The Western Mail

1. MIDSUMMER ASSIZES. GLAMORGANSHIRZ- I CROWN COURT. I (Before Baron POLLOCK) I The court sat at 10 o'clock on xueaaay. ABIBDABi; OR" OF A] {or 1 ts ..IIIK ?- incliched f.1 Thomas    611. B. FlGcIa WI1JJaIIIII ,d,Lalld  prOlOC¡¡" LM=d.d." b."  r>tber a .,ular esse. On le iW MI" the prpOIler, 'hom.Jonee.. oolllør, Pen. ""0 other me" were hunting oa foot on itth*e 'iS ,U..t.l.Agb:A are.in tho coum .1 Ih. peas Ilon the V""T o'm. MrM. a btteb?'Ser. nld to W.h hnnOtedwetgM M? < h? tSe.? h? already been moved from I.fb.'d ?d 11. I'?'d VY :X :v:tho: i h?mp.n:Mi.. mo? th..t.M, and letlt rolling an, L_ I.L. I. down the mountain. « *» descent, and one fragment itruok ft lltHe boy, named Llewellyn Thomas, IOn of a locomotive engine Oliver, who was t>lt?lng en the mountain side. The party its to the lad a assistance, and they toma,bim insensible, and bleeding from a woued in the bead, which caused his death. These <Mtt were (tepotd to by thue wlmol"I, Mtd theT .S' m M?.r to Mr. Allen, that when the boy same ita tight, prisoner shouted to him, and he (decerned) moved out of the way, and he would have escaped unhurt If the atone had not broken, The witnesses would not say, however, whether the mile slipped out of prisoner's hand, or whether he purposely set the atone rolling. It appeared, how- ever. that prlioner told Inspector Reel, of Aber- dare, that he lifted the stone to see what was under- auth, and It relied away from him uumwuv& ?. I?eB' for the def?nce, said the nnfottM?te prisoner m.tt deeply Umentod the "I,OILD"tsnoo ?Moh occurred on the 291h M?, wheD, by hU act, a otoe ..$ Ulu.kily <et I- "°J5>nA J P_0„ beJond aU doubt, c?sdthe d..thof?po? boy. Be then went on to tell the jUlT that the qM.t)onwM wbether there w" uoh a culpable d,g,e? of -gUgen» 00 the ,oan,^nln in doing wb.t be dld., to make bim lable to Ihe 5™ ?f fdSU *J&* & \^eat,*2. of-wilful and ¡reu n..Iigenoo had caused the death of Thom", that would be sufficient to juüf, this Sh«» but he (the learned counsel) submitted that !he??'?'?'" .neefmiMdventnKentt.e?. l^V^rto Wng the orlooner wi thin the MOM et a chM<e ,f thh kind. The learned Judge bulu. lumme4 up, The jury immediately returned a verdlot of not .nIltY. — MKBTHTB • MASSLADOHTBB BY A GIKI" Johanna SuUlvan, a young woman, onotu, w indicted for the manslaughter of GwUym Joner, on the 2bt April I&SI6 ?M? H. Allen Was counsel for the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended. The prisoner lives at 0.. Barril. Dowlab, Ind the evldenoe adduced against her waa to the effeot that on the date given above the was standing inside the garden of the house where the lived, throwing stones at some boys- Deceased, a child between eight and nine years, was at the house of his aunt, Mrs. Gabe, which Is near the prisoner s, and on running out to the street, a piece of briok, said to have been thrown by prisoner, strack him on the temple. The boy was picked up by Mn. Catherine Isaacs, and taken home, carrying the piece of brick, which bad blood upon It, with him. Mn. Jones accused prUoner of having thrown the niece of brick at her boy, and Sullivan replied, I will hit him again; I will hit his brains out. Deceased war attended by Mr. Valentine Jones, snrgecn at tie Dowlals Works, but he expired on tke 9th May, oause of death being an abioess on the brain, caused by fracture of the skull. The prisoner told the jury that the deceased and a lot of other boys threw dirt at clothes she had washed, and also broke the olothes line. She threw some small coal at them, and as the boys ran a way Owilym Jones fell down, but she did not know then that he was hurt. Prisoner also called Mary Ann Pharsey, her married slater, and this witness old she was present when dowaaed's mothercame to prisoner and SOOOled her of having hit the boy.1 Nothing was said about a brick, and prllonèr did not make the answer attributed to her. Patrick ]Pharxey, b=bsnd*of the previous witness, corro- borated his wife's svldence. He also swore most podUvely that the piece of brick prednoed that day was not the piece of brick shown to him by de- ceased's mother a week after the w,y de" Polioe-sergeant Jenkins, the officer in oharge of the ease, was recalled, and to answer to Baron Pollock, he said he first saw the piece of brick which he now produced on the 30th April. Mr. Valentine Jones, surgeon, re oalled, stated that when the piece of brick produced was shown to him by last witness he found UIIOB. of blood on It he could not say whether it was human blood or not. Was unable to find blood on the brick DOW. After a speech from Mr. Allen, his lordahlp sun med up the evldenoe, which he said left no donbt ss to the cause of death-an abscess superven- ing on • fracture of the skull. Tiie question for the jury to decide was whether the prisoner produced this injury by wilfully throwing a piece of brick at the boy. The jury found prisoner guilty. Mr. Allen said he was Instructed that prisoner had borne a good character hitherto, and the pro secutlon hoped his lordahlp would take that Into conalderatlon In passing sentence. When prisoner was called up the once more declared her Innocence. The learned Judge said all who had listened to this case must be satisfied that the jury had re- turned a proper verdict. There could be no doubt that the poor boy Jones had died from the effeots of a blow caused by the piece of brick which she threw, and though he did not believe that prisoner meant to kill deceased, there was no donbt prisoner had been guilty of a wretched, cruel, and very wicked tot. In the sentence whloh he was about to pais he took Into conalderatlon the good oharacter which prisoner had received, aid alao her age; and he trusted that, alight as that sentence would be In comparison with the crime which she had com- mitted, it would be a warning to her for the future. The sentence of the court was that she be Impri- soned for nine calendar months with bard labour. On hearing thb sentence prisoner fell down in a fit of hysterics, and was with difficulty removed from the dock, her shrieks being painfully audible for some minutes after the was placed In a oell. KILIBBBILL-ANOTHER OASZ OF MAHSLAUGHTgB, I John Main waring, zl, collier, was mulcted tor feloniously killing and slaying William Lloyd, at KUlybeblll, on the 26th May. Mr. H. DiUwyn appeared for the proaecutlon; Mr. Bowen Rowlands defended prisoner, Both prisoner and the deoeased man were people of the collier class, end old friends. They met at the Gwyn Arms, Daffrvn, on the evening of the 26th May last, and the evldenoa led to the inference that some sort of a quarrel took place between them, for deceased was heard to say, I will stand you, Jak." and the prUoner said, "And I will stand you." The men left the house, then people were attracted by a fight, a ring waa formed, the men fought, botbi fell, eaeh got up, and Main- warlng went away. The deceased spoke to thaao around sensibly, but fell to the ground and was picked up dead. Mr. Lewis, surgeon, Ponhr. dawe, dsscr btd the post mortem appearances of deceived, and stated that death was caused by strangulation, produced by pressure upon the baehea, which prevented air entering the fa0*!1 and, consequently, proper circulation of the blood. Inspector Hodson, of the county constabulary, de- posed that when prUoner was in custody at Pontar- dawe, witness questioned him, after a due caution, and prisoner,said, "I don't know how U Wlllo lie knocked me down first, I got up and struck him, &ad 1 don't know b.w it went after. "'Mr.Bowen?I?ndtmSe '?ctt tmpM'toned speech for the defence. He mged that the medio? evidence, which WM no doubt iru.twodhJ. u to the cause of death, if" hcoBtt'tect with w?t lbsy had learnt of the course of events on the night In question. They were told mottpoilKvely th?.ttMx?tt.n was th.c.Me of death, and yet _rdlll' to some .{the wttM.'e.to' the ?eM tlon, deoemed .tood up Mdt?ed?' the piij (oner bad gone '"T. *? deøe-d  leU .$..di.g 1. the mld»t of mawd, -,I no Atahneo learned counsel) toggestea tha*there wer' e elements of doubt is the which wauld justify a verdlo ef 'vets jud?ge, in the course of bla summID9 .n?M?JMy th*t H two men went out to athf. ?wtth?yth' wttp? and a f? enWd. the law threw upon survivor fth S?SSty?th'tw?h !twou!dbefMthe ETto whether the deoeased met with his ih 'eW: at the bands of the Prisoner, ro%M lidiat sooofftlllr, Jul "f= prisoner glui?. S? K?en Row do then caUed attention to the hot that prisoner had been In gaol since the 1st June. His Lordship sentenced prisoner, who seemed to feel his position very acutely, to one month's hard labour, a decision that oalled forth (one applause, which was at once suppreved. utBTHVtl BLOPdODX AJO TBOBBERY, I I I James Jonah ?, '?' tnuutea im fe)MbM!y ?etUiXeMttM?tMt Md ah? three mAb. two bedI.- b?et. twottext* qamttty ef t.M<h«M furaft bed 01 _dill ap- tMe!, of the value ;{$Qpíllør'. S'PT-POZIT of SMte<Je!unen,*tMttN'!)t, *A $he 30th MMoh Int. Mr. Ffuklen prueeuted.; prtooow WM not do. '111<Yed. r, tn elderly maji. ?WMA to England la 1'I'CIaeeut., 'II e1derly.II,8. to Eqlod Ia beretumadto,Llwynyo .1? =t:aii'41 men* yea?i, be found his wife pet and his honl' ompp;d of furniture. Prisoner had M ?! Jeh?Mn't house, xoupMen M upon Mm. and he vu diswvered living with Mn. Tobason, at Snu. set, most of the articles named In the indictment hID" In the rooms tujpled by the guilty cmy e, It WM p'o?ed. too, that prisoner had ton.?ced (rtods be!?< toptoMont.rhom Q?6?Mct to owspies. IMoro tbe case for the prosecution had been con- cluded, The learned Judge laid there was no doubt pri- soner was a great scoundrel and rutcal, worse, per- htrs, than one who stole property. No doub he bad tun away with prosecutor's wife, but It was always unwise to atraln the criminal law out of Its proper course, and, however muoh theprlaoners conduct was to be reprobated, he muat tell the jury tters was no case upon which they oould convioa plwner. The jury then returned a verdict of not guilty, and mlaocer was dlaobarged, IXASXBISABT: CHABOl Or MAMBLADOHTSB AGAlSSr A HUBBAHD.. ThOmM MoMf'y, 32, labourer, was snuw.»» fe?o?UM?Md.?h.tM? M.r.f.y. at L!Mt!h*nt, on the Mth ult. LI;t:n°B:'aJ peallted J Mr, H. Allen defended the prisoner, ihtt <<" The .vtdMoe?Mtl thin ease showed that fo' about five W66t< CKTto..t. the^19 pToher's wife t.d been 10 a very bad date of hOsItb- 00 the ?.ve day pilaoner wa» jwo haTe behaved with great violenceto wds ^EOEUED. H d&n her round taooked "(tMtetd ,? hetjwmd  ordered her to ???M"'??.????????e??rdered beh'?o. K witness 8et » "WW bBW ;looner's eKdalmed, "Are JOu dead, Mary?"  ? ;et.hbMt, went  th o l otise afterwards an d found NEM Morritay in bed. She leemed  \II. and und for food, The police 0.me and M^ed x?l?o que*tloBB, when pd. "Fnrer said his wife had screamed became he was retching he?? hM." Hext day Mrs Mur- pby saw deceased w? and then noticed a blue ?koc her arm. Au&Mt?t.<m.?.e at the ?cnt?rtddW.?h.a.e. "Med th?tdeMMcd was brought to the workhouae on the 20th att., and ::&itn'I':wwrrI:e:le:hf: h w*' very U!. and died next day. ?m6< Phillips, ?f oomer, who had a P?.tye MM ptH.net. h.Me. deposed that whilat attending to M. pigs on the 19th ult. he saw Mrs. Morrlsay outside her houae. Prisoner struck her on the faoe with a doth, and told her to go In-doom DeeeMed ?..d.Md.?d.he wM.fr?d. PrUoner then o&Mhthotd of her and Mtd, By — I wUlJ» the death of you tont?ht." The deceMtdttte? wMd. went Into the house, and In *.hottttme wltnesB heard a sad scream, as of a woman In great Than twlaoner called Mary several times, but got no answer. Subiequently wltneisand otherswent Into thehouse, and prUoner accounted for the scream by saying that he had been b»thlng his wife's feet. Wilpees asked her If he had beaten her, and deoeased answered very slowly, No, not now." Mra. Phillips Phillips depoled that she examined deceaieda person on the 20wi ult. and found ft wound on the back of her head. When ptiioner was apprehended by Police-con- stable Bees on suspicion of oaualng his wlfes death, prlioner aid. "She fell down soma death, that night (the Mth?y) and hurt steps hanell," Dr. Hopkins, of Pontypridd, ?deMtt?bea the external appearance of decoand's body, ana also the tutimal appearances. On the outside ol t'he body there were several discolouratlons, also a scratch on the back of the bead, and the lungs, the ktdneyi, and the liver, were extensively dlaeased. The general aspect of the organs was that of a person in an advanced stage of consumption, and my How Itflloted on a person In auoh a state would accelerate death, although It would not injure a healthy subject. A person In the condition of deceased would require the greatest care and attention. t he defence set up by Mr. Allen wAs that MMn. Morrisby'a death waa entirely the result :!Ia; I causes. Be did not deny that prisoner had, from I e: telt:eeî!ts te roughly; bat f:: seated that, taking Into account thedeoeaaed s state, It was mere matter of speculation to say that any act of the prisoner's Sioelerited her death. The !eMMa ?ad?e ?nmmcdup, and said the jury had a most Important duty to dUohargein this use, On, the one hand It WII of enormous Impor- ttnoe that the law should be upheld in Its integrity, and on the ether hand It WM equally Important that no mere feeling of deteatailon of the prisoner s conduct shonld lead the jury to find a verdlot not In stilet accordance with the faots of the case. It was the duty o( a husband, In the eye of the law, not merely to abstain from cruelty and unklndness towards his wife, but by acts of comfort and ono- tenenance to Iglve to her all' the reasonable assistance he could whilst she was In a state of tlckteia or distress. The jury must ask themselves whether there had teen a deficiency on either of these points, and, UJtheie had been, then CIIIIIe the more Important question, had thaWefiolcncy led to the death of the prUoner'swlfe ? The jury, after about 20 minutes deliberation, found the prls ntr iulltv. Sentence was deferred. BILLS IGKOBSD, The grand jury ntused I, no true bill against Elizabeth Huxtable and Elizabeth Dayles. for stealing ftom the person at SwM<et, on the ^Uth AptU Emma 0 rk, for stealing A ptue Mtd mMey, the pMpttty ?f Jean FUlMd, at S?MM. on the 15th ul. AtnEvMt, for the marilugb?ter of her Infant child, at Llanwonno on the 27th June. The grand jury finished their labours about Oil" t'olock, and were discharged with the thaoka d tin* count* for their servioes, PLEADED GUILTY. I Thcmas Kelly, 16, labourer, to Burglary at awan- sea on the 14th May, Eight montbji* hard labour. William Locker, 17, labourer, to burtlary at Swansea on the 13th Jane. In this case there Wall a previous conviction. Sentenced to 12 montM hMtt Thomas Drlaooll, 17, labourer, to stealing 181Ibi. of coal at Melthyr I also, to a previous conviction, Sentenced to six months' hard labour. Annie KIchards, 29, married, to stealing wearing apparel at Neath on the 5th ult" whilst In the capa- city of a aervant. The learned judge sentenced her to eight months' hard labour. Nathaniel Griffiths, 45, labourer, to felony at Llanwonnoon the 27th June. He had been twice connoted. and tMSered penal aervUnde. M'°M'- was now sentenced to seven loan' pallallervUude, ard three yesif police supervision. The courr, rose t mix O'clook- Business will bejln at ten o'olook this (Wednesday) morning. NISI PEJUS COURT. TUEIDAY. I (Before Baron CLEASBI. J I IHE CASE or PAirirr v. jfi'su*. This case, which was an ac«on TO I, W pealstiou for an alleged breach of contract 'ar6ing out of a sale by auction, WI. resumed tats morulng. 0UM0/ Inwen y0 0?an'd Mn Bowen KM* for Mr. Bowe., Q.0 i i,intyre, Q 0., and Mr. 1)aiin the plaintiffs j Mr- ?yre, Q 0., ?.d Mr. D..n for 8 defen jont6 ,0The pkln^ caso which had been ? ,j .? MondlY,wU that the defendant purchased a brick? yard from them, at PMth tt the Rh.udd. Valley? at a ..Ie by auction In Aprn last, and the., aft., at ft sale by auot ^cUned to complete tho ''°?'?e Theh.M.'???d In the cotton were —whether ? Se *WM a bona ?? one (It being aln lege.A d *t»h,«at Vp inffers were employed to run np tb.e defendant at tho Ume of the purah.le wa. In a condUlon to know iff nttue of the bminef he was trM«cttBX. Mr. M'Intyre, In '?°: the ""? for the efeno9, M? ?t?amM) one penon who could have given, ?M who oueht to ??' the farest Informa- S°nMtewh*t took piM" at the sale-namely, Mr. Evans, the ?M.ne.r-tut the p!»lntlfE'« coansd hS deUberttdy kept Mm back. If he had been aSledhe?Mtd have cleared up the ImputaUons ?weMM?e.thttthe Mds at the sale were ,hMn Mdt The oMe for the defence was that no real bids were offered, but that they were all sham bids except the last one of iEl. which the defendant advanced on- RAO when appealed to by Mr. Evans, the auctioneer. It was also oontended that the do. fendant was not In a oondltlon to bid, having bean drinking heavily, not only on the day of the sale, but for two or three days previously. Tho learnd counsel asserted that on the Thursday, when tho age took place, he (the defendant) was in a thoroughly intoxicated stats, and that the drink he partook of was a mixture of port wine and brandy, Moreover, he did not ceutiue himeeu to that parldeulu beverage, but diversified his lIba tlons, taking whisky and other spirits. But tha I "pie drink," the learned oounsel nicS, wan poet vine and brandy. At the close of the learned cotmeerio address, a short dlMaftlan took place as to the right of tho plaintiffs to use the brickyard and seltjmaterlals from It after the mte.. The learned Jcdgeo?heM was no proof of any damage to the materials, and the mam question was whether the defendant wia MMd by Iheoon Mr. Superintendent Usithowi W" the first wi. r,eeif called fo* the defence, and Mr. Dunn was pro. ceeding^ examine him Mte defendant's oondltloa for two days previous to the )m!e, when The Teamed Judge intimi ted that ttwM qa!M nnneMMMy to "H evidence as to whether Mr. Jepson was drunk or Sot previous to the mile. The principal question was as to his condition on that Mr. David Evans, tie aaotloneer who sold the property, was then oalled, and deposed to the cir- cumstances of the sale. Be was to reaelve 2* per cent. aommlllllbu on the amotmt realised, and the expenses he incurred In connection with the sale. As soon at lIie. properlJ was put up a "Cheap Jack" offered £20, and witness said that was tbtMd, M he beM tn hh pocket the reserve price.. He did not then mention the %mount of the ra#erve. Immediacy aftêrwaidl he started the bidding himself at tSCO, In the Interest of hb client, Mr. Gover then nodded.. and witness took that u a bid of Er), Witness then lid that as a bid of £ vanced himself to P,310, Gover bid £315; and wltneas again £320. Up tn this tlma Jensen had not bid at alL Witness then aiked the plaintiff Parfitt for the rMerve price, and Par tits told hln) £ 350. He then announced the reserva prioe, and asked Jemon If he ahould say B5 far him. 07eplon replied, No, I don't mind giving yon a a » witnffii then knooked down the property to him Be afterwada remuked to Gover ,h1; be vs. fndd 1$ ?, bd we, bec.- the   nd c.?me to a- ,he btit for then4o meullll the pl,Ptiffs. Wllne.. had bad DO QODveriaU.OD with ,be plaintiff a as to he kidding at the mde. Clogs.exsmfzied b, Bowen What was J,ep son's s taters to drinking ?—I bellove he neither ??Mr"?. <LM?t<) ?a have known htm?ome time 1-Yer. I believe that Is hb nsual state, b It not ?-A< rule. (Load leashter.) t.t  ID 7 our judgment wal he capable of ente&K P.Oto such a contract tcd ttM<Mttex bMtnett !—t took h)mtoba<etttbetime. fordohlp you took Mm to underebtd -,ht he was doing ? Witness I firmly believe he did at M ttiae, otherwise I should not have knocked dora th. pro- potty to him. The jury bere put a quelllon to A lordship, as to how It was the auctioneer took wd of £ t &fteI bid of 21 after having announced that each ad'- ,&Rcg was not to be leas then £ 5, The learned Judge: If a alall chooses, after an announcement has been that the reserve prloe 1.1350, to advance El., sad It III accepted, and he afterwards slgna an ttreement, I do not see any- thing to prevent that being binding. There is Irregularity ato A" no doubt. (To the witness): How WON it, having announced Rb as the amount of eschblO., ).u took Cl? .(Aeas: I could not got another pound from ''?Me. (LM:htM.) '.1t11 :ele OMe an argument took place between the learned judge and oounsel on both aides, bis lordahlp having Intimated that after the evidence of. 14r. E.1t would be dlffioult to prove the plaintlffa'-olatm, In the result, The learned Judge, addressing the Jury, said the care bad taken the form very much ot a question of law, namely, as to whether this contract was binding npen the defeitdant, The law did not allow a person who was selling property, either by himself or anyone else, to run the price up except by the agreement of everybody oonoerned. By the conditions of the sale the auctioneer was allowed to bid once, and the vendors once but upon Mr. :all8cew:nh:lnelJrhadntiJ O:Pf vendors, which was not legal. Under these dtcam. atances he advised she jury to give a verdict for the defendant, The jury then formally returned a verdlot for the defendant, but upon the application of Hr. Bowen his lordship gave leave to move for a new trial on the queatlon as to the bona fiae nature of the sale. AN UNPROFESSIONAL VALUATION. SESSJONSV. WILLIAMS.—This aotlon was brought to recover the sum of 264 2a 10d for evaluation which was made by the plaintiff of certain property on behalf of the defendant. The case was tried by special jury* Mr. M'Intyre, Q.O., and Mr. Hughes, Instruoted by Mr. H. Beard, solicitor, were oounsel for the plaintiff Mr, Bowen, Q <J„ and Mr. B. Francis Williams, Instructed by Messrs, Davles and Justlos, for the defendant. The plaintiff, Mr. Stations, Is a member of a firm of that neme, carrying on business at Cardiff, and, the defendant Is a builder living at Newport, It appeared that some time In the early part of the present year a Mr. Job Thomas, who was a dealer in monaaents, &c,, at Newport, became a bank. rupt, and the trustee under the bankruptcy was desirous of disposing of the stock-totrade belong- IDI to him. The defendant, Mr. Williams, wished to ipurebass It. The trustee appointed a gentleman named Sayer for the purpose of valuing the stock | and during the month of March Mr. Williams called opon the plaintiff, and aaked if he would undertake the valuation for him, Mr. Sessions, not being a professional valuer, consulted his solici- tor, who advised him that If he made the valuation he oncht to take out a licence before doing no. The plaintiff accordingly told the defendant if he would pay the cost of a licence, which would be 22, and of the stamp, and give him 3 per cent. oom. mission upon the amount of the valuation, he would undertake it for him. The defendant assented to this, and the plaintiff having obtained a licence, an agreement In the form of a letter embodying the terms above-mendbliod* im signed by the parties on the 20th March. In the following month Mr. Besilcns went to Newport, and made the valuation In conjunction with Mr. Sayer. It occupied them until the 29th APIH, and, when It was completed, Mr. Sessions forwarded to Mr. Williams a list of the articles that had been valued In the form of an inventory, the total value of the stook being esti- mated at R2,038 161 5d. Subst quently the plaintiff saw Mrs. Williams, who expressed her astonishment that the amount was so luge, and objeoted to a great many small things which were Included In the valuation. She the asked for a detailed valuation of each article, and eventually the defendant declined to pay the plaintiff, The plaintiff gave evidence rat great ..lengt..h, and was severely cross-examined by air. Bowen as to his knowledge of crrtaln articles whlca were In- cluded In the valuation, the object being to show that he was not a competent valuer. During the cross-examination, Mr. Bowen Intimated lto the learned judge that he had five or six witnesses who would give scientific evidence to show that It was au absurd valuation. all Lordship said It seemed to him a very absurd Cllle. and It bad arisen from the employment of an unprofessional valuer. A Juror (to the plaintiff): Was there any serious dlapute between yourself and the other valuen on any of the Items ? Witnt as No, there was not. We both decided on the valuation, Mr. M'lntyre said he should raise the point whether It was competent for the defendants to go Into the question as to the valuation being un- ,¡¡¡¡fIlL If they had appointed the plaintiff to make a valuation to be binding between tive parties, namely, the person disposing of the stock-in-trade and the defendant, who was taking that stock, they mcst accept his valuation for better or worse. His Lordahlp: You cannot curry it II far as that, I think. After the adjournment for luncheon, an argu- ment took place between the learned judge and counsel on both sides an to the desirability of referring the case to an arbitrator. It appeared there was a Chancery suit arising out of the same trauctlcn, Involving a question as to the validity of the agreement, and his lordship suggested that both calel Ihonld be referred. An arbitrator would decide-first, whether the plaintiff had properly discharged his duty, and secondly, whether he was entitled to be paid for the valuation, not having given the detailed prlosa. The point was argued at considerable length, and In the result The le&ined Judge, with the oensent of oounsel,, discharged the special jury, and It was agreed to adjourned the case oatll after the hearing of the Chancery suit against the plaintiff. IN TXb PLEADER OASIIo FCLEY V. KOWE.—Mr. B. T. Williams, Q.O., and Sir. Jeffreys, were oounsel for the pldnuff; Air. M'Intyre and Mr. H. Dlllwyn for the defence. Mr. B. T. Williams, In stating the pliantiff's cue, said this was an Interpleader Issue, and. the ques- tion for the consideration of the jury would be whether certain goods which were seized on Ithe 18th May lift by the sheriff were at the time of the seizure the property of Foley, the plaintiff, as against the defendant, who was the executlonlng creditor. It appeared that the defendant roco-vered a judgment against a per. son named Oox, audi on the .16h lIa, he levied a distress npon hb goods In satisfaction thereof. It was contended, however, that at the time when this distress was levied the Mpd< tn question were not the property of Cox, he having assigned them over by a bill of sale, whloh had been properly registered, and the interest in whioh belonged to Foley, The circumstances of the oase were as followsIn October, 1875, Mr. Cox, who Is a commlsalonagetit In Swansea,(borrowed £100 from a person named Goldmann, a photographer, and gave him as security Lome shares 111 the Vale of Neath Coillbiy Company, also somelsharelln the Swansea Bemht Building Society, had, some promissory notef, aud there was ani understanding that If these thares In the Swansea Benefit Building Steld, were not paid up, Cox was to give Gotd- mann a bljl of sale upon his furniture all further security. She shares were not paid up, aud Cox accordingly r,.?.. bi)l of ..W, whi.h was dated 9th December, 1875, On the 17th AprU last Goldmmn, not having been paid, took posaUafon of the property, and It was advertised for sale. In these circumstances Opxioplled to Hr. Hartley John, a solicitor, who assisted him In ob- taining the money for Goldmann, They applied to the plaintiff In thla cue, who advanced Cox the money on the understanding that the Interest in the bill of sale should be transferred to him to se- curity. That being the due, the plaintiff oon- tended that he WM entitled to Insist that the me cutlonlng creditor must go out of the premises until his (the plaintiff 's) debt was paid. After evidence had been heard In support of the plaintiffs clalm9. The elkee was adjourned for the production, of a receipt. KIRKHOUSE V. LOOKAlID APOTHBB, 'n w- arising "'at In this MdMhittct;, a vetdiet WM taken by oDn tect?JEMO. The court rae at a qu"Ur to Bfe. MONMODTHSHIRF. CROWN COURT-TUMDAY. (Before Mr. Jostloe BBSTT.) HBWPOBI A LDHATIO PBISOKHB, Charles Howells, 38, oarpenter, was piaoea at the bar. He had been oommltted for trial on a oharge of burglary and theft of llooda from the booleof William Jones, ikt,Kowportou tie 8fh jaw; Mr, Sawyer, who apposed for the prosecution, made a statemrat to thl court aa to the meiUl derangement of the prboner. Dr. SonltOD, juis mosoil offlser of the county, stated that since the Inotrseratlon of the prisoner he bad beOOIT A bopeieniy insane. The appearance of the ^{otta^ate prisoner led the jury to the same c..viokion, and they expressed an opinion that dte (ldaoaer was QUfitto undergo a trial. Be ,£II IOrdered to be sent to lunatic asylum. M' .,LqVDI)WLWiN OOHOlALlMHr nF BIBTH. I ?tt.MtM Rlckettl, on bU, pleaded guilty *o mmling the birth of her OW4, Md samtty dh M,ttg .{ its dead tody, AbertUlary, in the I :=: pttt?, oe;:e'=.eh:'w: '<a- i,m?cl to two d*yt' tmpttMnthMtt. ABBEGAVIAAT: THSFT OF MOBtrr, I JchtMth SeywMd "d Jn!h H*nnMM, both ?MhbtbttttnthOfMmt.wete IndloW fer felont ,Cully atellingand COYIDwq?s purse containing £ 4, beronelng to Thomas Holmes, at Tredegar, on the 14th Mr. ThomM SeywMd, the husband of the a?Mmed prisoner, had been GommJitod, but did not appear for Arraignment. Prisoners pleaded not guilty. Mr. Bosanquet prose- cuted, The case was that prosecutrix, the wife of Thomas Holmes, oohtractor, of Lion- square, who also carries on bakery, had to go cut to purchase barm, After she left her home, the found that her pocket, under her dress, had dropped eff, It contained a purse with about Si In money. A little boy found the purse, which got Into the hands of the prhoners. They stuck to the money, bnt subsequently Thomas SeywMd took money 12 8) to p rosecubix In t dirty pbee of rsg, which, had evidently been burned In soot. The case for the prosecution was very simple, Hb lordahlp said the ease was not a serious one. The prosecutrix lost her pane, and her pocket, which Would fall off, and through It having been found by a IIUe boy, It came Into the poaeldon of the pd. ..M? The jury found them m?.at'Lotd.MP' asked what would be done with the b-bin If he sent the women to prism ? Col. KiUmzn,, '0'nor, laid, the, would be "ell taken cars of,  0414 the children did Bet IPpeU to be np to bread and milk yet. Mr. Bosanquet wM 'n'tfMted to state, on behalf of the prosecution, that both pttMnert had other ebUdten at heme, and the ha'bMd of Bey?Md ?M e?eeedtn?y IlL Bh Lordship Then the best thing I can do Is to send them home again. Addressing the prisoners, hb lordsblp administered a suitable warnteg, and assumed that they had yielded to a sudden. te»P*»- tloo. A sentence ol five dayic Imprisonment *ould be recorded against them. PrUoner* were dis- charged, n"no" I VSX.: Aumm IHIFT BX A Mwu?.?w-?- KWIM. ftold Green, lofltlag home keeper, WtA 111- dieted for iiesftg 22. She property of Jno. Beei, a farm labourer, at Llangwm Uebl, on the 21%1 Sit. Mr. Cleave prosecuted. Prisoner wasun- defended. Prosecutor had gone to planet'* ?Met. lodge, Md?e ?oner?tokMpfer h??! themorntM. Hehtd ll.Mttt.ML He went to bed. 'A6ctt Mohock a man came and dragged him out of bed. He dressed himself and went for 'a policeman, On accusing [prisoner of taking his money he said, All the money you gave me I gave to my wife." The wife said all the moiey Green gave her was 2s. The police officer searched for the money, and found £2111 a purse In the pri- soner's bed. There was a row, and an accusation made that prUoner had attempted indecencies with, Mrs, Green. Prisoner professed that he was drunk, that he gave two coins to him vffe, but could not say whether they were sovereigns or shillings, Oapt. Bertboa, superintendent ofpoftoe,pve con. clusive evidence II to the theft, and as to finding the sovereigns In apurae under the baby In the prisoner's bed. His Lordship, In summing up, said if tho caae for the prosecution were true, then prisoner was an artful old scoundrel. Captain Berthcn said he had known prbener for several yetrs. He now kept a very bad house. Frequently things were lost In the house. Sentenced to six calendar mouthsbord tabour. I AIlKBOAVENKf S THJFI OF MONET, I William Poles, 40, Edward U wen, az, ruomas Powell, 34, labourers, were severally indloted for stealing £ 5, the money of Samuel Williams, GVOIMBC, from Tredegar, on the 5th July, at Aber- gavenny. Prisoners pleaded not guilty. Mr. Cleave oiecuted. Prosecutor went to Abergavenny on bmheM. He went to the Ben Inn to lodge for the night MMMM were In the same home, and two of them were In ene bed In the same roon? c1t:ell =e ::to °hi:t h'ro=o::t gone to bed rather fresh," snd did not know that Powell wai coming to sleep In his bed. In the night be was dbturbed. He called out to the landlord, and said he was robbed. Then Powell went to the other bed. HIe money was In his trousers pocket under bb ptUaw. He had a £ 10 note, and five sovaelps. The gold was stolw4 but the note wf Mi. A dMmbMee MOM, and the men went off. The police wert sent for. In cross-examination prosecutor denied that he was very drunk. He oould drink for a week with- out bezw the worse, but he had taken a glass or two, and was rather fresh. He asked the learned ootraiel if he did not occasionally take a glass or two to revive hb spirits. One of the men had confessed that they had the mcney, mdh*dt tl:o:rf: b6:: they dbsolved partnership. The landlord gave evidence as to the ciroumstances which took place at his honse on the night In question* Prosecutor was deoldedly drunk before he went to bod, After the bother sbout the money, he asked the men to go to bed, and he would see about it in the morning. Before morning came the prisoners were gone. Police constable Price proved the apprehension of the prboner PowelL He mi him In the Iheet. He wore a no? JMket.tnew'httt. and other things. He had also 2L 7 r In moneyon him, Subsequently he apprehended Owen. He also wore a new jaoket. He soldhe slept under a hedge lad night. There was also 3s 2id found on him. Later In the day he appre- hended Poles, and found 7s and odd money on Wm. Police-constable 25 M.O. gave evidence to show that Powell had virtually admitted ploklng up the money on the floor of the bedroom. Mr. Prltohard, who appeared for Owen, ad- dressed the jury on him behalf. HIlI Lord- ship summed up. After a short consultation, the jury <onnd aU the pthonen <nUty. Powett was fonnd guilty of a previous oonviotion at Aber- gavenny, In 1873. Prisoner old he did not reool- lect It, and was sure that he had not been convicted before. There appeared to have been a mistake In the identity of themlln. Hit Lordship sentenced Polas to three calendar monthe hard labour, and the other two prisoners to one month's hard labour each. I NISI PRIUS COURT.—TOISDAY, I I (Before Mr. Justice GBOVK.) I I The court sat fit ten o'clock. I BBEACH OF ColqTBACT.- (SPICIAL JOBT ) I MASON V. MOBIIN,—Mr. Matthews, Q 0.. and Mr. Prttchard, were oounsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Powell, Q.O., and Mr. Lawrence, appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff was Isaac Mason^and the defendant Charles Mcstyn. The declaration not forth that there was an action of ejectment between the parties, and plaintiff made certain olalms for com; pensatlon as an outgoing tenant, amounting to £25 9: 7d. Various pleas were put on the record, The facts were theae I Mr. Mason is a farmer, now living at Tonyvedw, near Tredegar. In 1801 he became the tenant of the adjoining farm, called Troedrhywgwalr, consisting of 116 acres, belong- ing to Mr. Joseph Phillips. That farm was mortgaged to Mr. Charles Mostyn, the defendant, andlln the year 1867, an attornment was drawn up, by which Mr. Mostyn was recognbed as the legal landlord. During his tenancy the plaintiff turned his dwelling Into a beerhouse, and sfter wards he obtained a spirit llcenoe. He Improved the house In various ways, and did things that gave him a right to i compensation either from the landlord; or the Incoming tenant. In 1874 the defendant gave the plaintiff notice to quit, which would expire on the 2nd Feb., 1875, to far as the land was, oonoerned, and on the 1st May the home, In Jan., 1875, when thllliotlce was coming to a close, Mr. Davies, of the firm of Blount and Davles, paid the plaintiff a visit, and the plaintiff made a claim for compensation. On the 2nd of Feb. Mr. Davles went again to the farm, and went over put of the. farm "to value out the out-going tenant. On the 12th February plaintiff was served with a writ of ejectment, and about the end of. March » meeting took pIa.. at P<mtypool between the plaintiff and hb so'icltor (Mr. oe Harril) and Mr. Davies. Plaintiff then claimed JEBO u compen- "Uon. and after Nam dllOo the action 0" e?ectn!ent was settled, and platalig w"'to be paid f20. Mid £ 5 9< 7d for a proportion of the #wpcei Plaintiff Mmortd from the rarii end bouse, and finally gave up tissession to Mr. Thomas, the IlIcomlnl tenant. tbe, arced counsel stating that In handingavathe prcmiaeo to the successor Air. Maion went through the po?ede fonn of bee"g off ? tw? Md handig :t:.oi=a with et'tdn :o D;t "Now you are the tenant." In orois-examlnatlon the plaintiff said he paid f561 year rent, and effjred 285 to remain. He did not kiow that Ur. Thomas, now pays £ .4j0 a year, It was not offered to him at that sum. He wal also questioned ft geod deal as to the damage he bad done to the fix and the removal of certain articles which the defendant valued at 210, and for which a counter claim was aet up. Mr. C, H, Rice Harries, ion of the plaintiff 's solicitor < Mr. Sice Bhnb; Mrs, Mai an, the plain- tiff's wife (who broke the pleee of white thorn that was handed to the new tenant Alfred Thomal) I Xfaoma*, the plaintiff's son; William Williams, the Tredegar Iron Company's shepherds Benjamin Ferry, a coker, who had done some work on the plaintiff's farm Mr. B. J,. Ota Davles, clerk to the justice* of the Bedwellky dlvislon, wlwdepoled to the trutfor,of the Uoeooe and Superintendent fowler, of the oounty constabulary, were tnll witnesses for the plaintiff. Mr. Powell submitted thit there was no call to 10 to the jur1. He argued that there wu no .¡ree- e; between the parties, which, under tho 4tb section of the Statute of Frauds, was proved to have been signed by the plaintiff, or by ton agent laW. :1 fullv anthelind by the plaintiff. Mr. Lanrence also argued on the same side, oon- tending that no complete agreement wa* arrived at, > and that the plaintiff had no right to seek obmpen- satlon In equity, because he -bad not fulfilled the conditions precedent to the. transfer of hit llcenoe to Mr. Theme#. Without calling upon Mr. Matthew*, His Lordship said ho would leftve the ease to the jury, and give the defendant leave to move 11 he was entitled. Mr. Powell then addressed the jury for the. de- fendant, who came to thb court because, he eon- tended, that he had heepi most grossly ill-wd by the plaintiff tn tbh Mtten. This farm wu formerly ttt to the otd TMdctM Iron Oemptny. Md they .leU cerwa things an "efum vbm they asma to bettMett. Plaintiff Nuowde4 the r, d btdnedtbttedhpoteai the Mtte? M'- br = ptMtoMttMct. Defeu&nt wished to as% a it :e:d\d:.aJ:o':e and they were offered by tender. Plaintiff offend and P, A. Thot?MtlM. PMnttithMUhetaatttiMepthetMm M be would <h< mM a year, but he d ed. -d tbM he had notice to quit. ?"'°P:°*?"?? tiff became cMtMht)re)M. and did wbat he oo d deteriorate the farm. The ptthttKt did not fmUH the teloo of tte proposed agreement, beoause he did not transfer tho licence to the new tenant, and, lfiaimuch aa he did not comply with the terms, he had no right to recover the compensation now claimed. The witnesses for the defence were gir. Jamm Reed. mallller of the old Tredegajr Iron Company in 1881; Mr. Joseph Phillip*, owner of the, ertate ( Mr. Alfred nonme,the present tonint.of Troedrhyw- awalr t fjohn Mason, farm servant Mr. Davie*, agent for the defendant. At the close of the evUcnce for the defence the court adjourned.