The Western Mail

MIDSUMMER ASSIZES. ■ GLAMORGANSHIRE. CROWN COURT. Baron Follook took hll lut soon after 11 oeioea on Monday morning, aDd was Moompmled a the Niach by the, High Sheriff (Msjo* riOWt, TarbervUl) and his chaplain. The desk In front of the learned judge was adorned with J.3 bouquet, of ohoioe flooeti placed there by Hall-keeper Stone. After the court bad been formally opened, Tbe ersndlury panel IU called over byMr, J, Bbbop, deputy elerkof arraigns, and the following wagletratu, who answered to their nunes, were nun as the GBAIID J OKI. Menu. L L1 Dlllwyn, M.P. (foremsa), P. SL lkger R„|| J, T. D.-Lleweljn, Griffith Llewellyn, Howrl Gwyn, G. T. Clark, James lavi-pton (Mayor of Bw.n.eM.Iltjd Thomas, J. 0. Nlohol, Starling Benson, E. M. Klohards, 0. Bath, N. P.- clmeion, J. T. Jenkln, W. II. Forrester, George o,ant Fo,.cio, G. B. SSriok, S. 8. H. hormaw }'í.bfr. R W. Beor, J. Olarke Rlohardson, J. Jones Jenkins. Thomss Phillip., and R. A. Euerr. Tbe Clerk of Ammigns (Mr. Vaaghan) read the Queen's proclamationagainst vioe, profanenees, OIld lmmoralitTi TIm CHARON. Baron Pollock, In oharging the grand jury, DId tie calendar of prisoners to be submitted to them was one that numerically wu apparently large, and there were iome undoubtedly serious offences oon- talned In It, liDS he did not say that, 1 '#kb,« at the vast populatlODfrom whenoe the prisoner* wmfakea that the grand Jury ihould Infer that either the amount or charaoter of the crime of the oouuty wai mere tbaD tbe, oollld expect to find Is such a dim- trlet, There were no fewer than five ewes of man- slaughter, and they differed, a. In this particular crinse was uiusl, widely In circumstances. One of tfceie oases Who peculiar, and therefore he thought It right to mention it to the grand jury, although be did not think they would have any aim- colty In dealing with It. It was, how- ever, a peculiar cale. became It was the first time In his experience that he recollected to have eeeD an ofieneeof that kind treated at manllaughter; but be was far from laying that the most proper course had Bot been token In 1° treating It It wa* the clle of Ann Evans. who was Indloted for the msnslanghter of her newly-born child, and the clrcumlunoel were peculiar, and to tome extent favourable to the pr'somf r, because, unlike what was commonly found to be the state of thing* In cues of that kind, pro- per provUlon appeared to have been made for ithe bhth of the child, but the prisoner said, and there appeared no reaaon to doubt her, 10 far as the depo- sitions went, that the child was bom a month earlier than the expected. LThere were no mark, of violence on the body, and in the absence of any actual Injary, he thought the grand jury would agree with him that this case had very properly been treated PA one cf manslaughter, and not murder. One other case of manslaughter wal of a more serious and difficult character. He referred to the case of Ann Wilts the charge agalnit her being that she had wantonly, by a series of lllusage, brought about the death of her child. The child was four years of age, and there was undoubtedly a considerable body of evidence pointing not only to a want of care, but to an amount of ill-treatment on the prisoner s part, which brought about daath. After a brief reference to the caie of a man killed In a fight, his lordship proceeded to call the attention of the grand jury to a case which he described al of a very peculiar cbaraeter J one In which the prisoner was entitled to a great deal of sympathy. It was a oue where a number of men went in March of foxes, and when on the mountain sldecne of the men removed a large stone with a view of seeing what wa. beneath it. He seemed to have received some warning not to shift the stone how far the prisoner oould have known or predicted the result was not shown on the depelltloIl" but he lived In the neighbourhood, and might be expected to under- stand the danger of what he did. The itone rolled down the hill, struok against a piece of rock, and was broken, and one portion struck a boy on the hill old. and caused his death. It was not sug- gested that the man who moved the stone knew the boy was there, but he (the learned judge) neei not tell the grand jury that If the prisoner did It with wanton and gron negligence, he who responsible to the law for his act. There were four cur. of wounding with knives, all of whloh seemed to be-althoush not 10 wrloui at aome of the mes- of a grievous kind, Inasmuch at there wa* an abaenoe of wilful provocation; still they were not case, wheretherewiks spredeteraminstlon to do Injury. There was one case (that of Andrea Barrachlui) of shooting with Intent to murder, and no doubt It was a case to be Inquired Into, u It was one of a very serious nature. If the fact, alleged In the deposi- tion B should ultimately be proved. His lordship also made some observation, on the caie of a man charged with placing timber on a railway, and re- gretted the prevalence of this clul of offence, where the apparent Intention was by no mean, commensurate with what would be the result If the obstruction was not removed before the train came up. Commenting on the case, of forgery and falle pretences contained In the calendar, the learned judge said It was a matter for regret that tradesmen frequently parted with blank cheque, to anybody who asked for one, and thus gave facilities for committing crime, of that sort. The grand jury were then dismissed to their room, and asked to return a true bill as soon "I possible. TRIALS OF PRISONERS. STEALING TURKEYS AT BIEtiLlTOS. Jchn Kedwell, 30, labourer William Hillier, 23, lath splitter I Edmund Jones, 28, butcher, were Indicted for stealing six turkeys, the property of Mrs. Sarah Vivian, at Swansea, on the 16th July, HUller pleaded guilty. Mr. H. Dlllwyn proieented Mr. B. Franol* Williams defended Kidwell and Jones. The facts of this case have been fully reported. On Sunday, the 10th July, six young turkey, were stolen from Mrs. Vivianof Singleton, near Swansea, The men Kldwell and HUller were seen together first of all near Singleton, and then on the sands, where a turkey was found hid In the sand. K(d- 1Ielh house wa* searched the same night, and on the premlie. were found two turkeys, bones, feathers, and blood. Jones lodged In the house, and the only evidence against him was that when the police vltlted the house he was heard to say, Give It here Quick," and then he was met coming In from tbe yard, where one turkey was discovered bid In a cistern I and. at a suggestion from the learned judge, Mr. Dlllwyn abandoned the caie as agalDlt Jones. Mr. Williams addressed the j ary on behalf of the prisoner Kldwell, the line of defence set up being that BUller was the man who had stolen the turkeys; and that there was not ooncluslve evidence that the man seen with Hllller in the morning was Kldwell The jury returned verdicts of not guilty against Kldwell and Jones, who were discharged. Hllller was sentenced to six mouths' hard labour, ABERDARE. CHABGE OF RECEIVING BIOLEN ROOLTBY. John Jenkins, the elder, on ball, was Indicted for receiving one tame Brahma fowl. the property of John Davles, at Aberdare, on the 25th May. Mr. Wm. Evans appeared fot the proieoutlon; prisoner wal undefended. The fowl wax mleud by prosecutor', wife, and traced to the posusslon of Jenkins by Police. sergeant Parry, of the county constabulary. At first prisoner refused to say where he got the fowl from, but after Mrs. Davie. had Identified the bird, prl. soner stated that he bought It honest of John Stlley In the broad day-light." Prisoner was about to crOll examine the sergeant, when fils Lordship aid I don't think you need trouble yourself, as there II no evldenoa ag&latt ycu. Bat people should be extremely ciutlous how tlev buy poultry. Under the direction of the learned Judge, the jury at oners returned a verdlot of not guilty, John Stlley (20), puddler, and John Jenkins (23), hbourer, were Indicted for stealing two tame Brahma fowls, the property of David Davie*, at Aberdare, on the 31st May and John Jenkins, the elder, was charged with feloniously receiving the same fowls well knowing them to be stolen. The younger Jenkins pleaded guilty. Mr. Wm. Evans vromemed. In this cue the fowls were found at the house of Jenkins senior, who mdd he had bought them of Stlley. Subsequently Polloe-sergeant Party went to the militia camp at Cardiff, where Stlley Wu at drill, and, In reply to the sergeant's question., Stlley stated that he was In company with John I Jenkln*, jam., when he stole the two fowls, which were afterwards taken to the houie of the elder prisoner, When called upon for their defence, Stlley said nothing; but the elder prisoner made a statement sin: liar to that before the magistrates, viz., that he bought the fowls beeaoae Stlley told him 11 they were honest, and belonged to him." The jury1 returned a verdlot of guilty agalnit Stlley, and not lullty agalnit Jenkins, ten., who was released from custody. Stlley had previously pleaded guilty to stealing one fowl on the 25th May. He and Jenkins, jam,, were both lentenced to font manthihsrd labour. ABIBDABI: THE KNIFE, I John TheMM. 18, stoker, WIWI indlotsa for feloniously and mallclouily woundlog John Edward* with a knif% with Intent to murder, at Aberdare, on the 8th JDl,; a leoond oount In the tadtot ment charged prisoner with unlawfully wounding, mr. 'l aIImi appeared for the pro "ctltion, pri- IO: =cÎePKte:¿oB::n 'R::i: j pr!- PMceentetf (who (poke In Welsh, hh evidence belIlg Interpreted by Mr. Dan Davisi6 town clarys office, Swaùea), itated that he was a collier, living at Aberaman. On the 8th July witness, the prl- voner, and & party of friends went ftom Aberaman to, Aberdare In a out, and on the return journey prosecutor gave up his seat In the vehicle to his mother, who was returning with ?. Mary WUMMN*, promentoeb 'W86$. t?t, 'If" IIIIIIII ? cat? '? 'M ?;wM4t) walked behind. Prosecutor noticed some eonduot on the poit of prisoner towards Mary WUllams, which he (vibm) did not approve of, and he tfcld, I am courting Maey Wtlllnn* SHaoner then leaned over the cart and Take thai" Prosecutor waa removed to the house of Hannah Parry, where the wound on the breast was diened, n d aftacwudo he went home. The prisoner came to his mother's home and wa* there learched for ablfe. but one wtA not found on the waistcoat and shirt worn by prosecutor on tbe day In question was a cut through each arttole, and both were atalned with blood, the ahlrt very exteutwely, Corroborative evidence as to the faet that prosecutor was stabbed having been given, the pollee constable who apprehended Thomas was examined, and he aald that when prisoner w" abuged he replied, 11 If I was to die I did not do It" Prosecutor wal ptetent, tnd he said, He to the man, take him out of my sight. Prisoner received a good character from the police a* a quiet youtkg mmu" A knife ploked up with- in 120 yards of the apot where the stabbing took place was produced, but there was no proof that It belolllfd to prisoner. Mr. Prloe Morris, surgeon, Ownaman, said the wound on prosecutor s breast was over the left nipple, and Inollnlng downwards. Mr. Allen having summed up the evidence for the P* IIr, Bowell RõwlaDdl, for the defence, urged that the only evidence against prisoner was that of pro- leclltor J referred to the fact that prisoner wu said by the police to be a lad of singularly inoffensive character; amd asked the jury whether it was likely that such a boy would at one bound ohange from a quiet Inoffensive fellow to one with murderous Impulse. In full aitlvlty. It was not for him to say how the stab was tntilotdd. Prisoner'* tnouth wai elosed, and he oould not give his version of this unfortunate affair and he (the learned counsel) repeated one fact whleh it-was Im- portant to bear III mind-that no one In that eatt saw the stab given or law blow itruok; and really there wa* no one but prosecutor to tell them that prisoner was the criminal. Looking at all tbe cir- cumstance., he aiked the jury to return a verdict of not Runty. The jury aoqultted the prisoner. The court will Bit at 10 o'clock this (Taesday) morning. u HISIPBIUS COUBT.-MONDAY. I (Before BARON CLUBBY.) I The learned judge took bis seat on the bench at I half-past eleven o'clock, and proceeded with the civil I oauses. ACTION AGAJNM A CON1EACTOB,—BPIl'IAL Ju- I CASE. PAEFIIT AND OTHEBS V. TBOMAS JErsox. This was an action to recover compensation for an alleged breach of ocntraot, arising oat of a sale by auction. Mr. Bowen, Q 0., and Mr. Bowen Rowlands, for the plaintiffs Mr. Mclntyre, Q.O., and Mr. Dane for the defendant. The plaintiffs were four men In a humble posi- ü:Of: joined tter f::elnp:r:o:e::r: Ing a brickyard under the following otr?amstanoa% In December, 1875, Davles and King, two of the plaintiffs, obtained a 99 years, lease from Major Ytughan Lee of a plot of ground at Forth, In the Bbondda valley, and proceeded to convert It Into a brickyard. Finding they had not sufficient capital to carry on the undertaking themselves, the, IIlIoclalEdthemlelves with Parfitt and Govar, the two other plaintiffs. They threw as much money ai the could into the undertaking, and hired a iiteam-engliae for the purpose of carrying on the work. The engine, however, did not answer, and the plaintiffs, finding they wtre getting Into difficulties, agreed to sell the leate of the bilck- yard. The sale was put into the hands of Messrs. D. Evani and Son (who were originally the de- fendants), and, having been advertised In the usual way, It was appointed to take phoo on the 18th April on the premises. The weather being unfavour- able, however, the mte was adjourned to the Bheoh hB. Mr. Jepson, the defend&at, who III contractor In the neighbourhood of U&ntttMnt. wM one of the persons who attended the sale. There was also present a person called a Cheap Jack," who bid t20 for the preinisen. There was a laugh at this offer, and the bidding hung fire' for some time. Eventually the auctioneer started the sale himself at 2300, and the bidding eeased at 9320. The de- fendant then turned to the plalnt'ff Parfitt, anil asked him what he would sell the premises for. Parfiit said he would let them go for r,359, where- upon the auctioneer asked If there was my farther advance. The defendant then bid £ 257, and the premises were knocked down to him, and he signed the usual condition* of sale, hisilgnature being witnessed by the auctioneers clerk. The defendant was asked to pay the deposit money, but not having It with him he promlledto pay It the following morning, and this was agreed to. He never paid the money, however, and upon application being made to him, the plaintiffs re- ceived a letter from his lawjers stating that he repudiated the purchate, on the grounds, first, that he was Intoxicated at the time he bid for the premises, and did not know what he was doing) and, secondly, that puffer. attended the sale, and that, there- fore, the transaction was not bona fide, With re- gard to the first plea, It was contended by the pktnt!S' th?t Jepson kn8w perfectly well wh?t be =tl"?l.su e, after the premiaeo had been knocked down to him, he not only signed the con- baot, but had & conversation with the plaintiff Davles, which showed that he must have been sober; and, an to the second plea, the plaintltTs denied that puffera" were employed, as alleged. In consequence of the defendant's refusal to complete the bargain, the premises wore autsequently put tip for sale again, but there wu no bidding. Ultimately they were sold to a Mr. Jones for £140, and the leate wis duly assigned to him. It wat alleged that after the sale Mr. Jtpson's son took away certain tools and mate- rials ircm the brickyard, whereby the plaintiffs were preoludtd from carrying on their work. They therefore claimed the difference between the £140 and the amount which the defendant bid for the premises, and ccmpenratlon for loas sustained by the removal of it e tools and matcrltll. n The plaintiffs and other witnesses were called to prove the facts itated above, and the learned oounsel for the dofence cross examined them, particularly al to the condition of the defendant at the time of the sale. They adhered positively to the statement that he was not Intoxicated at the time. Parfitt stated tbat the only two persons who bid at the sale, excepting the "Cheap Jack," were Jepson, the defendant, and a man named Gover, who was a relative of one of the plaintiffs. Tnls witness admitted having aiked a man named David Davie, whether Jepson was drunk on the day of the sale, and Davie, said In his opinion he was, and that he had never seen him 10 drunk before. Jame. Gover, the relative of the plaintiff Gover, deposed to a conversation he had with Jepson after the sale with regard to some oarta he thought of purchasing, and te asserted that the defendant was not drunk. He did not bid for the brickyard as a puff," but al a bona fide purohaser, hili object being to make money out of the transaction. The oondltlcns of laie were produced and real, showing the signature, apparently of Thomas I :th;Ð:ca::):e:he a:d:Indfwl:eo The .Iguture of the PUlchuer, howeverk wai 10 Uiegibl, written that Mr, Jepson wai requested to come forward and write him name for comparison. The two signatures were then handed to the learned judge and afterward, to the jurors, one of whom obterved that there was a visible Improve- ment" In the more recent writing; About twenty wltnesae. were oalled on behalf of the plalntiffr, and on the cowpletbn of thelr'cue, It being then half-put four, The learned Judge Inquired whether nIr. M'h. tyre's case for the defence was likely ti osonpy the court long? Mr, M'Intyre replied that he should go thoroughly Into It, and that he bad probably as many wltnessea to" an the plaintiffs. The court then acjouiced till ten o'clook this (Tuesday) morning. The following Is the CAUSH LIST. I Parfitt v. Jepson (S.J.). Sessions v. Williams (S.Ji), Folpy v. Rowe, Brewer v, Woodrnffe (S, J,), Grandfield v, Illlngworth, Wilkie and another v, Stephenson Clarke, and Co. (SJ), Hopkins v. Wallis, London and Provincial Bank v. Bogle and Wife and Oldfield (3.J.), Klrkhouse v. Lock and another (S.J.), Davietv. Glbbs and another (S.J.), Davles v. Weatberley and another (S.J.), Williams and wife v. Ellis, Warren v. Win by. Swansea Shipping Co. (Limited) v. Duncan, Fox, and 00. (BoJ,), Rhys v, Gould and wife. MONMOUTHSHIRE. I CROWN OOURT-MONDAT. I (Before Mr. JIIstloe BRlltT I I The court opened at 10 o'clock. I I mWFOBT INDHCEKT ASSAULT ON A GIRL. I WUUMiHnghe', 38, boiler maker, Newport; wu indicted and pleaded guilty to an assault with la- tent, eudp:: a ttle ¡:tlto:t Wr: neMtht new cemetery at St. WooHot, on the lUh BlI Lordllalv. In pasting aentenc3, aald: You have pleaded guilty to an offence which, If permit- ted, would be moat ruinoua to the well being of society. You were seen sitting amongat a group of young glrll, giving them things. Then you wcra seen to Inveigle two little glrla away from the rent, and then to act In a manner too horrible to think of. People aaw yon, and actually canght you In a position which oould How of- no mistake as to your lntentlona. Fortunately, you did not succeed, otherwise, you would have to have undergone a long term of penalmr ltude. Theofferes WUJI a most serious one, but the taw did nothadmlt of you being lent to penal neivitude. You will have to undergo 18 calendar months' Imprisonment wijh hard labour. MONMOUTH.—THBFT FROM A SHOP. I John Jones, 31, taller, pleaded guilty to iteallng I piece of cloth, of the value of 15s, the property of George Selwa, at Monmouth, on the 14th July. Nothing had been known against prisoner pre- vicwly, ad he appsued te have bm orereads by fi- a. sudden temptation. Sentenced te one month'* linpilionnfenti MtW WlBf BUBGMHY. I 1 Bllsibetfa Leuy -(50) washerwoman, pleaded guilty td an indictment for burglarlouly breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Isaao Jenkins, and a teal tag tnedty Mttdet of apparel, a bak, and curtain., kt NSwpor% Mthe31ttMtyt)M)? A MetieM ctDvloUOD for IMVBDY wu proved -PlaIt BtttonM, and eight cmMictteM for dnmkennem She wai Kntenoed to Mm me?tht' tmptttenmmt with hard labo-. I Either W -32, MdNttMHtU, who appeared )n the dock with an tnfMt In htftMM, were in- diated for, MeBtcM!y .'eaDnl three fowII, of the value 01 7? 6d, be]ODRIDB to William Pdtahttd, at LI&AeDiiD, near Abergavenny, on the 6th of July. Mr. é¥!ènp:O::d1ir.o;r1b d:f:n:d the p"itomezo. One of tbe lost fowl* produced In court by Police-constable Allen, which waa sworn to by the prosecutrix as being her property. It was traced to the possession of prisoner. The other two fowls were supposed to have been killed, The fowls were stolen from prosecutrix's houie whilst ahe was away attending,to a slek person. In croia-examlnatlon prosecutrix affirmed that the never aald, and never Believed, that a, fox had car- ried iff her hens. She never thought of a fox, un- less It was a two legged fox. Both prisoners were acquitted. L1ABCVIB S OmBAGI ON A GIEL Of WEAK I UtMLUCT. I Henry Ecott, 35, shoemaker, was indlotedfor outrsflrg Ann Elizabeth James, and iteallng £ 115s. 5d, also two pocket handkerchiefs, a let of studs, her property, at Blaenavon, on the 7th June last. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Maddy prosecuted, and the prisoner was un- defended. The case wai that prisoner had gone to the bouse kept by the prisoner's father to lodge. Be slept there that night, and next morning he went out. About mid day prisoner returned, com- plained of being ill, and asked to be allowed to go upstaln to lie down. He went upstair, to a room In which the girl kept her money. A traveller had given her a shilling, and ihe went te the room to put Is with her other money, Then prisoner took hold of the girl, threw her on the bed, end acted u alleged in the Indictment He then took her money. The father, fearing lomethlng wrong, went to the room, He found a waih-hand stand against the door. On opening the door. and pushing the wash-hand itand away, he saw prisoner on the bed. He collared the man, hit him twice under the ear, and then something shone" (which the father Interpreted ai an Interposition of Providence), He gave prisoner into custody. On searching prisoner there wai found upon him the (mount of money which the girl had lost, and the other articles. Dr. Ball gave evidence as to the result of his examination of the girl, which tended to corroborate the theory of the prosecution. The girl was always more or leis Idiotic, and suffered from epileptic fits. blro. James's additional testl- I" moty wes confirmatory of that given by her hus- band. She went to her daughter, whilst Mr. Jone. collared the prisoner. In orosa-examlnation by the pyloover, klrx. James denied that her daughter ever tad borne a character for any act of Immorality. She wa9 qu!te the contrary, and would not allow men to touch her. A brother of the prosecutrix also gave subatantlatory evidence. Police constable Smith went to the White Horsa Inn, and there received prlBtnr into custody. Evidence wa. also given as to the Identity of some of the coins. Prisoner denied the charge entire!?, and said the girl had gone into the bedroom to rob him of his money. Two jjerictis mentioned by prisoner were called as wit- nesses, but did not answer. Prisoner made a lengthy address to the jury, He called upon God to attest his innocence, and stated that for many years he bad lived a godly, religious life, and would not tell a lie for the world, He Im- pugned the character of the poor girl, and said she was guilty of robbing him, and wished him to aot Improperly with her. He refused, and had to push her off the bed. The high therlits chaplain, the Rev. J. Jone., was sworn, and said he had known the family of James since the year 1841, when he was ap- pointed vicar of Blaenavon. They were highly re. tpectaWe people, tnd the glilwas a prndent, truth- ful girl from her earliest childhood. He never beard the slightest imputation upon her moral character, The tuiy returned a verdlot of guilty, Mr. Middy, for the prosecution, abandoned the Indict- ment for robbery. Prisoner had been previously ccLvlctcd for dealing" watch. In passing sentence, big Lordehip remarked that (.rf: :efoC::II{û;d a rio::¡; crime—a double crime, that of robbery, "I well a. that of outraging this poor weak-minded girl. These crime, had been Is&ravated by the attempt he had made to tL.low the blame cpon the girl. Anyone with the feeling of a man would protect more than any other a poor )mbcci!e girl. Hat .pthoner had not the feeling of a man. He was a coward, and a wicked, bad I: Pthener woatd b:1' :dt:nW:r1 voual servitude. N1WPOET • KEEPING A DISBITCTABLE HOUS1. I Catherine Chapman, 49, was Indicted for keeping and maintaining a disorderly hovte, and causing cer- tain persona of III-faits to resort to her house, at Newport, on the 25th July.Mr. Cleave proseouted; bit. Lawrence defended the prisoner. The house Is situate In Canal parade, Mo Lordship. In passing tentence, said to prisoner You are a horrid wretch. As for calling you a woman, you are one of those vile old thing, that ruin half a street at a time, Were It not for such III you, these girls would not take to this life. You are the sort of people that entloe thf M. leading yourselves a nasty, idle, profligate life. You do nothing but lend these ghll Ollt to ruin themselves body ndsoul, and often take from them more than half they get. I don't like such people. They are sometimes treated In this way, You are allowed to go on promising to shut up the house, but then you either set up another hcuse, or go somewhere else and set up a place there. That does not strike me as being a very clever way of dealing with the matter. You shall be shut up !If. decent houle- a gaol Is a great deal more decent house than you have kept for 28 years, and you will be Imprisoned with hard labour for 12 months, That will do you Rcod. BIwrOBT 0BCELLT ILLTBEATIKG A CHILD, I John Thcmas, 27, labourer, was Indicted for an- lawfully and violently beating and assaulting a child, aged four years, named Lily Damayne, an Illegitimate child of the wife of prisoner, at Bar- nard town, N'awport, on the 19th July, Sir Herbert Herman Croft, M.P., appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Lawrence defended the prisoner. The case was that prisoner In a fit of madness had taken a rope and had beaten the child In a most merciless manner, The neighbours around where prisoner lived congregated together In consequence of the child's screams. They called prisoner a murderer, and communicated with tbe police authorities. The child was taken to a doctor, and on examination by hlr. F. Cheese, surgeon, It was found that that the child was one mas. of bru'.sei all over the back, and was literally In danger for a time. A number of witnesses were called to prove the facti. Hr. Lawrence addressed the jury for the defenoa, and endeavoured to show that there had been an altercation between the huaband and wife, and that both were implicated lu Hogging the child, but In reality there had been no exess. of beating. His Lordship summed up carefully. After listening to the learned counsel's defence, he said It appeared to him that the learned counsel had not had much experience of children. He world know better by and bye. The theory let up for the defence was that the wife had beaten the child, and then called out for a polios-officer to have the pilsoner taken p. Th jury, however, must conilder whkh they &bought had been guilty of this cruelty. The jury foand prisoner guilty. H)B Lotdthtp ettd ho :ls::ltth the thought-what cowards such mOD II the Prisoner were. They had a qaMtet with their wtwt and then beat their children. He would be uatenosd to nine calendar months' hard labour. ROHTSFOOI: MANSLAUGHTER CAS1, Jobn Barris (21), collier, was indicted for killing William AJjsClom, oA the parish of Trovetkin, to the 2gfch M., lost. Prisoner .was alio charged on the coronet's warrant with a aimllar offence. Pri- soner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Ram proseoeted and Mr. Lawrenoe defended. After briefly openlD- the cue, Henry Holdor, a collier, at Aber- .¡ohaD, 'gave evidence, which *ended oycban, that ptbenet and deoeMed had fought, and that It was a fair atandlng fight. No foul play was used, but deoeaied, who wai drunk, was knocked down several times, Dr. Mulllghan, who made the poit-mortem examination, could net account for death except by a shook to the nervous system. His Lordship put It to the jury If they thought It possible to account for death, because If they couia not the cue WM at an end,- Another witness waa called, and the jury having boon again :$o, the pthocet WM M?nttM. NISI PRtUS COURT. (Before Mr. Justice Grove.) I The court tat at ten o'clock, and the trial of the I special joky case Wall resumed. NKWFOBT,— PDBHIH.L V. THE GBKAT WISMBH BAIL. I WAY COMPANY AND HA"LI31 Mr. Matthews, Q.O., and Mr. Prltehard were plaintlff'l counsel: Mr. Powell, QX3,, and Mr. Boianquet appiared for the Great Western; Mr. S. Hill, Q, O,, and Mr. Jelf tfot the defendant !Ian! ?hMtionwn brought by?S'mne! Parnell, a for, man under Mr. James Murpby, at his saw mUl at Ne?pMt, tUntted near the Great WeNtrn r?t- way brid;e, which CMue* the U.k. In 1871 a oon- tract was entered Into by the defendant, S. Harris, ef Gloucester, to do work tt the cempmy! bridM. of Glan O rIte r'to l?: Mwn at Mr. Mntph? mill, and It had to be thrown upon the mill promises. Whilst tfanber wa* being thrown on the morning of July 6tb, 1871, the plaintiff was pasalng from his cottage to the law mill, and his foot WAS dread- fully crihed. Tbe plaintiff brought his action agalnit the tve dclcudeatx. and It Will fiiit bud a -Ag o year $go, when the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff akalait He oou*wy, Step* were-- to ibials a new trial, Mid hence then P? C6E llgx. '?e ?6itMF«M9Wt*<!emd on Ik"l 'lIoon, And   MM"* 0 ro?au nbmi6ted &at ? there was no cue tftctt the ompuy. The evtdeMewMth?e .1. etopMytd wtre?hnh't men, *? qoesdo'A WI' whol len. were tbb ma "1 whom thII unforivesis aetidsnt was caused. Mr. Bosanquet followed on the lame el,de, Mr. Matthews van heard on the other side. His Lordship said he would eenalder W point, and give hla deoblon oh Monday morning. At the sltthigtf the oourt this morning, The learned Judge aald: I don't pJopontro stop the case against either defendant at preseat. Mr, PoWell; At any rate your lordship will. serve to me leave to move. The learned Judge said he should not do that now. If he saw any reason at the elmot the case he would io so, but he would not reserve leave for the mere purpose of bringing thli case down-here again, Mr. Powell I am quite content with the fact* f M at present* Mr. Jell My frfcnd known very well the owe we have got behind. His Lordship said this was funott extraordtoMT oaae, because plaintiff wes seeking to make both defendant! liable. In all porbability the plaintiff -viould be ruined by these proceedings, and neither piiitty would getgmto out of him. Mr. Powell: i fetmlU,.al. your Lordship to call upon Mr. Matthew* te elect against which of the two defendants he will prtaeed. Bit ship: Will you *lot so not? Mr. Matthews: Ito, 811 lord, I will not. Mr. Bill then addressed the jury for the de- fendant Harris. His answer to the plaintiff I case was two-fold. In the first place the defendant Harris was not liable, beoause he simply did the packing for the Great Western, an arrangement between- the company and himself, the terml of ithtoh were that the cemptBy were to'" the men'. wages and find the tmtttkt. h the second n po?In the jury were of opinion $bat Berm wat U,,618, and not the oemtMy, the pMftMf ?ti< 16 N?me for what happened, la* boiimi guilty of contributory negli- ece, "nd could not therefore recover a* against the defendant Harris. Samuel Harris, the defendant, was examined and erome-examined at great length, In the courieof which certain Interrogatorlei were refined to, and evidence contradictory thereof was given. He aald he algned them without reading them. This led to observation, being mede ft, to the loose way In which affidavits were drawn, but his Lordship said It ought not to be argued that that which was awcrn to by a witness might be lightly not aside. After the adjournment for lusioheon his Lordship suggested that both parifes might now etoll and leave it to the jury to decide upon the negllgenoe and contributory negllgenoe. Then he would give his opinion aa to which defendant was liable. That would put the party concerned In a position to go to themurt above. Mr. Hill said he could not agree to that esurse. His Lordship aald: As the caae now stood it might go on lndegiottely. He oould not oompelthe plaintiff to elect, and the plaintiff could not recover against both. Whichever side the jury might say was liable, the other defendant would move the court above. What he wanted to do was to prevent a miscarriage of juatlce. John Bobeil, working foreman under Mr. Harrla, was called to prove what took place on the work In July, 1871. He Mtd there was Abundant warning to those below when the timber wai thrown over. In croiB-cxanilnatlon by Mr, M*tthewi, he w;; sharply quedloneclu to a letter which he wrote In February, 1873, and In which he said he did not hear anyone give warning. He said what he wrote then was not true, (Seml..$IoD.) Mr. Matthews: Am I to understand that you purposely wrote what you knew was notme I Witness: I wrote heoaue I would not tax my memory. IIIr. Matthews: Did yon purposely write what ycu knew to be untrue 1 Witness: I suppose I must have written It. The Judge: Lid you know It to be untrue t WUnElI I heard some one cry out. He was further pressed on the point, but he could net give any satisfactory answer; and in reply to further questions he said he had been tfOblnj to Mr, Panli Mils morning, but could not tell whht they talked about The Judge: And yet you came here to tell us whht happened five years ago, and give M a different story to that which you wrote In 1873. 1 homes Jones, carpenter, said he ohtcd!t look out below, on the morning of the accident. He aho Mtd he tt<!ted plaintiff when he was In bed, and plaintiff ..Id he did not blame Mr. Harris nor any of the men for the accident. William and John Harrii, labourers, and other witnesses were examined, after which the defendant Harris's case wai closed, On being again appealed to by the Judge, Mr. Matthews elected to proceed against Harris. Thl. excluded the Great Western from any farther After a consultation on the part of the learned, ccnnsel, which lasted a quarter of an hn., Mr. Matthew, Itated to the court that his lord- ship and the jury would be saved any further trouble In this case. Mr. Harris felt that he ought to make some compensation to the plaintiff, and had agreed to terms which did him great oredlt, Mr. Powell, as the representative of She Great Western Company had handeomel, agresd not to ask for costs from anyone, The result was that the verdict would be for the Great Weatsrn on one aide, and aa affected Mr, Harris, the vedlct wculd be for plaintiff, damages 9260, subject to term, agreed upon as to the mode of pajment and tho costa. Mr. Hill and Mr. Powell having made a few re- marks, His Lordship said he thought the arrangements satlafactory under all the clrcuaatanoea of a very complicated case. The verdict was entsred accord- ingly, and the court then rote, It Is expected that the business will be concluded this (Tueadej) evening.