Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

4 articles on this Page

...——-..-——-...-.—I CARMARTHENSHIRE…

News
Cite
Share

.————— I CARMARTHENSHIRE QUARTER SESSIONS. I The trial of prisoners at these sessions commenced on Friday last, before J. Johnes, Esq. (chairman), Lord Dynevor, D. Pugb, Esq., MP., J. W. Pliilipps, Esq, Capt. David Davies, Rev. Chancellor Williams, G. W. M. G. Hughes, Esq., and the Rev. H. J. Davis. The Grand J ury compried Mr Builand, CMynmawr Mr James, Rotten Pill; Mr B. Jones, Penlan Air Wylde, Danylan;. Mr Lloyd, Penjbank; Mr Thomas, Dery- givabon; Mr Williams, Glandwr; Mr Garret, Big House; Mr Davies, Lord's Park Mr Muscott, Laugharna Mr Wil- liams, Penlan Mr Williams, Grove Mr Kiohards, Pentre- howell; Mr Bowen, Cilgadan; Mr Jones, Towy Castle; Mr Thomas, Glanrhynis; Mr Rees, Bryneoch Mr Stephens, Cilfaithy, and Mr Phillips, Pontyberem. The learned Chairman, in charging the Grand Jury, said that on nearly every occasion in which he had had the pleasure of addressing the grand jury of the oounty, he had been able to congratulate them on the scarcity of crime, considering the extent of the county and the number of its inhabitants but he could not do so on this occasion, for there viere no less than nine prisoners for trial, Before he alluded any further to the calendar he would call the attention of the jury to several Acts of Parliament which had pissed during the last session. [The learned Chair- man then referred to the provisions of the Acts relating to the Malt Duty, the Union Assessment, and Penal Servitude, in pretty nearly the same terms as he used in charging the Grand Jury for the Borough, a report of which appeared in the WELSHMAN last %veek.] He then said that of the oases which would come under their notice there was only one that required any observations from him. [Just as the learned Chairman was explaining the law in this case, Mr Jeffries came into court and stated thst the prosecution had been withdrawn. The charge, in that case, was against John Treharne, for having forcibly entered, on the 3rd of August and several times subse- quently, certain lands and houses at Llanelly, of which the Misses Elizabeth and Mary Williams were possessed for a terms of years, and kept them from the possession of the property.] Griffith Jones, shopkeeper, aged 57. surrendered to take his trial on a charge of embezzling several sums of money, which were set forth in the indictment, the property of his master, Mr James Buckley, Llinelly. Mr LusceHe?. and Mr Wilsorwsonducted the prosecution instructed by Messrs Tail and nson, LUnelly. Mr Oliver Powell, defended the prisoner, instructed by Mr J. P. Lewis Llandilo. From the opening statement by Mr Lascelles, it appeare d that in April 1859, the prisoner was engaged by Mr Bythe- way, Mr Buckley's managing clerk, tb take cbterge of certain stores fur the sale of flour, malt, & bear, at Cross Inn. The engagement was in writing, and dffned by the prisoner. Amongst other things, he was to supply Mr Buckley's cus- tomers with goods, as they were required, and receive pay- ment for them from time to time. Every Friday he was to forward to Llanelly all the money he had received during the week with the cash book on which the various items were entered. The charge against the prisoner was that he had been paid various sums which he had not accounted for. By the Act under which the prisoner was charged, no more than three separate account, could be laid in one indictment. And he now stood charged with having fraudulently re- ceived from David Thomas Lio 15s and £4 5s, and from James Rees zC9 13s 6d. Mr Bvtheway examined I live at Llanelly, and am Mr Buckley's managing clerk. In 1859 I had an interview with the prisoner. Being instructed by Mr Buckley, I hired him at zCl a week. at Mr P )well requested, if the agreement wa in writin g that it should be produced. The agreement, in the ordinary form of such documents, was put in and read. Examination resumed—The agreement was entered into on the 16th of April, 18-59. The prisoner was to act as Mr Buckley's agent at Cross Inn and its immediate neighbour- hood, for which he was to be paid XI a week. If he in- creased the trade his wages were to be increased. I gave him the names of Mr Buckley's customers in that district npon whom he was to call for orders and to reoeive cash. He was to act in the capacity of traveller. He was to enter all the cash he received in a cash-book and send the money and book to Llanelly once every week. A cash-book was supplied him for that purpose. At Llanelly we transferred the entries from the prisoner's cash-book into our general cash-book. The book and cash were sent down to us regu- larly every week. I gave him instructions not to open any new accounts, without my authority. He occasionally broke through theso instructions. In consequence of cer- tain correspondence with our customers, I went down to Cross Inn on the 28th of June last. I met the prisoner at the station, and he returned with me to the office. I pro- duce the cash-book. 011 the 25th of February, 1861, David Thomas owed Mr Buckley ZCIO 15s. There is no entry on the cash-book, of this or any monej paid by David Thomas, on the 25th of February. That money is not accounted for in any way in this book. The bill and receipt to Mr Thomas for the amount, now produced, are on the ordinary printed form supplied the prisoner by Mr Buckley. The receipt is in the prisoner's handwriting. I have no doubt of it. In May last James Hees owed Mr Buckley X9 131 6J, which he paid the prisoner, who has not accounted for the money in any way. I produce the prisoner's receipt. On the 20th of June last David Thomas owed Mr Buckley XI 5s, which he paid the prisoner, who has not accounted for the money. I produce the prisoner's receipt. These ac- counts were not entere d on the prisoner's cash-book as received, nor has ho paid the money. When I went into the office at Cross Inn, on the 28th of June, tho cash-book was on the table. I opened it, and saw that there had bean no entries of cash since the previous Friday. I requested him to render me au account of all the money he had re- ceived for Mr Buckley. He said he would, and took this cash-book away with him into his own house. He was away about a quarter of an hour or more. When he re- turned I found there were some fresh entries which he had just made. These entries did not contain the sums for which I have produced receipts given by the prisoner. I asked him if he had entered all the cash he had received for Mr Buckley, and he said he had. The sign over the stores bears Mr Buckley's name. Cross-examined by Mr Pjwell: How are you paid Witness—By salary. Mr Powell—What are you? Wit- ness — I am Mr Buckley's agent or managing clerk. Mr Powell —Did you give the prisoner a list of all your cus- tomers ? Witness — Jfes when the engagement was (luded I gave him a list of our then customers, with parti- cular orders not to trust any one else without my per- mission. Mr Powell Was that order attended to ? Witness-No the prisoner occasionally broke it, by not in every case consulting me before opening a fresh account. Mr Powell-You did not object to his conduct in that re- spect? Witness-Not when the customer was a good one. Mr POlVell-Oo. the 28th of June you went to the office kept by the prisoner, where was it ? Witness—In the village of Cross Inn. jAr P,)welL-Who paii the rent of the office? Witness-I do not know, but the office was in the prisoner's house. Mr POlVell- Who paid the rent? That is the ques- tion I put. Wtuess—I really do not know, but I suppose the prisoner did so. Mr Powell-You are Mr Buckley's managing clerk, did he pay the rent ? Witness-fle did not. Mr Powell—I suppose there was fire in the room during the winter, if so who found the coal ? Witnesi- There was fire in the offioo, and the prisoner fonnd the coal, I believe at any rate Mr Buckley did not. [rhe witness here replied to a great many question!! showing the nature and extent of the business done by the prisoner every year for Mr Buckley, from which it appeared that he sold large quantities of flour, malt and beer, and that considerable sums of money passed through his hands.] Mr Powell When you saw the prisonei in June, you say you charged him with not having accounted for certain moneys he had received for Mr Buckley? Witness-I did. Ur Powell- At that time did you not ask him for security for the money he had not accounted for ? Witness-I did not. Mr Powell—Did you at any time after that ask him for security for the money ? Witness—I did not. Mr POlvell-Did the prison"roffof you a policy of insurance on his life, about a week after you saw him at Cross Ian ? Witness-Yes. he did. Mr Povell-Diti you take it to Mr Buckley? Wit- ness-Yes, I did. Mr Lticelles-The stores were the pro- perly of Mr Bickley ? Witness-Yes. lic Ltscelles-Y(iu have stated that a large sum passed through the prisoner's hands, now will you tell us the amount of his defalcations ? [Mr Powell objected to the question, contending that the proseoution was confined to the charges in the indictment, and the court held the objection to be good.1 Mr Powell- Was there some conversation between you and the prisoner respecting an increase in his salary ? Witness-fle applied for an increase which I refused to give. Mr Ltseelles- When the prisoner offered you security did you accept it ? Witness—No. He said the house he lived in was his own. Mr Liseelles -Did you offer to accept the lease of the house or the policy of in-aurance ? Witneis-I am not aware that we did. The prisoner's statement as to the ownership of the house was contradicted. The Chairman—Was David Thomas on the list of customers you gave the prisoner ? Witness—No. The Chairman—Did he become a customer afterwards with you sanction ? Witness-I do not at this moment remember whether I had any conversation with the prisoner, about David Thomas. The Ciiairinan-Llad David Thomas paid anv previous money through the pri- soner to Mr Buckley. Witness—Yes. The Chairman —Was James fiaes on the original list ? Witriesq-Na I believe I opened the account with him myself. The Chairman Had he paid any money to the prisoner for Mr Buckle y before the transaction upon which he is now on his trial ? Witness- Y es. David Thomas and James Rees proved paying the pri- soner the sums mentioned in the indictmnent, and for which the receipts signed by the prisoners were produced and read. This concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr Powell said that there was no case to go to the Jury against the prisoner, who was charged with defrauding Mr Buckley, and yet Mr Buckler had not been examined, and for aught they knew to the contrary, the money might have been paid to Mr Buckley himself. T,ic Chairman said that it was in evidence, that the pri- soner had not accounted for the money in any way. Mr Powell said it was very remarkable that the prosecutor, whose name was on the back of the indictment, was not examined. Mr Lascelles explained that he was not aware Mr Buck- ley's name was on the back of the indictment, and said that if Mr Buckley had been called, it would have been merely as a matter of form, for he should not have asked him a single question. Mr Povell contended that as the case now stood it was so incomplete, that there was nothing left for the Jury, and he must object, after the close of the case for the proseoution, to Mr Buckley being called to patch up the case; The Chairman thought.that Justice should not be defeated, merely through an oversight on the part of the prosecu- tion to call Mr Buckley. Mr Buckley was then called by Mr Lascelles, who re- marked that he had no question t1 aik him, and Mr Powell said he certainly should not examine him. The Chairman—Whore do you live? Witness-At Penyfai, near Llanelly. Chairinan-aa3 the prisoner been in your employ ? Witness—Yes. Chairman—In what character. Witness—A clerk or shopkeeper. Chairman- Have you been in the habit of receiving money for him which he has received on your account ? Wituess-l have never to the best of my recollection received any money from him, Chairmin-But he has received money on your account and paid it to some one. Witness—Yes, ho sent all moneys he received to my office at Llanelly every week, with the cash book. Chairman-To whom was that money paid ? Witness I believe to Mr Bytheway, at first, but lately to my second son who is now cashier. Chairman —How long has he been cashier. Witness-[After referring to a cash book] since July 1861, and it was his duty to receive all moneys pail by the prisoner. Chair- man-Is your son here. Witness—He is. Mr Lascelles said that if the court was of opinion the case was incomplete, he would not go to the jury. He was only now made aware of the real state of the case. The 'Chairman asked if Mr Lascelles, on the part of the crown, thought the evidence insufflcent ? Mr Lascelles did not think so, as it had been proved in evidence that the money had not been accounted for in any way to Mr Buckley. Mr Powell said he had another objection to make before he addressed the jury. The prisoner was charged with embezzling the money of his master in the capacity of a servant, but the evidence went to show that he was an agent and not a servant. He ought, therefore, to have been in- dicted under the Bailee Act. Iu support of this opinion he cited the ruling in the case of the Queen against Walker. Mr Lasoelles argued that as the prisoner was indicted under the Consolidated Statutes of 1861, the ruling in a case so far back as 1859 had no bearing on this case. Be- sides the prisoner was really a clerk or servant and not an agent. There was nothing in the evidence to show the agency of the prisoner. This point was argued at considerable length, and the court decided that the objection was fatal. Under the direction of the Chairman the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty." The other indictments against the prisoner being also bad, the counsel for the prosecution offered no evidence, and the jury acquitted the prisoner in each case. David Davies, 22, labourer, was charged with having fraudulently obtained one shilling and fourpence from Joshua Griffiths, at Llandilo, on the 12th instant. Mr 0. Wilson appeared for the proseoution, instructed by Mr J. P. Lewis, Llandilo. The prisoner was undefended. The circumstances out of which this prosecution arose were stated in our report of the Llandilo Police Court, which appeared in the WELSHMAN of last week. From the evidence of the prosecutor, an old maiftpparently between 70 and 80 years of age, he heard the prisoner on the day in question call out at his door, -Hii "old laiy" (alluding to his wife) went to the door, and he Ward the prisoner ask Where's Joshua." Mrs Griffiths.hailing told him that her husband was in the garden, the prisoner went there to him. Having asked the prosec how he was, he proceeded to ascertain how muoli, money he had, by the following method. He stated that., Tie had just met Mr Gwynne Hughes, of Tregib, mp the road-a mere accident, of course,—who asked him if he would go to Cwmamman to fetch a couple of dogs. Prisoner could not refuse to go; but as he had no money in his pocket, and as Mr Hughes bad no small change," that gentleman had requested him to ask the prosecutor for the loan of a shilling or two, which Mr Hughes would repay whenever the prosecutor called at Tregib. The prosecutor told his old lady to give the pri- soner what money she had, and she gave him a shilling and a fourpenny piece. Prisoner then asked the prosecutor if he had another sixpence to lend and the prosecutor said he had not got a halfpenny, and the prisoner then went away. On the following day the prosecutor went to Tregib to remind Mr Hughes that he had advanced the prisoner the money, but Mr Hughes denied having seen the prisoner or spoken to him. In reply to the Court, the witness said he lived about a mile from Tregib. He did not think the prisoner was drunk, although he "smelt" of beer. His wife gave the money to the prisonor, because he asked her to do so and he would not have asked her to give the prisoner any money if the prisoner had not told him he was sent by Mr. Hughes. Mr Gwynne Hughes, of Tregib, siid he had never em- ployed the prisoner to do anything for him. He did not see him on the 12th instant, and did not send him on that day or at any other time to borrow money of the prosecutor. The Prisoner said he knew nothing at all about it; having been very drunk on the day in question. A Juror wished to know why the prosecutor's old lady had not been brought before them. Mr^Wilson said he was in a position to produce evidence to show that she was too ill to attend but the court thought it unnecessary. The learned Chairman briefly summed up the evidence, and the jury almost immediately found the prisoner guilty.-Sentenoe, two months' imprisonment, with hard labour. John Davies, 35, labourer, was charged with stealing a bridle and a pair of heins, the property of Morgan Morgan, of Ffairfach, Llandilo. Mr Lascelles appeared for the pro- serution, instructed by Mr J. P. Lewis, Llandilo. The pri- soner was defended by Mr Oliver Powell; attorney, Mr T. Jones, Llandovery. Mr Lascelles, in stating the case to the jury, explained that the articles were missed by the prosocutor, and found in the prisoner's premises, concealed and he had not properly accounted for the possession of them. Morgan Morgan, the prosecutor, stated that in Septem- ber last, he was living at Ffairfach, and at that time there was a railway in progress of construction, the outting being about six hundred yards from his house. He saw the bridle and heins on the 13th of September, and on the 14th he missed the heins, the bridle being missed on the 17th. He next saw them at the policeman's house. The bridle pro- duced he identified as his property, and one-half of the pair of heins.—In cross-examination he said he now lived at Cardiff, having left Ffairfach on the 23rd of September. On the day he lett Ffairfach he had a sale, and all his effects were sold except the bridle and heins, and those would no doubt have been sold if he could have found them. They were kept in a bin in the yard. He employed an auctioneer to sell, and thara was a clerk at the sale keeping an account of the articles sold. In answer to Mr Lascelles, he repeated that he missed the bridle and heins before the sale, and could not find them. Benjamin Griffiths, a navvy, said he was working on the Carmarthen and Llandilo Railway, in September, and the prisoner worked on the same cutting. At the time the prosecutor missed the articles they were working three miles from Ffaii fach, but the line of -,railway goes within twenty-five yards of the prosecutor's house. He recollected Llangadock fair, which he believed was held on 14th Sep- tember, The day before the fair be gathered a troop of men to go.to work, and was at Ffairfach on that day. He there saw the prisoner in the yard of the prosecutor standing by the bin where the bridle and heins ,rere kept. He saw a catt bridie in the bin, That was between eight and nine o'cluck in the morning. —In reply to Mr Powell, witness 8.id only those who had busitieds there would go into the yard i where he saw the prisoner. Witness went to the houMt having business.—Mr Lascelles: The prisoner had no busi- ness there? Witness: N,,). -Nir Powell: How do you knoll that ?-Witness Because I weat to the house, and the prisoner did not. John Davies, formerly a servant with the prosecutor* identified the bri lle produced as the property of the prosecu- tor. While in his emptov he broke the bridle at the place where it was mended. He was also quite sure that one part of the heins was Mr Morgan's property, because it was at one time too small for the horse, and he had recommended his master to lengthen it at a place he now pointed out. -111 cross-examination witness said be never saw another pair of heins lengthened exactly like the pair produced, which he did himself; although he did not pretend to say that the workmanship was particularly good. Dairid Themas, police-constable, stated that he took it warrant to the prisoner's house, at Dolearre;, in the parish of Motbvey, and he there found the articles produced, in the cockloft, under the roof. He charged the prisoner with stealing them, and he said, in reply, that he had purchased them at Mr Morgan's sale.—In cross-examination witness said there were he IpS of things in the cockloft besides the articles produced, but he found the bridle and heins under the roof. He admitted that the house and all that was in it were under the roof, but these articles were very different- ly placed to all other thing. If he had gone there with » lighted candle, there was nothing to prevent him seeing them. There was nothing thrown over them.—In reply to Mr Lascelles, witness said the bridle and heins were placed under the eaves, and quite separate from all the other things on the loft. Mr Powell (addressing the jury): My learned friend in opening this case told you that if the prisoner had honestly come by these articles ha would account for the possession of them. Now, I think I can show you that he has accoun- ted for them, and his statement cannot be contradicted. He says he purchased them at the prosecutor's sale and if that statement is false it is an easy matter to contradict it; but the prosecutor has not produced the auctioneer, or the clerk, or the sale-book; in fact, no attempt has been made to disprove the prisoner's statement. The Chairman having summed up, the jury found the prisoner guilty and a former oonviction for felony having been proved against him, he was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour. Henry Marsden, a young man aged 21 years, described on the calendar as a shoemaker, was charged with stealing two books and a robe from the Welsh Collegiate Institution, Llandovery. Mr Powell conducted the prosecution, instructed by Mf Jones, Llandovery. From the evidence it appeared that the prisoner wall apprehended on the 7th of July, at Builth, by Sergeant Fly, who seeing a bundle wilh him took him into custody on suspicion that he had stolen it. When in custody he told the officer the best thing he could do was to lock him up, and that he had stolen the two .books which were in the bundle from a school-room at Llandovery. He also con' fessed on the following.day to having taken the robe. Fly sent to Llandovery and found that the Institution had been broken into, and ,two books atolen. Ann Thomas, a ser- vant at the Institution, stated that she saw the prisoner at the back door of the premises on the 6th of July, & that she had some conversation with him. The Rev. W. Scott, classical master, identified the books. One, a Latin Dio- tionary, was his property, and the other, a Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, belonged to the Rev. W. Watkins, the Warden. Sergeant Howells proved that a pane of glass in the Class Room at the Institution was broken sufficient to admit the prisoner. The Jury found the prisoner guilty, and having pleaded guilty to a previous conviction, he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, with hard labour. James Jonathan, a middle aged Welshman, surrendered to take his trial on a charge of stealing two yearling ewes at Llansawel, on the 23rd of Juty, the property of Benjamin Thomas. Mr Lascelles appeared for the prosecution, instructed by Mr J. P. Lewis. The prisoner was not defended. Benjamin Thomas, a farmer, living at Penlan, Llansawel, stated that on the 23rd of July he missed some sheep from his flock on the farm, which he found at the Hops, neat Llandilo, a public-house kept by Edward Davies, who said that he bought them of the prisoner on the 23rd of Juty. Thomas, and David Richards, his servant, identified the sheep, which were brought into court. Tile prisoner, who said nothing in his defence, was found guilty. The same prisoner waq charged with stealing one ram and a lamb, the property of David Davies, at Llansawel, on the 3rd of August last The prosecutor, who lives at Rhyd- gwyn, in the parish of LiansAwel, slid he had a raw a nd a lamb on his farm un the 2nd of August, and about five o'clock on the morning of the 3rd he missed them. The lamb was his property, but the ram was lent him by a neigh- bouring farmer for the use of his sheep. He gave informa- tion to the police, and on the 4th of August he accompanied a policeman to Swansea, and in the public slaughter-house there he found the missing sheep, which he identified as his property. [The sheep were introduced into the court, and maintained the utmost decorum whilst the case was being proceeded with.] Wil liaca Alabe, a butcher, of Swansea, said he bought. ram and a lamb of the prisoner on the 4th of August, and placed them in the department (No. 1) of the slaughter- house, where he slaughters his beast. The ram in court he identified as one of those sheep, but he could not swear to the lamb, which, of course, had grown, and was much altered in appearance since then. William Davies, inspector of the public slaughter.bollse. at Swansea, stated that on the day the prollecutor carne to the slaughter-houses and identified the two sheep, there were something like a hundred sheep there. The sleep identified by the prosecutor were brought to the slaughter- houses by the prisoner James Williams, a farmer residing in the parish of Llao- sawel, identified the ram as his property, and the one he lent the prosecutor. David Hopkins, a policeman, stationed at Llandi, lo, said he accompanied the prosecutor to Swansea, and saw him identify the two sheep now produced. He took possession of them on the 4th of August, and had them in his posses- sion from that day. David Davies, a policeman stationed at Llansawel, who apprehended the prisoner, stated that in answer to the charge, Jonathan said he had bought the sheep of a man on the road. This was the case for the prosecution, and the prisoner called Edward Davies, landlord of the Hope public-house, near Llandilo, who could not swear that he saw the sheep produced in the prisoner's field before they were taken in Swansea. He believed he had seen the ram in the prisoner a field, but he could not say anything about the lamb. 10 answer to Mr Lascelles, witness said he saw the prisoner passing his house with sheep about four o'clock on the morn* ing of the 3rd or 4th of August. Tie prisoner now said that the prosecutor told him to take the sheep and sell them for him, and to make the best be could of them. He called several witnesses to character, all of whompsaid they had never heard of any charge brought againsMiim before the present one. The jury, after consulting for a short time, found the prisoner guilty, and the learned Chairman, ill, passing sen- tence upon him, said: Although you have felled several witnesses, who have given you a good character, yet the Court cannot overlook the fact that you have been convicted, upon the clearest possible evidence, of two separate crimes, of a similar nature and of a very serious character. The crime of sheep-stealing has always, in this country, been considered a serious crime, because a man cannot protect hIS sheep as he can his money or his household furniture, and, therefore, the law is severe in punishing offenders of your description, and enables this cjurt to send yon to penal servitude for the term of fourteen years. This Court, how- ever, will hot pass so severe a sentence upon you as it 18 empowered to pass, but still it will be one of considerable severity, and I trust it will be to you and to everybody a warning not to offend again. The sentence of the Court is that, for the first offence, you be imprisoned in the Honse of Correction, at Carmarthen, for the term of one calendar month; and that at the expiration of that term, and for the second offence, you be kept in penal servitude for the period of five years. James Brown, 27, described as a tanner, Frederick Fra*CK,, 31, cook and steward on ship-board, and Thomaf WUliarnsi 28, blacking maker, an interesting trio, were charged with feloniously breaking into and entering the dwelling-house of Joseph Davies, at Cwm, Eglwysoummin, on the 23rd of September, and stealing a waiscoat, one flannel shirt, and other articles. Mr Oliver Powell prosecuted, instructed by Mr J. H. Jeffries, Carmarthen. The prisoners pleaded guilty in an easy, comfortable mood, as if it hadbeea the business of their life; and Wil- liams, with the utmost nonchalance, pleaded guilty to two former convictions, one for larceny, at Cardiff, and the other for felony, at Haverfordwest. Brown was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment, Franck to fourteen months, with hard labour in each case and Williams was sentenced to seven years' penal servi- tude. This concluded the business of the sessions, and the Court rose shortly before seven o'clock.

[No title]

UNIVERSITY FOR WALES.

- - -"'- -LLANELLY.-THE UNIVERSITY…