Welsh Newspapers
Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles
7 articles on this Page
INCOME TAX. I
INCOME TAX. I The Times has shown that the tax is not the less un- just and vicious tor being, comparatively with what it has before been, small; and the Chronicle proves that, by making it temporary, its injustice is made ] greater:— "W e agree with Lord Brougham, with the limes, and indeed with almost every pel son tha has expressed an opinion on the subject, that it would be most unjust to tax income and property in the same proportion. The oriiy argument that can be used in answer to this—and it is one which we regard as -.vlioiiy itisti.Ti,: iciit- I that very admirably and tersely put by .Mr. Pitt in the second of those two remarkable speeches which lie made on the -Income Tax, when he first introduced it in 1798. Mr. Pitt, when he chose it, could speak nearly as well as Sir Hobert Pec I, though never so long. 'It is objected that it is unjust that the man, who has an annuity or an income the fruit of his labour, should pay in the proportion of a man wi,o has thd same revenue from fixed property. This objection is altogether a fallacy. A permanent estate, which is represented as never dying, and, as it were, the property of a man aftr his death, COli-I' tributes on every exigency which may occur; the in- come from labour and industry is extinguished; it con- tributes but once; it is no longer the property of the me person; while the other, which is c onsidered as the I same property, is subject to renewed demands.' But Sir Robert Peel's mode of laying on his Income Tax deprives him of the benefit of this argument. He lays it o!i "(ir three years only, as he says. A man with a three year's lease of an estate of on the I -whole, contribute just as much as a man with an estate in fee of the same amount. The estate of the first wiil expire at the end of three years; the estate of the-latter will last for ever after him; but the demand on it will expire 3t the same moment as on the former, because the tax will, according to Sir Robert Peel, cca?e at the end of the three years. Mr. Pitt's argument—the only argu- ment adducible for equal taxation on property and 1!1- come — is tenable only when the tax is permanent. But -when yon limit the tax to such a period as thrr-e years, it becomes quite clear that the permanent estates will bear the tax no-longer than the casual income that has only three yeari to The- Go-oindc at once pithily and powerfully describes "he effects of* the abhorred tax, which it is proposed to revive rather than to abel s'l the Corn Monopoly:—" It was necessarily preceded by an nrquisitorial inquiry into the whole state of man's pecuniary affairs. He himself was obliged to furnish the information the tax-gstherer I pried ir.to his affairs; bis neighbours were made spies on him and -the malignity 01 his enemies was teí1ll)ted t,) impeach his character and augment his burdens. The secrets o prosperity ad adversity were drilgcd hcti)re ¡ the publi large gains were ineonveniwitly published; heavy io ;ses and till more injuriously revealed. The tax 'A as a tix on distress, for men overcharged tiiemsehvs rather than acknowl-. dge that l tiifir fc.rtm.es were declining. It was a tax on enter- prise and industry, for it was. a tax in proportion to a man's gains, either accymul tted or accruing. It was a I tax on honety, operating as a premimr. on deceit, fin" while co scientioua and sensitive men thought to err on the right side by paying more than their due. the 1111- 'blushing scoundrel could save his pockctbyaiie. Till ¡ taxexpo&ed everv man to anxiety and scrupies, then left him open to informers, and finally subjected Ins fortune and character to ch* insolent injustice ,,f s't of political opponents or jealous neighbours, whom the choice oi the !1¡[illster bad given power to decide, without appeal, on the amount (" Ihis assessment. To every t pedes of irritation and pressure occasioned by taxation, and ispecially by direct taxation, the Property Tax, it- levied during the Wur, added its own peculiar heart- b; raings, and suspicions, and repinings, against injustic; a' d ot o:iiy took men's property for the purposes of the s ate, but uselessly destroyed a large additional amount 1 y i xposing men's affairs, impairing credit, and discou- rJg1i1 enterprise and accumul ition. Under an Income Tax (says the lUraminer) the rich i will always tinder-tax themselves, and the mipmsperou.s will add to their difficulties by over-taxing tnemselves to save their credit. It thus presses most injuriously on those who n it would be politic to tl eat most tenderly. On all sides there v.ill be annoyance and deceit. The injustice Ur¡¡p¡,:yi;i the same measure of taxation ,to in':ol1le" depending on the chances of professions or a?,(i 1c) i:icoi)it,, arising from SUhSiiWIJaJ pro- perty, is self-evident. Take from a man, who has five hundred a year for tlw "lIpport of a fatnily, three per cent. for three years, and yea have taken from him at the end of the time the .'i-iu part of his all, while from the -r.,ian having £ oi)0 a year worth thirty years' purchase, ten to one against the poorer man. The £ lo can be ill spared by either, but the one who lives on the interest of capital is not under the necessity of saving, and the other may have to keep up a small life insurance which the tax obliges him to give up, or, if he continue it, he must ,'for,go some of the modest comforts or the absolute necessaries of lite. It is easy to multiply examples of the injustice, nothing more being necessary than to imagine any case of precarious income, and to compare its treatment under an Income Tax with that of a per- manent property. The Bank Proprietors have set the example of bestir- ring themselves betimes in defence of their properties, by protesting against an assessment ot incomes so different in value as terminable alld permanent annuities. The same principle of objection runs throughout. Lord Brougham has wasted many words in arguing against an imaginary proposal, that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate than those who are in less affluent or in humhle circumstances; nothing of the k.nd is now con- tended tor,— the a gament is, that it is flagrantly unjust to subject incomes of thesame'ytarly amount, but of different values, to the same rate of taxation, and that a distinction should be made between the interests of annuitants, the recarious incomes ot professions, business, and trade, j and the sure incomes derived from substantial properties. We concur in these resolutions proposed by Lord Brougham "5. That it is expedient to make a distinction between income arisi. g from capital of every description and income arising from labour merely, levying a smaller jj proportion of the 1 uter income than the former. b'. That with tile same view it is expedient to make a distinctiun between income possessed b persons who have only an interest in the same far their lives, or for some lesser term, and income possessed bv ncrsnm: u-fm have an interest in the "capital from w hence the income arises, levying a lalger proportiOIl of the latter income th;m of rhe former. 7. That with the same vi?w it is expedient to make no distiction in favour of persons in the civH service ?f the state, or of persons receiving pensions froi'ii the 'tite' S. That it is neither consistent with justice nor with sound policy, to levy a greater proportion of tax upon larger incomes than upon smaller, and that an exemption of even the smallest incomes from the operation of the 't?xcan o dv be justified upon the supposition that their owners are wholly unable to pay it. In conf r nity with these propt?itinn<, Lord Bron?harn Wonh: re ommend that the income of the clergyman, the lawYt", t e do-tor, or the literary man should be taxed at c, e-t iird less than other classes that was, that they shou d p y, not three, but two per cent; for they had, in m st instances, no means to draw upon under (lifficultit-S, bIt were wholly dependent on their pro- fessional f xetlons. He should recommend also, if the hard necessity existed to raise such an alJlUllllt of taxation, -that they should impose i- per cent. on the first classes of holders of property which he had described, that tli, y might be ei'abied to give relief to the tenants occupying Lmd." Whether the due difference is effected by imposing a .(I;fft!i e.it rate, or by applying the same rate to the ditto: e i- values of the ineomes, taking them at their worth at so many purchase, comes, in effect, to the same thine. The ditficiil y of making the distinctions will be pleaded- but, as the }Utl[[S.lLlS:IY remarks- [ It is nonsen.se to talk of the difficulty of calculating fin I these varying Interests-the mistakes, the deceit, orthe unfairness, which would result from the attempt to do so The calculations wouid be found made to their hands for 'the most pant in the bo?ks of an insurance company; and giving them the utmost allowance of mistakes that the most blundering commissioner could perpetrate, we would defy them to equal the unfairness which would be the necessary, and, in such cases, universal, consequence of I the proposition as it now stands." It is quite a fallacy to suppose that an Income Tax oes not affect the poor, for the retrenchments in con- sumption which necessitates, abridge to the same extent the employment of labour. The Corn-law artificially limits the employment of labour for the supply of foreigners, and the Income Tax—at the price of which the Corn-law is coniii tied Oil it,: nishes the employment of labour at home, by diminishing the disposable means pf consumption. So rans the vicious c ircle, the generator ef curses. Letit not be supposed that we are adverse to direct taxation; fairly adjusted, there is no taxation so good; and amongst its advanta es is this, that the distinct knowledge which people have of what thev are paying to the State gives tbem an immediae and intense interest is public economy, and makes them prompt to restrain extravagance. Our hostility is to the direct taxation which is un qual, and then-fare unjust in its operation, taking the same amount from incomes widely differing in value, gaging, as it were, their superficies instead of their solidities, and subjecting the shallow slab and the substantial cube to the same deduction. In defence of the best scheme of this kind, n graduated property tax, it was once said. The proportioiis reiiiiiii "the same it is but like ukinj a storv from each house, leaving the relative magnitudes unchanged."—" True," was uie reply; D.uwnat becomes ot the houses ttiat have only one story ? r ou raze them to the earth." But an Income Tax: without graduation does worse, for it does not leave the proportions the same of those which it does not bring to the grour.d disproportions attend every part of its working, the substantial and permanent properties being slightly touched by it, but rhe small and precarious being made to hear very much morc than they can afford, and very much u ore than would fairly devolve on them. How much of this injustice, and more than this, might be mitigated, if not cured, by the simple exchange of transferring Sir R. Peers sliding scale-to the In'ome Tax, and the inflexible fixed rate of charge to the Corn Im- portation. The House of Commons having gone into Committee of ways and means, and the resolution for an income tax being now under consideration, it is impossible for the house, consistently with its present rules tc receive any petitios against that tax. This reult eviLiClitly, haent?e object sought by Sir Ro?.rtl?i in thu, hurrying on the committee. Though the House of no monger discusses the petitions ot the people, it neverthtJess dues tnem the honour to count their signatures. And Sir Robert Peel does not chjose that, even in this way, the mere number of those who arc a\.e.:>e to au income tax should be known. An income tax is bad enough in iLeJf; but Sir R. petd certainly o itrives to add to its intrinsic mischievousness by the violence of the; means to which he has rcvour^e for the purpose of imp >sin;_r it upon us. To carry such a measure without allowing the people to ex- press an opinion on it seems to us to be among the greatest outrages on the rights of the subject that any minister, with a servile majority at his back, has ever ventured to perpetrate since the revolution. We know that the rule of the House of Commons, that thus restricts the right of petiti ning, is defended by those politicians (and there are far too many of them in our day) who regard the public opinion as a mere ob- struction to the government, and would, a tiu as possible, prevent it being expressed- so. to inc invvnien: e our I ruler,. No tax, they do not scruple to tell lis, wv>uid ever be carried if petitions were r>.c lived against it; ana the > wise practice of Parliament has therefore been to stop petitioning at the very moment of considering taxation. These views are not only destructive of tree o-overn- ment, but grossly misrepresent the good sense and the good conduct of .)iir coLiti-Lrviiieti. NN'e are firnily of opinion that such is the general determination to support the honour of the nation and the eiffciency of the public- service, th t the country would have submitted without a niurmer to almost any other tax than an income tax. But even supposing that the views were.sound with re- gard to the general run of taxes, it would not hold good in the care ot so entire a change of the whole system of taxation, as will be introduced by the adoption of an in- come tax in time of peace. It now adopted, it is not go- in to end with a mere 3 per cent, and a three years' dura- tion. It is far more probable that the only change made at the end of three years, wdl be an augmentation of the per cenrage, and a riveting of this intolerable burden on our shouiuers by the abolition of the existing sources of revenue. It is not. too, as if this were really a new tax, on which the country had never before pronounced an opinion, and to which there was no reason for pprehending any oppo- sition. The country" ue it reedit-eted, has had experi- ence of this tax, and so favourable was the judgment to which that experience led. that of a vast number of very bid and very oppressive taxes, this was the one winch with one loud and general voice it singled cut as tne one first to be repealed. T here is every reason to be- lieve that it time were to be adowed fur an expression ot l opinion the same sentiments wouid be exoressed almost as generally, though not, ot course, with as much vehe- n)ence. by thatgeneration which never felt the smart of this fearful scourge. 11 is to silence the voice of antici- pated condemnation that Sir Hobert Peel prevents the voice of the people from being npard,and for ces Parlia- ment to come to a vote without time for reficction, be- cause reflection-would be sure to defeat him. de?:eat h i lr.. We can understand his course, violence and short- sighted as it is. But we cannot understand why he is allowed to pursue it, or at least to pursue it without op- position. V\ e should be the last to recommend to the Liberals of Pailiatm-nt a merely obstructive policy, or to delay the Ministertbr the mere sake of delay and annov- ance. But to delay bad measures until the country shall have the opportunity ot .speaking out, is a most justifiable obstruction. X o ensure it is one of the chief advantages ok a parLalllentilry opposition; and those who, on such a question, shrink from appealing to public opinion do not take the light course, if their object be that of either not long being in opposition, or that of serving their country while in opposition.— Chronicle. I f we are to enquire what are a man's real means, what lie alf,)rci -,A,c shall have to find out what is his station in society, his f..inily, his dependents, his necessary man- ner of life, and ten thousand other points which it is not to be expected, or indeed to be borne, that a government should investigate. Doubtless such au investigation is utterly impracticable. But, in the first place, because we cannot do all we might wish towards the fair (suppos- ing it fair) adjustment of an impost, arc we, therefore, precluded from doing what we can? No burden ever was or will be distributed with absolute fairness. Do we therefore let ic fall as it pleases? Of two lines equally arbitrary, do we refuse to take that which-pre- sents the nearest approximation to justice? Do we not try to get as near truth as all these collateral evils and advantages, claunsarid difficulties, will let us ? Of course when we cannot make such an approach, we don't; but when we can, we do and, whatever may be the impossi- bility of estimating the social and domestic claims which diminish a man's available income, there is no shadow ot difficulty ill assigning t;:c difference of vLil.,Ie betv;e(,ii i life interest and pepetlljty, We need go no further than the first insurance-office. But furtiier. Suppose (what it is indeed childish to suppose) that, because you cannot exactly (lefitic what each man can afford, you are not to attempt any ap- prOXIITlatlon toward" it. A man's ahility is not the only reason why his means should be the nieasnre 01 his pay- ments to government. There are many principles by which the in ode and measure of taxation are determined. »> e tax more freely what we wish to discourage—more sparingly what we cannot get at with or what will give ri- e to fraud andevasion; we tax persons in pro- portion as they can afford to pay—we tax them in portion as they derive benefit from the expenditure of the I'uuiiC revenue. If we have to raise money we raIse it wnere it will interfere with no public benefit, invite no general crime, where it can be enforced unItormly, can be paid without inconvenience, and is due to the nation in consideration of value rectivcd. Each of these advan- tages should have its weight in estimating the merits of any rival systens of taxation. The criterion which Sir Robert Peel has adduced in the present question—the possession of means-—involves both the last. This is a measure (imperfect, of course, but still a i-neaslire) of a man's ability to pay, and of the benefits which he ought to pay for. Jt shows at once his spending power, (as somebody calls it) and his stake in the country; and ac- cordingly a modified is more just than, au absolute in- come-tax, because it would throw the burden not only on those who can best support it, but on those who get a I l quul pro (lU') and 111 proportion as they get it. I he nch man receives from the State much protection, the poor man very little. The rich man receives protection tor his capital. his land, the transmission of his property, his homtf and fare gn markets, and ail those other rights which are the subject of English and international law. The poor man has nothing to protect but his person and hI, labour, and they pay proportionab'y. As is the case between tll rich and the poor, so is the case, in its de- gree, between property and income. For the fund- holder or landed proprietor, the State protects his princi- pal or landed estates; for the manufacturer, his looms and his printworks, as well as theprolitswhich he draws from them but fjr the physician or lawyer, only the I guineas which they receive day by day. Its guardian- snip embraces a Larger field; its security includes a deeper interest to the capitalist than the annuitant. Duration is j j as real an element in the value of property as amount; the source of future profits as truly under the protec- tion of the State as its present fruits; and, where no col- lateral hardship is involved, furnishes as true a ground f,, r increased taxation, where, as in the present instance' that sum is to be raised not by a permanent impose, but by a sudden and terminable demand.—Tinu-s.
i THE REASON WHY THE PREMIER…
THE REASON WHY THE PREMIER DIn {)T DECLARE ills POLICY UEFORE. [From the CrVoie.] L Mr KOBF.RT PKKL has a motive not only for every- be does, l)'lt for everything he leaves undone; and I we can now clearly perceive the object with which he ¡ concealed, as long HS he possibly could, the measures he intended to propose when ne should oecorne possessed of the government. Had he declared before the elec- tion the course he designed to pursue, so general would have been the indignation txeit.d by his grand financial scheme, that the country would never have returned to the House of Commons a majority to carry his project; and i f, after the elections bad terminated, he had made known, on the meeting of Parliament, the nature of his views, there would have been tune for thenation to reflect upon them during the recess, and the people's represen- tatives would have found, by communication with their constituents, that the feeling of the public is powerfully opposed to the plans of the .M inister. Sir ROISF.RT PEKL has, however, got his majority, and thinking he can do as he likes with his O%N.li I lie counts confidently upon dragging it after hnn through th > mire of unpopularity in which all who have a hand in the illl- position of the income Tax (in the shape which t'lie Try Minister seems resolved it shall bear) must be inevitably immersed, when the evil consequences, which arc now only partially foreseen, shall come to be fuilv and hitterly experienced. The Premier is like the proprietor of the goose that laid golden eggs; for, allowing him to be master of the majority—which stands in this instance for the goose—and admitting that this majority might give him many golden eggs in the shape offrequent votes in his tavonr, ne is recklessly destroying L ie goose, in order to get all the gold at once: for the doom of the present Parlia- ment is sealed from the day that It gives Sir Robert reel his Income Tax. We wou!d recrmmend the Tory members to muse themselves from th" blind an d stupid subserviency into I which they seem to have allowed themselves to fall; if they had be-en regularly mesmerised, or subject to anv o-iher species of humbug, they could not be more com- pletely at the will of the quack, than they are at the beck and call of the present (Minister. Let them ask them- selves what will be said to the votes they are about to give on the question of the Income Tax, wlvm they return to their constituents, who will hardly be satisfied with a H'lining apology from their representatives that they really-were not. aware of the effect of what they were doing. Why, Sir Robert Peel himself admits the objec- tions to his own scheme; but with the coolest contempt for public opinion, and the fullest reliance on his Par- liamentary tools, he refuses to modify the obnoxious parts ot his measure. This cavalier treatment of the country and t'ie house is hai/ert" by the Post as a ruo.st satisfactory symptom in its pet Premier, and much approbation is expressed by our contemporary of the good effect of a little excitement upon Sir Robert Peel's usually mild and cautiously urbane el'vuence." We are told that the spirit shown by the Minister will be welcomed with de- light by the honest and intelligent British-people." But considering that this "spirit" is chiefly' shoflfil" in plung- ing his hands into our pockets, and snubbing those who ntter a word of remonstrance agai nst tire proceeding, we must he allowed to doubt whether admiration for the boldness of the act will not be counterbalanced by annov- auce at ttsinconvenience. They like a manly Minister," say. the J 0.-7, and now they have one;" which is about jis c.onsoJing as if any one had said to the frogs, when being devoured by the stork. You wanted an active Kino;, ana now you ye got one." It is not easy to submit to bei ng roboed with a goud grace because thcraHian who p l uticters you li;is t', plunder.-) you has the spirit to knock you down, instead of patielltly listeniug tu what you have to say by way of ar- gument against the act he coiremplates.
[No title]
HAT IS I IJSFA ISM ? IT i8 to say anathema to the principle of I rotestantism, to depart more and more from the principles of the English reformation, to sigh to think we should be separate from Rome, to regard Rome as our mother, through vhom we were born to Christ. It is to denounce the Church of England as being in bondage, as working in chains, and as teaching with the stammering lip of ambiguous formularies; it is to ei?og;.se the Church at Rome, as giving free scope to the feelings of awe, mystery, tenderness, reverence, and devot?dne?.s and as having high gifts and strong claims to our admiration, reverence, love, and gratitude, It is M (itci re that our articles are the otfpring of an un- ( atholic age and that the Communion Service is a judge- ment upon the Church? It is to teach that the Romish ritual is a precious possession and that the missal is a sacred and most precious monument of the apostles. It is to asi-ert that the Scripture is not the rule of faith that the orc.1 tradition of the Church is also an exposition of God's revealed truth; that the Bible placed without note or comment in the hands of uninstructed persons, is not calculated in ordii ary cases to make them wise unto salvation. It is to assert that in the Lord's Supper, Christ is present under the form of bread and wine; that he is then personally and bodily with us; and that the clergy are entrusted with the awful and mysterious gift of changing the bread and wine into Christs's body and blood. It is to maintain the lawfulness of prayt-r for the dead to make a distinction between venal and mortal sin; and to assert that a person may believe that there is a purgatory, that relics may be venerated, that Saints may be invoked, that there are seven sacra- j menu, StC., &c.—London Paper.
CARMAtrOSHISE SPRING ASSIZES.…
CARMAtrOSHISE SPRING ASSIZES. I {Continued fron our last.) I FRIDAY. I Doe on dem. of Williams v. HWers.—This was an action of ejectment. Air. V. Williams and Mr. John Evans, Q.C., appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. G. Chilton, Q.C., and Mr. Nicholl, for the defendant. Mr. John Evans addressed the jury for the plaintiff: and stated that this was an action of ejectment, brought to recover possession of a farm called Gardde, and was brought by Air. Hugh Williams, attorney, of this town, against Nlr. Toliii Waters, of Treventy, near St. Clears, in this county. The property belonged to Mrs. Wil- liams (whose maiden name was Anne Jones) previous to her marriage with Mr. Williams, It appeared that from the lease originally granted to Mr. Joseph Waters, of the firm of Waters, Jones, and Co., late bankers in this town, t'ne property was leased for a term of ninety- nuie years; this lease had some very stringent clauses in it respectu,g the species of manure to be used on the land, the number of crops to be raised; the changing of arable into pasture laud, and vice I'crs't. There was likewise a clause which specified that the pre- mises should be kept well and sufficiently repaired, and it was on a breach of this covenant that tiie present action was brought. The premises consist of a farm called Gardde, several out-houses, five dwelling-houses and gardens, sonic cottages, and a storehouse, in Saint Clears. The evidence for the plaintiff went to shew that the houses were in a dilapidated state, and that they let in the rain in several places, and that the storehouse and a cottage in St. Clears were completely destroyed. It was likewise stated, that at the time of the bankruptcy of M essrs. Waters, in 1832, the lease of these premises, with other deeds, were held as securities by the assignees of the bankrupts, and that the lease is now in the possession of those assignees. Mr. Jeffries, however, received- the i-etit, in(i continues to do so now. The counsel for the defence stated, that a more scan- dalous case never was brought into a court of justice, and that there was not thc slightest pretence for Mr. Hugh Williams to bring the action, inasmuch as the property belongs to Mrs. Wiiiiams, and as long as she is alive Mr. H ugll Williams cannot touch a penny of the rent, or have any command over the management of the property. He then contended that, supposing there were breaches of the covenants of the lease, the law never compelled a landlord or landlady against his or her will to take advan- tage of a forfeiture, and to break a lease. He then stated that it was evident, from there being no other complaint, that all the other covenants had been done, and well done. He then stated that Nl r. Hugh Williams had already tried three times to break this lease, but his object was defeated by Mrs. Williams (who now receives the rent, and who makes no complaint of the state of the repairs) receiving rent after the action was brought by Mr. Hugh Williams. The learned counsel then stated that the receipt of rent after a forfeiture was a waiver of the recovery. Several letters from Mrs. Williams were then put in and read, which expressed an assurance that she had no wish for bringing on this action, and that it was quite in opposi tion to her desires. Mr. E. V. Williams objected to this letter being re- ceived as evidence, as the acts of a wife cannot be adduced as evidence againvt her husband. Mr. Chilton said that by the mairiage settlement of Mrs. Hugh Williams, Mr. Williams had so completely made her his agent in respéct to these farms, that he could not drag her into a court of justice against her will to bring this action against the defendant. His Lordship rul d that the letter was evidence, on the ground of agency. The learned Counsel then recommended the jury to throw overboard altogether the opinions of the surveyors who had been examined, as the statement must be prepos- terous, which said that a house was untenable when a fanner and his wife were at the same time living comfortably in it. Receipts were put in evidence to show that Mrs. Hugh Williams received the rent; and a letter was also read from her to Mr. Jeffries, the defendant's attorney, desiring him not to build up the storehouse, which had been burnt down, but to build some cottages instead of it. His Lordship here recommended that sorrte arrange- iiieiits should be elite cd into by which this action might b settled without breaking the lease, and that some competent person should be appointed to rebuild the storehouse, or to erect such buildings instead thereof, equivalent in value, as might seem best calculated to improve the estate, and to meet the views of both parties. After a good deal of discussion, and his Lordship having impressed upon both parties the folly of further continuing in a course of iitigation, which would not rest here, and must eventually be both expensive and ruinous, it was finally arranged that a verdict should be taken for the defendant, with power to enter a verdict for the plaintiff if the necessary repairs were not entered into within a given time. It was further arranged that Messrs. George Goode and Davies, ot Froodvale, should he ap- pointed surveyors, and that they should appoint an umpire; and that it should then be decided by them whether it would be better to rebuild the storehouse or to erect some cottages, or other buildings instead thereof. They were then to fix a time, at the end of which, if the repairs be not finished to their satisfaction, and a certi- ficate given to that effect, a verdict should be entered for the plaintiff, and the costs of the whole suit should devolve upon the defendant. A juror was then withdrawn, and the suit terminated. Attorney for plaintiff, Mr. Hugh Williams; attorney for defendant,'Mr. J. 13. Jeffries. v. Howell.— In this case, reported in our last, an application was made on behalf of the plaintiff for speedy execution an affidavit was put in which stated that the defendant had threatened plaintiff that if he pressed the action to a tri:d,and thuthe defendant should lose it, 1? would sell all his pr()pny and go to France. A counter affidavit, on the part of the defendant, was read by his counsel, which admitted that he had used the threatening language attributed to him, but denied that he intended putting his threat into execution, or that he intended leaving the country at all. His Lordship, after hearing arguments on both sides, granted execution. •lows v. Thomas and others.— This was an action of re- plevin. Mr. Ch ikon. Q.C., and Mr. Wdson, appeared for plain- tiff, and Mr. John Evans, Q.C., and Mr. V. Williams, for t*i',I, ;iiid Nfr. ijo i iii 1,,v;.iis, aiit l Nlr. ?N %?N i i' l iaiiis, for This was an action brought by Thomas Jones, of the parish of Llangendeirne, against Thomas Evan Thomas XV. I rcland Jones, J. Hammond Spencer-, Daniel Pry- therch, T. Davies, and Evan J ercmy, for unlawfully dis- training upon his goods, and taking away various chattels, his property, illegally. As the counsel for the plaintiff stated, the real question at issue was whether or not the proceedings of the parish of Swansea, touching the removal of a pauper, were regular. It appeared that in the year 1820, a pauper named Ann Charles, living at Swansea, but belonging to the parish of Llangendeirne, became chargeable to the parish. The parish officers of Swansea went before two Magistrates, the Rev. B. Jones and Rowland Prichard, Esq., who ordered the removal of the pauper on the 18th of May, 1830; but afterwards, on the same day, they being of opinion that the pauper was not in a fit state to be re- moved, backed the order of removal with an order of suspension. On the 18th of January, 1831, the order was served upon the officers ot the parish of Llangen- deirne. It appeared that the pauper lived much longer than was hitherto expected, and in 1811 the order of sus pension was taken off the original order of removal by the Rev. Dr. Hewson and John Grove, Esq., two Magis- trates for the county of Glamorgan. The expenses of maintaining the pauper all this time amounted to £ 103 17s., winch the parish of Llangendeirne ought to pay to the parish of Swansea. The pauper was eventually removed on the 25tli of March, 18H. Repeated applica- tioiis were made for the amount of expenses paid by the parish officers of Swansea, but the cash not being forth- coming, the Swansea officers applied to enforce the payment to W. Ireland Jones and W. Hammond Spencer, Esquires, justices of the peace for Glamorganshire, who gave a warrant of distress on the goods of the plaintiff", he being at that time overseer of the parish of Llangendeirne; the distress warrant was backed by Daniel Prytherch, Esq., one of the Magistrates for this county, and the money was levied. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that all that the Magistrates had done was strictly legal, and they might have been compelled to do it by law, It was further contended that the pauper was not in a fit state to be removed; and a medical officer of the parish of Swansea was called, who proved to that effect. I t was also contended, that if the parish of Llan- gendeirne had felt themselves aggrieved, thwy might have appealed to the quarter sessions. Mr. Chilton, tor tlie plaintiff, said that if they had ap- pealed to the quarter sessions of Glamorganshire, all the Magistrates who were now defendants in this suit would have been sitting in judgment. He then contended that the prisoner was in a fit state to be r; *-iiiove,i at many in- tervals during her illness, and proved that one of the parish officers of Llangendeirne called on the governor of the boti-,e of in,iu.ti-y at vrije callcd on the gove', iior of the bouse of industry At Swansea to request that she might have been sent over to her own parish. He further contended that the suspended order was not properly served on the officers of Llangendeirne, as the original was not shewn to them. He further said that they had failed to prove that the panper was too ill to be removed, as they only had the certificate of their own medical officer, who only called about twice in three months to see her. He further said it was very singular that as the pauper got older, she should have got so much better as to have been able to be removed without the slighest risk, after a long bill had been run up for expenses. His Lordshrp then ablv summed up, and directed the jury to find a verdict for the defendants on ail the issues, with leave to the plaintiff to move to alter verclict. Attorney for the plaintiff, Mr. John Williams; attor- ney for the defendants, Mr. Collins, of Swansea. .Jones v. -Tliis was an action for the recovery of money due for work and labour at the Carmarthenshire election in 1832. Messrs. ?ichoHs and John Evans appeared for the pi?int!? and Messrs. Chiton and V. Williams for defendant. It appeared from the statement of the plaintiff's coun- sel, that Mr. P. G. Jones, solicitor, of this town, (the plaintiff), was engaged by a retainer from Mr. Lewis Morris, as assistant at the election on behalf of E. H. Adams, lisq., of Middleton Hall, in this county. The plaintiff attended the registration courts, and undertook several long journeys for the interests of the plaintiff previous to the day of election, and on the day of election the plaintiff was superintendent of a booth, and conducted the polling; that he and his clerks got up the manager's books; and that after the election he was applied to for his bill; he sent it in to Messrs. Morris and Jones, the agents for Mr. Adams, when they returned for answer that they had no instructions to pay it. Mr. Jones then applied to Mr. Adams for payrnent, but received no answer to his application he then waited till August, 18-JS, which being only one fortnight previous to the time when the statute of limitation might have been pleaded, he commenccd this action for the recovery of the money. He again wrote to Mr. Adams, desiring to leave the set- tlement of the bill to any professional gentleman in the county, and that he promised to charge merely the bare costs out of pocket. The action was set down for trial at the assizes in 1839, but at the request of Mr. Lewis Morris was put 06, on the understanding that Mr. Morris woufd endeavour to get it sctdcd he. howev r, ;'iJed in 'us en- dcnvourK. and the action was now to be iricd. The amount t?ti.Ty,e(i was .?70 4s. 6d. | Mr. Chilton, for the defendant, contended that Mr- [ Jones was e.?ged by retainer from Mr. Lewis Morriv c)rrLS, and that by that retainer his services were required for ) tiie^.eetiori and not for the registration court or the'com- j unttee room; 11 at because be was a committee man. it was no reason why Le should charge 8s. Sd. or 13s. Id. for every time he attended the committee room; it was prc- posteroas to .->uppyse that Mr. Adams be expected to pay all his supporters at an election, such a course would speedily dissipate the largest fortune. He then argued that as the retainer expressly said, "Shouid your services be required for any purpose previous to the election, you will receive notice from me by letter," he was only entitled to be paid for what he had a written order to show that he had done in compliance with the retainer. He further contended that nothing but the expenses at the election should be paid. His summed up, and observed that theplain- tiff was clearly entitled to his expenses on the day of election, and as much more as the jury considered he had authority for performing. The paymtnt would of course depend upon the way in which he was retained and he thoug-ht it extremely unlikely that any alteration of ar- rangements should take place after the retainer was given, as evidencc, in writing to that effect would have been given. It was in evidence that Mr. Jones was a committee man, and that be attended constantly at the committee room; but, at the same time, he did not make an entry in his day-book of such attendances, which, as a man of business, he most decidedly would have done nad he conceived that he was entitled to charge it. He directed the jury to find a verdict for .t10 10s., the ex- penses on the polling days, and as much more as they thought the plaintiff was justly entitled to. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, damages £ 30. Attorney for plaintiff, Mr. P. G. Jones; attorneys for defendant, Messrs. Morris and Jones. The court aljourned at about half-past seven o'clock. SATURDAY. r^is■ j-icrusnip entered the ball at a little after nine o'clock, and the court was immediately opened. Doe on iJem. Williams and others v. Williams.—This was an action of ejectment. Messrs. Chilton and Richards appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. V. Williams for defendant. From the statement of the plaiutig's counsel, it ap- peared that the property in question originally belonged to Sir Geo. Williams that he assigned it to the Rev. Erasmus Henry Griffith Williams, of Llwynywormwood, in this county; that he was the plaintiff in this action, and that he brought it to recover certain premises which had been leased to defendant, and in consequence of a forfeiture, to which the landlord was entitled by a viola- tion of the lease. The lease stated expressly that the tenant should not be allowed to assign or underlet any I part of the property. It was proved on the part of the plaintiff, that the tenant, Wm. Williams, (the defendant) Iiad underlet a part of the farm to one David Morgan. I he plaintiff proved that the defendant had usually paid his rent and his duty goose to the Rev. Mr.Williams, who he contended he should pro#? was the assignee of the re- version, and as such entitled to recover. On the part of the defendant, it was contended that on two distinct grounds the plaintiff ought to be nonsuited; first, on the ground that he had proved that lie was the assignee of the reversion, the defendant contending that I the Rev. Air. Williams was not the assignee of the rever- I sion and secondly, because no assignee of reversion I could take advantage of a breach of contract for re-entry. ¡ This, he contended, was a broad principle, and he believed it was the first time that the question had arisen. He again contended that the plaintiff had failed to prove a legal assignment of the reversion, Sir George Williams being now alive, and that if he were the assignee of the reversion, he could not take advantage of a condition of re-entry. His Lordship, after hearing the arguments on both sides, directed the verdict to be taken for the plaintiff, with leave to move to alter the verdict for the defendant; should there arise any question of fact, the court to draw its own inference from the evidence. Verdict for plaintiff; damages Is. Attorney for plaintiff, Mr. Rowland; attorney for de- fendant, Ii r. J. Morgan, Llandovery. Davies. esecutriv, v. Jones.— This was an action for debt. The defendant pleaded payment in the life of the testator. Messrs. Richards and V. Wilson appeared for plain- tiff; and Messrs. Chilton and Williallls f-or defendant. The case was as follows: — jMargaret Davies, the executrix of Mary Davies, the executrix of Evan Davies, brought this action to recover £2795. fid., the balance of Z27 ( )s. (')( I the ba l ?ir,ek, 01' a debt due from David Jones, of Greencastle, to Evan Davies, on a bond given by Jones to E. Davies, for t,32 0. It appeared that the bond was given on the 10th of January, 1815, atid was executed to Evan Davies. The plaintif fadmitted that the whole of the money had been paid with the exception of X27 9s. f)d., whilst the de- fendant contended that the whole had been paid. Jt vvag argued on the part of the plaintiff, that if David Jones had paid the whole of the money, he would have the bond in his possession the very fact that it was not in his possession was clear evidence-that the whole of the money had not been paid. It was argued on the part of the defendant that the whole of the money had been paid, and proved by several conversations held by witnesses with plaintiff, that he had acknowledged that the whole of the money had been paid; it was likewise proved that Evan Davies had said, some short time previous to his death, that the whole of the money due on the bond had been paid he likewise put it to the jury, whether or not the paper alleged to,be a statement of accounts by the plaintiff, which showed the balance, was not in reality a receipt for that money. He further argued that the length of time that had elapsed since a claim had been set up, clearly shewed that the money bad been all paid, as otherwise the plaintiff, who was in very straightened circumstances, would have brought the action long ago. He further argued that the fact ot the statement of account being upon a twopenny receipt stamp, shewed plainly that it was intended as a receipt, but had been signed by the wrong person. His Lordship, in up, advised the jury not to p.ace too much reliance upon conversations, especially spoken years ago, and about other pei pie's business. On I one side, there was the strong evidence of the bond being still in the possession or die plaintiff; and on the other, the absence of any claim fyr such 4 lapse of years, so as to make one imagine tl.at trie money must have been paid. The jury found a verdict for the defendant. Attorney for plaintiff, Mr. R. Gardner; attorneys for defendant, Messrs. Morris and Jones. John v. Saer and another.—This was an action of re- plevin. Messrs. V. Williams and Benson appeared for the plaintiff; and Messrs. lison and Richards for the defendants. This case presented no feature of public interest, the principal point turning on the fact of whether or not Rees John was tenant to Mrs. Charlotte Saer, or te Mrs. Saer and her sister Mrs. Hogers. His Lordship told the jury that if they were of opinion that Rees John was tenant to Mrs. gaer) they must give their verdict for the defendant; and if they believed that tie was tenant to both Mrs. Saer and Mrs. Rogers, they must give their verdict for the plaintiff. T e jury returned n verdict for the defendant. Attorney for plaintiff, Mr. It. Gardnor; attorney for defendant, Mr. W. Rogers. Samuel v. Morris.—-Ibis was an action of replevin. Messrs. V. Williams and Chilton appeared for the plaintiff; and Messrs. John Evans and Wilson for the defendant. This was an action brought against the defendant for illegally taking the goods ot the plaintiff under a distress warrant. The plaintiff, D, Samuel, was a tenant of the Count and Countess de Wuits, of Glyn Abbey, in this county, and the defendant Was bailiff to the same parties. The plaintiff denied by his pleadings that he was tenant to those parties at the terms mentioned. It appeared that D. Samuel held a farm called Lletty- IIcdw, in the parish of Llaiion, as a tenant to the Glyn Abbey estate. The mistress of that estate, Charlotte Morgan, married in 1830 the Count de Wuits, a German, and in 1831 they cam:- to rcsije upon their estate in this county. They employed David Samuel as their bailiff, and he lived in the house at Glyn Abbey until 1836; in that year he went to reside On his farm in consequence of some disagreement between, the Count and him, and it waS then arranged that as he had paid X20 a-year up to 183d, he was for the future to pay X30 a-year. He paid no rent up to the time of the Countess's death, which took place in 1840. The Count then instructed Mr. Simons, the attorney, to aistrain upon plaintiff, which was eventually done. Mr. Chilton, for the PIlir", iff, con tended tlitt it was con- trary to the Countess's wishes that the distress should have been made on Samuel, as he never agreed to pay the rent; and he had agreed .0 give his services as bailiff for X20 a-year and the farm, and that the plaintiff was con- tinually employed by the Countess, on and about the estate up to her death, as bailiff, lie then called a wit- ness, who said that he had heard the Countess tell the Count that Samuel had no rent to pay, on an occasion of their going over the rent roll together. He further con- tended that Mr. Simons had been desired by the Coun- tess to discontinue the proceedings against Samuel. This, however, Mr. Simons denied. Mr. John Evans, in reply, contended that the Count had not distrained for the rent during the time he was bailiff, but that he had allowed it, and only distrained for the rent since his diach^rj^fi oift bis situation as bailiff. The learned Counsel commented with great severity upon the fact, that in the bill he had made out in 1837 he had charged for articles which irt 1839 he added a great -Ic l i iti 1839 lie adcled a great deal to, clearly for the purpose of extortion. He conten- ded that hislalldlurd had treated Samuel with great kind- ness, as he had let him have the jC63 rent in his pockets on account of his services, and had not distrained for it. His Lordship summed up, and said that the real ques- tion of difference was whether the farm was taken upon duty of service or at £30 :year! and then whether there was any Frrears ofrent. 1 he point about which the prin- cipal struggle was, whether there were any arrears of rent. I Now, whether he had a set off against the rent or not. the rent would still be in arrear, unless it were agreed that the rent should be paid in services. The real ql-iestioti therefore was, whether or not there had been such an agreement. He, however, recommended the jury not to place much reliance on the conversation related by the witnesses. After some little consultation, the jury returned a ver- dict for the plaintiff. Damages, £3 3s. Attorneys for plaintiff, Messrs. Morris and Jones attorney for defendant, Mr. W. Simons. 1! addle, and m/ottier v. f)O'l'JII4aI! This was an action brought by Mr. Hugh Waddle, of Llanelly, against Mr. Henry Ridout Downman, of this town, for non-payment of a sum of money for machinery. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had been negligent, and had not properly fulfilled his contract. before the evidence was gone into, an arrangement was come to by both parties, that there should be a verdict for the plaintiffs for the debt, and one shilling damages, sub- ject to a reference to Mr. Wilson. Attorney for plaintiffs, Mr. J. B. Jeffries; attorney for defendant, Mr. P. G. Jones. Webb V. and others.—This was a special jury case, the jury consisting of the following persons W. Waters, Esq.; Grismond Philipps, Esq.; George Wood, Esq.; Thomas Morgan, Esq. i Alfred Bridger, Esq: John H. Rees, Esq.; W. Carver, Esq.: Charles Morgan, Esq., jun.; James Buckley, Esq.; F. T. Gilbert, Esq.; J. L. Mitford, Esq.; James ilo ers, Esq. Messrs. John E vans, Q.C., and Wilson appeared for the plaintiff arid Mr. E. V. Williams for the defendants. was an action brought by Mr. T. T. Webb, as Treasurer of the Paving and Lighting Commissioners ct this town, against Henry James, W. Morgan, and John It appeared that 111 the year 1S;>S, on tlie l.-t of March, rt. Henry James was appointed collector of the Paviiig and Lighting Rates, and that on tUe loth of March, in the same year, he gave a bond for the due discharge of his duties, in which lie was joined by the two other de- fendants, William Morgan, currier, and John Lewis, timber merchant. It further appeared that on the 7th of June a rate was made which the defendant James pro- ceeded to collect, and which he collected until September of the same year. The rate was then quashed on appeal at the Quarter Sessions. James had then collected about £ 524 13s. ;jJd., of this he paid into the Treasurer's bands 4d., leaving a balance due of £ 176 9s. lid. It was not, however, known at the time thafhe had left a balance unpaid. On the 31st of January, 1839, a fresh rate was made, which it was calculated would produce £11<00 and upwards. James was re-appointed collector. on the 7th of March, and he then returned thanks to the Commissioners for his appointment. He collected £ 24-5 5s. 10d., which lie paid into the hands of the treasurer. It was thought rather extraordina-y that so small a sum should have been collected out of so large a rate and an application was made to My. W. Morgan, one of James's sureties, tor the books, which were got, and it was then found, on a rough calculation, that he had collected £H>¡) 4s. 2d., from which, deducting the £ 21,5 -5s. lOd. ?'? he had ?'? there appeared a deficiency of £Wô 18s. M., which added to the former deficiency made a total of £ 337 7s. 7-Jd. Out of this sum, how- ever, James was to be allowed a certain sum for poundage and sundry expenses, which amounted altogether to £81- Ids. lI.d. Ihe sureties were then applied to for the pay- ment of this deficiency, and the defendant Morgan asked leave of the then Ni ayor, Charles Jones, Esq., to be allowed to pay it by Instalments, heatthesametimepaying £ 30 OIl account. It was subsequently found that there was an excess in Jiiiies's charge for poundage, and a considerable overcharge otherwise, and on an accountant going over the books it was found that the total deficit was £ 3301 Is. 8d., from which deducting the £ 30 paid by the defendant Morgan, there remained a total ot £ 300 lis. 8d. To this the defendants had pleaded that there was no second appointment of James, that he did not collect any legal rates, and that he did pay over all moneys that were collected by him. The Learned Counsel was proceeding to prove his statement when Mr. E. V. Williams objected that the appointment of James as an officer of the Com- missioners was not under seal, which he contended ought to have been the case. He further contended that the sureties were not liable for the principal further than for the due discharge of his official duties. His Lordship, after some discussion had taken place between the counsel, interposed, and advised the parties by all means to make the matter proceeding in the trial, as he observed it was very clear, if a verdict were taken, that the matter would not rest in that Court. He further I said that there were so many points of law which were for discussion, and which must be discussed in the superior courts, each one of which would cost upwards of £ 50, that it was hopeless to settle it without such expensive litigation as wouldeventually lead to extremely unpleasant results to all parties. After some further discussion it was agreed to take a verdict for the plaintiff subject to reference to Mr. Wilson. Mr- W ilson being one of the Counsel for the plaintiff, felt considerable delicacy in accepting the office of arbi- trator, but his scruples were waived by his Lordship's telling him that it was a high compliment to him that the defendants had agreed to refer it to him, he being one of the counsel on the opposite side, and that therefore lie ought not to have any objection. A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff for the debt, and Is. damages. Attorney for plaintiff, Mr. P. G. Jones; Attorney for defendants, Mr. J. Williams. Lord Ashburnliam v. Scott, the younger.—There were three causes on the list between the same plaintiff and defendant, but the pleas were withdrawn, the parties having agreed that there should be a reference to settle the dispute left to Mr. Geo. Goode of this town. The Court rose at about 7 o'clock. MONDAY. I His Lordship entered the Hall at nine o'clock, and the Court was immediately opened. Llandly Hallway Company v. the Carmarthenshire Railway Company.— This was an action for trespass. It was a special'jury case, and the fotiowing gentlemen were sworn on the special jury:—Geo. Wood, Esq. W. Carver, ,Esq.; Grismond PhiJipps, Esq. J. T. Alcock, Esq.; J. L. Mittord, Esq. Nat. Rowlands, Esq. R. G. Thomas, Esq. H. Lewis, Esq.; Jas. Eastment, Esq.; Lewis Roberts, Esq; Frederick Kynaston, Esq.; Tlios. Morgan, Esq. Messrs. Chilton, Q.C., and E. V. Wil- liams appeared for the plaintiff; and Messrs. John Evans and Benson for the defendant. This was a case in which a recompence was sought for an injury done to a steam-tug, called the Hercules, in consequence of the negligence of the Carmarthenshire Railway Company not keeping their dock in proper order. It appeared that on the 8th of December, 1 Sl-0, the Ifercules steamer was employed to tow the brigyl»»fy into the Carmarthenshire Railway Dock, and that while the steamer was in -dock, she grounded upon a piece ot ■■sunk timber, which caused gre"t damage to her keel, and in consequence of which great expense was gone to, which the present action was brought to recover. Mr. John Evans, for defendants, contended that there was no proof of negligence on the part of the defendants, but that the timber vessel then in port was unloaded in the usual way, and doubtless the accident was caused by a piece of timber from that vessel. He at the same time concluded that the Company had no right to look at the bottom of the-dock, but merely to clean the dock at the sides and on the surface of the water. He further con- tended LIut the rope which bound the rafts of timber had been cut by the crew of the Jlumules in the proof of which, however, he failed. He tried also to prove that the plaintiffs had said to several persons that the action had been abandoned. He argued also that it was the duty of the plaintiffs 10 give notice that they intended to come in to the dock. II is Lordship summed tip, and the jury returned a ver- dict for the plaintiffs. Damages, £ (il. His Lordship certified .that tliis was a fit case to be tried by a Special Jury. Attorney for plaintiffs, Mr. J. B. Jeffries; attorney for defendants, Mr. Druce. De Crettes v. irilliams.— ibis was an action brought by Monsieur Augustus des Alliaux de Crettes against Aid- borough Lloyd Uiiiiams, Esq., of Alderbrook Hali, in this county. This was a special jury case, and the follow- ing gentlemen were sworn on jury W. Peel, Esq.; F. Y. Gilbert, Esq.; George Wood, Esq.; W. Jones, Esq.; John Waters, Esq.; James Buckley, Esq.; Grismond Philipps, Esq.; J. T. Alcr.ck, Esq.; J. Biddulph, Esq. j D. Phillips, Esq.; J. ltees, Esq. Daniel Steptieii, Esl. Messrs. V. Wiliiains and Nicholl appeared f,)r plaiiitifl, and Messrs. Chilton, Q.C., and John Evans, Q.C., for de- fendant. It appeared, from the evidence, that the plaintiff was employed by Mr. A. Lloyd Williams to instruct his pupils in tile. French, German, and Italian languages, and also in arithemetie. It likewise was evident thdt an arrangement had been entered into by which the plaintiff could receive his pupils at his own house in the Ferry Side instead of attending them at Park Portis, Mr. Williams's house, in consequence of a severe attack of sciatic rheumatism in M. de Crettes's leg. In conse- quence of some disagreement Mr. Williams insisted that he should instruct them at Park Portis, which he, being unwell, was unable to do. Eventually the plaintiff was discharged, and he then claimed three months' wages, the agreement specifying that either party should give three months' notice of an intention to break the agreement. The defence set up was to the effect that the plaintiff had not acted up to his contract, that he had acted in an ungentlemanly manner, and that he had used abusive language to the children entrusted to his care. The defendant further argued that the plaintiff was incompe- tent to teach. The plaintiff, in reply, fully established his capability to teach, as he proved that lie was conversant with the Latin, French, German, Italian, and Greek languages. He rebutted the charge of ungentlemanly conduct, and retorted it on the defendant. His Lortlsliip summed up, and observed that as a gentleman of evident education, and one who devoted his services for the small sum of 2s. the plaintif fhad been a little harshly treated. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, Damages £ 20. Attorney for plaintiff, Mr. W. Simons; attorneys for defendant Messrs. Morns and Jones. j Mayor of Carmarthen v. ILIXIUS.—This was an action brought by the mayor of this town against Benjamin Evans, of the Harp, to recover the rents of the markets which had been let to him. Mr. John Evans, Q.C., for the defendant, objected that inasmuch as all the jurors and the sheriff were parties, who would be benefitted by the decision of this case, they were not fit persons to try the cause, as the law provided that no person could be plaintiff and judge in his own cause. His Lordship said the best way would be for the defentLmt not to appear; they would then have an opportunity to move in the superior courts Air. John Evans consented to this arrangement, and the plaintiff's case was then proved, and a verdict taken for the plaintiff, damages £110. Attorney for plaintiff, Messrs. Morris and Jones; attorney for defendant, Mr. John Williams. Doe on demo of Lewis v. Lewis.—This was an action of ejectment. Messrs. Richards and E. V. Williams appeared for the plaintiff and Messrs. Nicholls and Wilson for de- fendant. This was an action brought to recover some premises in W ater-stteet. The particulars were of no nublic interest, and several points of law were raised on behalf of the different parties. After a great deal of discussion as to tlietij, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, with leave to move to enter a nonsuit. Attorney for plaintiff, Mr. W. Simons; attorney for defendant, Mr. It. Gardnor. Simons v. Gardner.—This was the last cause, and was a special jury case. The following gentlemen were on the jury: —Mr. 11. Glencross; Mr. G. Children; Mr. C. Brigstoke; Mr. J. Adams; Mr, D. Recs; Mr. T. G. Lewis: Mr. J. N. Roberts, Mr. Job Jones; Mr. John Phillips: Mr. D. Nieholls; Mr. E. B. Jones; Mr. W. Morris. Messrs. Richards and V. Williams appeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs. Chilton, Q. C., John Evans Q. C. and Hill for the defendant. This was an action for false imprisonment, between Mr. Wm. Simons, attorney of this town, and Mr. Wr. Gardnor, also an attorney of this town. After the proof for the plaintiff had been entered into, his Lordship said that it was a great pity that two neigh- bours and persons in the same profession should be at variance, he then recommended that an amicable arrange- ment should be entered into. After Mr. Chiltnn had, on the suggestion of Mr. Hill, raised several points of law in the case, his Lordship again recommended a reconciliation, which was at last effected on Mr. Gardnor consenting to apologize and to pay the costs of this action. A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff, da- mages £ 2. Mr. Chiiton said he thought the plaintiff had acted in an extremely handsome manner by accepting an apo- 1 i°sy- X his cndeJ the Assizes, and the Court rose at about n Hie. Lordship left town on Tuesday morning-for Brecon.
;¡. BBEØNSHIRE SPRING ASSIZES.I
;¡. BBEØNSHIRE SPRING ASSIZES. Last Tuesday H. J. Williams, Esq., of Ccity, High Sheriff, escorted by his javelin men and accompanied by his friends in carriages and on horseback, proceeded at 2 o'clock in the afternoon a short distance on the Carmar- then road until they met Mr. Justice Maule, whom they escorted into Brecon in the usual form. His Lordship proceeded at once to the Hall, where the Commission was duly opened, and the Court adjourned to half-past 10 on the following morning. At 4 o'clock, his Lordship attended Divine service at St. Mary's Church, where the service was read by the Rev. Richard Morgan, M. A., curate of St. John's, and an eloquent discourse was delivered by the Rev. Thomas Vaughan, M.A., rector of Llandevailog, from Genesis xviii. 19. At 6 o'clock, the Sheriff's Ordinary took place at the Castle Hotel, when a highly respectable party sat down to a sumptuous dinner laid out in the usual first-rate style of the houce. l WEDNESDAY. His Lordship entered the Court at half-past 10 o'clock, and after the usual preliminaries, the following gentlemen were sworn on tbe Graml JuryPENRY WILLIAMS, Esq., of Penpont, Lord Lieutenant of the County; W. Hibbs Bevan, Esq., Glannant; Henry Allen, Esq., jun., Oakfield J. Ansde!l, Esq.; Charles White, Esq., Aber- annell; J. J. De Winton, Esq., Priory Hill, P. p. Wil- liams, Esq., Fynnonau Walter Maybery, Esq., Brecon J. Powell, Esq., Watton Mount; Richard Bailey, Esq., Nantyglo; Walter Williams, Esq.; D. Price, Esq., R.N.; Thomas Parker, Esq., Brecon T. Sidney Powell, Esq. T. Davies, Esq., Llangattock Court; J. P. Snead, Esq. Craiglaes D. W. Lloyd, Esq., Llandilo; E. Isaacson, Esq., St. John's Mount; John Evans, Esq., Brecon; Hoper Dixon, Esq., Ashford; D. Kirkby, Esq., Battle End; Evan Bowen, Esq., Talgarth. The proclamation against vice and profaneness having been read, his Lordship proceeded to charge the Grand Juryobserving that at the present Assizes it appeared that they would have a good deal to do, and he would not detain them by any lengthened observations, more parti- cularly as the cases, though numerous, did not seem to present any peculiar features. He was very sorry to see such a long calendar, and was fearful that it would not be possible to get through the whole of the criminal and civil business, although the time allotted was much longer than usual. It had been in many counties found a very convenient practice to hold an adjourned Court of Quarter Sessions for the trial of minor offences a short time before the Assizes; and if such had not been done in the neighbouring county of Carmarthen, on the present occasion, a number of civil cases could not have been decided. He did not know whether any local circumstances rendered such a course inconvenient in this county, but he merely mentioned the matter as a suggestion worthy of their consideration. In conclusion, he hoped they would take the shortest bill first, that the Petit Jury might be enabled to proceed as soon as possible. While the Grand Jury were out the Court took an undefended case. Morgan v. Fuller.— An action brought on three pro- missory notes. Verdict for plaintiff for the full amount claimed. Counsel for plaintiff, Mr. V. Williams and Mr. E. Richards; Attornies, Messrs. Morgan and Evans, Llandovery. Oicenl/ian Rees, (out on bail) charged with feloniously stealing 8Hbs. weight of coal, of the goods and chattels of Charles Morgan, gentleman, at the parish of Ystrad- guniais. Mr. V. W illiams stated the case of the prosecution. Alexander Vesper, in the employment of the prosecu- tor as. a watchman on the tram-road at Cwmtwrch, de- posed to seeing the prisoner taking coal off the last waggon on one of the trams. The prisoner rnnde a statement to the Jury, in Welsh, asserting that another woman took the c&al, and that she was too far off to see who it was. Several witnesses gave the prisoner a good character. Verdict-Guilty; with a recommendation to mercy. Sentence, 6 weeks' imprisonment to hard labour. David Leu-is, 29, miner, charged with stealing at the parish ot Merthyr Tydvil, in the county of Glamorgan, one pony mare, the property of Evan Evans, on the 8th of November. Pleaded Guilty. Sentenced to twelve months' impri- sonment to hard labour. John Charles Michael, 31, miner, charged with feloniously stealing at the parish of Ystradgunlais, four mandrills of of the value of one shilling each, of the goods and chattels of Thomas Thomas. Mr. Nicholl conducted the prosecution. The tools in question were lost from the shop of the prosecutor, who is a smith, in the night time, an entry having been effected through the window by forcible means; a mandril was found in the stall in which the prisoner worked at the Ystalyfera mines, and he directed the constable to a place in his mother's garden, where three other mandrills were found. The constable gave the prisoner a good character. Verdict-Guilty. Sentenced to six months' imprison- ment to hard. labour. Rees Williams, 20, mason, pleaded guilty to the charge of stealing frcin the dwelling-house of David Davies, in the Borough of Brecon, two silk handkerchiefs, the pro- perty of Mary D-tvies. His Lordship examined Gladis Davies, in order to as- certain if a charge forburglary could have been sustained but from her answers it appeared that a larceny only in law had been committed. The prisoner had been con- victed on former occasions of minor offences, and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment to hard labour. Joseph Jones, 60, shoemaker, charged with stealing one hen fowl, the property of William Hall, pleaded Guilty; and pleaded want of employment, lie having been previ- ously imprisoned at Monmouth. He called David Evans to speak to his character, but lie had not known him for some time back. Sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment with hard labour. William. Lewis, 23, sweep, charged with ste ding one cloth coar, one waistcoat, one pair of breeches and leg- gins, one linen shirt, one silk handkerchief, and one hat, the property of John Morgan, at the parish of Hay, on the 17th of January. Pleaded Guilty. Sentenced to 8 months' imprisonment with hard labour. A FARMER FOUND GUILTY OF SHEEP STEALING. David Owen, 27, farmer, charged with having on the 19th of August, 1841, stolen, taken, and driven away, one lamb, the property of Rachael Lewis, widow. Mr. V. Williams, with whom was Mr. Richards, stated the case for the prosecution. Joseph Lewis, bailiff of prosecutor, missed a lamb from the Common in July last; the farm is near Glasbury; from information received he went in company with others with a search-warrant to Nantyglo, found the lamb with some sheep in a stable; did not find the prisoner (produced the lamb) knows the lamb by its features as well as the marks; (described the marks) marked it himself. Cross-examined there are not many thousands of sheep as good near Glasbury on the Commons; had possession in August, and has seen it every day since Mr. Lewis seldom sell 5 lambs, but keeps them for wethers was first missed about two months before August; was marked in the end of April. John Williams, a farmer, living at Llangunnider. On the 19th August last, remembers hearing something of some sheep of Mr. Adams, in consequence of that went down to a stable at the public-house at Ffosmain picked out a sheep belonging to Adams; had seen Adams' brother purchasing the sheep at Brecon; there were 11 sheep there including one lamb; prisoner came into the yard a person named Ellis was with prisoner; witness said that the sheep belonged to Adams, and gave them in charge of a constable; they were taken to Crickhowell; noticed the lamb as it had not the same marks as the others, nor a butcher's mark; went over to Glasbury to make enquiries; was present at the examination at Crickhowell; Joseph Lewis came with witness to Ffos- I main on the 22d of August; he picked the lamb out directly from the other sheep; enquired at prisoner's lodgings for himself and Ellis; could not find them saw prisoner next on the 7th February on Mount Rascal Beaufort; witness and Matthias Lewis. Cross-examined by Mr. Nicholl: Beaufort is 3 or 4 miles from Ffosmain; was not in any house to look for prisoner, but a policeman went in; the stable had no door; prisoner said after being taken in custody, that Adams's sheep had got in with the others on the moun- tain, and that they could not separate them. By the Court: There was no butcher's mark on Adams's sheep. William Lewis: Saw prisoner and another man driv- ing sheep in August last betwwen Llangunnider and Beaufort; saw them drive the sheep to Ffosmain; Adams's sheep ran out of the stable; saw a lamb there with the letter N on it; the lamb was shorn, and that made witness suspicious. Matthias Lewis: On the 19th of Au.~u~t last saw pri- soner with another man at FiOiUjain; saw them first about a quarter of a mile from there followed them to the public house. George A. Davies, Esq., clerk to the magistrates of the hundred of Crickhowell, put in the depositions taken at the examination of prisoner and Ellis on the 21st of August; the prisoner then said that a dog drove the sheep off the road, and Adams's sheep got mixed with them the shepherd was, present; took the sheep to Ffosmain in consequence, and not to their own slaughter house; said he bought six sheep from Mr. Morris, of NVern Frank, near Talgarth, and three sheep and the lamb from Mr. Thomas Saunders. Thomas Saunders, farmer, living at Wern Frank, sold prisoner six wether sheep on the Kith of August, but no lamb. Thomas Morris sold prisoner three wether sheep on the 19th of August, but no lamb. Several respectable persons gave the prisoner an excel- lent character, having known him from infancy. The jury after a short consultation returned a verdict of Guilty, with a recommendation to mercv. on account of his excellent previous character. His Lordship, in passing sentence, feelingly adverted to the anguish which the prisoner's conduct must have inflicted upon lus highly respectable family and con- trasting his advantages with the miserable wretches, igno- rant of every thing, who unfortunately were frequently seen at the bar; his Lordship said that the prisoner's knowle d ge, atil t ?d s knowledge and education were aggravations of his crime, but as the jury had taken a very merciful view of the case, he should give him the advantage of his hitherto excellent character, with the hope that he would hence- forward labour effectually to retrieve it, and therefore would only sentence him to 10 months' imprisonment with hard labour. Jam.es Jones pleaded guilty of breaking into a dwelling- house in the parish of Llangorse, and stealing different articles of apparel and some bacon. He had not been out of Brecon gaol quite a day, having been committed at the spring assizes, 18H. Sentenced to Ii) years' transportation. Darid Jones, 25, turner, charged with burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Thomas Yiite Wheeler, at the parish of Hay, and stealing there- from one picture and one seal; also for stealing a quantity of tools and other articles; likewise one double-barrelled gun, several turners' tools, one jacket, and one silk handkerchief. Prisoner pleaded guilty to the two last charges, and not guilty to the first, and admitted a previous convic- tion at Quarter Sessions. No evidence was therefore off,-red in stiupport of the charges of burglary, and he was sensenced to 10 years', transportation. The Grand Jury returned no true bills against Robert Williams and George. Jones (both out on bail) for highway- robbery. The court adjourned at a quarter to 7 o'clock until 9 lncxt morning.
IMPERIAL PABIIAUBST.
IMPERIAL PABIIAUBST. HOUSE OF LORDS.—TUESDAY, MARCH. 22. Their Lordships assembled at five o'clock, at which hour there was to have been a commission to give the royal assent to a number of bills, but the commission did not arrive at the time expected, her Majesty, as it was under- stood, having left town without signing it. The Du!<e of WELLINGTON moved that the house adjourn until to-morrow, to meet, for the purpose of receiving her Majesty's commission. The house then adjourned until to-morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY, MARCH 21. Among the petitions presented was one from millers at Hull, Sunderland, and other places, praying for protection on the importation of foreign flour. REGISTRATION. Mr. BERKELEY presented a petition from a working man in the parish of Bedminster, Bristol, stating that he had been objected to at the last three parliamentary re- visions on the only ground that his political principles were contrary to those of the objector, and that he was very little able to meet the expense of defending his claim and he concluded by praying that the house would grant redress to such a grievous state of things. Mr. S. CRAWFORD presented a petition from Hadding- ton, against the present corn and provision laws, and for universal suffrage and vote by ballot. Lord WOIISLEY presented a petition, signed by upwards of 1,400 farmers, &c., in Lincolnshire, against the pro- posed Corn-law measure of the government, as affording them insufficient protection. Dr. Bo WRING presented a petition adopted at a public meeting in Dublin against the war in China and Affghan. istan, trusting that pacific measures would be adopted for the settlement of our differences with those countries. MAGISTRACY. Mr. G. BANKES, in reference to a statement made the other night by the hon. member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller), relative to the magistrates of Dorsetshire passing prisoners for trial over the assizes to the subsequent ses- sions, on the ground that the judges in many cases directed the aid of counsel for prisoners, which caused a burthen to the county, said it certainly was true that the magis- trates of that county objected and would still object to such payments. The hon. gentleman then, at some length, explained, aod defended the conduct of the magis- trates in the case to which reference had been made the other night. John Ashworth, the person who made some interrup- tions to the proceedings before the Clitheroe Election Committee, was brought up in the custody of the Sergeant- at-Arms, and admonished. TUESDAY, MARCH 22. Dr. BOWSING intimated that he should this evening institute inquiry regarding the treatment wiuch the Bishop of JERUSALEM had- experienced in the prosecu- tion of his functions. Sir C. NAPIER brought forward his motion regarding the state of the navy. He urged that the navy should be under the management of a naval man at the head of the Admiralty. The hon. and gallant officer concluded by moving three resolutions, to the effect that the Board of Admiralty ought to be composed solely of naval officers that the President of the Board of Ordnance should be a naval officer; that the house recommended that, previous to the preparation of the estimates for 1843 and 1844, a plan of retirement should be devised for rendering the naval service efficient, and for rewarding old and merito- rious officers and also it was the opinion of the house that, with a view to economy and the rewards for services, the naval civil situations should be filled, as faras possible, by the naval officers and seamen, more especially those situations which became vacant in the dock-yards. Sir JAS. GltAHAlIf urged, that history did not warrant the statement that the administration of the Board of Ad- miralty was better conducted by naval officers as First Lords than civilians. He would not, however, give the motion the negative, but would move the previous question. After some discussion, Sir R. PEEL said, he thought the house ought to pause before it assented to resolutions, the effect of which woulr. be to restrict the power of the Crown in regard 0 its appointments to offices such as those referred to in the resolution proposed to the house by the hon. and gallant commodore. The first resolution of Sir C. NAPIER was put and negatived without a division. The gallery was then cleared, and the house divided on the second resolution, when there appeared—For the resolution, 40; against it, 138 majority against it, 98. The hon. and gallaut commodore was not disposed to press his next resolution to a division, but Captain PLUM- RIDGE stated that he considered it differed materially from the others, and he would therefore press it. The house then divided, when there appeared-For the reso- lution, 47; against it, 139 majority, <)2. Lord STANLEY then moved for, and obtained, a com- mittee to inquire into the state of British possessions on the western coast of Africa, more especially with reference to their present relations with the neighbouring tribes; and, on the motion of the same noble lord, a select com- mittee was appointed to inquiie into the relations between employers and labourers in the West India colonies. Sir ROBERT PEEL then gave notice that to-morrow he should move the adjournment of the house for the Easter holiday s. He was afraid that he could not obtain a vote on the rora Importation Act so as to get it up to the House o Lords before the adjournment. In answer to a question from Mr. HAWES, Sir R. PEEL said that he wished the house to express an opinion on the income tax as soon as possible and the tight bon. baro- net was understood to say, that he should proceed with that question to-day but it would be impossible that a bill, founded on the resolution, could be brought in until after Easter. In answer to a question by Col. SIBTHORP, the right hon. baronet said he considered his proposed plan would re- duce the duty Oil corn one-half. Adjourned at a quarter past one.
[No title]
FATAL EXPLOSION.—A steamer, named the Telegraph, has been plying for some time back, and being on the high pressure principle, has beat the swiftest steamers in the passage to Greenock. To-day, about half-past twelve, the people on the steam-boat quay, Greenock, heard a report as if a battery of cannon had been dis- charged at Helensburgh (a distance of 4 miles.) A smoke was seen to arise, and telescopes being procured, the explosion of the Telegraph was immediately discovered. Her boiler exploded, and the hull of the vessel is a total wreck, thirteen have been killed outright, many were seriously wounded, some of whom are not expected to recover. Something connected with the management of the valves is supposed to have caused the accident. Let this be as it may, we are inclined to think that the me- lancholy loss of life will be the means af putting an end to the high pressute system of propelling steamers on the Clyde. llelensburgh, Three o'clock.—We have just learned by a passenger from Greenock that the number killed is nineteen, and the injured about thirty. Should we receive further particulars, we shall immediately issue a second edition. Half-past Eight.—This we regret to say has been one of the most frightful catastrophes we have ever been called upon to record. The vessel itself we learn, is literally shivered into spars, and the force of the explosion was so tremendous that the engine was blown to a distance of twenty yards. The dead bodies present a shocking spectacle, one of them being com- pletely decapitated, and others so dreadfully bruised and burned, that they hardly present one vestige of humanity. Glasgow Chronicle of Monday. EXTRAORDINARY DISPATCH.-A third edition of the Standard or last Friday contained nine columns, small type, of Sir Robert Peel's most important Financial Statement. The Standard engaged a special engine by which means the news was conveyed to Birmingham, Shrewsbury, Manchester, &c. &c. in an almost incon- ceivably short time. Not only for extraordinary rapidity of despatch, but for the accuracy of the elaborate statisti- cal details and the general completeness of the whole re- j.ort this effort exceeds anything of the kind in the annal s of newspaper celebrity and enterprise within our know- ledge and the tribute of our praise and thankfulness will be the more credible and acceptable, from the fact of the object of it totally differing from us in politics. To THE MEMBERS OF THE PRESS IN THE PRINCI- PALITY.—We are glad to see the Merlin has taken a step in the rigat direction by having made matters of personal interest to individuals the subject of an advertisement. Letters last week occupying about two columns headed Advertisement" appeared in that paper. When will other newspaper-proprietors in the principality, refuse to lend their columns gratuitously to every person who applies to them for the insertion of puff and pets mal paragraphs. The public no less than newspaper pre praetors have an interest in puttirg down the too p -L va'ent practice in Wales, for if people were compelled to pay for the pleasure or the profit as the case may be of seeing their communications in print, they would not so frequently trespass on the columns of newspapers, and readers would consequently enjoy the advantage of having in their paper news—the whole news and nothing but the news. REPORTED SECESSION. — Rumour says that Lord Ripoll is about to retire from the administration, and to carry along with him, like the Farmers' Friend," one of the vacant ribands. His lordship, we hear, reluctantly retires, and although he does so on very different grounds from those held by his grace of Buckingham, still the straightforward Iron Duke is inexorable, and "no mistake." ANTI-SLAVERY PROCEEDINGS AT PAIIIS.-Tbe Anti- Slavery Deputies have-returned from Paris disappointed, certainly, of the public meeting which they had been invited to attend, but not as from a journey altogether useless. They were cordially received at a private meeting of the French Abolition Society, which was numerously attended, and at which the Duke of BroCTlie presided. Here the several deputies presented the cre- dentials and other documents of which they were the bearers, and a long and interesting letter from the venera- ble Thomas Clarkson was read, and several of the depu- ties also expressed their sentiments at some length, prominence being given to the moral and religious views of the British Abolitionists, and a somewhat extended statement of the results of emancipation in the British colonies. In the evening of the same day, after a dinner to which the deputation had been officially invited, and to which there sat down about 80 gentlemen, including many eminent ar.d distinguished persons, Mr. Scoble addressed the meeting in a manner which excited great attention, and was followed by M. Lamartine with great cordiality. The deputation received acts of personal courtesy, not only from the Duke of Broglie, the Presi- dent of the French Abolition Society; M. Isambert, its Secretary; M. Lutherothyan-d others of its members, but also from M. Guizot, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Upon these occasions they-had the pleasure of meeting with many persons of distinction, and upon them all the Anti-Slavery question Was made a prominent topic'of conversation. The deputies fed that the social inter- course with which they were thus favoured was of a character decidedly useful and influential per- haps more t'o, in the ttitude of the good cause of aboli- tion in France, than any proceedings which could have taken place at a public meeting. During their stay in Paris the deputies Iud the pleasure of exercising an act of courtesy towards the people of colour (many of them students from various colonies) now resident in that city, about thirty of whom were invited to a dejeum. Much interest was felt by the deputies on this occasion, and much gratification in witnessing those devolpements of good sense, energy, and virtue, which afford pledges of the speedy elevation of the coloured races to an equality in all respects with the otlier portion of mankind.