examined to prove the trespass which to be of no very serious nature, as ,b,: jury. in rdurning a verdict for plaintiff, gave only 3l)s damages, and his lordship refused to certify lor costs. Plaintiff's counsel, Mr Chilton and Mr Vaughan Williams; attorney. Mr D Lloyd Harries. Llan- dovery. Defendant's counsel, Mr John Evans; attorney, Mr John Morgan, Llandovery. SPECIAL JURY CASE. Jones v. Corry and 'tillers.— Th is was an action brought by the p!aintift, a stone mason, at Brecon, against defendants, who were executors of the late Walter Wilkins, Esq.. father of the late Walter De Winton, ES(ii.. M.P for Radnorshire, for a balance for work done at the erection of his magnificent and beautiful seat, Maeslough Castle. nis claim had been the subject of two previous actions and a reference the award of the arbitrator had been set aside. The total amouat of work claimed tor amounted to it6 124, of which different payments had been made, leaving a balance alleged to be due of £ 4S8. The defendants had paid £iOO into court as the amount they considered due. It is impossible to give anything like a full report of the whole of the proceedings, involving so many disputed items and matters of a purely technical nature connected ith architecture; but we believe the tol- lowing outline of the evidence produced will give an idea of the bearings of the case and the conflicting statements. .Mr Vaughan Williams opened tie pleadings. Mr .101111 Evans stated the plaintiff's case to the jury, and called the following witnesses— Thomas Jones, lloater—Stated that he made a bar- gain with Mr Lugar, the architect of Maeslough Castle., and Captain Ihidgnvater. a brother in law of Air Wilkins, with respect to raising stone for the Castle he said that he agreed to get the stone for 10(1 per foot Ki of which was to be paid over to Win. Joins, the plaintiff, for dressing it; he stated that this arrangement was made to save the trouble of keeping two accounts, as William Jones was not able to keep an account. William Jones agreed to this, and the ,as ))-,iiti i),asiotially by ('ipt, son,el lines by Mr Wilkins, and by Thomas Davies, a serv ant. Oil his cross examination he said that he was a stranger to William Jones till that day lie was but a servant between Cap'ain Bridgewater and William Jones; witness's account was referred to arbitration, but he did not get all he claimed in answer to ques- tions by the court he said he was not quite sure that he explained to Mr Wilkins the rate of payment, but that he said that lie wanted some for himself and some for William Jones; Mr Wilkins paid him four or five times. Mr WhiUington, surveyor, of Neath, said that in July 1830, he was employed by JJ r Powell, agent to Mr Wilkins, to measure the work at Maeslough he now produced a copy of that survey, and of two succeeding ones he charged, in his valuation, the rock work, in the quarry, at 6d per foot, and in the walls at 7d he charged them so by tile. direction of the architect; Mr Powell paid him for the surveys, and had directed him to attend to Mr Lugar's directions; it was Mr Lugar who ordered him to make the first and second surveys. Nlr f,uritr said that if plaintiff lii,i his balance paid up he might abscond, and he should be blamed; and that it would do him more good when the work was all finished -,itirl slid he was to put the Id and d down at the end plaintiff wanted him to put items in the account, besides the general measurement he claimed for erecting scaffolding and screening sand it v he replied that his instructions were confined to III" measuiement; Nohle, who was Mr Wilkins' clerk of the works, went over the whole of the works with the witness. On his cross examination he said that Mr Powell did not direct him to value, but required a measurement which were two things; he did not allow for doors and windows, though he charged extra forchampfers and revals allowance is generally made, but this was a particular sort of work it was likely that he told Mr Powell that the Id was kept back till the work was cleaned down; 10)11 plaintilf what he was charging his work at; told him not to be angry as there was a peolty kept back. The remainder of his examination was of a very technical character. W dliam Williams, tyiasnn IlesiAiiii, at Brecon; was employed in 182S by plaintiff on the works at Maeslough Castle to chisel the rock work he was there a year and a half; in the courst. of the work a quantity of the jock work stono had been iii) ready dressed, and in conse- quence of Mr Noble's men excavating ground to form a terrace, they fell down, and a great quantity required to be redressed; in consequence of the excavation the roitis were taken down, and new ones erected, which occupied some days of the labour of five or six men the waggons also could not bring the materials so near; (the witness was then examined to prove the amount of work done.) John tushes, mason, corroborated the evitleiice of last witness, and deposed to certain portions of the work being done before Air Milkins' death. Mr Chilton here admitted that a certain portion of the work charged in the bill of particulars was done during the lifetime of Mr Wilkins, though he could not admit the liability ot his clients.^ The succeeding evidence in proof of work done was confined to the other parts ot tiie bill. Kichard Jones, mason, was called to prove work done. David Morgan—Deposed to being ei.jployed to excavate the ground by Mr Noble; the plaintiff desired him to desist for fear he yhnuld injure the stone; lie told Mr Noble, who ordered him to go on or he should be discharged; lie did go on and the stones tell. John Powell, mason, of Builth, corroborated the evidence of 1 lie last witness, and said that the stones had to be moved to seventy yards from the building James Jones, mason, proved work done he said he had been paid 7d per foot by plaintiff lor working plain fock work, and Hd per loot for some kinds ot work • lie said he not undertake b erect the scaffolding under ^200. On cro-N examination lie said that scaffolds were more expensive than the runs James navies, timekeeper at the work for plain til-, corroborated the testimony of the preceding witnesses. Clement Thomas, foreman of the carpenters at Maeslough Castle, proved the erection of the scaH'oldm"- by Jones's men with Mr Wilkins's materials; he would not like to do that work for i^O On cross examination he said that he himself had erected scaffolds for his own work in the course ot hi); iralle, hut did not always charge it out of the contract; hs cited an instance where, he had charged for scaffolding when working for Mr Morgan, ot the Lower Lion, Talgarth. On re examination he saul ttiat he hat rworr.ea at Mr Crawshay's house, at Mrrthyr, there were large scaffolds there, and were erected by Mr Crawshay's carpenters, "ith Air Crawshay's materials. George Strawbndge — Is a builder; sometimes employs 300 men, generally keeps 150; huiit Bristol Custm# House..Merthyr Market, Newbridge Church, and many mansions in the neighbourhood of Bristol; has seen the work done by plaintiff, and considers it done in a very workmanlike manner, and can Unit no fault with it (Mr Whittington's surveys were put into his hand); thinks the work could not be executed at the prices there stated, particularly the walling and rockworJt; he could not do it at the prices; the joints are properly stopjjt't), but are not tucked >e s a ei that (he other charges in the surveys weie ruinous y !ow;" it is usual to have the stone? liroug i c °,?a to the buiding at Maeslough Castle they were yards off; he thought erecting the scaffolding was worth ^250. r Cross examined —Never lias maae any o the stones being deposited ut H distance, or he never had them placed at a dfstance; consi- dered the stones in the budding to average ie weight of 5 to 7 cwt; if making a contract he would include the scaffolds in his first calculation would charge extra if the gentleman found his own materials; never had such a case; there is more than £\50 worth of mortar in Maeslough; vv here gentlemen quarried their own stone he has built per perch, and included morar and labour in the puce per perch to charge for tucking" is not proper the work would not be properly done without^ stopping it is the tradesman's jilty;e to judge the joints as he goes on. # Re examined —Thinks the charge in the survey toi stopping is a proper charge, the price paid for building being considered, Thomas TraUerne, builder and surveyor, ol Ilereford-flas IJUit Hereford Workhouse, and is now building St. Nicholas Church it is not usual to charge for scaffolding when proper materials are found for it; it certainly depends on the height ol the building, for if the poles are too short the work ch^rved it is not usual for private gentlemen to tind materials, ^d for builders who find their own bcaffolds something per jjej-ch js allowed j thinks the bcaffolds something per jjej-ch js allowed j thinks the ACCOUNT OF IRON Sent down tho GLAMORGANSHIRE CÀAf., for the years 1829 to 1839, inclusive. (In Tons). I | 1 1829. 1830. 1831. j 1832. 1833. 1834. 1835. 1836. j 1837. 1838. 1839. Total. jGuest and Co 23352 27647 22075 29395' 35072 33477 39145 39'2S(ij 380M 39361 40495 368210 jWm. Craw shay and Co.! 24768 1989*2 15465 24608 37380 34952 35090 34654 33580- 36986,37009 334444 jPlytfiouth Iron Co 13534 12177 10498 9200! 12093 12073 12631 13573 I53531 I6I43| 15762 143137 iPeuvdftrran Iron Co..J 100S5| 11744 1 1819; I05821 12150 12752 12834 12537 128 4 12707 15540 |355S4j Abc'rdare Iron Co S644 6765 6903 599/i 6964 8497 926ij 9981 9*3.)i 12*247 1I3»7 96.i«K)j Blakemore and Co 2(,-0! 2702 2947) 3042) 3519 3194 40ot)j 3957 3,594 3474 3304 357541 [Brown, Lennox and Co.! 767 621 626! 757) 890 1163 1854; 2437 2756; 3394, 4037 19312! jfiadlvs Iron Co 559 214 731 I8'28| 1816 1756, 1127, l"8l 9l22j Bute Iron-Works 166 36! 57-' 434 '*71 121 22 14SI| Taff Vale Iron Works. 3461 3739 3068! 4723 617 J 5198j 4246 306H6| Total 8387(3 8154S 70333 83677 1123151111012! 1198581123088 124810; 130637^ 132781 1173955! Total I 8387(3 8154S 70333 83677 1123151111012! 1198581123088 124810; 130637^ 132781 1173955! IRON AND COAL IRON COAL COAL Carried on the Glamorganshire Canal, from \st Jan. Carried on the Glamorganshire Canal, from 1A7 Jan. Carried on the Glamorganshire Callal frum to 3 1 st Dec., 1840. to 31st Dec, 1840. Tons. i to 1839, inclusive. Tons. Thomas Powell and Co 62,130 Tons. Dowlais Iron Company 45'218 Walter Cofliu 50,913 1829 83.729 Wm Crawshay 35,507 George Insole 126,059 1830 10ft,t70 Penydarran Iron Company 16,130 LUCY Thomas 25,993 1831 117.134 R. and A. Hill 12,922 Duncannllll Co 22,285 183*2 165.351 Aberdare Iron Company 10.327 Aberdare Coal Company 16,140 j 1833 I!H.<:lGl Taff Vale Iron Company 4.902 Morgan Thomas 15.692 1834 R. Blakemore and Co. 3,175 John Edmunds. 15,5-21 1835 176.374 Brown, Lennox, and Co 2.476 David Davies anil Co 11,377 1S36 192.241 Gadlys Iron Company 1.315 Evau Evans 2.374 1837 226,671 ———— ———— 1838 189,081 Total 132,002 Total 248,484 1839 211 214 ACCOUNT OF IRON Sent down the MONMOUTHSHHIE CASAl" for the years 1829 to 1838, inclusive. (In Tons). j 18*29. 1830. 1831. 1832. | 1833. 1834. 1^5. 1830. i<m ]s38. j Tot«i j Nantvglo Iron Co 17436? 17536 179551 21333} 21023^ 22663A 24997* 25407f 2397*2| *25241J 217567! Kbbw Vale Iron Co 170823 18258} 190771 183471 1990S!- 20240.* 249941 '22957i 20035* 23320- 204219^1 Tredegar Iron Co 13379! 12335| 13339? 1337*21 12340.* 129201 13917* 12l33i 12661 15538^ 131938.1 Varte-Iron Co 9405| 9130 J |645j{ lll?0| 1I028J 14953-f 148It) L 1 1208.* 10420|- 9«o6f 113915 Blaenavon Iron Co 91351 9401-fc 9714* 9066 S?09 8391^ 9036 7596 7152 fc 8085 86(287.\ Clvdacb Iron Co 743«M 7573^ 7030| 6542 73841, 626*2*, 7052 7738| 70874 9282* 739*4.* Beaufort Iron Co 71024 6 05 5153 6882 7522 9808f 12979? 14567t lH62i 109171 92100 4- 4 Beaufort Iron Co 71024 6 05 5153 6882 7522 9808f 12979? 14567t lH62i 109171 92100 British lrof, Co 7917^ 7763J 8005| 7991 7323$j 8505f 9724 12278* 10259* 11857^ 91089^ Buto Iron Co 9991 622(5^ 75|8| 7\7<)f 5733 3664 4197;j- 53754; G944* 13702$70563f| Hunt Brothers Co 4762* 5153: 4988 41001 4443 4081 6527* B207I 6898 1847. 5i-il8*j Blaina Iron Works 5137$4*92f 2894*! 8058 5062* 6074$8581* 9020* 6380 7 158* 62961 Poutvpool Iron Works 3695$| 2823$I 2982 3052 4597| 4192$7897 4912 56^7* 9078 48838^1 Onrndyris Iron Co 2*242$: 3677$41331 1833 3590$2215$! 4286$, 4258$5605 56^9 37532|| Coalbrook Vale Co 249S* 2621 2953 2Sl«i i 2329, 29S2* 30SI-i 3769^ 3338 4000.*) 29892* PoMtyinister Iron Co 1409 1358$10071' 1351 1047 1123 1039* i048| 1122 22^7| 12764; 0 Victoria Iron Co, I. •••••! 26S £ 968 Rhudrv Iron Co 346* 223 54* 188* 8l2*! Oolynos Iron Co .J K'27J| 2507 35341 Union Foundry Co 844 142* 149; 159| 535*; John Brown, Jun 23$56* 304 23* 182$39$39i 97$! 142* S/i 667*; Win. Hussoll and Co 57<!j 847 713$J 915) 888], 724 574* 374* 193| 5801|, iPentwvn and Colynos Co. 7.1 2981$; 2981$ !Phillip Woodruffo 2241 ltt68 j. 1292J-j iRi.bard Walker L.. 63$653* 453* 548*1 531 f 107 138i; 2496*1 jPentwyn Iron and Coal Co.. 2614$j 2614*, Sirhowy Iron Co 911 275 255 398Jj 165 2439^ 225 4669 John Vein 298$1 •••; 2984< John Kennedy 136$j 146J 108$j 476 383$i l251*j Total Il 19082* 115755 119569$124705* 125433$11300421 155588? I51957J !U3213f 1167478$H35282ofi — IRON IRON Sent to Newport in the year IS39. Sent to Newport in the year 1840. Tons 'rons. J. and C. Bailey 35,438 J. and C. Bailey 36,711 HarfordsandCo. 25,393 HarfordsandCo. 24 199 Tredegar Iron Company 15,090 Rumney Iron Company 18,581 Rumney Iron COlllpany 14,!)09 Pentwyn and Oolynos Iron Company 17,782 Blaenavon Iron Company 12 427 Tredegar Iron Company 15,288 British Iron Company 1*2,482 Blaenavon and Garndyris Company 14,101 Varteclron Company 12,820 Varteg Iron Company 12,670 Clvdarh Iron Company 9,6(16 British Iron Company 12,290 C. H. Leigh 8,047 Ciydacb Iron Company 10,038 Blviina and Cwmcelyn Company 6,413 Capel Hanbury Leigh 9,584 Coalbrook Vale Company 5,205 C" mcelyn and Blaina Company 8 937 Pentwyn and tlolvnos Company 12 535 Coalbrook Vale Iron Company 7,823 POIILymister Iron Company 2,448 Monmouthshire Iron Company 6,436 Ketinedy atit-I Hill 178 R.Lewis 10 Monmouthshire Iron Company 1,990 John Brown, jun 9 Richard Walker 1172 -—- John Brown, jun 58 I Total. 194,459 Total 175,211 ■ II nm\mu N ■ ■■■■!■■■! ILBM—irillWI ILL L~ F TL~> PII ITFTWWIIIII I" II WH ITIH ITI~I RMR ■ ■ ~TB "I1TI L" I" 111' 11 ILHILL IL TU!—»- IUWW ,IWJWJI'W»U»<YAIEPK-WL«|J| "A prices in the survey far too little; with those pric s a charge for scallolding would be fair, tor the scaffolds at Maeslough must have henl expensive; its usual to bring materials for building within seven yards ot the %V().-k has been paid a difference where the materials were distant. Crinis «-xwmmed—Was then working by measure and value, and charged the distance in the day account; has never seen Maeslough except from the road. The examination of this witness closed the case for the plaintiff at ten o'clock at night; and the case was adjourned to nine o'clock on Thursday. THURSDAY. Mr Chilton addressed the jury for the defendants in a speech of very great length, and called the following witnesses;— James Williams, whnkept the accounts at the work said that the floater ordered him to pay Jones the plaintiff; he settled accounts between them it) September, 1831; he measured the external work once to see if the workmen had not overdrawn; he never heard the plaintiff complain of the removal of the stone. On cross examination he said he continued paying after the floater lalt i hud no talk about how much per foot, but he calculated it at 8d when cleaned down, and that was mentioned between him and Mr Wilkins; did not remember any one but plaintiff telling him it was to be 8d. .Mr Linear, who furnished plans for Maeslough Castle, said he had a dispute as to remuneration, and that the award of Mr Gambier was against him he a,tin had made a memorandum of the agreement with the floater and plaintiff for 8d and 10d in his book the 8d was to include back cuttings but when Mr Wiikins saw them he wished to have that part smooth; the bargain was to include all champfers, revals, See., as w^ll as the cutting of areiics; tiiev were to be rockwork revwls; rock work revals would not be more expensive he lIad., an agreement with the plaintiff for walling at 2s per perch, and 2s 6d outside; he received no directions from Mr Powell, but received authority trom Mr Wilkins; arconling to the agreement the work was to be top weatht red this had not been done but it was a very trifling thing, and would occasion very little increaseofexpen.se; he had told Mr Whittington to reserve the pennv per foot tili the work was done; had told Mr Whittington that there was a quarrel between Noble and plaintiff, and was afraid would leave; he had alw told him that having the penny per foot altogether at the end would be a good thing for the man; he had said nothing about the work being cleaned down; he had been subpoenaed bv both parties. On cross exami nation Ire said that he was authorised to employ masons and carpenters; Jones at first refused to join with the floater; but his objection was overruled by Captain Bridgewater, and be agreed; wben he made the memorandum, he intended all to he rockwork; Mr Wilkins altered his mind and objected to the rough rockwork, and the champlers were afterwards made "tooled;" that certainly made a difference in the price: witness certified his satisfac- tion with the work, and Mr Wilkins admired it 8d a foot \I as cheap; he referred the scaffolds to ;\lr \Vf¡ittingtou. On re examination he said that he did not recollect that Capt. Bridgevvater was at any agreement except that wiih plaintiff. Mr Wm. Noble, who was clerk of the works, said that he remembered Mr Whittington's admeasurement; the prices were put dowu from a list put in his band; Jones knew of the prices being put dowlI; he made no objection to anything, and witness heard no complant of anything not being put down plaintiff attended on the second survey jones claimeu nothing beyond the siirvey; xMr Whittington adjusted the prices according to his judgment, and witness did not hear plaintiff object to anything he heard nothing ol scaffolding or revals plaintil fis illiterate, and witness assisted him to make up his; accounts; he paid his men iiid per foot for dressing; witness objected to many of the ashlers; the whole had to pass examination it was necessary to remove some of (lie asllers as they came in the line of cutting; and some of those were the ston s which witness had objected to, but it is impossible to say what quantity lIe did not direct thousands of feet to be removed, and drtpa m,i m.numiuir ..mv fall of earth at all: he -I.I..I.JI' I"J was at the cutting constantly, and such It thing could I not. have happened without his knowledge; the stones removed by his men were taken on handharrows, and he knew of no breakages; some of the ashlerll were redressed, which ljad not been properly prepared at tirst; when he directed the stones to be removed no scaffolds had been erected the cutting would not have affected the runs; Jones's men were eiiii) oye d tvvice in altering the runs, but they were not made more difficult, and plaintiff must have been aware ot the general plan of the building as to the terrace he waspaid daywork for everything unconnected with the measurement four men could do the alteration of the runs in a couple of hours; after the cutting the < waggons could come within 20 leet at one end, but could not come at all to the others; he has pointed out to Mr Warren and Mr Cook the places where the waggons could come, but did not point out the greatest distance there were several stocks of stone, aud though the greatest distanctv.fas 80 yards, tiie average could not exceed 30 yanh; the s|edges were able to come to many points wheri the waggons could not. On cross examination he sa'd that a bank was removed from the spot where tie stahles were to be erected, and the earth was laken to fill til) the terrace he tolll David Morgan he would have the bank removed there was a waggon road up to the house before the cutting; changing the runs includes moving that part of the scaffolding the dfect was to lower the ground thre feet, and the aew run was t longer than the old oue. .J,hn Powell, Esq,Said he gave :\Ir \Vhiltington instructions to survey th. work in 1830, and ordered him to make another survey at Nli- Wilkins's death; he delivered both surveys to witness, but did not intimate that a penny per foot had been kept back; he saw the plaintiff after tlis second survey had been made he said nothing, as far as witness recollects, about the penny, but was pressing for a spltlernellt he thinks he heard of the penny from the plaintiff Iwfure the third survey after the third account plaintiff came to witness and claimed the gd witness offered to give him nJ per fort to settle the account; btitilie insisted on 8d he made no claim in addition, and that was the only piiint in dispute. (Mr Powell then proved payments on account by himself to plaintiff amounting to ^115.) On cross examiation lie lie had been examined at the arbitration the claim in this action is the same as in the two previous acti ins; the heir joined in the references witness has tsischarged everything for work done for the heir. 0 Mr William Evans Mr James Williams, and Mr Richard OHver, land agent to Mr Wilkins, proved dif- ferent payments on aecount tll plaintiff, and produced receipts. Mr Cook, architect, of Gloucester — Considers Maeslough very fair worl the lower part is better than the upper the work has been so long done that he cou d not tell if it was done properly the top weathering mentioned by Mr Lugar would make a difference of t>ne penny per foot, the charges for champfers are covered bv measuring the openings champfers are sometimes tooled and sometimes polished; they may be finished off withollttooling; at Maeslough they are tooled or batted has nevey heard of charges made for scaffolding befoie; the places pointed out to him at thirty vardavvere reasonable dis- tances for placing the stones never heard ot charging for shifting runs On cross examination he said that his experience was not confined to contracts; when working contracts lie k. pt the scaffolds in consideration. Mr Evans replied for the plaintiff. His lordship summed up at considerable length, and at seven o'clock the jury retired; shortly belove ten o'clock they returned inio court and delivered a verdict for plaintiff, witll damages ot J-"21 17s 6d, in addition to the sura of 1200 paid into court. Counsel for defendant, Mr J; Evans and Mr V, Williams; attorney, Mr D. Thotnas. Brecon. Coun- sel for defendants, Ilr Chilton and Mr C. Powell attorney, Mr Scadding, London. During the time the jury were out of court, the following case was taken — Harding v Probert—This was an action for a balance of £ 31 6s 9d, alleged to be due from the defendant, a miller, at Tregoed, to he executors of a Mr Harding, maltster and butcher, ot Glasbury. The defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations and in reply it was contended, that, by a delivery of wheat to plaintiff, on account, the defendant had ad- mitted the liability. Mr Evans, in defence, argued that the wheat was not sent on account of the claim. Verdict for the plaintiff. Damages £ ->3 7s 3d (in- cluding interest, a setoff £ 5 19s 6d being allowed for the wheat), ilh leave giveu lor the defendant to move the Co urt of Exchequer for leave to enter a nonsuit upon the point of law reserved. Couneel for plaintiff, Mr Chilton and Mr Nicboll; attorney, Mr Higgins, of Hay (who was represented by Mr James Price). Counsel for defendant, Mr J. Evans and Mr Vaughan Williams; attorney, Mr Pugh, of Hay. Before illi- Wilson. Rees Price, 21, labourer (neither read nor write) charged for that lie, on the 25th day of Decemlkr last, at the parish of Devyntiook, feloniously did sieal, take and carry away, five pounds and eleven shillings in silver, of the monies, goods, and chattels 1 11 of David Williams tvi I\Jr Mill stated the ca3e for the prosecution. Verdict—Guilty. Septencp two years'imprison- ment with hard labour, Jenhin Jones, 28. farmer (neither read nor write), ] and Herbert Richards, O. labourer (read imper fectly), charged with breaking into the house of Rachel Jones, at Cwmfelin, in the parish of Ystrad. (elite, and feloniously assaulting and committing a rape on the said Rachel Jones. 0 Mr K L Richards stated the case for the pro- secution Mr Nicboll addressed llio jury fui the i,ii»o«ier», und called witnesses in support of the case. The lrial occupied the COllrt to a late hour. and resulted in a verdid of nuiltv of Assault Seutence --Six II1ll;¡l\¡s' iropr¡soument ;vith hard lahour. Pill DAY. Before Mr Justice Colt man. Thomas Thonias, Morgan Rees, Thomas Daviesy and Lewis Diniel, charged with riot and assault. This prosecution arose out of the case of rape at Bryninawr, and the evidence was tiie same as in the case tried on 'I uesday. Thomas Thomas was found guilty and sentence:) to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour. Ree*, Davies, and Daniel were acquitted. Counsel for prosecution, Mr V. Williams and Mr C. Powell attorney Mr G. Davies. Crickhowell. Counsel for prisoners. Mr Nicboll and Mr K. L. itlebards attornev, Mr Bishop. Before -Ili- Wilson, Thnmas Jones, maltster. Crickhowell, was charged with suborning Daniel Williams (who was tried on Monday; to commit perjury in a trial for debt. The evidence in this case was the same as that on the trial of Williams 1 r Vanghan Wil iiainsand Mr C. Powell conducted the prosecution, and tiie prisoner defended himseit he cross examined the witnesses at great length and made a long address to the jury. but chiefly with reference to other disputes with fhe prosecutor, with regard tq the alleged sid3 of the premises so often mentioned by prisoner. Ve.rdl,,t-(,,ulit.v, ivitik a rect)mtiien,latioti t,) iiei-cy, founded on prisoner's iil health and long imprison- ment. Sentence — IS months' imprisonm-. nt.